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
in this point towards his liege Lord and secular Prince If it must be granted that Christians by the law of God are strictly bound to obey all iust determinatiue sentences and decrees that proceed from the Sea Apostolicke being the highest spirituall tribunall in Gods Church why must it not likewise be granted that subiects as wel Clercks as laicks are by the same law no lesse boūd in foro cōscientiae to be obedient to the King and his iust lawes the chiefest tribunall in the common wealth This I thinke no Christian wil deny as being most cleare and euident in holy Scriptures taught and practised by all ancient Fathers and holy Saints I confesse you will say that humane iust lawes haue their efficacie of binding all subiects to obey in the Court of conscience Tho. 1.2 q. 96. ar 4. from the eternall law of God of which they are deriued according to that of Salomon Per me Reges regnant Prou. 8 legum conditores iusta decernunt By me saith God Kings do reigne and Law-makers decree iust things But whether this law of the Oath which you aime at be such some make doubt for that Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus and father Parsons in his Catholicke letter affirme many things to be contained therein against the spirituall primacie of the chiefe Pastor and his authoritie of binding and loosing and concerning the limitation to vse father Parsons owne words of his Holinesse authoritie to wit what he cannot do towards his Maiestie or his successors in anie case whatsoeuer Moreouer besides promise of ciuill and temporall obedience in the Oath other things are interlaced and mixt therewith which do detract from the spirituall authoritie of the highest Pastor at least wise indierectly saith he Therfore this law is iniust as being preiudiciall to the law of God and holy Church Some I know will be carping at me for affirming father Parsons to be the author of that Catholicke letter who being ashamed as may be thought of the slender and insufficient clearing the important matter of the Oath by foure seuerall and distinct waies according to his promise denie that euer he wrote the same But will they nill they it is so well knowne to be his and was to the Inquisition in Rome if I haue not bene misinformed and by a verie credible person that heard it from a gentleman present in the citie in his life time and at his death that he could not denie it and vpon the acknowledgement thereof whether with sorrow and griefe for some points vnaduisedlie or erroneously written and brought in question in his old age or somewhat else in some other booke of his against Doctor Morton touching the lawfulnesse of the Oath of Supremacie in some case I cannot say soone after fell sicke and died within eight daies But to returne to our matter Then lawes are said to be iust Tho. 1.2 q. 96.24 first when they are made for the common good secondly when they exceede not his power that maketh them and thirdly when they haue their due forme to wit when the burdens or penalties are imposed on the subiects with a certain equalitie of proportion in order to the common good or vtilitie of the weale publicke as S. Thomas noteth Such is this law of the Oath of allegiance made by full authoritie in Parliament for the conseruation of his Maiestie and whole commonwealth in tranquillitie and peace Tho. 22. q. 67.2.4 Innoc. 3. cap. Per venerabilem Extra Qui filij sint legitimi which is both priuate and common good When I say full authoritie I meane in temporals for so the Prince hath and onely in temporals in the common wealth no lesse thē the Pope in spirituals in the patrimonie of the Church Which law was generaly enacted for all English subiects though principally intended as a distinctiue signe to detect not Catholickes from Protestants nor such as denie the Kings spirituall supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall from the Popes spirituall primacy as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth but turbulent spirited Catholickes and these to represse from milde and dutifully affected subiects of the same religion such as disliking haply in words that most horrible conspiracy of Gunpowder King-slaying would in heart haue applauded the euent from those who in affliction for their conscience with patient perseuerance to the end how long soeuer God permit it to continue for our sinnes will in word and deede loue their enemies beare wrongs without murmuring and sincerely pray for the conuersion of their persecutors if they haue any following the example and doctrine of our blessed Sauiour and his holy Apostles That our dread Soueraigne in setting forth this Oath by Act of Parliament hath not exceeded the limites of his power is manifest in that it was framed onely for this end that his Maiesties subiects should thereby make cleare profession of their resolution Praefat monit Apolog. Reg. to vse his Maiesties owne words faithfully to persist in his Maiesties obediēce according to their naturall allegiance And so farre was his intent by the same Oath to detract from the Primacy or spirituall authority of the Pope of binding or loosing by Ecclesiasticall censures or sacraments as the Cardinall and father Parsons affirme that his Maiestie as it were by a most prudent preuention Praefat. monit to take away all scruples that might arise in Catholicke subiects consciences tooke speciall care that that clause inserted by the lower House into the Oath which detracted from the Popes spirituall authority of excommunicating his Maiestie should be forthwith put out And withall declared that the vertue or force of this Oath was no other then that the Popes excommunication might not minister a iust and lawfull cause vnto his subiects to attempt any thing by open or priuie conspiracies against his Maiestie or state What more I pray you could he haue done for clearing