NOVICE. This it may be is meant of hereticall Princes IESVITE Indeed it is first meant of them And if our Catholikes in England and other places had as much power as they haue right they would not endure hereticall Princes as they are constrained to doe till such time as opportunitie shall serue to free themselues from them for otherwise they are taught by vs that to suffer an hereticall or infidell Prince who laboureth to draw men vnto his Sect is to expose Religion vnto euident perill which Christians ought not to doe And Father Suarez worthily proueth That it appertaineth vnto the Pope to defend the subiects of an hereticall Prince and that by his power he may depriue such a Prince of his Kingdome chase him out of it absolue his subiects from their oath of allegeance And herewith agreeth Father Gregory of Valentia writing That temporall domination and superioritie ouer subiects by the sentence of the Pope may be taken away from Heretikes And the reason of it is That if they may bee depriued of their liues much more of their estates and consequently of all superioritie ouer others and that they which are excommunicated for Heresie incurre de facto the depriuation of politicke power and that their subiects are not onely absolued from their oath of allegeance but are also forbidden to keep it And that if the Iudge hath not yet pronounced the sentence of Excommunication this paine is neuerthelesse incurred if the crime of Heresie be so notorious that it cannot be hid and then it is lawfull for the subiect to deny obedience to his hereticall Lord much lesse is he bound thereunto NOVICE. Truly these are notable Maximes insomuch that although the Pope hath not pronounced expresse sentence of Excommunication against the Kings of Great Britaine of Denmarke and others such like and though their subiects are not expresly forbidden to obey them yet now I learne of you for to teach them vpon occasion that it is in their libertie eyther to doe or not to doe it without scruple of conscience IESVITE I haue giuen thee for it the very words of our Masters NOVICE. But doe they extend this power also against Catholike Kings and Princes IESVITE They doe for Father Suarez conioyneth him that is peruerse in his manners with the hereticall Prince And Cardinall Bellarmine cleareth thee of all doubt The Prince saith he when he is Catholike in faith and beleefe but of such euill manners that he is hurtfull vnto Religion or to the Church may be remoued and reduced to the ranke of other sheepe by the Pastor of the Church NOVICE. May this be done in any other case IESVITE The Pope may also command Kings to punish Heretickes and Schismatickes and if they doe it not he may constraine them by Excommunication Now I taught thee before the consequences of Excommunication which wee haue sufficiently demonstrated in the proceedings against Henry the third King of France concerning whom Charles Scribanius one of our principall Fathers at Antwerp in his Amphitheater of Honor thus refuted those which found fault with the Popes euill-entreating him If saith he a Denis a Machanidas an Aristotimus monsters of ages should oppresse France shall there be no high Bishop found so hardy as to animate a Dion a Timolcon a Philopoemon an Helematus If more monsters held the Commonwealth in captiuitie shall no Thrasibulus set to an helping hand The violence of Tarquin in the bed of Collatine gaue a iust cause and shall there none be met withall to depose and abolish out of France a tyrant King that oppresseth the liberty c Shall there not some sword-man at least rise vp against this beast No Pope that will deliuer so noble a Kingdome NOVICE. It seemeth to me that they of our Society which answered Anti-Coton deny Charles Scribanius to be the Author of that Booke and albeit Father Eudaemono-Iohannes confesseth that our Society is much indebted to the Author for defending it with so learned a volume yet hee maintaineth how Anti-Coton cannot proue his coniecture that Scribanius was the Author of it by any euidence IESVITE Therein he was deceiued for by the Index of the Bookes of our Societie composed by Father Ribadeneira hee shall finde that Charles Scribanius hath shewed what knowledge hee had in humane learning by his bookes of the Amphitheater of Honor against the accusations of the Caluinists NOVICE. Are wee the subiects of Princes where wee were borne or where we liue IESVITE Of neyther for wee are Clerkes NOVICE. Doth it necessarily follow that if we be Clerkes then wee are not their subiects IESVITE Yes very clearly For it cannot be proued saith our Bellarmine that the Kings of this age are lawfull superiors and Iudges of Clerkes if by the same meane it be not proued that children are aboue their fathers sheepe aboue their pastor things temporall aboue spirituall NOVICE. But is it not