to move them to so damned a conspiracy or indeed to any just complaint Secondly if these were not the causes as they would faine abuse the world into a perswasion that they were what was I shall tell you if you will give me leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to derive it from its very head and then I will leave it to you to judge whether or no my Augury failes me First I guesse that the Traitors were encouraged and primarily mov'd to this Treason from the preuailing opinion which is most generally receiv'd on that side of the lawfulnesse of deposing Princes that are Hereticall I say generally receiv'd and I shall make my words good or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me when they declare their own mindes I instance first in the Fathers of the Society a Nec ulla eis injuria fier si deponantur Lib. 5 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Ex ipsa vi juris ante omnem sententiam supreâ—i Pastor is ac Iudicis contra ipsum prolatam Lugduni impres 1593. p. 106. n 157. Amphith honor p. 117. Sed heus Arnalde à cuius institutione hau sisti nullaÌ„ posse intercidere causam quae regem cogat abire regno Non religionis Bellarmine teacheth that Kings have no wrong done them if they be deprived of their Kingdomes when they prove Heretiques Creswell in his Philopater goes farther saying that if his Heresy be manifest he is deposed without any explicite judiciall sentence of the Pope the Law it selfe hath passed the sentence of deposition And therefore Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald the French Kings Advocate for affirming that Religion could be no just cause to depose a lawfull Prince If hee had beene brought up in their Schooles hee might have learnt another lesson papa Potest mutare regna uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus Bellar. de Pont. R. â— â— lib 5. Princeps spiritualis si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem saith Bellarmine Hee gives his reason too quia alioqui possent mali Principes impunè sovere Haereticos which is a thing not to be suffered by his Holinesse Cap. â— This Doctrine is not the private opinion of these Doctors but est certa definita atque indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia saith F. Creswell I suppose Vbi saprà p. 107. hee meanes in his owne Order and yet I must take heed what I say for Eudaemon Iohannes is very angry with S r Edward Cooke for saying it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits Doe they then deny it No surely but Non est Iesuitarum propria it is not theirs alone Apol. pro Garnet â— â— sed ut Garnett us respondit totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta Doctrina nostra est and there hee reckons up seven and twenty famous Authors of the same opinion Creswell in his Philopater sayes as much if not more Hinc etiam infert Vniversa Theologorum Iuris consultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola est certum Num. 157. de fide quemcunque Principem Christianum si à religione Catholicà manifestè deflexerit alios avocare voluerit excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate ex ipsâ vi juris tum Humani tum Divini You see how easily they swallow this great camell Adde to this that Bellarmine himselfe prooves that the Popes temporall power or of disposing of Princes Kingdomes is a Catholique Doctrine for hee reckons Contra Barclaium in prin cip ferè up of this opinion one and twenty Italians fourteene French nine Germans seven English and Scotch nineteen Spaniards these not è faece plebis but è primoribus all very famous and very leading Authors You see it is good Divinity amongst them and I have made it good that it is a generall opinion received by all their Side if you will believe themselves and now let us see if it will passe for good Law as well as good Divinity It is not for nothing that the Church of France protests against some of their received Canons if they did not I know not what would become of their Princes Their Lillies may be to day and to morrow be cast into the oven if the Pope either call their Prince Huguenot as he did Henry the fourth or Tyrant as Henry the third or unprofitable for the Church or Kingdome as he did King Childeric whom Pope Zechary de facto did depose for the same cause and inserted his act into the body of the Law as a precedent for the future quod etiam ex authoritate Can. Alius caus 15. q. 6. frequenti agit sancta Ecclesia it is impaled in a parenthesis in the body of the Canon least deposition of Princes should be taken for newes The law is cleere for matter of fact the lawfulnesse followes Haereticis licitum est auferri quae habent and this not only from a private man but even from Princes Cl. 1. in Summa 23. q. 7. nam qui in majore dignitate est plus punitur or take it if you please in more proper termes Dominus Gl. cap. ExcoÌ„municaâ—â—â— tit de 〈◊〉 l. 5. Papa Principem saecularem deponere potest propter haeresim so another may be chosen like the Palatines and Castellans in Poland just as if the King were dead Nam per haeresim plusquam civilitèr mortuus censetur saith Simancha and that by vertue of a constitution of Gregory the ninth by which every Cap. 45. de paenit man is freed from all duty homage allegeance or subordination whatsoever due to a Heretick whether due by a naturall civill or politicall right aliquo pacto aut quâcunque firmitate vallatum Et sic nota saith the glosse quod Papa potest absolvere Laâ—cum de iur amento fidelitatis I end those things with the attestation of Bellarmine Contra Barclaiumc ap 3. Est res certa explorata a posse Pontificem maximum iust is de causis temporalibus iudicare atque ipsos Temporales Principes aliquando deponere And again that we may be sure to know of what nature this doctrine is he repeats it Sic igitur de potestate in Temporalibus quod ea sit in Papa non Opinio sed Certitudo apud Catholicos est And now let any man say if this be not a Catholike Doctrine and a likely antecedent to have Treason to be its consequent But I fixe not here onely this it is plain that this proposition is no friend to Loyalty but that which followes is absolutely inconsistent with it in case our Prince be of a different perswasion in matters of Religion For 2 It is not only lawfull to depose Princes that are hereticall but it is necessary and the Catholiks are bound to doe it sub mortali I know not whether it be so generally I am sure it is as confidently taught as the