this controuersie and satisfying his subiects If then it be so that nothing is contained in this Oath but what appertaineth to naturall allegiance nor more by his Maiestie required then profession of ciuill and temporall obedience which nature prescribeth to all borne subiects as his Maiestie the interpreter of his owne law hath most sufficiently in his Premonition and Apologie made knowne to all by his pen nor that he intended by interlacing or mingling any thing to detract from the spirituall authoritie of the Pope no not indirectly nor against the law of God as is likewise manifest none can iustly say he hath exceeded his limits or that the law is vniust And wheras the Catholick letter hath That there are some things but specifying none of those some concerning the limitation of his Holinesse authoritie if he meane spirituall it is vntrue to wit what he cannot do towards his Maiestie or his successours in any case whatsoeuer That is a glosse of his owne inuention beside the text a notorious vntruth for there are no such words to be found in the
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
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
heard his wife Abigail recount vnto him who by her prudence had appeased and pacified Dauid coming in furie and rage to reuenge what Dauid had intended against him he feared and trembled in such wise as with the newes he became euen senslesse Et emortuum est cor eius intrinsecus 1. Reg. 25. factus est quasi lapis that is And his heart was dead inwardly and he became as a stone and there upon within ten daies after striken by God gaue vp the ghost Had Nabal cause to feare Dauid not then accepted of the people for king Saul being yet aliue and haue not we iust cause to feare how we offend and stirre to ire our dread Soueraigne so mightie a Monarch Was the occasion that Nabal gaue in comparison of that of our Catholickes alike Conferre the crime of the one and the other and you shall find great inequalitie as great as betweene a word and a blow yea such a blow as posterity will hardly beleeue could be offered when they shal reade it in Chronicles Meane while we that by Gods goodnes are yet liuing and be eye witnesses thereof haue cause to lament and testifie with Habacuc the Prophet Quia opus factum est in diebus nostris Habac. 1. quod nemo credet cum narrabitur That a worke hath bene done in our daies which no man will beleeue when it shall be told and to wish that some discreete Abigail may be found to step forth and meete with our liege Lord comming in great ire to reuenge and with prudence to pacifie and perswade him to surcease for the loialtie and true affection of many other his innocent Catholicke subiects who lie prostate at his royall feete lamenting their brethrens follie and humbly beseeching pardon with offer for and in his defence of both life and limme But woe is me whilest some endeuour to quench a flaming fire by taking away the wood knowing that Cum defecerint ligna Prou. 26. extinguetur ignis When the wood faileth or is taken away the fire will be quenched others put more wood to the fire and so increase the flame Whilest his Maiestie meditateth mercie and requireth that which iustly he may and we in conscience are bound to performe Nabal yea many Nabals arise and do adde matter to kindle his wrath in resisting his will and denying his iust demand which is only to discharge their duties in rendering to Caesar that is Caesars to sweare fealtie and true obedience vnto him in temporals according to the tenure of the Oath framed and enacted the third yeare of his reigne without derogation to any spirituall authoritie of the Pope or infringement of any point of the Catholicke faith The cause then wherefore this Oath of allegeance was made no man can doubt but the most barbarous Gun-powder conspiracy was the onely vrgent motiue it neuer being in common knowledge so much as thought of before The scope and end thereof was that by taking or refusing the same the King and State might distinguish betweene true and faithfull and hollow-hearted Catholicke subiects Regis Praemo pag. 12. and his Maiestie might be more fully assured of their constancie and fidelitie in time of need vpon any cause to be offered whatsoeuer or by Prince people Pope or whosoeuer And can any man maruell that the Pope is therein named Doth this scandalize any Consider but what they were that inserted it the time and place and pretence of reason they had or might haue to imagine being so aduerse or opposite to him in religion and the Treason so fresh in memorie that his Holinesse might giue leaue or encouragement or at least be priuie and so to winke at such an attempt presuming that no Catholicke durst enterprise such a fact without conniuence at least of supreme authoritie And had they not cause to feare or doubt him more then any other none being therein culpable but only Iesuites and Catholickes of whom some haply thinke themselues bound to obey him whatsoeuer he command for that in their opinion he cannot erre in commanding Howbeit we that are by Gods grace Catholicks also agreeing in all points with Christ his Vicar the Pope of Rome in vnitie of faith do no way suspect that euer he was consenting much lesse gaue way to authorize such enormous and wicked designements though withall we dissent from them that thinke he cannot erre no not in a matter of fact The State there assembled were not such babes as that they needed be taught of the Pope his proceedings with Princes about their depriuations or depositions for diuers crimes when he hath hope to preuaile but especially for heresie or apostasie They knew right well likewise that if his Highnes should be by his Holinesse denounced and declared an hereticke what dangers might soone after ensue therefore was it thought wisedome to preuent a mischiefe ere it happen in exacting an Oath of allegeance at Catholicks hands