whether the principall points thereof as deposing the Kings Maiestie discharging his subiects of their obedience dispensing and absoluing in this Oath and such like be matter of faith which bind euery Christian man stedfastly to beleeue the same vnder paine of damnation or else but matter of opinion And secondly what you ought to doe concerning the Popes Breues whether you may lawfully disobey them or no. These points indeed are the chiefest whereon the rest haue their dependāce which with Gods assistance I shal endeuor so to handle as you shall not need to doubt of the lawfulnes of the Oath nor hazard all your estates for refusing the same yet so as whatsoeuer shall be here in this my treatise written I humbly submit to the censure of the holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church Errare quidem possum homo enim sum haereticus esse nolo Well I may erre for a man I am but hereticke will I neuer be In the dayes of Samuel the Prophet after the people of Israel had bene foure hundred yeares ruled and gouerned by certaine rulers called Iudges vpon occasion of Samuels sonnes misdemeanour in their gouernment 1. Reg. 8. all the elders of Israel came to Samuel in Ramatha and they said vnto him Behold thou art old and thy sonnes walke not in thy wayes appoint vs a King like as all nations haue Whereupon though this word highly displeased Samuel God commanded him to heare them howbeit he should witnesse and foretell them the authoritie or right of a King which he did saying This will be the right of a King that is to gouerne ouer you c. All which things in the text of Scripture expressed by Samuel Gloss ordin in hunc locū are a Kings right as faith the Glosse in time of neede for the good of the weale publike though it were to be wished that many of thē were moderatly vsed Tho. 1. 2. q. 105. at 1. ad 5 especially all those things which seeme to make the people that is subiect to be seruile or slauish and which respect not the common good but rather the will of the man exalted in the kingdome These or such like did Samuel foretell them to withdraw them from asking a king because it was not expedient for them and because that gouernment for the greatnesse or excellencie of power is easily conuerted into tyrannie After this God sent Saul and then reuealed vnto Samuel that he was the king that should gouerne his people-Israel and commanded to annoint him Which he did saying Ecce vnxit te Dominus super haereditatem suam in Principem 1. Reg. 10. liberabis populum suum de manibus inimicorū eius qui in circuitu eius sunt Behold our Lord hath annointed thee to be Prince ouer his inheritance and thou shalt deliuer his people from the hands of their enemies which are round about them Not long after king Saul for disobeying the precept of God giuen him by Samuel was by God depriued of his kingdome as the Scripture saith and not by Samuel as some would haue it 1. Reg. 15. Quia proiecisti sermonem Domini proiecit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel Because thou hast reiected the word of our Lord our Lord also hath reiected thee that thou maiest not be king ouer Israel By this example some gather as they thinke a strong argument viz. à fortiori that the Church of God and the Pope Christs vicar in earth may iustly depriue or dispossesse kings of their scepters and dominions vpon cause giuen as for heresie or apostasie c. when as the Synagogue and Samuel had this authoritie who de facto deposed Saul for disobedience onely If this were true then indeede were the argument of some force for it cannot be denied but that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ is much greater then was that of the Synagogue of the Iewes and the Pope hath more ample * ordinarie authoritie then Samuel had yet it followeth not hereof that either the Pope or Church by any power receiued from Christ Iesus can depriue depose or disposses any lawfull Prince or priuate man that is not a vassall feudatarie or subiect vnto him of his goods temporall state crowne or dignitie because neither the Synagogue nor Samuel were euer endued with this power It is not any where to be found in all the old Testament that the Synagogue of the Iewes the figure of Christs Church or high Priest or Bishop for the time being could or de facto euer did depose any lawfull king of Israel or Iuda from their Empire were he neuer so wicked neuer so peruerse or cruell and in his place did substitute an other Whereby then is euident that no good argument can be gathered by this example to proue such power to be in the new law and in the Church or gouernours thereof That Samuel deposed not king Saul by any authoritie in him existing but Almightie God himselfe may easily be proued thus for either he must depose him by temporall authoritie as he was a Iudge which could not be he being depriued thereof when Saul was made king and was no more a gouernour but a subiect or else by some ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction ouer him which he had not for that he was nor Bishop nor Priest though a great Prophet but only a Leuite as Genebrard Saint Hierome Geneb in Ps 98. Hierom. lib. 1. in louin Bellar. in Psal 98. Pintus in Ezech c. 45. p. 549. Cardinall Bellarmine Hector Pintus and others affirme to whom such iurisdiction did no way appertaine Therefore Samuel deposed him not but onely as an extraordinarie Embassador executed the will and iudgement of God in his deposition who had giuen him a speciall warrant or commandement as touching the same which will appeare manifestly to him that readeth the Scripture Sine me indicabo tibi quae locutus est Dominus ad me nocte 1. Reg. 15. Suffer me said Samuel to the king when he came to him and I will declare vnto you what our Lord hath spoken to me in the night And then forthwith deliuered his message that which God had reuealed vnto him to wit that our Lord had so reiected him and his progenie as albeit he were in person to enioy the kingdome to his liues end as he did fortie yeares that none of his stocke or seed should successiuely reigne after him and be of that line of whom Christ the Messias was to be incarnate If then neither the Synagogue nor Samuel did or could by any ordinarie power depose Saul elected by God I do not see how by this example any good argument can be drawne in consequence for the Churches or the Popes ordinarie power of deposing Princes Had such authoritie bin graunted to the Synagogue or high Priests in the old law why I pray you had it not bene practised on the persons of Achaz Manasses Amon Ioachaz and
hath no temporall power ouer Princes nor can depose them etiam iusta de causa as the Cardinall saith surely I cannot with cristall spectacles see how he can depose as a spiritual Prince there being no perceptible difference betweene them If I should stand to note vnto you the rest of his obscurities and ambiguities I feare I should be too tedious therefore I purpose to surceasse and leaue them to your prudent consideration as The Pope hath not any power meerely temporall he cannot as Pope ordinarily depose temporall Princes as an ordinarie iudge he hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that chiefest or highest in temporals and such like which seeme no lesse fearfully then obscurely written and taught This doubtful doctrine of most learned Cardinal Bellarmine and the varietie or contrarietie of opinions betweene him and other very learned Clerkes in Gods church about this matter of deposition is to me a most strong argument that it is not de fide for if it were then would there be an vniforme content and perfect agreement among them not onely of the thing controuerted but also of the manner and causes thereof no lesse then is of Purgatorie prayer to Saints of the reall presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the B. Sacrament of the virginitie of our B. Ladie incarnation of Christ seuen Sacraments and so of all other points of faith Then would a matter of such moment haue bene found in the writings of some ancient Father as well as other of lesse importance but for wel neare a thousand yeares continuance till the time of Gregorie the 7. it was neuer chalenged mentioned or defended by any writer or else it would haue bene defined in some generall Councell whose authoritie bindeth all Christians to beleeue