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
A MODERATE DEFENCE OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Wherein the Author proueth the said Oath to be most lawful notwithstanding the Popes Breues prohibiting the same and solueth the chiefest obiections that are vsually made against it perswading the Catholickes not to resist soueraigne Authoritie in refusing it Together with the Oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistory at Rome vpon the murther of Henrie 3. the French King by a Friar Whereunto also is annexed strange Reports or newes from Rome By WILLIAM WARMINGTON Catholicke Priest and Oblate of the holy congregation of S. Ambrose IEREM 4. Iurabis Viuit Dominus in veritate in iudicio in iustitia Thou shalt sweare Our Lord liueth in truth in iudgement and in iustice Permissu Superiorum An. Dom. 1612. An Admonition to the Reader THe purpose of the Author in this Treatise is to manifest vnto such as imbrace the Romaine faith that they may take the Oath of allegiance vnto his Maiestie without any preiudice vnto the same And therefore if in this his ensuing discourse he hath inserted any peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome those that are of an aduerse perswasion ought not to take offence but rather make true vse thereof and haue iust cause to acknowledge the clement and moderate proceeding of the State herein THE PREFACE OF THE AVTHOR TO THE READER WHEN by the prouidence of Almightie God courteous Reader who sweetly disposeth all things I was by two Pursuiuants apprehended the 24. of March 1607. after our English accompt and committed to the Clinke by the Lord Bishop of London on the 26. of the same moneth 1608 I entred somewhat more deepely into the consideration of the controuersie of the Oath of allegiance then before whilest I was at libertie I had done And presently consulting with some of my brethren whom I found there prisoners before my comming I thought it very expedient to informe the Popes Holinesse of the lamentable estate of our countrie what miseries and imminent dangers such Catholikes as should refuse the Oath of allegiance were like to fall into by reason of his Breues prohibiting them to take it what diuision among Catholickes what perturbation they were vndoubtedly to breed in the Church of England our dread Soueraigne being thereby not without iust cause exasperated hoping by such meanes to procure a remedy before the malady grew too desperate But they more prudent and better experienced in such like Romane informations then my selfe thought it better in their iudgements and more expedient with patience to expect future euents from Rome and not so to proceed as being to small or no purpose at all Hereupon I rested satisfied though sorie in mind to consider the manifold euils that were like to ensue as long as these two principall powers Ecclesiasticall and ciuill the Pope and our King were at variance and did not intend to set pen to paper of this matter for that I knew my selfe the meanest among the rest of my brethren that had taken the Oath and because I had as I thought in discharge of my particular duty made sufficient proofe of my loyaltie towards his Maiestie by accepting the Oath when it was required at my hands In the end aduised by a friend one of my brethren to premeditate and prouide reasons for our taking it to be sent to Rome for it was to him more then probable he said that in short space after we should receiue a commandement from his Holinesse so to do and desirous withall to yeeld some satisfaction to the State for the great scandall certaine of our brethren had giuen by their perfidious inconstancie in taking the Oath anon after being freed from troubles relented and impugned as hath bene reported that which they seemed by their act to haue iudged lawfull I resolued vpon mature consideration to reduce into some method for helpe of my memorie and satisfaction of a friend certaine notes which in scattered papers I had collected cōcerning this matter not intending yet to publish them for feare first of offending some Catholikes who pretending the Oath to be vnlawfull though they know not well wherein are ready with rash censures to iudge and condemne before sentence of condemnation from the chiefe Iudge be giuen but especially I feared lest I should offend the Popes Holinesse who in his Breues hath either admonished or prohibited all Catholikes to take it or to teach the lawfulnesse thereof At length knowing my intention to be not to offend any one nor to contemne his Holinesse commandement but to aduance what in me lyeth the glory of God by setting downe sincerely what in my iudgement is truth and perswading euery Catholike subiect to render to Caesar those things which are Caesars to performe his dutie to his Maiestie in taking the Oath of allegiance to seeke thereby to remoue the imputation of treachery and treason I held it my dutie both to God and man to breake silence to cast away this humane feare and to put on the mantle of charitie quae foras mittit timorem 1. Ioh. 4 Howbeit gentle reader whilest I meditated to go forward in these my labours for the benefite of my brethren in Christ the Catholikes of England sodainly that questiō of our B. Sauiour as it were to deterre me from thē came into my mind Quis ex vobis volens turrim aedificare Which of you minding to build a tower doth not first sit downe and recken the charges that are necessarie whether he haue to finish it lest after he hath laied the foundation and is not able to finish it all that see it begin to mocke him saying That this man began to build and he could not finish it I forthwith stayed and cast my accompts that is I weighed the small meanes I had to relieue me taking paines my infirme and feeble body slender furniture of bookes and many interrupted distractions which my pouerty in prison ministred vnto me and considered whether I might be able to bring this short treatise to an end so auoide that illusion This man beganne to build and he could not finish it Then though my meanes and abilitie euery way I knew to be small yet trusting in the assistance of almightie God whose glorie hereby I principally seeke and is the chiefest reason of this my processe I was by and by encouraged to attempt the defending of this Oath which I iudged farre beyond my talent calling to remembrance that of the Prophet In Deo meo transgrediar murum Psal 17. In my God I will passe ouer a wall Philip 4. And the saying of S. Paule Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat I can do all things in him that is through his helpe that strengtheneth me nothing doubting also but Phil. 2. v. 13. Qui operatus est in me velle operaretur perficere pro bona voluntate He that wrought in me to will would likewise worke to accomplish according to his good will Vpon