in that maner and forme as it is set downe thereby more firmly to binde them to the performance of their dutie whereto otherwise by the law of God and nature they rest obliged For it is to be presumed that a Christian an honest man that hath feare of Gods iudgements wil not become perfidious nor rashly or vniustly breake that oath which discreetly and iustly he consented to take Iurabit proximo suo Psal 14. non decipiet He will sweare to his neighbour and wil not deceiue him By this now I trust deare Catholicke brethren you are satisfied that an Oath of allegeance may be iustly exacted at our hands and that we are bound to sweare fealtie to our Prince when it shall be required of vs. But you make doubt lest more be contained in this Oath then fealtie or ciuill obedience to his Maiestie viz. some points against the spirituall authoritie of the Pope which you being Catholickes may not gainsay but are bound in conscience to maintaine If you could satisfie vs say you that nothing is therein contained against any article of faith and that we may disobey his Holinesse who prohibiteth the taking thereof without danger of mortall sinne you shall do vs a singular pleasure therfore I pray you resolue vs herein that are much perplexed about it by reason of the great corporall troubles we are like to fall into if by disobeying the King we refuse it or for the hazard of our soules as we thinke if in disobeying the Pope and scandalizing our brethren the Catholickes we take it Beloued brethren I trust you expect not at my hands that I should fully and exactly discusse euery point of the Oath and answer euery scrupulous difficultie that some vse to make albeit it might be easie to effect for it would require a better librarie then mine is at this present more labour then I can well affoord by reason of my feeble bodie and a larger treatise then I meane to make Your desire is as I presume onely to know
of any lay-mans temporall goods and patrimonie for any cause whatsoeuer yea for heresie it selfe who is not temporally a vassall and subiect to his Holinesse And if his spirituall authoritie giuen him by our Sauiour can worke no such effect much lesse his temporall which was neuer granted by Christ by whom he ought to haue whatsoeuer he hath for the good gouernment of his Church but by holy secular Princes whereof Cardinall Allen writeth thus The chiefe Bishops of Christs Church In his answer to the Eng. iust pag. 144. our supreme Pastors in earth by Gods prouidence and by the graunts of our first most Christian Emperours and Kings and by the humble and zealous deuotion of the faithfull Princes and people afterwards haue their temporall states dominions and patrimonies whereby they most iustly hold and possesse the same and are thereby lawfull Princes temporall and may most rightfully by their soueraigntie make warres in their owne and other mens iust quarell as occasion shall vrge them thereunto This he The like in effect writeth the most excellent lawyer D. Barclai Lib. de potestate Papae ◠15. that the Pope himselfe is no otherwise excluded from temporall subiection to secular Princes then that by the benefite or liberalitie of Kings he was made a King forsooth a politicall Prince acknowledging none for his superiour in temporals And the same doth the most earnest maintainer of the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction confesse whom many thinke to be Cardinall Bellarmine Sub nomine Francisci Romuli pag. 114. in his answer to the principall chapters of an Apologie c. Generalis inquit verissima est illa sententia debere omnes omnino superiori potestati obtemperare Sed quia c. It is a generall and most true sentence that all ought to obey higher power but because power is of two sorts spirituall and temporall ecclesiasticall and politicall whereof the one belongeth to Bishops the other to Kings Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporall things and Kings vnto Bishops in spirituals as copiously do dispute Gelasius the first Gelasius Nicolaus in his Epistle to Anastasius and Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael But because the Bishop of Rome is not only the chiefe Ecclesiastical Prince to whom all Christians by the law of God are subiect but is also in his owne Prouinces a temporall Prince neither doth he acknowledge any superiour in temporals as nor other absolute and soueraigne Princes do in their kingdoms and dominions thence it proceedeth that he hath no power aboue him in earth Not then because he is chiefe Bishop and spirituall father of all Christians therefore he is deliuered from temporall subiection but because he enioyeth a temporall principalitie subiect to none In those things therefore which appertaine to the good of the common-wealth and ciuill societie and are not repugnant to the diuine ordinance Clerkes are no lesse bound to obey the soueraigne temporall Prince then other citizens or subiects as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe verie notably sheweth Quia clerici In lib. de Clericis c. 28. praeterquā quod clerici sunt sunt etiā ciues partes quaedam Reipub. politicae Non sunt exempti clerici vllo modo inquit ab obligatione legum ciuilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio clericali That clergie men besides that they are clergie men are also citizens and certaine parts of the politicall commonwealth Clerkes saith he are not exempted by any meanes from the bond of the ciuill lawes which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or their clericall office By this you may see that the Pope hath his temporalities and temporall power not from Christ but from Constantine and other Christian Princes and people and was euer subiect to ciuill gouernment of Emperours till such time as by their graunts he was made a King and temporall Prince and so had no superiour and that Clerks as parts of the political cōmonwealth