whatsoeuer is there decreed to be de fide without controuersie which to this day neuer was no not in the third Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius 3. as some ignorantly thinke and build them strong castles in the aire and others inconsiderately auerre howbeit not simply and plainly but somewhat timorously which they need not do if it were so but should confidently auouch it so to be Prou. 10. Qui ambulat simplicitter ambulat confidenter He that goeth simply and plainly to worke goeth confidently A matter of faith is to be taught sincerely and perspicuously not doubtfully or guilefully as it were to deceiue his readers or thereby to hold them in suspence in such wise as they shall euer remaine perplexed and to seeke of the one meaning of what is written O sir if you reade that Councell of Lateran cap. 3. you shall finde it plainly decreed that Princes which be negligent in purging out of their territories the filth of heresie are to be deposed This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if it were true as you say but if you beleeue so you are in an errour for who readeth that chapter shall well perceiue it was not there decreed or defined but treated of the manner how certaine secular powers or temporall Lords without specifying Kings might be proceeded withall and nothing decreed de fide concerning deposition of Princes if it had bene defined matter of faith it must of necessity haue bound all Catholickes as well Princes as people to beleeue it and accept thereof Moreouer such a decree must alwayes haue continued immutable and could not be abrogated as Cardinall Bellarmine writeth Decreta de fide immutabilia sunt Bellar. Lib. 2. Conc c. 17. nec possunt vllo modo abrogari postquam semel statuta sunt The decrees of faith are immutable neither can they be abrogated by any meanes after they are once decreed And if it be no decree of faith as it is not but onely of reformation who I pray you will say it doth bind till it be accepted and receiued Famous Cardinall Tolet faith no and for his assertion citeth the Canon law Can. In istis dist 4. Tolet. de 7. pec Mor. c. 18. Vt lex vim habeat debet esse recepta ab his quibus lex datur si enim lex promulgata est sed non recepta non obligat For a law to be of force it ought to be receiued of those to whom the law is giuen for if a law to wit Ecclesiasticke be promulgated but not receiued it bindeth not Do we not see that the wholesome lawes or decrees of the Councell of Trent touching reformation binde not where they are not yet receiued as in France and other places And is any man so vnwise to thinke that Princes will euer receiue such decrees as may bereaue them of their scepters and temporall states and turne to their vtter ruine Neuer was it hitherto seene nor euer will it be by all likelihood in Great Brittaine or any other kingdome Furthermore in that chapter is no mention made of excommunicating Emperour or Kings nor deposing them nor absoluing their subiects from their naturall obedience but of excommunicating heresie giuing ouer such as are condemned for that crimce to the secular magistrate to be punished and ordering withall that certaine other secular powers or principall Lords inferiour to Kings as may be Potestates Consuls Rectors or such like which by the constitution of Fredericke 2. pag. 66 Emperour is euident should be compelled if neede were to take an oath to do their endeuour for the extirpation of heretickes out of such places as should be vnder their gouernment when of necessitie both Emperour and kings ought to haue bene specified if the Councell had meant to haue included them in that law Sa Apho. v. lex de elect l. 6 ca 22. de reg in edic in poenis sc reg 16. 49. l. 6. In poenalibus saith Samuel Sa restrictione vtendum pia interpretatione In penals we are to vse both a restriction and a pious interpretation Likewise Poenae non extendendae vltra casus iure expressos Punishments are not to be extended beyond the cases expressed in the law Then why shall this be enlarged and extended to kings who are not expressed in the decree of the Councell Therefore this chapter maketh nothing for the Popes authoritie to depriue kings of their crownes and dignities and so consequently is of no validitie against the Oath of Allegiance made anno tertio Iacobi Regis serenissimi But for better clearing this point it shall not be amisse to set downe the decree of the Councell as it is leauing it to the considerations of the learned 〈◊〉 iudge whether it be of faith or no which beginneth thus Excommunicamus anathematizamus omnem haeresim Conc. Later 3 c. 3. c. We excōmunicate and anathematize all heresie that exalteth it selfe against this holy orthodoxe Catholicke faith Note that the punishment of heretickes is to be commutted by sentence of this Councell to secular powers which aboue we haue declared c. And let such as are condemned be left vnto secular powers if
receiued regall authoritie frustra est enim potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum But supposing with the Cardinall there were not then any reclamation nor any muttering against it yet may such a constitution being neuer receiued Panormitan 10. Andr. or vpon disuse of so long time be iustly said to be abrogated as many Canons and Decrees of this and other Councels haue bene And namely that in this Councell which forbiddeth new religions to arise Can. 13. since which time notwithstanding Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 16. haue risen the Minims of S. Francis de Paula the religiō of the Iesuites and others That Metropolitans should celebrate prouinciall Councels euery yeare was appointed ca. 6. which is not obserued Can. 3. And in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo 10. was decreed that Monasteries after the deceasse of the Abbots should not be giuen away to any in commenda or cōmended to any who were not religious but how this likewise is obserued Constantino Conc. can 50 59. the Monkes and religious of Italie France and other countries can testifie In the sixth generall Councell clergie men were forbidden to play at dice and it was ordered that Baptisme should be administred onely in Churches which are not kept Many mo instances out of other Councels might be to this purpose produced but to auoide tediousnesse these few may suffise Now for a further answer I wish you to note that this Councell indeed as by the words in the chapter is cleare did first excommunicate all heresie that lifted vp it selfe against that faith which the Fathers had set down in the two precedent chapters and ordained that such as were therefore condemned as also all other heretickes should be left vnto the secular powers to be condignly punished Secondly this holy Synode decreed that such as were onely suspected of heresie should cleare themselues of that note within a yeare after admonition otherwise they were to be excommunicated and auoyded till they had made condigne satiffaction Which was but the right practise and true proceeding of the Church to inflict spirituall censures that the soules of the offendors might be saued in the day of our Lord leauing them to the secular Magistrates to be further punished temporally Thirdly it was set downe in this Synode as meete and conuenient that secular powers should be admonished and if need were compelled to take a publike oath for defence of faith and to do their best endeuours to roote out of their territories all such heretikes as should be denounced by the Church none to be assumed into office which should not by oath confirme this chapter By secular powers and such as shall be assumed into potestacie or office either spirituall or temporal was not nor could be meant Emperor or King but rather Presidents or Gouerners of Prouinces subiect vnto Kings and absolute Princes who being Catholickes may by their excelling power assisting the Church compell them to confirme this chapter by taking such an Oath but themselues cannot be compelled by any hauing no superior on earth in temporals to force them thereunto Neither may it be said properly that a King coming to his crowne by lawfull succession and inheritance or election is assumed into office by any his subiects or others for then it would follow that he were not supremus Dominus a Soueraigne but in some sort inferiour to