where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferre more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for orders sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practise And that the other Apostles were by a personall priviledge as infallible as himselfe is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himselfe was and certainly there might have something hapned in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judiciall power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalfe Will the Ministeriall Headship inferre any more then when the Church in a Community or a publike capacity should doe any Act of Ministery Ecelesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councels which yet was not alwayes granted him Suppose it to be a power of taking cognisance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councels cannot be called Suppose it a double voyce or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour Suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministeriall Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causlessely amused with such premises and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 8. I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Numb 10. Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places can be that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetuall experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their halfe Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophecying should be restrain'd But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seemes not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles S. Peter himselfe not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not only with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determin'd the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret and although we have but little Record that the first Councell at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the finall sentence and although S. Peter determin'd the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstaine from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judg'd most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of S. Chrysost. hom 3. in act Apost Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if this Question be to be determin'd by Scripture it Numb 11. must either be ended by plaine places or by obscure plaine places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what meanes shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Popes interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for it selfe either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogy of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peters own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confesse what they never thought But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile Numb 12. their words and their actions that the processe is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so farre at least as to shew either Antiquity said no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practise was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much cased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in it selfe as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Councell every men liv'd to himselfe and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practise could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops infallibility and by consequence supreme judgement and last resolution in matters of
Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their owne hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or Supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himselfe by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And againe If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Thess. 3. 14. signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearely kept the power in his owne hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it govern'd by Episcopall or Apostolicall authority 3. For ought appeares in Scripture the Apostles never gave any externall or coercitive jurisdiction in publike and criminall causes nor yet power to ordaine Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meere Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or expresse delegation of Apostolicall authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absense of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognisance of persons and causes criminall Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Ierusalem but they had a Bishop alwayes and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop Apostles Now it cannot be denyed both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Ierusalem and also had power alone to governe the Church I say they had power to governe alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordayn'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyne with them they must doe it themselves and then also they must retaine the same power for they could not loose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publike acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they onely assisting in subordination and by dependency This onely by the way In Ierusalem the Presbyters were some thing more then ordinary and were not meere Presbyters in the present and limited sense of the word For Barnabas and Iudas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chiefe men amongst the Act. 15. Brethren yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolicall power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is in Act. Apost that diverse of them were ordain'd Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fix'd upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more then meere Presbyters as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas men of Apostolicall power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equall power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meere Presbyters yet because it is certaine and proov'd and confess'd that the Apostles had power to governe the Church alone this their taking meere Presbyters in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae then dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's owne expression for this is more evident then that Bishops doe eminere caeteris by custome rather then Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retain'd where the same reasons doe remaine and circumstances concurre yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we doe Act. 13. and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I doe not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meere Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit Act. 20. of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must doe it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lay the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by Vos we shall I hope gaine the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus Act. 20. 4. And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sense the lessar Asia For so in the preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have vers 18. beene with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confin'd to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearely infer'd from vers 25. And now behold I know that YE ALL AMONG WHOM I HAVE GONE preaching the Kingdome of God c It was a travaile to preach to all that were present and therefore most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side