are bound to obey al iust lawes of the same cōmonwealth no lesse then the Laitie but more of this in another place as occasion shall serue Now to come somewhat nearer the question that I promised and you desire to be resolued on as touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes of their temporall dominions First you are to note that of this matter there are two opinions much different the one from the other one of the Canonists another of Diuines The Canonists hold it for true doctrine to be maintained Tho. Bozius Carerius D. Marta and others that all power whatsoeuer is in this world either temporall and ciuill or spirituall and ecclesiasticall was giuen directly by Christ to Peter and his successors and what power any Kings or Princes in the whole world either Christians or Infidels haue it all dependeth of the Pope and is deriued from him to them as touching the temporall execution so that as Lord of the world he may depose Princes take away their kingdomes and principalities and giue or dispose them to whom he list though no man know the cause why he doth so if he shall iudge there is sufficient cause to do it If this were true doctrine then woe to all Princes that should at any time yea but breake amitie and friendship with him that sitteth in Peters seate what securitie could they haue of their estates Then might they expect of Princes and rulers to be made priuate men and subiects then may it be granted that our Soueraigne were not vnlike to be depriued of his temporals his subiects to be discharged of their obedience and his territories giuen in prey to his enemies But this opinion is held to be most false by many Diuines because it cannot be proued either by authoritie of Scripture or by tradition of the Apostles or practise of the ancient Church or by the doctrine and testimonies of the ancient Fathers Howbeit Bozius a late writer most stoutly defendeth the same Lib. 2. cap. 11 and greatly blameth many excellent Diuines among whom is renowmed Cardinall Bellarmine and calleth them new diuines saying moreouer that they teach most manifestly false doctrine Lib. 5. cap. vlt. and repugnant to all truth because they say that Christ as man was neuer a temporall king nor had any temporall dominion on earth nor did exercise or practise any regall power for by these assertions the principall foundations of Bozius friuolous arguments are ouerthrowne which as most true they confirme by the testimony of our Sauiour himselfe Math. 8. Luc. 9. Foxes saith he haue holes and the foules of the aire nests but the Sonne of man hath not where to put his head If Christ Iesus as he was the son of mā had not so much in this world as a cottage to rest himself in where I pray you is his kingdome where is his temporall dominion who can conceiue that one can be king and Lord who hath no kingdome or Lordship in the vniuersall
world We know well that as he is the Sonne of God he is the King of glory King of kings Lord of heauen and earth and of all things Psal 23. Domini enim est terra plenitudo eius and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for euer but what is this to a temporall kingdome what is this to the imperiall dignitie of secular maiestie Therefore I meane not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists which hath bene most learnedly confuted by Cardinall Bellarmine Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. 3 but to let it passe as most absurd that cannot be proued by any sound reason nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures Fathers or Councels but maintained by captious fallacies vnapt similitudes and corrupt interpretations An other opinion there is of Diuines who dislike and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positiōs but yet so as they vphold and labour to maintain the Popes temporall power though in other sort then the former that is De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6. indirectly or casually and by consequence This then they write and namely Cardinall Bellarmine Asserimus Pontificem vt Pontificem et si non habeat vllam merè temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum We affirme that the Pope as Pope although he hath not any meerly temporal power yet in order to the spiritual good he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tēpotall goods of all Christians And againe in the same chapter Quantum ad personas non potest Papa vt Papa ordinariè temporales Principes deponere etiam iusta decausa eo modo quo deponit Episcopos id est tanquam ordinarius iudex c. As touching the persons the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporall Princes yea for a iust cause after that sort as he deposeth Bishops that is as an ordinary iudge yet he may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to an other as the chiefe spirituall Prince if that be necessarie to the health or sauing of soules And in the same booke the first chapter where he putteth downe the Catholicke opinion as he saith he altereth it somewhat in this manner Pontificem vt Pontificem c. That the Pope as Pope Lib. 5. cap. 1. hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power but only spirituall yet by reason of the spirituall he hath at least indirectly a certaine power that chiefe or highest in tēporals You haue here set downe by Cardinall Bellarmine the opinion of Diuines that the Pope as Pope or chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power to depose Christian Princes but that indirectly I wot not how he may depose them and dispose of their temporals and so in effect and after a sort agreeeth with the Canonists that indeed such power is rightly in him only he differeth about the manner with a restraint from infidels to Christian Princes But I trust as he in improuing the Canonists assertiō of direct power ouer al the world driueth them to Scriptures or tradition of the Apostles