to obey the Popes prohibition of this Oath of allegiance Pag. 44. A boy vnder age hanged in Rome Pag. 46. A nephew of old Nauarre the Canonist by the Popes commandement hanged in hast Ibid. Card. Mendoza depriued of his Deanry of Toledo by force Pag. 47. A Gentleman of Card. Farnesius put to death by Pope Clement Pag. 8. 48. The opinion of some ouermuch deuoted to the obedience of the Pope Pag. 50. Obedience due to all superiors yet is their power contained within certaine limits Pag. 51. Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power both immediate from God both distinct and independant of each other Pag. 53. A superior yea the Pope in diuers cases may be disobeyed without sinne Pag. 57. The Breues of Paulus 5. prohibiting the Oath of allegiance may be not obeyed without sinne Pag. 59. Many euils ensue vpō obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath Pag. 60. A cōmandement vpon error of wrong information bindeth not Pag. 62. The Popes bare precept not alway sufficient to cause men to hazard their temporall states Ibid. Cases not doubtfull but manifest as is this of the Oath need no solution from the Pope Pag. 63. Subiects bound to obey all iust lawes of their temporall Princes Pag. 64. The law of the Oath of allegiance iust Pag. 65. The Kings Maiestie in setting forth this Oath hath not exceeded his limits Pag. 66. All lawfull Kings be they heathens or heretickes are to be obeyed by their subiects in temporals Pag. 68. That the Pope or Church do permit euill Princes to reigne a strange phrase Pag. 70. The place of S. Paul Omnis anima to be vnderstood principally of subiection to secular power Pag. 72. The material sword forbiddē to be vsed by Ecclesiasticall persons Pag. 74 Not without a mystery that Peter shold strike none but Malchus Pag. 78. The Apostles and their successors subiect to Emperours and Kings de iure Pag. 79. Gregory 7. the first that chalenged tēporal power to depose Princes Pag. 84 The doctrine and practise of deposing when it began according to Cardinall Bellarmine Pag. 85. Whether the Pope by his spirituall power wherein he is successor to Peter may depose Princes Pag. 87. 91. Excommunication what it is the nature and effects thereof Pag. 95. No denial of the Popes power of binding to say that Princes notwithstanding excōmunicatiō ought to be obeyed of their subiects Pag. 100. The Popes spirituall power of excommunicating Kings not denied as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth Pag. 104. Whether I may renounce all pardons dispensations which shal be against this Oath of Alleg. without denying the Popes power Pag. 108. No deniall of the Popes power of absoluing to say that he cannot absolue me of this Oath Pag. 112. Whether the Pope may remit lawful oaths compelled by feare Pag. 114. How a matter onely of opinion may be truly sworne Pag. 116. The doctrine that teacheth That Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects may be abiured as impious and hereticall Pag. 119. To teach it lawfull to murther yea a tyrant is hereticall Pag. 123. The Oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistorie of the murther of the King of France Pag. 128. The Pope as a temporall Prince may wage warre but not inuade any Kings dominions as he is Christs Vicar Pag. 149. Priests and reconciled persons as such onely no traitors by the intention of the Oath Pag. 150. How an Oath is to be interpreted Pag. 152. In what sort a man is to sweare before a lawfull magistrate Pag. 153. Not such as take but the refusers of the Oath giue cause of scādal Pag. 154. The Authors exhortation to Catholickes Pag. 156. Strange Reports or Newes from Rome Pag. 159. TO THE CATHOLICKES OF ENGLAND BEloued brethren in Christ Iesus Whereas the Kings most excellent Maiestie being the true lawful and right inheritour to the Crowne and Realme of England by the prouidence of almightie God entred and possessed the same with tranquillity and peace and the great applause of all his subiects as well Catholickes as Protestants or others of different sects and opinions his Highnesse as it were to requite their dutifull affection forthwith gaue great hope of a most happie and prosperous regiment and out of his bountie and clemencie extended many his most royall fauours indifferently vpon all till such time as some of the one sort to wit a few giddie headed desperate and disloyall Catholicks associated with certaine of the Societie prouoked his wrath and indignation against them yea and all the professors of the same religion for their fact Who was not moued as all men will confesse without iust cause for that they viz. Catholickes onely either concealed or most barbarously attempted in that hellish-like manner of gunpowder fire the memorie whereof must needs remaine for euer most grieuous to all true hearted Catholike subiects the cruell murther of so many worthie Commons and Noble personages in Parliament assembled yea of the most towardly and innocent yong Prince the Queene and King himselfe and then soone after also had followed vndoubtedly the desolation ruine and destruction of the whole realme of England Hereupon by the generall consent of all three estates and the Kings Maiestie it was thought necessarie an Oath of allegeance in such forme should be framed and enacted as Catholikes for whom chiefly it was made should haue no cause scrupulously to refuse to take the same and the Kings Highnesse with his whole estate might be better secured and freed from all feares and dangers imitating herein other Kings and Princes as occasions shall be offered them If euer the Kings of France or Spaine or other Princes whatsoeuer had cause to exact an Oath of fealtie of their subiects for safetie of their persons or state then certes no man that hath but common sense will denie but our King hath more then iust vpon so horrible and monstrous cause giuen as the like haply was neuer heard of from the beginning of the world Could any man haue thought it strange or held it crueltie if being in such wise and by such persons prouoked he had in his wrath and indignation rigorously proceeded against all others of the Romane religion as suspecting them to beare no better mind towards him though manie thousands doubtlesse no way consented nor were euer priuie to that horrible fact And if he had what ruine of Catholike families what hauocke of Christian bloud with the destruction of soules and other infinite miseries should we haue seene But the omnipotent God whose name be blessed for euer who hath the rule and gouernment of the hearts of Kings inclined his royall heart to mercie and compassion of his subiects knowing right well the faith and loyaltie of many of the same religion as his Maiestie most benignely expressed in his Proclamation and that he should haue punished the innocent with the nocent as well his friends as his foes Oh what follie were it for a
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
hath no temporall power ouer Princes nor can depose them etiam iusta de causa as the Cardinall saith surely I cannot with cristall spectacles see how he can depose as a spiritual Prince there being no perceptible difference betweene them If I should stand to note vnto you the rest of his obscurities and ambiguities I feare I should be too tedious therefore I purpose to surceasse and leaue them to your prudent consideration as The Pope hath not any power meerely temporall he cannot as Pope ordinarily depose temporall Princes as an ordinarie iudge he hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that chiefest or highest in temporals and such like which seeme no lesse fearfully then obscurely written and taught This doubtful doctrine of most learned Cardinal Bellarmine and the varietie or contrarietie of opinions betweene him and other very learned Clerkes in Gods church about this matter of deposition is to me a most strong argument that it is not de fide for if it were then would there be an vniforme content and perfect agreement among them not onely of the thing controuerted but also of the manner and causes thereof no lesse then is of Purgatorie prayer to Saints of the reall presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the B. Sacrament of the virginitie of our