to be vnderstood of spirituall things only that Clerks are not subiect to secular Princes NOVICE. Not onely saith the same Author in spirituall things but also in temporall is the Priest to be gouerned by his Ecclesiasticall superior and it cannot bee that in temporall things hee should acknowledge the secular Prince because no man can serue two Masters And as Father Suarez writeth The ciuill Lawes of Princes and Magistrates doe not oblige Clerks neyther as touching the power of constraint nor as touching the power of direction by force of the laicall iurisdiction onely they oblige them by force of reason nor can Kings oblige Clerkes to those lawes particularly imposed Now wee vnderstand obligation by force of reason when the authoritie of the Canons or daineth that such lawes are to be obserued by Clerkes but they are free from the vertue and proper obligation of such lawes The same man after hee hath proued that Clerkes were committed to Peter draweth this necessary consequence from those words of our Sauiour No man can serue two Masters Mat. 6. that Clerkes are exempted from the temporall iurisdiction of Princes iure diuino because the same morall impotence noted in those words Hee shall hate the one and loue the other he shall cleaue to the one despise the other would be found if Clerkes were subiects according to the body both to the pope and to the King Whence he euidently concludeth that Clerkes are absolutely exempted from the temporall Iurisdiction of princes by reason that that Iurisdiction is exercised towards subiects in regard of the body and consequently in regard of all things which are ordained for a conuenient conseruation of the body if Clerkes then be exempted from the iurisdiction of Princes as touching their bodies certainly they are exempted from their temporall Iurisdiction NOVICE. Doth it not follow now of this that so many Ecclesiasticks as are made in a Kingdome or Common-wealth so many subiects is the Prince depriued of IESVITE Cardinall Bellarmine
any manner that he can But it is otherwise of a King that raigneth in peace and that vexeth the Common-wealth and is hurtfull vnto it by other meanes for then there is no place for defence by force or for plots against the life of the King because the Common-wealth doth not then suffer any actuall violence which it were lawfull to repell with violence NOVICE. What must be done then in this case where the Prince otherwise lawfull commeth to such a passe That hee ruineth the Common-wealth spoyleth men of their goods despiseth Religion and the publike Lawes maketh a vertue of pride and holdeth impietie against God to be the greatest valor IESVITE Thou knowest what Father Mariana from whom thou hadst this question bringeth for answer thereunto namely That it is not to be dissembled but the surest meane to remedy it is the publike way of Assemblies wherein by a common consent may be deliberated what shall be done The Prince shall first be admonished and if he reiect the medicine and that there resteth no farther hope of amendment the sentence being pronounced it shall be lawfull for the Common-wealth to deny him obedience and because that warre will necessarily ensue thereupon armes must be taken vp money raised and if otherwise it cannot be done by the right of defence the Common-wealth by its owne proper authoritie or by a greater may kill the Prince declared a publicke enemy NOVICE. But is not this a priuate opinion of that Father which is not to be followed IESVITE No for if hee had not proceeded farther none of ours would euer haue contradicted him Father Suarez teacheth the same doctrine very amply whereof behold here the first ground which is That if a lawfull King doth gouerne tyrannically and that the King dome hath no other meane of defence but by deposing and expelling the King the whole Common-wealth by a common consent of the Townes and principall persons of the Kingdome may depose the King as well by vertue of the law of Nature whereby it is permitted to repell force with force as because that necessary case of the proper conseruation of the common-wealth is alwayes held to be excepted in that first accord by which the Common-wealth transferred its power to the King NOVICE. Doth it follow hereupon that the Common-wealth hath power to put this King to death IESVITE That ground being laid we must say that after the sentence of condemnation touching the depriuation of the Kingdome giuen by a lawfull power or that which is all one after a declaratory sentence of the crime which of right hath imposed such a paine he which hath pronounced the sentence or he vnto whom he hath giuen commission to execute it may depriue the King of the Kingdome euen by putting him to death if otherwise he cannot or if the iust sentence doth also extend to that paine Howbeit the deposed