those that do assume him because he that is assumed or taken into office receiueth authoritie from him that assumeth As the Pope creating a Cardinall and saying Assumimus te insanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem We assume thee to be a Cardinall of the holy Romane Church giueth him by his supreme authoritie that spirituall office and dignitie of assisting him in the gouernment of the Church and his temporall state and to haue vocem actiuam passiuam in the election of the Pope c. But his Holinesse though elected by the Cardinals cannot properly be said to be assumed by them to the Popedome because he receiueth no power or authoritie from them but immediatly from God Finally to the latter part Si vero dominus temporalis on which Cardinall Bellarmine fortifieth his assertion of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes saying It is the voice of the Church it may be answered that the Church here defined it not as he well knoweth if she had no doubt but his Grace would haue spoken it plainly to put all out of doubt By temporall Lords in this place ought not to be vnderstood Kings but rather such as are explicated in the Emperours constitution to wit Potestates Consuls Rectors is hereafter followeth pag. 34. or such feudatarie Princes as haue principall Lords ouer them like to certaine in Italy where this Councell was held which is manifest by this Canon that reserueth the right of the principall Lord Saluo iure Domini principalis But I know some will say that Kings and absolute Princes are to be also included for that the words in the latter end seem to import so much The same law being kept about those who haue not principall Lords which ought to be vnderstood of absolute Princes Lord being a generall word signifying sometime Kings May it not be admired that out of this obscuritie of the law men will enforce Kings to be vnderstood and to be subiect to temporall punishments who acknowledge no superiour on earth to punish them in temporals especially when as no mention is made of them at all in the law In penals as I haue said before pag. 51. a restriction is to be vsed not an ampliation and Kings are no lesse to be named or specified by the orderly proceeding of the Church then Cardinals Conc. Trid. sess 24. de reform cap. 1. who are alwayes named in poenis or else not included though the Pope command sub poena excommunicationis all Patriarchs Archbishops or Bishops of what dignitie soeuer If yet any will enforce that By those who haue not principall Lords Kings are or may be vnderstood it helpeth them nothing at all for that such a law first neuer receiued and againe per desuetudinem being neuer by the Church put in practise is abrogated and of no validitie Neither was it defined in this Councell as all men of meane iudgement may see that the Pope hath authoritie to absolue subiects from their loyaltie or naturall obedience due to their Princes but onely signified that he might denounce the vassals of certaine temporall Lords absolued as it were by vertue of some former law to wit that of Gregorie 7 Nos sanctorum 15. q. 6. ca Nos sanctorū or some other from their fealtie who being admonished and excommunicated by the Metropolitane shall contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare which is not to absolue them by any authoritie giuen by this Councell and so it maketh nothing against the Oath of allegiance That the Pope cannot absolue me from this Oath Then lastly it followeth
and much more moment then their owne And lest you should hauing perchance neuer seene this imperiall Decree doubt thereof I haue thought good to set it downe at large which is this Statuimus etiam hoc edicto in perpetuum valituro Constit Fred. Imper. cont Patarenos vt Potestates Consules seu Rectores quibuscunque fungantur officijs defensione fidei praestent publicū iuramentum quòd de terris suae ditioni subiectis vniuersos haereticos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt ita quod amodo quandocunque quis fuerit in perpetuam potestatem vel temporalem assumptus hoc teneatur capitulum iuramento firmare alioquin neque pro Potestatibus neque pro Consulibus seu consimilibus habeantur eorumque sententias ex tunc decernimus inutiles inanes Si vero Dominus tēporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab haeretica prauitate post annum à tempore monitionis elapsum terrans ipsius exponimus Catholicis occupandum qui eam exterminatis haereticis abque vlla contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conseruent saluo iure Domini temporalis dummodo super hoc nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum apponat eadē nihilominus lege seruata contra eos qui non habent Dominos temporales c. Datum Paduae 22. Februarij indictione 12. In English thus We decree also by this edict for euer to be of force that Potestates and Consuls or Rectors what offices soeuer they beare for defence of faith take a publike oath that they shall seriously endeuour what in them lieth to roote out all heretikes noted by the Church out of the countries subiect to their gouernment so that from hencefoorth whensoeuer any shall be assumpted to a Potestacie for euer or for a time let him be bound to confirme this chapter by oath otherwise let them not be esteemed for Potestates or for Consuls or such like and their sentences we decree forthwith to be vnprofitable and of no force And if the temporall Lord required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his countrie from hereticall prauitie after a yeare expired from the time of the admonition we expose his countrie to be occupied by Catholikes who when the heretikes are rooted out may possesse it without any contradiction and maintaine it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Lord being reserued so that vpon this he bring no obstacle nor procure any impediment the same law notwithstanding being obserued against them that haue not principall Lords c. Giuen at Padua 22. of Februarie indiction 12. Now can any man perceiue by this imperiall law procured and vsed by the Church in the punishment of heretikes that kings are bound to take the oath therein specified or that it is meant their countries should be giuen from them if after the Churches admonition they yet remaine negligent in extirpating heretikes Nothing lesse First because kings are not named or mentioned which is requisite but Potestates as are in Italie Consuls and Rectors or Gouernours of prouinces such as are inferiors or subiect to the Emperour or kings therefore they are not comprised in the law Nor secondly can they be comprised therein though perchance you will say that by the latter clause it is meant also by kings and all other absolute Princes who haue no dependance of the Emperour for that they are not bound to the keeping of the law being penall L. Princeps D de legibus Princeps enim solutus est legibus For the Prince is freed from lawes That is as the Grecians vnderstand frō the penalty of lawes Thirdly the Emperor being no superior to absolute kings cannot constraine them by any law ciuill nor punish them L. non magistratus D. de recep Qui arbi For Par in parem non habet imperium multo minus inferior in superiorem A peere or equall hath not dominion ouer his equall much lesse an inferiour ouer his superiour as subiects ouer their lawfull Prince Now if the Emperour or any other Peere may by vertue of that law depriue an absolute king of his kingdome and confiscate whatsoeuer he hath which are grieuous punishments then is he subiect to penall lawes and to be corrected not onely by his peeres but also by inferiors and his owne subiects which is absurd Tert. ad Scapulā Praesid Carthag Amb. in li. Qui inscrib Apol. Dauid and against the authorities abouesaid and iudgement of ancient Fathers Tertullian Ambrose Gregorius Turonensis and others who write that a king is inferiour but to God alone that is in temporals that they are not to be punished by penall lawes being defended with the power of their empire Greg. l. 5 hist c 7. if thou speaking of a king dost offēd who shall correct thee who shal cōdemn thee but he that hath pronoūced himselfe to be Iustice This being so then cannot that law of the Emperor take hold on kings nor punish thē temporally But supposing that chapter of the Councell whereof we spake before or rather