exception by S. Pauls first epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appeares either there or else-where * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is cleare For what power had they of Iurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before S. Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did S. Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminall equall to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had then what did Titus doe there If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Iudge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse yeares after the founding of the Church and yet S. Paul reprooves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop For in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himselfe the sole Iudge For I verily as 1. Cor. 5. 3. absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly S. Paul gives the Church V. 4. of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause In the name of our Lord Iesus Christ when ye are gathered together and MY SPIRIT that is My power My authority for so he explaines himselfe MY SPIRIT WITH THE POWER OF OUR LORD IESVS CHRIST to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for S. Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a commission given to the whole assembly and no more concernes the Presbyters then the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turnes neither for an independant Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for S. Paul's reprooving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is v. 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be TAKEN AWAY FROM AMONG YOU Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For TAKEN AWAY FROM You implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himselfe He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Ierusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affaires I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolicall or Episcopall and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Ierusalem where I prooved that the Elders were men of more power then meere Presbyters men of Apostolicall authority But here lies the issue and straine of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminall and pertaining to the publick regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any commission given by Christ to meere Presbyters no divine institution of any power of regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolicall that meere Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop governe the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any meere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to doe but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolicall ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angell of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fix't as in the case of the Corinthian delinquent before specified which delegation was needlesse if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then returne we to the consideration of S. Hieromes saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Counsell of the Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops were Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custome rather then Divine disposition S. Hierome affirmes but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custome and condescension rather then by Divine disposition S. Hierome does not say but it was For he speakes onely of matter of fact not of right It might have beene otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Ierusalem where the Elders were Apostolicall men and had Episcopall authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Iudas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocesse besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Ierusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Iurisdiction and therefore does clearely evince that the common-counsell of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as S. Peter and S. Iohn in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes us'd in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did governe in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sense that S. Peter and S.
Spirituall because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in it's particular capacity for such things only are properly spirituall 5. The Bishops jurisdiction hath a compulsory deriv'd from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internall compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by thesecular arme either superadding a temporall penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopall Iurisdiction hath a double part an externall and an internall this is deriv'd from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Iurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Iurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the externall compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperour or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity sit Iudge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Iudge of that or that the Bishops were not But in case of the pervicacy of a peevish heretick who would not submitt to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Church's power * It was so in the case of Aëtius the Arian Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperour For all that the Prefect did or the Emperour in this case Tripart hist. lib. 5. c. 35. was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholikes but the precise act of Iudicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aëtius for his heresie for all his confident appeale and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personall delinquencyes * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refus'd to be tryed in a cause of faith by Lay-Iudges though Delegates of the Emperour Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator S. Ambros. Epist lib. 2. Epist. 