so likewise we may require that he proue his indirect power by one of these two wayes If he cannot as most certainely he cannot then why should men giue more credite to him then to the other they being as Catholike and haply no lesse learned then he Why should his opinion be thought more true then the former To disproue the Canonists thus he writeth Ex Scriptur is nihil habemus Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3. nisi datas Pontifici claues regni coelorum declauibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit Traditionem Apostolicam nullam aduersary proferunt Out of Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth no mention is made at all Apostolical tradition our aduersaries produce none Hereby it seemeth the Cardinall goeth about to proue against his aduersaries that because the keyes of the kingdome of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be giuen to Peter and his sucsessors therefore the Pope hath not any direct authoritie to depose the Princes of the world nor dispose of their temporals insinuating that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised and granted to Peter or to the Church in the person of Peter can worke no such effect nor were granted to depriue Christian Princes or others of their scepters and regall dignities but onely by censures and spirituall authority to exclude vnworthy sinners from eternall felicitie and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdome of heauen If this argument be good against the Canonists then why is it not also good against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe when as he can no more produce Apostolicall tradition to confirme his indirect authoritie then the other their direct And of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth required for deposing Princes and disposing of temporals no mention is made in all the Scriptures no not for his indirect or casuall authoritie Consider besides I pray you for it is worth the noting how obscurely and ambiguously he writeth of the Popes power to depose thereby haply intending to seeke some starting hole of equiuocation if occasion serue and meane while leaue his reader doubtfull and still to seeke of his meaning which in my simple Judgement is such as the iudicious wit can hardly conceiue nor tell what he would say As for example that the chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not any power meerly temporall c. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily note depose c. no not for a iust cause mary as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince he may depose and dispose c. Helpe me good Reader to vnderstand this riddle how these two differ in some essentiall point Pope and chiefe spirituall Prince I must confesse that I vnderstand not how he is the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope that is the Father of Fathers or chiefe Pastor of soules in the Church of God It is wel knowne that this title Pope or Papa in Latin hath bene attributed to many ancient Patriarchs and Bishops as well as to the Bishop of Rome though principally to him and now is appropriated to him alone and for nought else but for being Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Princes of the Church and for that cause only not for being a temporal Prince Peters successor hath his denomination Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth saying D. Kellisons Reply to M. Sutel ca. 1. f. 9. Bern. lib. 2. de consid I grant with S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope hath no temporall iurisdiction his power as he is Pope being onely spirituall If then it be so that the Pope as Pope
saith further Quae autem sunt à Deo ordinatae sunt And those that are of God are ordained Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God adding Tho. 2.2 q. 105. ar 1. contrarie to the loue of God in not obeying his commandement and contrarie to the loue of his neighbour withdrawing from his superior obedience due vnto him And they that do resist what get they They purchase to themselues damnation hauing committed a deadly sinne in resisting Which kind of purchase I wish many in this our countrey to note diligently and in time to take heed of But I know some will inferre that this place of S. Paul may well and ought to be vnderstood of Prelates and the chiefe Prelate Christs Vicar who are also higher powers and therefore toucheth such as by obeying the King in the Oath of allegiance disobey their spirituall Pastor the Pope These deceiue themselues not considering the drift of the Apostle for if they marke well they will easily see that S. Paul in this chapter vnderstandeth not the spirituall directly but the secular power as must needs appeare manifestly to him that readeth the text Nam Principes saith he non sunt timor◠boni operis sed mali c. For Princes are no feare to the good worke but to the euill But wilt thou not feare the power do good and thou shalt haue praise of the same for he is Gods minister vnto thee for good But if thou do euill feare for he beareth not the sword without cause for he is Gods minister a reuenger vnto wrath to him that doth euill By whom can all this be meant but by the secular power To whom is tribute due to be rendered not giuen gratis because it is an act or worke of iustice but to the secular power Who carieth such a sword to punish corporally to death and by the ordinance of God but Kings and secular Princes who are Gods ministers and vicegerents in earth for this purpose This sword neuer belonged to Peter nor his successors by Christs institution as D. Kellison confesseth against M. Sutcliffe D. Kellison in his Reply to M. Sutcliffe cap. 1. fo 13. his words are these If beside this spirituall power which he hath ouer the whole Church Sutcliffe suppose that either we giue him or that he challengeth to himselfe any temporall power ouer