of Innocentius in the Councell were a decree what then doth it follow infallibly that it is de fide No. The most reuerend Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you Bella l. 2. Concap 12. that in Councels the greatest part of the acts appertaine not to faith as disputations reasons explications c. Sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta ea non omnia sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide That is But onely the verie bare decrees and not all those neither but onely such as are proposed as of faith For sometime saith he Councels do define somewhat not as certaine but as probable as the Councell of Vienna which decreed to be holden as the more probable that grace and vertues are infused to infants in Baptisme as is Clement vnica de summa Trinit fide Cath. Why then Sir how shal I know when a decree is of faith and when it is not Cardinall Bellarmine in the place aboue noted will put you out of doubt thereof Quando autem decretum proponatur tanquam de side facilè cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij semper enim dicere solent se explicare fidem Catholicam vel haereticos habendos qui contrariū sentiunt c. Whē a decree is proposed as of faith it is easily knowne by the words of the Councel for they are alway accustomed to say that they explicate the Catholike faith or they are to be held for heretikes that think the contrarie or which is most vsuall they say Anathema and exclude out of the Church those that are of contrary opinion And when they haue none of these it is not certaine that the matter is of faith This he By which you learne may secure your conscience that the doctrine of depositiō of Princes either directly or indirectly ordinarily or
that he acknowledged himselfe vnable to effect it yet at last wonne by their importunitie they being his friends promised to do the best he could hoping they would when they saw it with their memories helpe to supply his defects The same afternoone he began to set downe in writing the Popes speech in his owne phrase and stile as neare as he could remember and when he had done he commanded me being one of his Chaplains and two other of his gentlemen to write out copies thereof which he after presented to the Cardinals his friends who had importuned him to that labour Afterwards they gaue him thankes saying that it was the very Oration which Sixtus had vttered in Consistory and as I was enformed the Pope himselfe liking his doing therein said it was his speech indeed By this meanes the Oration was set forth and published among diuers particular friends and so I reserued to my self a copie which I sent as I haue said soon after to my beloued friend M. William Reynolds And as far as my memory serueth me this here printed according to the Parisian copie doth well agree with the originals first written in Rome for I do yet perfectly remember the beginning out of Abacucke to be the same likewise the facts of Eleazar and of Iudith with the circumstances to haue bene in that Oration as also the circumstances of the Friars going to certaine aduersaries of the league for letters of credence to the King Brisac then prisoner in the Bastile his going forth of the gate so dangerously and his passage through the heretickes campe to his Maiestie with other like circumstances there specified But whether the Pope in this his Oration approueth or alloweth of the Friars fact killing his King for that he had caused the Cardinall of Guise Archbishop of Rhemes to be put to death was esteemed of some a tyrant and fauourer of heretickes or onely admired the prouidence of almightie God as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth I do not presume to define but leaue it to the consideration of each prudent reader What if the Pope vpon wrongs done to himselfe as a temporall Prince in Italy should authorize some of his vassals or feudatary Princes to wage warre against our King and inuade his dominions is not this lawfull for him by the law of nations How then doth the Oath say that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to inuade or annoy him or his countries That his Holinesse as he is a temporall Prince in Italy may vpon iust cause reuenge iniuries offered by attempting the various euents of warre and thereby seeke to annoy his Maiestie or his countries no man I thinke will doubt but can any man hereby inferre that so doing he hath more authoritie to depose our King or dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or inuade his dominions then hath the Emperour French King King of Spaine or any other secular Prince And in case he should attempt in hostile manner not as he is a spirituall Pastor but a secular Prince by himselfe or by the helpe of any forreine Prince to inuade or annoy his Maiestie or his countries euery good subiect may lawfully and in dutie is bound to take armes in defence of his King and countrey against him no lesse then he ought to do against any other secular Potentate whatsoeuer But our Oath speaketh not of the secular power of the Bishop of Rome which he hath onely by the bountie and liberalitie of temporall Princes or by prescription in the temporall dominions he possesseth but of any authoritie whatsoeuer receiued from Christ or his Apostles as he is Christs Vicar and Peters successor as the words of the Oath seeme to import viz. That the Pope neither of himselfe that is as he is Pope nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome For thus his authoritie is onely and meerly spirituall which was neuer ordained by God to produce such effects as waging of warre inuasion of kingdomes deposing and dethroning of Princes as hath bene said before but onely to practise spirituall censures to wit excommunication suspension interdiction and such like which maketh nothing for such as refuse the taking of the Oath Another obiection some vse to make for their iustification against the Oath viz That he who sweareth must do his best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his heires and successours all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know or heare of to be against him or any of them But to be a Priest to reconcile or to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is treason by the statutes of this kingdome Anno 23.27 Elizab. Therefore he is bound by this Oath to reueale Priests and all reconciled persons which no man can do without committing a most grieuous and hainous crime Are not these men narrowly driuē to their shifts trow ye when after labouring their wits to defend their refusall of the Oath they can find no better arguments The words of the Oath import that such as take it must make knowne all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know to be against him How I pray you can this be vnderstood of any who is not disposed to cauill to be meant of Priesthood and confession of sins or reconcilement to the fauour of God or vnitie of his Church and not rather of such like treasons and traitorous conspiracies as were inuented and should haue bene practised by those late wicked sulphurean traitors These indeed and others of like nature and qualitie are directly against his Maiestie his hieres and successours for repressing and detecting such this Oath was inuented and the Act framed not for disclosing Priests or reconciled persons who acccording to the intentiō of the Act are no such traitors as long as they enter not into any treasonable practise against his Maiestie and the State whereof God forbid all Priests should be guiltie And I trust both his Maiestie most learned and wise together with his graue and prudent Councell in their wisedomes know that besides some few who haue already giuen good proofe of their loialtie and dutifull affection though to their great temporall detriment for the same there are many moe who beare likewise a true English heart to their King and countrey and would be ready to make also proofe thereof if occasion were offered Wherefore supposing it were true that by the letter of the law all Priests Jesuites c. mentioned in the statute are to be reputed traitors and all reconciling treason yet I dare auouch it was neuer his Maiesties nor the lawmakers intent to bind any called to the Oath to reueale such kind of traitours or treasons which is made