B. Ladie incarnation of Christ seuen Sacraments and so of all other points of faith Then would a matter of such moment haue bene found in the writings of some ancient Father as well as other of lesse importance but for wel neare a thousand yeares continuance till the time of Gregorie the 7. it was neuer chalenged mentioned or defended by any writer or else it would haue bene defined in some generall Councell whose authoritie bindeth all Christians to beleeue whatsoeuer is there decreed to be de fide without controuersie which to this day neuer was no not in the third Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius 3. as some ignorantly thinke and build them strong castles in the aire and others inconsiderately auerre howbeit not simply and plainly but somewhat timorously which they need not do if it were so but should confidently auouch it so to be Prou. 10. Qui ambulat simplicitter ambulat confidenter He that goeth simply and plainly to worke goeth confidently A matter of faith is to be taught sincerely and perspicuously not doubtfully or guilefully as it were to deceiue his readers or thereby to hold them in suspence in such wise as they shall euer remaine perplexed and to seeke of the one meaning of what is written O sir if you reade that Councell of Lateran cap. 3. you shall finde it plainly decreed that Princes which be negligent in purging out of their territories the filth of heresie are to be deposed This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if it were true as you say but if you beleeue so you are in an errour for who readeth that chapter shall well perceiue it was not there decreed or defined but treated of the manner how certaine secular powers or temporall Lords without specifying Kings might be proceeded withall and nothing decreed de fide concerning deposition of Princes if it had bene defined matter of faith it must of necessity haue bound all Catholickes as well Princes as people to beleeue it and accept thereof Moreouer such a decree must alwayes haue continued immutable and could not be abrogated as Cardinall Bellarmine writeth Decreta de fide immutabilia sunt Bellar. Lib. 2. Conc c. 17. nec possunt vllo modo abrogari postquam semel statuta sunt The decrees of faith are immutable neither can they be abrogated by any meanes after they are once decreed And if it be no decree of faith as it is not but onely of reformation who I pray you will say it doth bind till it be accepted and receiued Famous Cardinall Tolet faith no and for his assertion citeth the Canon law Can. In istis dist 4. Tolet. de 7. pec Mor. c. 18. Vt lex vim habeat debet esse recepta ab his quibus lex datur si enim lex promulgata est sed non recepta non obligat For a law to be of force it ought to be receiued of those to whom the law is giuen for if a law to wit Ecclesiasticke be promulgated but not receiued it bindeth not Do we not see that the wholesome lawes or decrees of the Councell of Trent touching reformation binde not where they are not yet receiued as in France and other places And is any man so vnwise to thinke that Princes will euer receiue such decrees as may bereaue them of their scepters and temporall states and turne to their vtter ruine Neuer was it hitherto seene nor euer will it be by all likelihood in Great Brittaine or any other kingdome Furthermore in that chapter is no mention made of excommunicating Emperour or Kings nor deposing them nor absoluing their subiects from their naturall obedience but of excommunicating heresie giuing ouer such as are condemned for that crimce to the secular magistrate to be punished and ordering withall that certaine other secular powers or principall Lords inferiour to Kings as may be Potestates Consuls Rectors or such like which by the constitution of Fredericke 2. pag. 66 Emperour is euident should be compelled if neede were to take an oath to do their endeuour for the extirpation of heretickes out of such places as should be vnder their gouernment when of necessitie both Emperour and kings ought to haue bene specified if the Councell had meant to haue included them in that law Sa Apho. v. lex de elect l. 6 ca 22. de reg in edic in poenis sc reg 16. 49. l. 6. In poenalibus saith Samuel Sa restrictione vtendum pia interpretatione In penals we are to vse both a restriction and a pious interpretation Likewise Poenae non extendendae vltra casus iure expressos Punishments are not to be extended beyond the cases expressed in the law Then why shall this be enlarged and extended to kings who are not expressed in the decree of the Councell Therefore this chapter maketh nothing for the Popes authoritie to depriue kings of their crownes and dignities and so consequently is of no validitie against the Oath of Allegiance made anno tertio Iacobi Regis serenissimi But for better clearing this point it shall not be amisse to set downe the decree of the Councell as it is leauing it to the considerations of the learned 〈◊〉 iudge whether it be of faith or no which beginneth thus Excommunicamus anathematizamus omnem haeresim Conc. Later 3 c. 3. c. We excōmunicate and anathematize all heresie that exalteth it selfe against this holy orthodoxe Catholicke faith Note that the punishment of heretickes is to be commutted by sentence of this Councell to secular powers which aboue we haue declared c. And let such as are condemned be left vnto secular powers if
person should not erre but to Peter together with the Apostles assembled at his sermon before his passion who represented the whole body of the Church as appeareth by the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Gospell Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus Iohn 14. c. quem mittet Pater in nomine meo ille vos docebit omnia suggeret vobis omnia quaecunque dixero vobis You may note how the holy Ghost then promised and afterward sent on the day of Pentecost was promised to all and sent vnto all not to Peter alone And in the same chapter that this holy Ghost was to remain with them and be in them Apud vos manebit in vobis erit And in another place Cū autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis Ioh. 16. docebit vos omnem veritatem And when he shall come the Spirit of truth he will teach you all truth In all these places is manifest that Christ spake alway in the plurall number that the holy Ghost the Comforter should remaine and be in his Church and should teach his Church all truth and not any one of his Apostles successors in particular This special priuiledge of not erring in matters of faith was reserued for his deare spouse the Catholike Church alone as appeareth euident likewise in Saint Matthewes Gospell Tu es Petrus Math. 16. super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portaeinferi non praeualebunt aduersus eam Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her That is the Church as Iansenius and others vnderstand it represented in a generall Councell which Church is called by Saint Paul 1. Tim. 3. Columna firmamentum veritatis The pillar and groundworke of truth Not any one man in the house of God was euer such And Alphonsus de Castro a great learned man and an earnest defender of this Church against heresies and heretikes blusheth not to write plainely that Omnis homo errare potest in fide Contr. haeres l. 1. c. 4. etsi Papa sit Euerie man may erre in faith yea the Pope himselfe without exception Yet I neuer heard that he was condemned of heresie or sinne for saying so This then being so no man of vp right iudgement can with reason censure him of heresie