Christian Kings and kingdomes he is foully deceiued for we confesse and so doth he that Christ gaue him no such sword nor soueraigntie c. We acknowledge indeed two swords in the Church of Christ the one spirituall the other temporall but we giue them not both to the Pope For the supreme spirituall power is the onely sword which he handleth the supreme temporall power out of Italie pertaineth to the Emperour Kings and Princes For as there are in the Church of God two bodies Idem fo 14. the one politicall and ciuill the other Ecclesiasticall or mysticall the one called the common-wealth the other the Church so are there two powers to direct and gouerne these bodies and the one is called ciuill or temporall the other Ecclesiasticall and that ruleth the bodies this the soules that the kingdome this the Church that makes temporall this spirituall lawes that decideth ciuill causes this determineth and composeth controuersies in religion that punisheth bodies by the temporall sword this chastiseth soules with the spirituall glaiues and bonds of excommunication suspension interdicts and such like and the end of that is temporall peace the scope and butte of this eternall felicity and so that being inferiour this superiour that must yeeld to this when there is any opposition And so we giue to the Pope one sword onely ouer the Church and not swords as Sutcliffe saith They are secular Princes likewise who may exact customes and to whom tribute ought of dutie to be paied by all subiects thereby to sustaine and maintaine their dignitie gouerne their kingdome in peace and iustice and protect them from all enemies such excepted as by their priuiledges for the honour of Christ are exempted Tributum Caesaris est Ex. de trad Basil ep ad Valentin non negetur saith S. Ambrose This was neuer due to the Apostles the spirituall Princes of the Church nor consequently to Bishops wno as they are bishops only either did they exercise such a sword or euer acknowledge to be permitted thē by the institutiō of our B. Sauiour of whō they receiued their cōmissiō al power they could practise for gouernmēt of his Church till the worlds end Coste c. 14. Costerus a reuerend and learned Iesuite in fidei Demonst pag. 95. commendeth Erasmus for writing thus Erasm ep ad Vulturium Neocomum Nihil vi gerebant Apostoli scil tantùm vtebantur gladio Spiritus neminem agebant in exilium nullius inuadebāt facultates c. Haec Erasmus non minus disertè quà m verè They that is the Apostles did nothing by violence they vsed only the sword of the Spirit they droue none into exile they inuaded no mans possessions c. This Erasmus saith Costerus no lesse wisely then truly And a litle before in the same booke cap. 12. he teacheth Cost propos 3. cap. 12. that the materiall sword belongeth not to any Ecclesiasticall person Nulli enim competit Ecclesiastico vel sanguinem fundere vel capitis quenquam condemnare For it appertaineth not to any Ecclesiasticall person either to shed bloud or to condemne any man to death Then not to the Pope as he is an Ecclesiasticall person and successour to Peter doth it belong to vse such a sword Hereto agreeth Sir Thomas More in his treatise vpon the passion Morus in pas Dom. pag. 139◠Bern de consid li. 4. c. 3.4 See Gratian. 23. q. 8. in princ Mitte gladium in locum suum c. Put vp saith Christ to Peter thy sword into his place as though he would say I will not be defended with sword And such a state haue I chosen thee vnto that I will not haue thee fight with this kind of sword but with the sword of Gods word Let this materiall sword therefore be put vp into his place that is to wit into the hands of temporall Princes as into his scabberd againe to punish malefactors withall Adding that the Apostles haue to fight with a sword much more terrible then this that is the spirituall sword of excommunication the vse whereof pertaineth to Ecclesiasticall persons alone as the other to secular Iustices This he most learned in his time and no lesse zelous in Catholicke religion Morus in passione Domi. He goeth on pag. 1393. saying that Christ after this told Peter that he had done very euill to strike with the sword and that he declared also by the example of the ciuill lawes Matth. 26. who saith Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt c. For by the ciuill lawes of the Romaines vnder which
his spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord. 1. Cor. 5. Disciplina est enim excommunicatio non eradicatio Now what can here be gathered by the definition end effects or substance of this spirituall censure for deposing Kings and disposing of temporals Marry sir that subiects are bound obeying the chiefe Pastors censure to shun their Prince excommunicated performing no dutie vnto him nor in any sort to communicate with him for an excommunicate person by name ought of all to be auoided to whom os orare vale communio mensa negatur And then when all forsake him is he not in effect deposed Yes truly when all his subiects do forsake him and he left alone Sed quando haec eruâ—â— Is a King more like to be forsaken then a paterfamilias a priuate man Almaine saith indeede Alm. de pot Eccl. laicâ— q. 1. cap. 9. that the Pope may forbid the subiects of a Prince vnder paine of excommunication to performe any dutie vnto him whereby in effect he loseth his kingdome when no man doth regard him yet cannot depose him though he abuse his authoritie to the destruction of the Christian faith But if a generall defection of subiects follow not if according to their dutie they adhere faithfully vnto him without regard to his censure how then What his Holinesse may do in this case of excommunication with absolute Princes being sheepe of Christs fold to be directed and corrected with that spirituall rod when there is hope of amendment as well as priuate men I will not dispute but experience of former ages teacheth it is not expedient See S. Aug. lib 