King cannot be killed by any priuate person whatsoeuer no nor be expelled by force till he be commanded vnto it or that the generall commission be declared by sentence or of right The first part euidently followeth vpon that precedent principle for hee that may iustly condemne any one may likewise execute the sentence eyther by himselfe or by helps necessary thereunto otherwise that power would be frustratory in being able to decide the right without the ability of an efficacious constraint And as the minister of a King doth well to kill a man by the Kings commandement because that then he executeth the Kings power rather then his owne so when the Common-wealth may iustly depose the King the ministers thereof doe well to constraine the King or to kill him if it be necessary because then they doe it no longer by priuate but by publike authority And therefore Soto said well That although it be not lawfull for any priuate man whatsoeuer to kill him that is a Tyrant in his gouernment yet when the sentence is giuen one may establish for the minister of the execution thereof whomsoeuer one will NOVICE. But what meaneth Mariana by that speach where he saith By the authoritie of the Common-wealth or of a greater what is that greater IESVITE He meaneth that which we all hold for most certaine namely that that power appertaineth to the Pope as to the superior hauing iurisdiction to correct Kings yea such as are soueraigne as well as their subiects Now though the Common-wealth or Kingdome considered in its owne nature and as it was amongst the Gentiles or as it is at this present amongst them hath the power as we haue said to defend it selfe from a tyrant King and for that effect to depose him if it be necessary yet Christian Kingdomes as touching that point haue some dependance on the soueraigne Bishop First because the Pope may forbid a Kingdome to depose the King without his knowledge and aduice and vnlesse he hath first beene informed of the cause c. Wherupon we read in Histories that alwayes in such cases Kingdomes haue consulted with the Pope or haue euen implored him to depose vnworthy or tyrant kings as we haue declared of Childeric King of France in the time of Pope Zacharie c. Secondly the Christian kingdome dependeth also on the Pope in this That the Pope may not onely counsell or consent that the kingdome may depose the King which is pernicious to it but may also command and constraine it to doe it when he iudgeth it necessary for the spirituall safety of the kingdome but especially to auoid heresies and schismes NOVICE. If the holy Father hauing consented to the deposition of a King or hauing ordained it yet doth not declare himselfe for the execution thereof shall it bee lawfull for the first Prince that will to make warre vpon him and inuade his kingdome IESVITE No. But then his lawfull successor if he be a Catholike hath that power or if he neglect it or that there be none the Cominalty of the kingdome shall succeed him prouided they be Catholikes and if they craue assistance of other Princes they may assist them howbeit if the Pope giue other Kings power to inuade the kingdome they may iustly doe it because then they shall neither want iust cause nor power NOVICE. What shal I answer vnto those which alledge Dauid that would not kill Saul but caused the Amalekite to be put to death for vaunting that he had slain him which obiect the mischiefes arriuing vnto the Common-weath by such facts which say that the reuerence of subiects towards their Princes is in danger if once they bee perswaded that they may punish their faults and that vnder such pretexts the publike peace shall often be disturbed by seditions and commotions one part of the people arming themselues against the other c. IESVITE So they dispute which take the tyrants part saith our Mariana but the aduocates for the people produce as many and as great reasons for them For the Common-wealth from whom
Suarez thus distinguish Tyrants the first sort is of those which by force iniustly without all title occupy a Kingdome which truly are neither Kings nor Lords but onely hold the place and are as it were the shadowes of them The other sort is of those which though they be true Lords and possesse the Kingdome with a iust title yet as touching their cariage and manner of gouernment reigne tyrannically namely because that either neglecting the publike good they conuert all to their owne particular commodity or iniustly afflict their subiects with spoyling killing and peruerting or iniuriously commit such things or the like publikly and frequently NOVICE. May one with a good conscience kill both the one and other of these Tyrants IESVITE Of the first sort no man doubteth For all Theologians and Philosophers agree that they may be killed depriued of their liues and Principalities by