that shall affirme The Pope may erre in his opinion of the Oath for Haeresis est circa eaqnae sunt fidei 2.2 q. 11. ar 2 sicut circa propriam materiam 2.2 11. ar 2. as S. Thomas saith Nor of mortall sin if he refuse to obey his prohibition for taking thereof the taker not intending to contemne his commandement Tho. 22. q. 104.2.2 ad 1. ad inobedientiam enim requiritur quòd actualiter contemnat praeceptum nor to transgresse against the law of God but onely to render to Caesar that which is Caesars that is ciuill obedience due vnto him both by the law of God and nature without denying or derogating anie authoritie spirituall of the Sea Apostolicke according to his Maiesties declaration and interpretation of his owne meaning set downe at large in his Apologie and Praemonition The intention then being good the end good and iust the act of such as take it cannot be but good and lawfull and no sin at all For secundum finem morales actus species sortiuntur Tho. 2.2 q. 89 ar 5. ad 1. q. 105 2.1 And as true it is that Actus agentium non operantur vlira ipsorum voluntatem seu intentionem And this much as touching the Popes opinion or assertion in his Breues Now it remaineth to resolue the difficultie of his precept or prohibition of the Oath whether Priests and Catholickes in England be bound vnder paine of deadly sinne to obey it and so to disobey the Kings Highnesse who for his more securitie vpon so iust a cause requireth the same The cause why the Pope prohibited Catholickes to take the Oath of allegiance as it lieth may seeme to haue bene for that in his opinion he was perswaded many things to be contained therein repugnant to faith Which opinion supposed true no man indeede can take it without perill of damnation because euery Christian is bound vsque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiue to professe and maintaine all points of faith when occasion of persecution shall be offered against heretickes Iewes Turkes or what infidels soeuer according to the doctrine of our Sauiour Math. 10. Luk. 9. Qui autem negauerit me coram hominibus negabo ego eum coram Patre meo And he that shall denie me before men I will also denie him before my Father Likewise in another place Qui non renunciat omnibus quae possidet Luk. 14. non potest meus esse discipulus And then were it malum non quia prohibitum verùm ex se to take such an oath But till it appeare more cleare and be more substantially proued then hitherto hath bene by any that some point therein contained is manifestly against faith what that point is I cannot see why any man should forthwith vpon a bare commandement though of the supreme Pastor hazard his life in perpetuall bonds with losse of all that he hath and vtter ruine of his dearest wife and children For his priuate will subiect to error can be no infallible rule of mans actions but the will of God which is alway right and hereupon a man may in case be disobeied be he Prince or Prelate but the most righteous God neuer For that the commandement of God is alway iust wherein can be no error Gen. 22. no not in willing Abraham to kill his sonne Isaac Exod. 12. Ose 1. nor in commanding the Iewes to spoile the Aegyptians of their goods nor also in bidding the Prophet Osea to commit fornication The reason hereof you may reade in S. Thomas But an earthly King Prince or Prelate See S. Tho. 22 q. 104. ar 4. yea the Prince of Prelates may and doe sometimes command iniust things or may vsurpe dominion iniustly in which cases subiects are not bound to obey them 22. q. 104. ar 6. nisi fortè per accidens as S. Thomas noteth propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum vnlesse haply accidentally for auoiding scandall or danger That some Kings and secular Princes haue vsurped domination and commanded iniustly no man I thinke will doubt and our domesticke aduersaries will easily grant but to say that the Prince of Prelates the Pope Peters successor should erre in commanding or command that which is iniust guarda la gamba take heed some nicely precise pure and rigid if not simple and foolish people audito verbo hoc scandalizabuntur no lesse then the Pharisees were scandalized at the doctrine of our blessed Sauiour as we reade in S. Mathewes Gospell Math. 15. for that they thinke of like the Pope so to be confirmed in grace that he cannot
be obeyed in such a precept So say Panorm and Syluester ver obed § 5. where they say that in this case we are not to obey although the superiour command vnder paine of excommunication for it bindeth not quando malè imponitur when it is iniustly imposed Emmanuel Sa likewise Obediendum non est cum creditur inde malum oriturum Aphoris Sa ver obedien When it is thought euill may come by obeying we are not to obey Againe He is not bound to obey that thinketh the superiour commandeth vpon error as being misinformed and that if he knew the truth he would not command and also that superiours by their generall edicts intend not to bind with great detriment This Sa. And had not Catholickes I pray you before the Popes second Briefe iust cause to be perswaded that the Breues were procuted by sinister suggestions and wrong informations of some ouer-hastie and busie person and that if his Holinesse had had true and particular notice by some other true harted subiect how things stand with them have in England what perturbations they might breed in the Church and what losse and detriment was vndoubtedly to fall on such as should obey them and thereby refuse the Oath that he would neuer haue granted forth the said Breues in maner and forme as he did nor when he had granted them intended to bind Catholickes to obey to their so great detriment and damage For that were addere afflictionem afflictis which kind of crueltie is not to be thought can proceed from that holy Sea And this may suffise for answer to the point so much stood vpon by many inconsideratly precise of obeying or disobeying the Popes Breues prohibiting the iust Oath of allegiance Howbeit a word or two more may not be omitted vt obstruatur os loquentiū iniqua to flop the mouth of standerous tongues and to answer a fond or rather strong argument as some thinke and say that in dubijs as is the Popes power of deposing Princes in their opinions we are to haue recourse to the Sea of Peter for solution and there to learne what is truth to be embraced what is errour to be auoided Yea what is there decided the Church is bound to beleeue though it be that vertue is euill and vice good as Cardinal Bellarmine formerly hath taught strange doctrine Lib. 4. de sum Pont. cap. 5. §. Vltimo but now in his late Recognition retracted saying that he spake of doubtfull acts of vertues or vices For if in the old law the decision of difficult and doubtfull questions and ambiguities inter sanguinem sanguinem causam causam Deut. 17. lepram lepram were granted to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that should be for the time much more to the Priests of the new law and to Christs Vicar the chiefe Iudge and interpreter in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies Therefore in this case of the Oath now controuerted Catholickes are to require no more but his bare precept and whosoeuer disobeyeth it taking the oath sinneth deadlie This some wise in their owne conceits and learned in the estimation of others haue said and taught howsoeuer otherwise verie inconstant in their opinions iudgements but how prudently charitably or learnedly let the discreet reader iudge These haue forgotten who it is that