3. c. 2. cont ep Parm. c. 26. and that such practise breedeth oft schismes reuolts troubles and tendeth rather to destruction of many then to edification of any when as S. Paul professeth power to be giuen to the Church to edifie not to destroy And when this power is exercised in destructionem it is not that power which cometh from God but impotencie and defect This we may be said to do that we may lawfully do Which power Doctor Sanders calleth the sword of the Church and sheweth how it should be vsed Sand. de clau Dauid c. 9. Gladius Ecclesiae in aedificationem datus est c. The sword of the Church is giuen to edification not to destruction to conferre life not to inferre death for defence of the flocke not for hurt of the sheepe to driue away the Wolfe not to deuoure the lambe This sword being spirituall and is to worke vpon soules not bodies or goods of any may be drawne foorth I must coÌ„fesse by the supreme Pastor against exorbitant Princes whose superior he ought to be acknowledged but onely in spirituals when there is hope to saue not to destroy to do good no harme and rather to make a wolfe a lambe then cause a lambe to become a wolfe ready to deuoure the flocke as sometimes such censures haue done which lameÌ„table experience on the persons of many Princes can testifie whereupon they proceeded further haply in rigor with their subiects then otherwise they would haue done and not so much for excommunication onely as for the clauses of depriuation deposition and absolution of subiects from their dutifull obedience which are farre from the nature and substance of a spirituall censure and exceedeth the limited of that power as very learned Catholike Authors go about to proue Excommunicatio saith Ludouicus Richeom non nisi excommunicatum facere potest Richeom in apolog eáque fulminatur in Principes c. Excommunication cannot cause one to be but excommunicated and it is thundred out against Princes not that they may become tyrants nor remoued from their possessions nor to slacken the raines vnto subiects or that they may be freed from their sworne fidelitie To this agreeth Medina Excommunicato non est priuatio alicuius boni proprij Medina in 1.2 q. 96. ar 4. citans Sotum quod transgressor legis prius possederat sed est priuatio bonorum communium c. Excommunication is not a taking away of any proper good which the transgressor of the law before had possessed but it is a depriuing of the common goods which he was to receiue of the Church as spirituall communion and receiuing sacraments By which doctrine is plaine that none poore or rich subiect or Prince may by vertue of excommunication meerely be dispossessed of any temporall goods whatsoeuer If they could then woe to all Christians in this respect that liue in such times as Bishops and Popes are not saints Any man excommunicated vpon repeÌ„tance may returne to grace be receiued of the Church and may recouer those spirituall goods he had lost as prayers suffrages and sacraments of the Church c. But if temporals especially kingdomes be once lost and confiscate what hope of recouery Wil it not be too late to cry Peccaui So then that punishment which God hath ordained for the good of soules would be most like to turne to the destruction of bodies soules and goods for euer if excommunication could worke such effect and were not as it ought to be medicinalis but exitialis which is not to be granted Moreouer if ye looke backe to ancient Canons of generall Councels yea to the Canons of the Apostles you shall see for the same or like crimes punishments to be inflicted on offendors but deposition inflicted on Clercks and on Laicks excommunication or depriuing onely of sacraments and communion making this distinction Si Clericus sit deponitor si Laicus à communione eijcitor Insinuating thereby as may seeme that the Church hath superioritie directly ouer Clerks to deposition or degradation of persons not so ouer the persons of Laicks further then to the censure of excommunication and therefore not ouer kingdomes and Kings who acknowledge no superiour on earth in temporals But I pray you if the Popes Holines vpon cause of heresie do excommunicate a Prince or priuate man and all that shall communicate with him or obey him is he not then to be auoided and forsaken of his subiects and inferiours or others whosoeuer He that denieth this seemeth to deny the Popes spirituall authority of binding that of S. Paul Haereticum hominem post primam secundam correptionem denita Tit. 3. A man that is an hereticke after the first and second admonition auoide What is this to our Oath Is there any such clause for heresie in it Are we to adde vnto it by our idle inuentions or are we vrged to take it otherwise then the words import simply as they lye framed by act of Parliament But these and such like fond verball obiections are the cauilling shifts of such as know not how to giue better answers to the substantiall points of the Oath and perswade some to the losse of their liues and others of their lands and goods to their vtter ruine if iustice without mercy be executed that it cannot be