other kings of Iuda who were much more wicked then Saul was and on impious Ieroboam that led with him all Israel to Idolatrie Achab Ochozias Ioachaz and the rest of the kings of Israel who exceeded in all kind of impietie in whose dayes florished Ahias Semeias Elias Eliseus Isaias Ieremy and other great Prophets indued with maruellous courage zeale authoritie and sanctitie of life yet none went about to depose or take the crowne from the head of any Prince lawfully inuested though he were neuer so wicked knowing right well that whatsoeuer they wrought with Princes about the ouerthrow of some or setting vp of others or foretold what was to happen vnto them it was not by any ordinarie power that they had but extraordinary by speciall commandement and reuelation from Almightie God Now by this fact of Samuel it may well be deduced that whensoeuer the Pope gouernour of Gods house shall haue speciall reuelation from aboue as Samuel had that such a particular king is to be deposed and another placed in his roome thē it cannot be denied but he may do as Samuel did that is as I haue said he may and ought to declare the will of God reuealed vnto him without any concurrence to the execution thereof onely denouncing Gods sentence of deiection or deposition of such a Prince when he knoweth certainly that so is the will and pleasure of our Lord whose will none may contradict Voluntati eius quis resistit Who is able to resist his will nor is any to expostulate why he doth so And if such a thing should euer happen then were the argument good and sound otherwise weake and of no force If any man after this obiect vnto me that Athalia was deposed and slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest when she had reigned seuen yeares therefore it seemeth he had authoritie frō God so to do and if he had why should not the Pope haue the like ouer exorbitant Princes For solution hereof I referre him to the place of holy Scripture where he may see with halfe an eye 4. Reg. 11. that Athalia was no lawfull Queene but an vsurping tyrant who had murthered all the kingly race and so intruded her selfe most vniustly Whereupon Ioiada high Priest brought forth and presented to the people Ioas sonne to Ochozias who was strangely preserued by meanes of his Aunt Iosaba when he was but an infant from that tyrannous slaughter made by his Grandmother Athalia and together with their full consents performing the dutie of a good subiect restored the true heire to the right of his kingdome which could hardly haue bene effected without the high Priests assistance who was the chiefest in matters of religion and therefore much honoured and respected of the people So this fact of Ioiada proueth nothing but that it is lawfull for a state or commonwealth to depose an vsurper and restore the true heire to his right and not that he had any authoritie to depose any lawfull Prince were he otherwise neuer so exorbitant in life manners and beleefe or cruell in his gouernment Well Sir though this be granted that neither the Synagogue of the Iewes nor Samuel the Prophet nor Ioiada the high Priest had authoritie to depose Princes and dispose of their temporals yet can we not be perswaded but that the Church of Christ and his Vicar in earth the Pope whose power is not limited to one sort of people as it was in the old law but is extended ouer all Christians as well Princes as people throughout the world may iustly depose kings and dispose of their kingdomes when he shall iudge it expedient to the glory of God and vtilitie of the Church And the rather because this hath bene practised by diuerse precedent Popes vpon certaine Princes in these latter ages for crimes adiudged by them to deserue the same which we suppose they would neuer haue enterprised had they not sufficient warrant out of holy Scriptures or examples of the Apostles and ancient Bishops of Gods Church or else authoritie from the holy Ghost by a definitiue sentence in some generall Councell We pray you touch this point so as you may resolue vs throughly whether they haue all or some of these proofes for that authoritie if they haue not then is it cleare in our opinions not to be de fide and if it be not a point of faith binding all to beleeue that his Holines hath such authoritie we see no reason why vpon his bare commandement we should so deepely plunge our selues into a sea of calamities as of necessitie we must by losing all lands and goods whatsoeuer we haue to the vtter vndoing of our selues wiues and children and hazarding our liues by perpetuall imprisonment for refusing to performe our dutie to our Soueraigne by taking the Oath of allegiance wherein we sweare fealtie and ciuill obedience which is due by the law of God and nature Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae Dei Deo Render saith our Sauiour to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Besides if we refuse it we shall not take away but greatly increase the heauie imputation of treason and treacherie which our aduersaries haue this long time layd on Catholickes and confirme them in this their wrong opinion that to be a true Catholicke of the Romane Church and a good subiect cannot stand and agree together Beloued brethren lest any man be scandalized at this my writing iudging it not to sauour of a true Catholick heart nor of an obedient child of the Apostolicke Church but rather to proceed from an euill affected minde fraught with passion accept for a premunition and I wish I may not be mistaken * that sincerely and without spleene or passion I intend to set downe nothing but what I shall thinke in my opinion to be truth and that I honour and reuerence with heart and mind the holy Catholicke Church of Rome acknowledging and stedfastly beleeuing with the holy Fathers that to be the mother of Churches the Sea of Peter the rocke against which hell gates shall not preuaile the house of God out of which who eateth the Lambe is profane and out of which no saluation is to be hoped for as the great D. S. Augustine and others do teach vs In serm super gestis Emer Donat. and elsewhere Hieron ep ad Dam. Amb. 1. Tim. 3. Athan. ep ad Felicem and that the Pope is the chiefe Bishop and Pastor thereof Christs Vicar in earth and successor to S. Peter prince of the Apostles who by his spirituall power giuen by Christ our Lord hath iurisdiction ouer all Christian Princes and monarchs as well as poore men so farre as is requisite to the conuersion and feeding of soules But I cannot easily be induced to beleeue that this power giuen him by Christ in S. Peter extendeth it selfe to the depriuation or deposition of secular Princes of their dominions or to the deposing
they professe Tolet de 7. pec mort c. 16. n. 3. Tho. 2.2 q. 104. a. 5. ad 3. Innocen in c. no Dei 43. de Simon Martin de Carazijs in tract de principibus q. 48. Felin in cap. Accepimus de fide instrum And if their superiours shold by indiscretion or otherwise command any thing against the law of God yea were he the Pope himselfe or against the profession of their rule such obedience I deeme nor they nor any will doubt to be vnlawfull and they were not bound to obey as Innocentius others affirme So then we may distinguish obedience to be of three sorts one sufficiēt to saluation which obeyeth in all matters wherein he is bound another perfect which obeyeth in all things lawfull and the third indiscreet which is ready to render obedience yea in vnlawfull or iniust things And this is the obedience wherewith may alas in these our angerous dayes seeme so deeply possessed dangerous I say for that within such obedience latet anguis in herba lyeth hidden a mystery of mischiefe and which is so highly by diuerse recommended to their auditours who sticke not boldly to say that by obeying Pastors and Praelats and the supreme Pastor among the rest he cannot sin but by refusing to obey he may sinne therefore it is best and securest alway to obey whatsoeuer is by them commanded alledging S. Paul Hebr. vlt. Obedite Praepositis vestris Obey your Prelats without distinction not attending that the same holy Ghost who taught vs this doctrine by the vessell of election hath likewise taught vs by the mouth of the Prince of Apostles and cannot be contrary to himselfe that we are no lesse bound to obey and be subiect to kings and their officers to wit 1. Pet. ◠Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regi