saith Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Luc. 6. nolite condemnare non condemnabimini And what S. Thomas teacheth Ecclesia non debet praesumere de alique peccatum Supplem q. 47. ar 3. quousque probetur The Church ought not to iudge any of sin till it be proued Indeed if the Popes precept were such as S. Iohn Euangelist recommended and often inculcated to his Disciples at his departure out of this world Hieron lib. descrip Eccles which was as S. Hierome writeth Filioli diligite alterutrum Little children loue ye one another then as he said vpon their tediousnesse of hearing it so oft repeated Praeceptū Domini est si solum fiat sufficit It is our Lords precept and if it only be done it sufficeth then I say we should not need to diue farther in seeking reasons but simply to obey quia praeceptum Papae est because it is the precept of the Pope but by reason of the infinite difference betweene the commanders and the commandements we must craue pardon if we say Et si solum fiat non sufficit if in this case of the Oath there be but his bare precept it is not sufficient Touching the other point I must needes confesse that in obscurities and doubtfull questions and difficulties in the Law of Christ all Christians are to repaire to him that sitteth in Peters chaire for the light of interpretation and true solution thereof as S. Hierome did to Pope Damasus Hieron ep ad Damasum desiring if he had erred in his writings to be corrected by him Also Athanasius in his distresses appealed to Foelix and Iulius Popes of Rome S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius Coste rus in Enchir. de sum Pont. Calendion of Antioch to Pope Foelix and other ancient Fathers in their distresses and difficult causes were wont alway to seeke for succour and redresse of the Pope of Rome then being but in cases perspicuous wherin are no ambiguities or doubts to be made against which nothing was euer formally decreed in any generall Coūcell nor by any ancient Father taught but is most plaine and euident in holy Scriptures and as cleare as the Sunne in the firmament that needeth not And such is the duty of inferiours to superiours of subiects to their lawfull Princes of children to parents of rendring to Caesar that is Caesars and so forth for which there is an expresse commandement from the Highest wherein no power created can dispence or iustly command the contrary Which if any should attempt to do as his Holinesse seemeth to haue done in prohibiting the Oath of allegiance it may well be by a Catholik English subiect in all humilitie and reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke yet with Christian courage answered Non obedio praecepto Regis sed praecepto legis 2. Macch. 7. I obey not the precept of the King that is the Pope but the precept of the law And Obedire opertet Deo magis quà m hominibus Act. 5. We must obey God rather then men To conclude in such a case not to do as the Pope commandeth in this Breues so there be no cōtēpt as I haue said of his precept is no mortall sinne ex fine enine morales actus speciem habent See Caiet 5. Precepti transgressio Tho. 2.2 q. 105. ◠1. ad 1. For morall acts haue their formality of the end and such disobedience being materialis tantum maketh not a deadly sinne cose quently no sin at al. And this much as touching obedience to the Popes H. Breues It followeth now that we treat briefly of a subiects dutie
yeares from her beginning to depose Iulian Constantius Valens and other hereticall Princes and therefore permitted Christians to obey them in temporals Saint Cyprian saith that in his time the number of Christians were verie great Cypr. in Demetrianum Tertul. in Apologet. And Tertullian writeth thus Were we disposed not to practise secret reuenge but to professe open hostilitie should we want number of men or force of armes Are the Moores or the Parthians or any one nation whatsoeuer more in number then we that are spread ouer all the world We are not of you and yet we haue filled all the places and roomes which you haue Your Cities Ilands Castles Townes Assemblies your Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Imperiall Pallace Senate and seate of judgement Euseb l. 3. de rita Constan Niceph. l. 5. c. 25. c. Eusebius likewise and Nicephorus report That the whole world as it were vnder Constantius was Christian and the greater part Catholicke How then is it true that the Church in her nouitie wanted forces And therefore she permitted Christians to obey their Princes in temporals saith the Cardinall Euen so permitted as father Parsons in his letter to the Catholickes of England against the Oath of allegiance affirmeth that Pope Clement by a Breue had permitted ciuill obedience to our King and recommended to all Catholickes soone after his Highnesse entrance vnto the Crowne As if ciuill obedience had not bene otherwise due but by his Holinesse permission Who would haue thought such an imprudent and strange kind of phrase could haue so escaped his pen But it seemeth he had learned the same out of Cardinall Bellarmines writings and so presumed it would passe as current without controlement And may not the world maruell be it spoken with due reuerence to his great dignitie which I haue euer and in heart still do honour that a man so excellently learned will teach that Christian subiects vnlesse they be permitted by the Church are not bound to render obedience to their lawfull Kings and Princes if they become heretickes or aduersaries to true religion and persecutors Princes infidels lose no right but are the true and supreme Princes of their kingdomes as he himselfe teacheth Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 2. for dominion is not founded either in grace or in faith so as the Pope hath no authoritie to meddle with them Marry if these become Christians and after fall to heresie what then In that case saith he Potest regna mutare vni auferre Cap. 6. alteri conferre He may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to another saith he Then is their condition worse as touching temporall possessions then it was when they were infidels worse then the conditiō of the basest of their subiects But Christian religion depriueth no man of his right who had right in infidelitie cannot lose the same by receiuing the grace and faith of Christ which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Cardinall howsoeuer he seemeth sometime to teach contrary to himselfe Bellar. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. Christ did not saith he nor doth take kingdomes from them to whom they belong for Christ came not to destroy those things which were well setled but to establish them And therefore when a King becometh a Christian he doth not lose his earthly kingdome which by right he held but purchaseth a new interest to an euerlasting kingdome otherwise the benefites receiued by Christ should be hurtfull to Kings and grace should destroy nature If Christian Kings lawfully attaining to their dominions by right of nature enioy the same as cannot be denied and so are to be obeyed why not also if they happen to fall backe into heresie or infidelitie their right not being founded in grace or in faith To say that such Princes or magistrates are not to be obeyed cometh neare the heresie charged vpon Wickliffe and condemned in the Councel of Constance and is repugnant to the doctrine of the holy Ghost in sacred Scriptures and practise of all blessed Saints and Martyrs who most promptly without any permission of the Pope or Church obeyed Pagan Princes vnder whom they were subiect in all ciuill causes onely in defence of faith and Gods truth made choice rather to shed their bloud then by obeying Caesar to disobey God And where such a permission was euer granted as to obey Iulian or other hereticall Emperour cannot be found in any generall Councell or ancient Fathers writings before the dayes of S. Thomas of Aquine 2.2 q. 12.2.2 of whom the Cardinall learned his doctrine of permission to obey till such time as they had forces to depriue them of their Empire Consider I pray you that S. Paul hauing receiued his doctrine immediatly from heauen writing to the Christians in Rome permitted not for a time but strictly commanded them euer to obey higher powers Rom. 13. Sap. 6. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers Was this meant trow ye for onely higher powers Christians or heathen onely for a time No but for all sorts of rulers and as long as there be superiors and inferiors The holy Apostle in this and other his Epistles often inculcateth this necessary vertue of obedience diligently exhorting and commanding as well subiects to be obedient to their Princes as seruants to their masters and all inferiors to their superiors And were not these maisters and higher powers for the most part Pagans Were they not enemies to Christian religion whom they were taught to obey Was any sort of inferiors exempted from obeying S. Iohn Chrysostome will put you out of doubt that such subiection is commanded to all sorts Priests Monkes Chrysost in cap. 13. Rom. hom 23. August in lib. expositionis quorundam propos ex epist ad Rom. and secular men as the Apostle himselfe declareth in the verie beginning Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etiam si Apostolus sis si Euangelista si Propheta siue quisquis tandem fueris neque enim pietatem subuertit ista subiectio Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers yea if thou art an Apostle if an Euangelist if a Prophet or finally whosoeuer thou art Marke well For this subiection subuerteth not pietie or religion And he specially noteth that S. Paul saith not simply Obediat but subdita sit And why because power is of God Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo For there is no power but of God Quid dicis saith this holy Father to S. Paul Omnis ergo Princeps à Deo constitutus est Istud inquit non dico Neque enim de quouis Principum sermo mihi nunc est sed de ipsa re What saist thou O Paul is then euery Prince constituted of God This saith he I say not For neither of euery Prince do I now speake but of the thing it selfe that is of power And the Apostle
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
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
excommunication depose his subiects neither can the Pope as spirituall Prince ouer all And Victora plainly saith thus That a Bishop de iure diuino hath power to excommunicate his subiects ex officio Victor de excom nu 1◠and by ordinary and proper power And what the Pope can do throughout all the world a Bishop may also do in his Bishopricke a few things excepted as to create a Bishop Who disagreeth not with the Cardinall in this that a Bishop is a true Pastor in his particular Church as the Pope is in the Catholicke and vniuersall that he may as well excommunicate the subiects committed to his charge as the Pope may all Princes and people that are sheepe of Christs fold by the authoritie giuen to Peter in those word Pasce oues meat By which Christ indeed constituted him Pastor ouer his flocke marry a spirituall Pastor not a temporall giuing him all authoritie necessary for that office which was only spiritual without coniunction of any other By vertue then of this spirituall authoritie the principall part for gouernment in foro exteriori is excommunication being grauissima poenarum then which none is more grieuous no Bishop can depriue any priuate man whatsoeuer within his Diocesse of the least parcell of his lands or goods that being the office of the ciuill power how then can the chiefe Bishop depriue Kings and Princes of their crownes and dignities the nature of this censure being all one in both Excommunication is defined to be separatio à commumone Ecclesiae quoad fructum suffragia generalia Tho. in suppl q. 21. ar 1. in 4. dist 18. q. 2. c. Excommunication is a separation from the communiō of the Church as touching the fruite and generall suffrages The fruite of the Church cannot be vnderstood of the fruite of temporall goods because these are not taken away from excommunicate persons This S. Thomas plainly shewing that it is beyond the nature of this censure to worke any such effect as to take away temporall goods And in the same qu. ar 3. Sed quia excommunicatio est grauissma poenarum c. But becausce excommunication is the greatest of all punishments therefore excommunication ought not to be inflicted no not for a mortall sin vnlesse the offender be obstinate Tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit c. For then after he shall be admonished if he contemptuously disobey he is reputed stubburne and ought to be excommunicated by the Iudge now not hauing any more to do against him And the same Doctor disputing whether heretickes are to be tollerated saith That after the first and second admonition if yet he be found obstinate Tho. 2.2 q. 11 ar 3. the Church not hoping of his conuersion meaning no doubt such a one as hauing professed the Catholicke faith hath made shipwracke thereof and fallen to heresie prouideth for the health of others separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication and further leaueth him to secular iudgement to be put to death Whereby you see that in case yea of heresie the Church can proceed no further then to excommunication after she hath declared and condemned him for his crime Can. corripiantur 24. q. 3. To this agreeth Molanus writing of the condemnation of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage by the generall Councel of Constance Mola de fide haer ser l. 2. c. 2 l. 3. c. 4. who as he saith hauing excommunicated anathematized and condemned them for heretickes and hauing no more to do with them deliuered them ouer to Imperiall power by which they were burnt So that temporall punishment of heretickes whether it be by confiscation of goods and patrimonie or death belongeth and is proper to the secular power as the spirituall do to Ecclesiasticall persons Which we see manifest by practise of all Christian countries yea and out owne that no man is to be put to death nor lose his goods vpon excommunication but onely by execution of the Princes law And Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe will confesse Bellarm. in Barcl c. 23. that extra casum haeresit out of the case of heresie by vertue of the sentence of excommunication there followeth not depriuation of temporall dominion or of particular goods or kingdomes and princedomes though saith he by and by Kings and Princes may be for iust causes depriued by the Pope of their kingdome or princedome Variously and ambiguously insinuating that there are other iust causes besides heresie but listeth not or rather as may be supposed cannot set downe what they are for as yet neuer were any determinately made knowne more then such as shall be deemed worthy of depriuation ad arbitrium Pontificis But as farre as I can see his Grace must maintaine other causes as well as heresie otherwise how can the deposition of Henrie Frederick Otho and other Princes be defended to haue bene lawfull who were neuer