most credite and is truest were greatly wished might be made knowne to the parties whom it concerneth otherwise how can they tell what to do in this important businesse and what is required at their hands to retaine still or recouer their faculties being once lost How shall they obey if they know not what is commanded them 1. Cor. 14. Etenim si incertam vocem det tuba saith Saint Paul quis parabit se ad bellum For if the trumpet giue an vncertaine voice who shall prepare himselfe to battell Therfore it is most requisite that such as haue bin in possession of their faculties granted theÌ„ by authority of the Sea of Rome some 20. some 30. yeares agone and some more should know how and by whom they are taken from them and for what cause which ought to be for so the great fault because the paine is most grieuous should see moreouer not onely an authenticall copie of the originall letters but also the originals themselues if the Churches orderly proceedings be obserued otherwise all may be thought idle reports not to be beleeued Tho. 3. p. q. 19. ar 6. For Saint Thomas saith That when the Church depriueth heretickes and schismatickes and other such like withdrawing subiects from them either simpliciter or quantum ad aliquid simply or touching some particular thing they cannot put in practise or haue vse of the keyes touching that which they are depriued of Then I say it is verie necessarie that Priests not heretickes nor schismatickes or such like but most constant in euerie least article of the Romane faith should know whether they be forbidden simply all or else but some particular faculties receiued at their mission whereby they may in all humilitie shew themselues obedient to his Holinesse in surceasing from exercising what they shall perceiue to be by him forbidden them Now whereas the first report of the manner of taking away faculties is That Priests constantly persisting in teaching the lawfulnesse of the Oath had lost their faculties were disabled to absolue their penitents from deadly sin by vertue of the Archpriests admonitioÌ„ I wish the discreet reader not to giue credite thereto because doubt may well be made thereof seeing diuerse learned Priests yea such as haue not taken the Oath haue iudged otherwise viz That they were not lost and amongst the rest an Assistant esteemed of many to be one of the grauest and best iudgement in such cases Which will also most perspicuously appeare to him that shall with iudgement reade the Admonition and duly consider the Archpriests act and proceeding therein whether it be as it ought to be in euery respect conformable to that of the Popes Breues authorising him which was as followeth Ex Breui sum Pont. TibÃque iniungimus mandamus ac specialem facultatem ad hoc tribuimus vt authoritate nostr a omnes singulos Sacerdotes Anglos qui quoddam iur amentum in quo multa continentur quae fidei atque saluti animarum aperte aduersantur praestiterunt vel ad loca ad quae haeretici ad eorum superstitiosa ministeria peragenda conuenire solent consultò accesserunt aut qui talia licitè fieri posse docuerunt docent admonere cures vt ab huiusmodi erroribus resipiscant abstineant quod si intra tempus extraiudicialiter tamen arbitrio tuo illis praefigendum hoc facere distulerint seu aliquis illorum distulerit illos seu illum facult atibus priuilegys omnihus ab Apostolica sede seu illius authoritate à quocunque â—lio illis vel cuiuis illorum concessis eadem authoritate priues ac priuatos esse declares c. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo piscatoris die 1. February 1608. Pontificatus nostri anno 3. And we enioyne and command you and for this we giue you speciall facultie that by our authoritie you take care to admonish all and singular English Priests who haue taken a certaine Oath wherein many things are contained which are manifestly against faith and the health of soules c. or haue taught and do teach such things may lawfully be done that they may repent and abstaine from such errors and if within the time extraiudicialiter notwithstanding by you to be prefixed vnto them they shal deferre to do this or any one shall deferre that you by the same authoritie deptiue and declare them or him to be depriued of all faculties and priuiledges granted them or any of them from the Sea Apostolicke or by her authority from any other whatsoeuer Dated at Rome the first of Frebruary 1608. This much out of the Popes Breue to the reuerend Archpriest M. Birket touching his facultie or commission giuen him first to admonish then after the time prefixed was expired no satisfaction being giuen of repenting or abstaining to depriue such and declare them depriued of their faculties Whereupon the Archpriest indeed sent a letter of admonition to the Priests then of and in the Clinke endorced To all the reuerend Secular Priests of England Which was as followeth Most dearely beloued brethren The Archpriests letter to the Priests of the Clinke whereas I haue alwayes desired to liue without molesting or offending others it cannot be but a wonderfull corsiue sorrow and griefe vnto me that against mine owne inclination I am forced as you haue seene by the Breue it selfe to prescribe a certaine time for such as do find themselues to haue bene contrarie to the points which are touched in the said Breue concerning the Oath and going to Church that they may thereby returne and conforme themselues to the doctrine declared by his Holinesse both in this and the other former Breues And therefore now by this present do giue notice vnto you all that the time which I prefixe and prescribe for that purpose is the space of two moneths next ensuing after the knowledge of this my admonition Within which time such as shall forbeare to take or allow any more the Oath or going to Church I shall most willingly accept their doing therein yet signifying vnto you withall that such as do not within this time prescribed giue this satisfaction I must though much against my will for fulfilling his Holinesse commandement depriue them and denounce them to be depriued of all their faculties and priuiledges granted by the Sea Apostolicke or by any other by authoritie thereof vnto them or to any of them and so by this present do denounce hoping that there is no man will be so wilfull or disobedient to his Holinesse order but will conforme himselfe as becometh an obedient child of the Catholicke Church And so most heartily wishing this conformitie in vs all and that we may liue and labour together vnanimes in domo Domini I pray God guie vs the grace to effect that in our actions whereunto we are by our order and profession obliged This 2. of May 1608. Your seruant in Christ George Birket Archpriest