13. in causâ fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever knowne that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Councell of Ariminum in the case of Aëtius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Councell of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observeable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offer'd at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despayring of their cause in a Conciliary triall hoped to ingage the Emperour on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholike Bishops made humble and faire remonstrance of the distinction of powers and Iurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia In verbo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man so famous and exemplary that he was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperour did preside amongst the Bishops and undertooke to determine causes of meere spirituall cognisance insteed of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over things of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertaine to Bishops The MILITIA and the POLITIA are thine but matters of FAITH and SPIRIT are of EPISCOPALL cognisance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedome of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and faire acknowledgement of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their legate to desire him ut dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse that he would be pleas'd to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud se ipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Cumque haet respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperour would not meddle with matters of faith but hist. tripart lib. 7. c. 12. referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by God's law they did appertaine Upon which intimation given the Bishops conven'd in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A divine right to decide the article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperour it is not lawfull for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperour to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Councell These are two distinct powers One from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have faire opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent in their diocesses all I meane in the sense above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognisance of or may not the secular power find out some externall compulsory instead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certaine cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus gladij as most certainly shee is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser paines in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I meane in the formality of a Church-tribunall then they give the Church what shee must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A
32. conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conferunt nullam se potestatem habere SED IUXTA CANONUM INSTITUTA sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councells I produce not as Iudges but as witnesses in the businesse for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it selfe so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Councell of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it selfe is almost 1100. years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sense For so it was determin'd Can. 26. vide Zonaram in hunc Canonem in the great Councell of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Videatur Concil Carthag Graec. can 36. 38. 41. Balsam ibid. apologia 2. Iustini Martyris according to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop ADde to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not goe to another Diocesse So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under paine of suspension or deposition § 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocesse or to travell without leave of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he would not returne when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Councell of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Councell of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fixe himselfe in the Diocesse of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed Vide Concil Epaun. c. 5. venet c. 10. in many other Synodall decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocesse is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy men might not travaile from Citty to Citty without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clericall subordination to their Bishop The Councell of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy Can. 41. man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travail without Canonicall or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition Can. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerke must not travaile without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law de consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Councell The same is in the Councell of a Can. 38. Agatho The Councell of b Can. 5. Venice adds a cēsure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Councell of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diacono Can. 6. sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Councell of Tourayne in France and the third Councell of Orleans attest the selfe same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy BUT a Coërcitive authority makes not a complete § 40. And the Bishop had power to preferre which of his Clerks he pleased jurisdiction unlesse it be also remunerative the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but halfe a tye to indeare obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the primitive Church to make the Episcopall jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocesse to the higher Orders and neerer degrees of approximation to himselfe and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarnm non obtemperaverint EPISCOPIS SUIS VOLENTIBUS EOS AD HONOREM AMPLIOREM IN SUA ECCLESIA PROMOVERE nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a Greater honour Can. 31. in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not alwaies goe together and also severall Orders had severall manner of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon severall pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainely the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordain'd Elders in every Church and they passed thorough Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he saies of himselfe