quasi praecellenti siue ducibus tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum c. Be ye subiect to euery humane creature for God whether to the King as to the precellent or to his Captaines as sent from him for the punishment of malefactors c. For that the politicall or ciuill power yea of heathen or persecuting Neros as in the Apostles times were no other is no lesse from God and immediate from him then is the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo Rom. 13 for there is no power but of God When he saith No power is there any excepted Is it not meant as well of the temporall as of the spirituall Chrysostome vpon this place hath these words Deus it a exigit vt creatus ab eo Princeps vires suas habeat God so requireth that a Prince created haue his power from him then not from the people If you reade Salomon in the booke of Wisedome you shall find it most cleare that the power of Kings and Rulers is immediat not from men but from God Praebete aures vos Sap. 6. qui continetis multitudines c quoniam data est à Domino potestas vobis virtus ab Altissimo c. Giue care you that conteine multitudes who are they but temporal Princes because power is giuen to you from our Lord and vertue from the Highest without any distinction of mediatè c. It followeth a little after who are meant ver 10. Ad vos ergo Reges sunt hi sermones mei vt discatis sapiontiam c. To you therefore ô kings are these my words that you may learne wisedome c. These two powers then Ecelesiasticall and ciuill as they are both from God so are they both distinct and separate from other and independent of each other as after shall be proued And euen as God hath ordeined and concluded the waters and maine sea within certaine limits which the may not passe but must breake their raging waues where they are appointed as is in holy Writ Legem ponebat aquis Prou. 8. ne transirent fines suos He made a law for waters that they should not passe their bounds and in Iob Et Dixi Iob. 38. vsque huc venies non procedes amplius hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos And I said saith God hitherto thou shalt come thou shalt proceed no further and here thou shalt breake thy swelling sources So likewise his omnipotent wisdome haply to auoide all confusion and other mischiefes which might arise by intermedling with each others power hath appointed thē their seuerall and distinct ends their limits bounds which they may not passe not inuade each others empire Lib. 1. de consid cap. 5. as mellifluous S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius 3. doth more then insinuate Habent haec insima terrena Iudices suos Reges Principes terrae Quid fines alienos inuaditis quid falcem vestram in alienam messem extenditis These base and terrene things haue their Iudges Kings and Princes of the earth Why do you inuade other mēs boūds why do you thrust your sythe into others haruest By which is euident that Popes may and do sometimes exceede their limits to wit spirituall authority when by vsurpation they intermeddle in terrene things or temporall authority being the proper bounds of Kings and secular Princes which ought not to be inuaded by Ecclesiasticall persons And to this effect writeth most excellently amongst latter Diuines Ioannes Driedo affirming this distinction to be de iure diuino Lib. 2. de liber Eccle. c. 2. Christus saith he vtriusque potestatis officia discreuit vt vna diuinis spiritualibus rebus atque porsonis altera profanis ac mundanis praesideret Christ hath so parted the offices of both powers as the one might gouerne ouer diuine and spirituall things and persons the other ouer profane and mundane And a little after The distinction therefore of Ecclesiasticall Papall power from the secular and Imperiall power is made by the law of God And in the same chapter Whereupon the Pope and the Emperour are in the Church not as two chiefe gouernours deuided among themselues neither of which do acknowledge or honour the other as superiour because a kingdome deuided against it selfe will be desolate Neither are they as two Iudges subordinate so as the one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two gouernours which are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuers offices in such wise as the Emperour is to rule ouer secular causes persons for the peaceable liuing together in this world and the Pope may rule ouer spirituals to the gaine of Christian faith and charitie This Driedo That these two dignities are distinct hauing no dependance of each other Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe proueth cōparing them to the two great lights or planets the Sunne and Moone Nota saith he quemadmodum non est idem sydus Sol luna sicut lunā non instituit Sol sed Deus Bellar. l. 5.
the Iewes at the same time liued whosoeuer without sufficient authority were spied so much as to haue a sword about him to murther any mā with was in a manner in as euill a case as he that had murthered one indeed If Peter exercising a materiall sword in defence of Christ and at such time as the vse thereof might seeme to him very necessary was sharply reprehended for that he had no lawfull authoritie in such wise to fight for him is it not a sufficient document for his successours not to vse violence on secular Princes by exercising the materiall sword no not in ordine ad spiritualia in defence of Christs spouse the Church for that she hath no warrant so to do Our Sauiour a little before his passion seeing his Apostles to contend about superiority teaching them their duties and in them all their successours and the different gouernment betweene them and secular Princes said Luc. 22. Reges gentium dominātur eorum qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur vos autem non sic c. The Kings of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that haue power vpon them are called beneficials But you not so but he that is the greater among you let him become as the yonger c. Vpon which place Origen S. Hierome Chrysostome and Basil with one assent vnderstand that secular Princes are not content onely to haue subiects but also by ouerruling they vse thē but you not so to wit you my Apostles and successours after me for it is your part to serue to minister and to feede by word and example c. And in Saint Matthewes Gospell Math. 20. our Sauiour said vnto two of his disciples Iames and Iohn You know that the Princes of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that are the greater exercise power against them It shall not be so among you but whosoeuer will be the greater among you let him be your minister c. Is it not plaine tnat our Lord Iesus though he teach not paritie with Puritans nor forbiddeth superiority among Christians neither Ecclesiasticall nor temporall yet he will not that his Apostles nor their successors Bishops and Priests being called to the state of a celestiall kingdome that differeth from the conditiō of a temporall kingdome should rule like vnto Kings and secular Princes who cary a materiall sword ad vindictam malefactorum for reuenge of malefactors and some now and then imperiously gouerne their subiects with pride tyranny contempt of inferiours and for their owne lucre more then the vtility of their subiects Which kind of gouernement is forbidden both by the doctrine and example of our Sauiour 1. Pet. 5. Presbyteros Compresbyter so readeth and expoundeth S. Hierome ep 85. So translate Erasmus and Beza and humility commended to all the Cleargie yea to Peter himselfe who cōformably to this likwise instructed such as at any time to the worlds end should beare rule in Gods Church saying Seniores igitur qui sunt inter vos obsecro ego consenior c. The seniors therefore that are among you I beseech my selfe a consenior with them c or Priests my selfe a fellow Priests feede the flocke of God which is among you prouiding not by cōstraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucre sake but voluntarily neque vt dominātes neither as ouerruling the Clergie but made examples of the flocke from the heart Whereby appeareth that all violence coaction and compulsion by exercising the temporall sword which is the sword of Kings is wholly forbidden all Ecclesiasticall persons To me it seemeth not without a mysterie that onely Peter among the rest of the Apostles should not strike any in all that hellish troupe coming in fury to lay violent hands on their Lord no not the traytor Iudas that with a kisse betraied him the ringleader of the rest and so better deserued to haue had his head cut off but onely him whose name is so precisely recorded by the Euāgelist to be Malchus and that he should be checked and reproued by our Sauiour Iohan. c. 18. of whom haply he expected to be commended for his zeale But though Peter might pretend iust cause to be moued to strike as he did yet was his fact reprehensible in two respects First for that asking Christ the question whether he and his fellow for no moe of the eleuen had swords about them should strike or no stroke without his grant yea against his will Secondly because his fact had rather a shew of reuenge then of defence For what might he think to do with 2. swords against so many what possibility to preuaile And as may appeare likwise by Christs words vnto him Math. 26. Returne thy sword into his place for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword And in S. Iohns Gospell Iohan. 