condemned by the Church for heresie And if there be other causes current to depriue Princes of temporals then there is for priuate men surely the Christian princely state must needs be farre worse then the plebeian or then if they were Heathens or Publicans which were absurd when as God the giuer of all power for correction of men is not acceptor personarum but ministreth iustice equally or indifferently to all all both Princes and people being populus eius oues pascuae eius his people and the sheepe of his pasture If there be any as me thinketh I heare one say that he is not yet satisfied as touching this point but desireth to know the finall cause nature and effects of excommunication let him note wel what the most learned and graue Cardinall Tolet of famous memory and others write thereof Est autem excommunicatio Ecclesiastica censura Tolet. Lib. 1. instruc sacerd c. 4. nu 1. qua homo Christianus bonis fidelium communibus priuatur Excommunication is an Ecclesiasticall censure whereby a Christian man is depriued of the common goods of the faithfull Which goods he faith arc three 1. externall conuersation consisting in mutuall talke and societie 2. participation of sacraments 3. prayers and suffrages of the Church And these in his opinion are not so much the effects as the very nature and substance of excommunication The end whereof Lib. 1. c. 11. n. 1 Li. 1 c. 10. n. 14. without controuersie is the good and vtility of man that he may repent and conuert himselfe to good as he saith Cap. Medicinalis de sent excom in 6. Decret 2. par 24. q. 3. cap. 36 when as excommunication is medicinall not mortall instructing not plucking vp by the roote Which agreeth with the Epistle of Pope Vban set downe in the Canon law Liquido apparet aliud esse excommunicationem aliud eradicatiouem c. It euidently appeareth that excommunication is one thing eradication another For he that is excommunicated as the Apostle saith to this end is excommunicated that
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
taken without deniall of their faith neuer shewing them any particular point which it is for to say truth they cannot So then their bare word must be beleeued as an oracle or else in fine with a bat they will beate men downe The Popes commandement not hauing ought else to say which may conuince It may be admired they make no more conscience in such an important businesse as this is not hauing the Churches definition nor ancient Fathers approbations for their assertions After all some burst forth in most vncharitable railing slanderous backbitings against such priests as in conscience haue performed their dutie in taking it and persist in teaching the lawfulnesse thereof withdrawing friends and charitable almes from them counselling some and commanding others not to resort vnto them as I haue bene credibly told by some that haue themselues bene forbidden and much more such like dealings which shall not be here rehearsed Ignosce illis Deus quia nesciunt quid faciunt These ought not to be the proceedings neither of good subiects nor of discreete guides of mens soules or true disciples of Christ who are made knowne to all by a notorious cognisance commonly called loue or charity giuen by our Sauiour Christ In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis Ioan. 13. si dilectioneÌ„ habueritis Adinuicem In this all men shal know that you are my disciples if you haue loue one to another Which badge were to be wished more visible then it is in some that pretend to be true followers of Christ Now to the authoritie of S. Paul may be answered that an hereticke so taken condemned and denounced by the Church is to be auoided in his heresie to be taken heed of that he be not seduced by him haeresis enim serpit vt cancer for heresie creepeth as a canker and in humane conuersation also when there is hope to reduce him thereby to a better mind Vt spiritus saluus sit But as no Catholike is by the lawes of this realme to be accompted a Recusant till he be conuicted so is none by the lawes of the Church to be reputed an hereticke to be auoided till he be by her admonished condemned and denounced for such which is neuer without pertinacie in heresie And what maketh this for them that say we denie the Popes authoritie God forbid that I by his grace a Catholicke priest should euer denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate any Prince or people that were once incorporated into the body mysticall of Christ by Baptisme but as I haue denied excommunication of her owne nature to extend to deposition and taking away of temporals so I may not grant that euery excommunicate person is to be abandoned of all and debarred of all humane society and conuersation Though humane communication esteemed one of the common goods is found also among the faithfull as to eate together to salute to talke negotiate and such like yet this sort of communication belongeth not to them properly as they are Christians and members of the Church but as they are citizens parts of the body politick And as they are such they are bound to adhere vnto the head of this body their Prince not to forsake but obey him in all iust ciuill causes notwithstanding any sentence of excommunicatioÌ„ as hath bene proued before out of Syluester Panormitan others which is not to deny the Popes power No if you reade Tortus and beleeue him I know you wil change your opinion for vpon those words That the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome hath any power or authority to depose the king c. or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie c. He writeth thus Torâ—us par 3. Here it is manifestly seene that this Oath doth not containe onely ciuill obedience in things meerely temporall as the Authour of the Apologie our Soueraigne so oft hath repeated but it containeth also a denyall of the Popes power which is not a thing meerely temporall but a holy thing and giuen from aboue which no mortall man can take away or diminish It is strange that his Maiesties oft repetition of a truth nothing to be contained in the Oath or required but ciuil obedience seemeth irkesome to the Cardinal it being very necessary wheÌ„ men will not vnderstand but his Grace goeth not about to disproue it And who I pray you is a better interpreter of a law when doubts or difficulties arise then he that made the law If it containes a deniall of the Popes power his Grace should haue done well to haue proued it and shewed wherein Though the Cardinall for many respects ought of me somtime not vnknown vnto him highly to be reuerenced and his writings credited yet in this matter to me most cleare I must craue pardon if I differ from him in opinion and write otherwise not being able after study and diligent search of this matter to see it so manifest as his Grace wold make his reader beleeue It is most manifest the ancient Fathers neuer taught so viz. to be in the Popes power to depose Kings nor discharge subiects of their loyaltie and dutifull obedience the Church neuer yet defined it so can I then be so credulous to beleeue his bare word without better proofe His ipse dixit in this will not be sufficient The other florish to leade away a simple and inconsiderate reader forsooth that the Popes power is spirituall a holy thing from heauen c. is somewhat vainely and to no purpose inserted for no Catholicke denieth it and we that haue taken the Oath of allegiance are readie with Gods grace if need were to shed our bloud in defence therof and euerie point of Catholicke faith albeit we suffer disgraces and neuer receiued temporall benefite nor euer tooke oath vsque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiuè so to do as the most illustrous and most reuerend purple Fathers are accustomed to take when in publicke consistory they receiue their hats The Cardinall in Tortus goeth on further to prooue by subsequent words in the Oath that the Popes spirituall power is denied Parag. 4. which were enough to terrifie Christian subiects if it were true The words are these Also I do sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his heires or successours or any absolution of the said subiects from their obedience I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his heires and successors Here saith the Card. is openly denyed that the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings though they be heretikes Note his proofe For how saith he can a Catholicke lawfully and iustly sweare that he will