and Titus For this cause I SENT thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thou shouldest oppoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordain'd them no man questions but he also APPOINTED THEM and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Titus V 5. as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolicall ordinance that the BISHOP SHOULD APPOINT PRESBYTERS Let there be halfe so much showne for the people and I will also indeavour to promote their interest **** There is onely one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widdowes * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of soules This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monyes it was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their owne right it was to satisfye the multitude it was to avoid scandall which in the dispensation of moneyes might easily arise it was in a temporary office it was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescrib'd them it was out of the number
Bishops were of small Townes and therefore these Canons were not observed and Bishops might be and were parochiall as S. Gregory of Nazianzum Zoticus of Comana Maris in Dolicha The one of these is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by * Lib. y. c. 16. Eusebius and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by †Lib. 5. cap. 4. Theodoret a little Towne This is all is pretended for this great Scarcrow of parochiall Bishops * But first suppose these had been parishes and these three parochiall Bishops it followes not that all were not those to be sure which I have proved to have been Bishops of Provinces and Kingdomes 2 ly It is a cleare case that Nazianzum though a small City yet was the seate of a Bishops throne so it is reckoned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made by Leo the Emperour where it is accounted inter thronos Ius Graecc-Rom p. 89. Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarum is in the same account with Caesarea with Ephesus with Crete with Philippi and almost fourescore more * As for Zoticus he indeed came from Vide Baron An. Dom. 205 n. 27. Comana a Village towne for there he was born but he was Episcopus Otrenus Bishop of Otrea in Armenia saith †Lib. 4. c. 25. Nicephorus * And for Maris the Bishop of Dolicha it was indeed such a small Citty as Nazianzus was but that proves not but his Diocesse and territory was large enough Thus was Asclepius Gennad apud Hieron Iohan. de Trittenheim de script Eccles. vici non grandis but yet he was Vagensis territorii Episcopus His seat might usually be in a little Citty if it was one of those townes in which according to the exigence of the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which Bishops anciently were ordain'd and yet the appurtenances of his Diocesse large and extended and too great for 100 Parish Priests 4 ly The institution of Chorepiscopi proves most evidently that the Primitive Bishops were Diocesan not Parochiall for they were instituted to assist the Bishop in part of his Country-charge and were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Visiters as the Councell of Laodicea calls them But what need such Suffragans such coadjutors to the managing of a Parish Indeed they might possibly have been needfull for the managing of a Citty-parish especially if a whole Citty was a Parish as these objectors must pretend or not say Primitive Bishops were Parochiall But being these Chorepiscopi were Suffragans to the Bishop and did their offices in the country while the Bishop was resident in the Citty either the Bishops parish extended it selfe from Citty to Country and then it is all one with a Diocesse or else we can find no imployment for a Chorepiscopus or Visiter * The tenth Canon of the Councell of Antioch describes their use and power Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi .... placuit sanctae Synodo ut modum proprium recognoscant ut gubernent sibi subjectas Ecclesias They were to governe the Churches delegated to their charge It seems they had many Churches under their provision and yet they were but the Bishops Vicars for so it followes in the Canon he must not ordaine any Presbyters and Deacons absque urbis Episcopo cui ipse subjicitus Regio Without leave of the Bishop of the Citty to whom both himselfe and all the Country is subordinate 5. The Bishop was one in a Citty wherein were many Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius There is one Altar in every Church and Epist. ad Philadelph ONE BISHOP together with the Presbytery and the Deacons Either then a whole City such as Rome or Ierusalem which as Iosephus reports had 400 Synagogues must be but one Parish and then they had as good call a Bishops charge a Diocesse as a Parish in that latitude or if there were many Parishes in a Citty and the Bishop could have but one of them why what hindred but that there might in a Citty be as many Bishops as Presbyters For if a Bishop can have but one Parish why may notevery Parish have a Bishop But by the ancient Canons a City though never so great could have but one for it selfe and all the Country therefore every parish-Priest was not a Bishop nor the Bishop a meere parish-Priest Ne in unâ civitate duo sint Episcopi was the Constitution Lib. 10. Eccles. hist. of the Nicene Fathers as saith Ruffinus and long before this it was so known a businesse that one City should have but one Bishop that Cornelius exprobrates to Novatus his ignorance is ergo qui Apud Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 33. Evangelium vendicabat nesciebat in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ unum Episcopum esse debere ubi videbat esse Presbyteros quadraginta sex Novatus the Father of the old Puritans was a goodly Gospeller that did not know that in a Catholick Church there should be but one Bishop wherein there were 46 Presbyters intimating clearely that a Church that had two Bishops is not Catholick but Schismatick at least if both be pretended to be of a fixt residence what then is he that would make as many Bishops in a Church as Presbyters He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he fights against God if S. Ambrose say true Deus enim singulis In 1. Cor. 12. Ecclesiis singulos Episcopos praeesse decrevit God hath decreed that one Bishop should rule in one Church and of what extent his ONE CHURCH was may easily be guessed by himselfe who was the Ruler and Bishop of the great City and province of Millaine * And therefore when Valerius * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiphan haeres 66. n. 6. Possidon in vitâ S. Aug. cap. 8. as it was then sometimes used in severall Churches had ordain'd S. Austin to be Bishop of Hippo whereof Valerius was also Bishop at the same time S. Austin was troubled at it as an act most Uncanonicall and yet he was not ordain'd to rule in common with Valerius but to rule in succession and after the consummation of Valerius It was the same case in Agelius a Novatian Bishop ordaining Marcian Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21 to be his successor and Sisinnius to succeed him the acts were indeed irregular but yet there was no harme in it to this cause they were ordain'd to succeed not in conjunction * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen It is a Lib. 4. cap. 15. note of Schisme and against the rule of H. Church to have two Bishops in one chaire Secundus Episcopus nullus est saith S. †Lib. 4. Epist. 