18. Put vp thy sword into the scabbard the chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it By all which is cleare that Peter was iustly reprehended for striking without commission the high Priests seruant Malchus which name in Hebrew or Malcuth signifieth Rex or Regnum doubtles in my iudgemēt not without a great mystery the admirable prouidence of God thereby haply instructing posterity that no lesse reprehensible is it in Peters successours as they are Peters successors to dethrone Kings and depriue them of their kingdomes which cannot be done without drawing forth and striking with the materiall sword then it was in Peter himselfe for cutting off Malchus eare And that they ought not to vse such kind of violence on the persons of Kings no nor inferiors to Kings hauing no commission from Christ to punish corporally no more then Peter had against Malchus but onely spiritually Now to returne to the authoritie or power meant by S. Paul Rom. 13. Omnis anima It is most plaine that the Apostle in that chapter recommended to Christians their dutiful obedience to secular Potestates because hauing preached obedience to spirituall Pastors some newly conuerted thought themselues being Christians See S. Chrysost in c. 13. ho. 23. Ro. to be freed by Christ from al former subiection now not bound to obey either Emperour King or any temporall Lord for that they were heathens and persecutors of the Apostles and Christs religion For which cause and for that the Apostles generally were slandered and said to be seditious and vntruly charged of their aduersaries that they withdrew men from order and obedience to ciuill lawes and officers Saint Paul here as S. Peter doth in his first Epistles to stop the mouth of such flanderous tongues cleareth himselfe and expresly chargeth euery man and woman to be subiect to their temporall Princes and superiors howbeit in such matters as they may lawfully command and in things wherein they are superiors Conformable to his doctrine was likewise his example and of the rest of the Apostles who in all matters not repugnant to
in temporals wherein they ought by the law and ordinance of God to be no lesse obedient then to their Pastors and Prelates in spirituals It followeth now to know what authoritie it is the Pope pretendeth to haue whether Ecclesiasticall or ciuill to depose lawfull Kings and dispose of their temporals and absolue subiects of their bounden dutie and naturall allegiance Which question who so desireth to see it more at large he may reade D. Barclai de potestate Papae and M. Widdrington de iure Principum where it is most sufficiently and learnedly handled and before in this my treatise pag. 17 I haue briefly touched it whereto I adde in this place a word or two more for your better satisfaction Among such Catholickes as refuse to take the Oath of allegiance are many who thinke indeed the Pope to haue no power to depose Kings or dispose of their kingdoms howbeit either vpon pretended scruple of conscience or other humane respects are against the taking and takers of the Oath as if they were little better then Heathens or Publicans And some so simple and ignorant as beleeue that no Pope euer challenged or attempted such authoritie on any Kings or Emperors and that no Iesuit or other learned man allowed or euer taught such doctrine so odious it seemeth vnto them But the wiser sort and more learned know how it hath bene challenged and practised by Popes on the persons of Henrie Otho Fredericke Emperours Iohn King of Nauarre for neither heresie or apostasie and since on Henrie 8. and Queene Elizabeth as by censures do appeare And that it is the moderne doctrine of many both Canonists and Diuines in these latter ages which at the first teaching thereof being so farre dissonant from the writings and practise of all antiquitie was generally adiudged to be noua haeresis as Sigebert reporteth S. Iohn Chrysostome that great Doctor vpon that place of S. Paul 2. Cor. 1. Non dominamur fidei vestrae We ouerrule not your faith Sigebertus in Chro. ad an 1088. Chrysost lib. 2 de dig sacerd c. 3. attributeth such power as forcibly restraines offenders from their wickednesse of life vnto secular Iudges vnder whose dominion they are not vnto the Church because saith he neither is such power giuen vnto vs by the lawes with authoritie to restraine men from offences nor if such power were giuen vs could we haue wherewith we might exercise such power c. So in his time and long after such power of compelling offenders by temporall punishments to conuert to better life was vnheard of to be in Bishops of the Church Cardinall Bellarmine in the catalogue of his ancient writers which he produceth against Barclai for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes beginneth with one who was iudge in his owne cause Gregorie the seuenth that began his reigne in the yeare of our Lord 1073. not able of like to proue it out of any more ancient Father or generall Councell That this Pope was the first that challenged or attempted to practise such authoritie Otho in chro l. 6. c. 35. witnesseth Otho Frisengen a most learned and holy Bishop and highly commended by the Cardinall himselfe lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Lego saith he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Rom. Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno priuatum c. I reade and reade ouer againe the acts of the Kings and Emperors of Rome and in no place can I find any of them before this to wit Henrie the fourth to be excommunicated or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse haply any take this for excommunication that Philip the first Christian Emperor who succeeded Gordianus for a short space Euseb hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. was by the Bishop of Rome or as Eusebius reporteth of the Bishop of that place where he then resided placed among publicke penitents and Theodosius sequestred by S. Ambrose from entrance into the Church for cruell murther Whereby we may note that this learned man could not find no not one example in all precedent ages of depriuing kings of their regal scepters though of excommunication he proposeth onely these two which may haue some shew of truth for meere excommunication howbeit more probable it is they were not excommunicated at all maiore excommunicatione Then this Author in the next chapter following Otho ibid. c. â—6 describeth the intestine warres destruction of soules and bodies setting vp of Pope against Pope schismes and other manifold lamentable miseries that ensued vpon that fact of Pope Gregory against Henrie the 4 who commanded the Bishops of Ments and Colen to constitute Rodolph Duke of Burgundie Emperor Spec. hist l. 27. and to put downe Henrie whereupon followed a most grieuous warre wherein Rodolphus was ouercome who dying repentant said The Apostolicall commandement and the intreatie of Princes haue made me a trangressor of my oath behold therefore my hand cut off or wounded wherewith I sware to my Lord Henrie not trecherously to practise any thing against his life nor his glorie Who being ouercome the Bishop of Ments by the Popes commandement and with helpe of Saxons raised an other aduersary