homines and in heart thinketh it to be so as he speaketh This Cardinall Tolet teacheth to be that sufficient truth which is required in euerie Oath And which is more both he Syluester and other hold that to sweare a thing to be true in his opinion which indeed is false is no sinne at all if he did his best endeuour and vsed due diligence to know the truth As if one say as he thinketh that Peter is dead Greg. de Val. disp 6. q. 7. de iuramento and should sweare it he neither speaketh nor sweareth vntruly because his words are conformable to his interior mind Which is sufficient according to Saint Thomas also as Syluester noteth to be accompted truth the principal point of an oath The secōd is iudgement For it is required that he who sweareth sweare not lightly or vainely but discreetly vpon consideration of some necessarie or profitable cause The third is Iustice to wit that it be not vniust or vnlawfull which is sworne Which being so how can any man be worthily reproued of sinne that taketh the Oath of allegiance vpon a most necessarie profitable cause as all know of remouing therby an imputation of treacherie and treason and pacifying what in him lieth his Maiesties heauie displeasure worthily conceiued for the most detestable Gunpowder practise and further is perswaded after great diligēce vsed to be both true at least in his iudgement and also verie lawfull as is a subiects loyaltie to his Prince Hereupon I see no reason why this Oath may not be taken of all Catholickes without danger of sin and ought of euery good subiect being required thereto in the wilfull refusers whereof his Maiestie hath iust cause to suspect a hidden mischiefe to lie if euer oportunite should serue By this is cleare that what a man ex animo thinketh to be true he may truly say yea and sweare too it being a most certaine principle well in reason as in diuinitie and noted by father Parsons in his Catholicke letter that what a man may truly say he may also truly sweare but he may truly say that a probable opinion held maintained by sundry learned men Catholikes is true and contradicteth not another probable opinion taught by others as learned and as good For example That our blessed Lady the mother of God was free from being conceiued in originall sin which opiniō was defined in the Councell of Basil Sess 36. and stifly maintained by the Fransciscan family The contrary was as earnestly defended by the Domihicans following the doctrine of Saint Bernard and Saint Thomas This controuersie grew to be so great that they calumniated each other of motall sinne yea of heresie Extrau Com. l. 3. dereliq vener Sanct. c. 2. till such time as Sixtus the fourth put them to silence as appeareth in the Canon law Excommunicantur illi qui affirmant c. They are excommunicated that affirme them to sinne deadly or to be heretikes who defend the blessed mother of God to be conceiued without originall sin In like maner they are excommunicated that affirme them to sin deadly or to be hereticks Cost In Osiād propofit 2. pag. 103. Tolet instr sac l. 3. c. 36. nu 12. Antuor 1603. who hold the contrary The Pope knew saith Costerus that this question neuer appertained to the doctrine of faith And Cardinall Tolet writeth thus Neither part hath bene defined De fide both may be holden without mortall sin although it be much more certaine and truer that she was conceiued without any spot ita nos credimus and so we beleeue Might not trow ye each of these without sin sweare their opinion was true Yes vndoubtedly The like may be that the Pope is aboue a generall Councell as was defined in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth taught and beleeued by the greater part of Diuines at this day Which definition of the Councell Costerus maketh doubt whether it were de fide inclining to the negatiue part Cost in Osiād pioposit pag. 282. saying Sed an vt negotium fidei non parum dubitatur Yet notwithstanding this definition and opinion of many learned men besides such others as beleeue and teach a generall Councell to be aboue the Pope are not to be reputed heretickes nor to sin mortally For then are the generall Councels of Constance and Basill to be condemned who defined it so wherein were assembled many very learned Bishops and other great Dolors and likewise the most learned and renowmed Facultie of Paris who art euer ready earnestly to defend it without heresie or sin Excusantur ah haeresi qui aliter sentiunt Coster loeo citato vt schola Parisiensis They are excused from heresie saith Costerus that thinke otherwise to wit then the Councell of Lateran as the schoole of Paris And dare not these sweare trow ye if need were their opinion to be true Tho. More Sir Thomas More likewise in his letter to Cromwell saith Neuer thought I the Pope aboue the generall Councell No doubt but this holy and leaned man would haue sworne if occasion had bene offered that his opinion was true because it was such as he thought So may any in this our case of the Oath of allegiance sweare no lesse truly then they hauing good Authors and all antiquitie for their opinion Many like instances might be here produced of the diuersitie of doctrine betweene S. Thomas and Scotus and their schollers who peremptorily will defend their doctrine against each others yet all agreeing in vnitate fidei but these shall suffice After all this followeth another point no lesse difficult then any of the rest of the Oath that is And I do further sweare that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and pofition that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects or any other whatsoeuer Some peraduenture not duly considering what they heare or reade concerning this point of the Oath finding the words Pope and excommunicated perswade themselues assuredly that to take this clause is absolutely to renounce the Pope and denie his power to excommunicate Others of better vnderstanding conceiue rightly that such authoritie is rather presupposed and granted to be in him then denied but to abiure which in this place signifieth to denie with an oath a doctrine as hereticall that is to sweare it is heresie which hath not bene determined or defined by the Church seemeth very hard and vnlawfull to be sworne For answer you shall first vnderstand that a man may abhorre or detest a doctrine as he would detest yea heresie it selfe yet not affirme the doctrine which he so detesteth to be heresie V.g. If any should detest the doctrine of S. Thomas and of the Dominicans Tho. 3. p.q. 27. ar 2. which deny the conception of our B. Lady to be free from originall sin or that of