2. Cyprian And as Cornelius reports it in his epistle to S. Cyprian it was the voice of the Confessors that had been the instruments and occasions of the Novatian Schisme by erecting another Bishop Nec non ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum esse Dominum quem confessi sumus unum spiritum
a long time knowne The Popes incroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore and by its eld almost habituate but yet it grieved them neverthelesse nor was the lesse a fever for being hecticall but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds it may be made as apparent as the noon Sunne for these 600 years and upwards that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extream and continuall Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdome that our condition was under him worse then the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants or then our neighbors are now under their Belgick Tributes So many greivances of the people expilations of the Church abuses to the State intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued that it was a great blessing of Almighty God our Kingdome was delivered from them upon so easy termes which Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne thought would never be done but in Oregladii cruentandi and now to have all these mischiefes returne with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepinesse I said with more strength because what anciently at the highest was thought but a priviledge of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redresse And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Lawes against the Priests obtruding upon the State the Popes power I only referre him to the Parliament of Paris where let him hold his Plèa against those great Sages of the Law for their just censures upon Florentinus Iacobus Thomas Blanzius and Iohn Tanquerell who were all condemned 1561. to a solemne honorary penance and satisfaction to the State and not without extreme difficulty escaped death for the same cause But this is not all I adde Secondly the Pope had his Agent in England to stirre up the Subjects to rebell against the Queene as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and Gabutius It is not then imaginable that he should so poorely intend his own designes to imploy one on purpose and he but a Merchant and that the Priests who were the men if any most likely to doe the businesse should be un-imployed I speak not of the argument from matter of fact for it is apparent that they were imployed as I shewed but now but it is plain also that they must have been imployed if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Popes ordinary discretion Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischiefe Thirdly there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Lawes and subordination to the Prince But that so these Priests might I only bring two witnesses leading men of their own Side Thus Bellarmine The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subiection to Princes Lib. 1. cap. 2â— de Cleriâ—â—â— The same is taught by Emanuel S à in his Aphorismes Verbo Clericus I must not dissemble that this Aphorisme however it passed the Presse at first yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out The cause is known to every man For that it was meerely to serve their ends is apparent for their French freedome was there taken from them they durst not parler tout so neere the Parliament but the Aphorisme is to this day retain'd in the Editions of Antwerp and Colein If this be their Doctrine as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors I mean Sà and Bellarmine I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Lawes they plead exemption Secondly it was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscriptioÌ„ their disobedience should be made Capitall For if they did not obey then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawfull Prince and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inexcusable from the Lawes penalty which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion or if they did not sinne against their conscience then of necessity must they think her to be no lawfull Prince or not their lawfull Prince nor they her Subjects so ipso facto are guilty of high Treason their execution De simplie Pralat was for Treason not Religion and so the Principall is evicted which I shall beg leave to expresse in S. Cyprians language Non erat illa fidei Corona sed poena per fidiae nec religiosae virtutis exitus gloriosus sed desperationis interitus For if Valentius banish Eusebius from Samosata and Eusebius obey not the edict if Valentius puts him to death it is not for his being a Christian that Theodoret. l. 4. c. 14. he suffers death but for staying at Samosata against the command of Valentius Such was the case of the Priests whom for just cause as I have proved and too apparent proofe of seditious practices the Queen banished Now if the Queen was their lawfull Soveraigne then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius or if they did not obey not to think the Lawes unjust for punishing their disobedience I say again their Disobedience not their Religion for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Lawes but the security of the Queen and State only aim'd at besides what I have already said is apparent to the evidence of sence For when Hart and Bosgrave Iesuits both came into England against the Law they were apprehended and imprison'd for the Lawes without just Execution were of no force for the Queenes safety but when these men had acknowledg'd the Queenes legitimate power and put in their security for their due obedience they obtain'd their pardon and their liberty The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton all which I hope were not Apostates from their Order or Religion but so they must have been or not have escap'd death in case that their Religion had been made Capitall Lastly this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth were born in England It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aim'd at But 't is so foule a Calumny I am asham'd to stand longer to efute it The proceedings of the Church and State of England were just honourable and religious full of mercy and discretion and unlesse it were that as C. Fimbria complain'd of Q. Scaevola we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger there is no cause imaginable I mean on our parts