against the Emperor one Hermannus Knoflock whereupon followed likewise bloudie warres After this Henrie gathering his armie together driueth the Pope into France and setteth vp the Bishop of Rauenna against him whom he named Clement and so caused a schisme This sparsim out of the history Such like calamities are more then probable to fall on people and the Church when Emperors or Kings are so violently proceeded withall assured destruction of many and no hope of the correction of any by such means is like to ensue Was such power trow ye giuen by Christ to his Apostles tending to destruction not to edification No all to edification according to S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. none to destruction Otho Frisengensis in another place of his workes Li. 1. de gestis Frederici c. 1. writing of the Popes excommunicating the Emperour sheweth that Henrie 4. thought it to be such a nouitie as he had neuer knowne the like sentence to be denounced against any Romane Emperor before He liued an 1150. And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests By euill kings he meaneth such as are deposed Cont. Barcl cap. 5. teaching that no subiection is to be yeelded to euill Kings and though they sweare fidelitie are not bound to performe it to be noua haeresis a new heresie sprung vp Howbeit Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you that such doctrine and practise began about the yeare of our Lord 700 for before that time there wanted as he affirmeth either necessitie or oportunitie to teach or vse such power By reason of like there were no hereticall Princes impugners of the true faith before that time or that the paucitie of Christian Kings to assist the weake forces
the Sorbons in Paris holding peremptorily as I haue said a Councell to be aboue the Pope will any man of iudgement say that the position is her esie and they hereticks Costerus and other learned men do cleare them from such a note and they are still ready to defend themselues against any that shall accuse them thereof Likewise if any abhorre drunkennesse detraction sowing discord betweene brethren and friends as he abhorreth heresie can it be said that drunkennesse detraction or sowing discord though they be great sins and abound in too too many is heresie it were too fond and childish This As signifieth here a similitude not an equalitie and all know that nullum simile est idem which may serue for one answer And for a second let it be granted that such as sweare thinke it indeed to be heretical doctrine albeit the Church hath not defined it so that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects c. what absurditie is like to follow I haue already as I trust sufficiently proued that neither Bishops nor the Pope by their spirituall censure haue authoritie to dispossesse any priuate man or Prince be he neuer so peruerse an hereticke of his lands goods or temporall dominions for that it is against the essence or nature of excommunication to worke such an effect It is likewise proued to be against the law of God for children seruants and subiects to disobey their parents maisters and Princes commanding iustly notwithstanding any excommunication denounced against them which is the Churches period beyond which she may not go it being onely a depriuing of the common goods of the Church appertaining to Christians Now what doctrine soeuer is repugnant to Scripture euery word thereof being de fide may well be accounted heresie and as such abhorred and abiured for haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei Tho. 2.2 q. 11. ar 2 heresie is about those things which belong vnto or are of faith Such is the dutie of subiects to their lawfull Prince and of all inferiors to their superiors Then is it heresie directly to say that it is lawfull for subiects or any other whatsoeuer who is not his Iudge and superior in that kind to murther him it being expresly against a diuine precept Non occides and this saying of our Sauiour Matth. 26. Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt All that take the sword shall perish with the sword By which are vnderstood all such as assume to themselues authoritie to vse the materiall for reuenge Iansen in â—unc locum before it be granted them by the Prince who onely hath his authoritie by the diuine ordinance which ought not to be resisted by subiects or others For as Cunerus writeth Cun. de offic Princip l. 4. c. 12. Nulla pacta vel contractuâ— No couenants or contracts may preiudicate the diuine ordinance whereby a King hath his power that the people at any time may take armes against their King And in my iudgement it may be admited that any Catholick wil stick at this point here being no mention of the Popes deposing that which many stand vpon but of subiects or any other whatsoeuer vnlesse they will ranke him among these whatsoeuer which ought not so to be vnderstood But if they will vnder this generall word vnderstand also the Pope yet may it be said it is heresie to wit May be murthered which cannot be vnderstood but of killing vniustly and without authoritie If you say that the other part May be deposed was neuer declared nor adiudged heresie and therefore the Oath cannot be taken because bonum is ex integra causa and malum ex singulis defectibus then one part not being hereticall how can this clause be lawfully sworne that Princes which be excommunicated may be deposed to be damnable and hereticall doctrine This indeed is such an obiection as in the iudgement of diuers cannot be answered and whereupon many pretend to haue great reason to stand but let all passion be layd aside lending me an indifferent care with Gods assistance such a solution may be framed as shall satisfie I trust and solue the difficultie In our Oath no man sweareth nor is vrged to sweare nor by the law ought to sweare further then the expresse words of the Oath which are after this sort as is also noted before pag. 119. And I do further sweare that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall What Note wel this damnable doctrine and position What position Forsooth that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects c. This position is sworne not per partes by peecemeale but coniunctiuely and wholly as it lieth and so it cannot be denied but it is impious and hereticall doctrine heresie here being affirmed not on the parts of the position separated but on the 〈◊〉 hole together For in a sentence affirmatiue disiunctiue proposition or booke if any part be defectuous false or hereticall albeit some part thereof be true and sound doctrine it may wel be said that the whole sentence proposition or booke is defectuous false Gress l. 1. consider Pag. 47. or hereticall as Gretserus writeth Then that May be deposed closed in one proposition with the other part or murthered which is hereticall the whole position as it lieth must needes ber said and may be sworne to be hereticall For example The Inquisition vseth to condemne as a scandalous or hereticall booke if there be but one onely Chapter or sentence of scandalous or hereticall doctrine contained therein though all the rest be found and Catholicke And may not any man lawfully sweare that booke so condemned to be scandalous or hereticall albeit all the whole is not such or that man to be an hereticke which erreth against one onely article of the Catholicke faith But if the two parts of the proposition you thinke are sworne diuisim and by parts not coniunctim or totally together then let impious go with the first part may be deposed and hereticall with the latter or murthered and I cannot see how you can deny but so it may besworne If any will yet stand vpon the word abiure as I heare many do saying It signifieth not onely simply to deny a thing with an oath as al Dictionaries vnderstand the word but by oath to deny that which once he held before then he that neuer held the doctrine and position aboue named cannot take this Oath because he may not abiure that opinion which he neuer held But this will manifestly appeare to him that hath any experience in the practise of the Church to be false For let any be conuented into the Inquisition for any one heresie whatsoeuer as Anabaptisme Brownisme c if afterwards he repent and conuert to the Catholicke faith he shall be required and must of necessitie abiure