former and by as great Doctors Ecclesia nimis graviter erraret si admitteret allquem Lib. 5. de Rom. Pout c. 7. Regem qui vellet impunè fovere quamlibet Sectam defendere haereticos So Bellarmine And again Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum si conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim But F. Creswell puts the businesse home to purpose Certè Ibid. non tantum licet sed summâ etiam iuris Divini necessitate ac praecepto imò conscientiae vinculo arctissimo Philopat p. 110 n. 162. extremo animarum suarum periculo ac discrimine Christianis omnibus hoc ipsum incumbit si praestare rem possint Vnder perill of their soules they must not suffer an hereticall Prince to reigne over them Possunt debent eum arcere ex hominum Christianorum Pag. 106. n. 157. dominatu ne alios inficiat c. 3 He that saith Subjects may and are bound to depose their Princes and to drive them from all rule over Christians if they be able meanes something more For what if the Prince resist still he is bound to depose him if he be able How if the Prince make a warre The Catholike subject must doe his duty neverthelesse and warre too if he be able He that saies he may wage a warre with his Prince I doubt not but thinks he may kill him and if the fortune of the warre lights so upon him the subject cannot be blamed for doing of his duty It is plain that killing a Prince is a certain consequent of deposing him unlesse the Prince be bound in conscience to think himselfe a Heretick when the Pope declares him so and be likewise bound not to resist and besides all this will performe these his obligations and as certainly think himselfe hereticall and as really give over his Kingdome quietly as he is bound For in case any of these should faile there can be but very slender assurance of his life I would be loth to obtrude upon men the odious consequences of their opinions or to make any thing worse which is capable of a fairer construction but I crave pard on in this particular the life of Princes is sacred and is not to be violated so much as in thought or by the most remote consequence of a publike doctrine But here indeed it is so immediate and naturall a consequent of the former that it must not be dissembled But what shall we think if even this blasphemy be taught in terminis See this too In the yeare 1407. when the Duke of Orleans had been slaine by Iohn of Burgundy and the fact notorious beyond a possibility of concealement he thought it his best way to imploy his Chaplaine to justify the act pretending that Orleans was a Tyrant This stood him in small stead for by the procurement of Gerson it was decreed in the Councell of Constance that Tyranny was no sufficient cause for a man to kill a Prince But yet I finde that even this decree will not stand Princes in much stead First because the decree runnes ut nemo privatâ Authoritate c. but if the Pope commands it then it is Iudicium publicum and so they are never the more secure for all this Secondly because Marianae tels us that this Decree is nothing Namque id decretum Concilij Constantiensis Romano Pontifici Martino quinto probatum non invenio non Eugenio aut De Reg R. instit lib. 1. c. 6 Successoribus quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat Thirdly because though the Councell had forbidden killing of Tyrannical Princes even by publique authority though this Decree had beene confirmed by the Pope which yet it was not yet Princes are never the more secure if they be convict of Heresy and therefore let them but adde Heresy to their Tyranny and this Councell Non obstante they may be killed by any man for so it is determin'd in an Apology made for Chastel Licitum esse privatis singulis Reges Principes Haereseos Franc. Verum Const. p. 2. c. 2. Tyrannidis condemnatos occidere non obstante Decreto Concilij Constantiensis And the Author of the Book de iustâ abdicatione Henrici 3. affirmes it not only lawfull but meritorious How much lesse then this is that of Bellarmine De Pont. R. lib. 5. c 6. Si Temporalia obsint fini Spirituali Spiritualis potestas potest debet coercere Temporalem omni ratione ac viâ If omni ratione then this of killing him in case of necessity or greater convenience must not be excluded But to confesse the businesse openly and freely It is knowne that either the Consent of the people or the Sentence of the Pope or Consent of learned men is with them held to be a publicum Iudicium and sufficient to sentence a Prince and convict him of Heresy or Tyranny That opinion which makes the people Iudge is very rare amongst them but almost generally exploded that opinion which Vide 〈◊〉 Image of both Churches makes the learned to be their Iudge is I thinke proper to Mariana or to a few more with him but that the sentence of the Pope is a sufficient conviction of him and a compleate Iudiciall act is the most Catholique opinion on that Side as I shall shew anon Now whether the Pope or learned men or the people be to passe this sentence upon the Prince it is plaine that it is an Vniversall Doctrine amongst them that after this sentence whosesoever it be it is then without Question lawfull to kill him and the most that ever they say is that it is indeed not lawfull to kill a King not lawfull for a private man of his owne head without the publike sentence of his Iudge but when this Iudge whom they affirme to be the Pope hath passed his sentence then they doubt not of its being lawfull That I say true I appeale to a Tom. 3. disp 5. q. 8. punct 3. Gregory de Valentia b In sum l. ◠c. 6. Apolog. ad Tolet c R. Angl. c. 13 Bellarmine d Defens fidei lib. 6 c. 4. Suarez e in 13 cap. ad Rom. disp 5. Salmeron f Quaest. p. in c. 3. Iud. Serarius g De iust iure to m. 4. tr 3. d. 6. Molina h Aphoris verb. Tyrannus 1. Instit Moral 2. p. lib. 11. c. 5. q 10. Emanuel Sà i Azorius k In Hercul Furent Martinus Delrius l de Iustit jure c 9. dub 4 Lessius m Chauuesauris polit Gretser n in resp ad Aphoris Calvinistarū Becanus o Contr. Calvinist Aphorism c. 3. ad Aphor. 1. Sebastan Heissius p In expostul ad Henrici Reg. pro Societate Richeome q in Apolog. pro Henrico Garnetto Eudaemon Iohannes r Ad annum 0undi 2669. n. 7. Salianus s Tract 29. p.