any one whosoeuer For seeing that such a one rightly carrieth the name of a Tyrant and hath put on the humor of one let him at any rate be taken away and dispoiled of the power which he hath vsurped by violence So by good right Ahud hauing insinuated himselfe by presents into the fauour of Eglon King of the Moabites he killed him with the stab of a ponyard in his belly and deliuered his Countrimen from a cruell seruitude Father Suarez defendeth this opinion as the most common and receiued That such a Tyrant may be killed by any priuate person whatsoeuer that is a member of the State which suffereth vnder the tyranny if otherwise it cannot be deliuered from it And to that which Saint Augustin saith in the first Booke of The City of God how it is not lawfull to kill any person without publike administration he answereth learnedly That a priuate man which killeth such a Tyrant doth it not without publike administration because he doth it either by the authority of the Common-wealth tacitely consenting thereto or he doth it by the authority of God who by the law of nature hath giuen vnto euery one power to defend himselfe and his Commonwealth from the violence which is done them by such a tyrant NOVICE. But what say you of Kings and Princes that are lawfull but yet administer tyrannically as touching their cariage IESVITE The present question regardeth chiefly such a Prince and the King of England as Suarez saith spake also of such Princes because we hold them in the ranke of lawfull Princes Father Mariana hauing vsed all the ordinary precautions wherewithall I will hereafter instruct thee came at length to this not to leaue that power of killing such a Prince in the pleasure of any priuate man whatsoeuer Vnlesse the common voyce of the people be such and that graue and vnderstanding men haue beene consulted with vpon it For in that case he iudged that it would bee good for humane affaires if valiant and couragious men were found that despising their owne proper safety and liues would for the liberty of their Country and sauouring the publike wishes deliuer it from the Tyrant NOVICE. Is this opinion approued IESVITE The stirre which our Aduersaries made about it especially in France where they insisted vpon those words as the causes of attempts vpon their Kings and affirmed that Mariana by graue and vnderstanding men consulted with vpon it meant Confessors and especially those of our Society giuing them all power ouer the liues of Kings hath beene the cause that wee were constrained to qualifie that saying a little and although Marianaes booke had passed for currant and had beene published according to order by permission of the superiors yet at the instance of the Fathers of our Society which in France found themselues in trouble about it the Generall Aquauiua made a Deâ—ree whereby hee forbad but without naming Mariana to teach eyther by word of mouth or writing that it was lawfull for any person whatsoeuer vnder any praetext of tyranny that might be to kill Kings or to plot their death Father Eudaemono-Iohannes writing against the Wolfe as he calleth him of Chichester hath refuted this opinion of Mariana howbeit with this excuse of him that hee wrote it not as an Oracle but as a man that deliuered his opinion with doubt neuerthelesse hee saith that all the rest of the Iesuites disallowed it NOVICE. Teach mee then I pray you what others say that speake best of it IESVITE I cannot doe it better then by the doctrine of Father Suarez who answering the King of England vpon this matter spake the most correctedly hee could Hee holdeth then this Maxime for resolued that the lawfull Prince ruling tyrannically or for any crime whatsoeuer cannot be killed by any priuate authority NOVICE. Doth he meane this in any case whatsoeuer IESVITE There are but three cases which may be considered in it Eyther the little of iust vengeance and punishment or the title of iust defence of himselfe or the title of iust defence of the Common-wealth The first title appertaineth to no priuate man As touching the title of a iust publike or particular defence distinction must be vsed and consideration had whether a man defendeth himselfe or the Common-wealth if himselfe whether it be his life his members some grieuous mutilation of his body or his goods For it is not lawfull to kill his King doing violence for his goods But if there be question of the defence of his owne life which the King would take away from him by violence then ordinarily it is lawfull for the subiect to defend himselfe although the death of the Prince doth thereof ensue because the right of the conseruation of a mans owne life is the greatest of all others and then the Prince is not in any necessity that obligeth the subiect to lose his life for him who voluntarily and iniustly thrusteth himselfe into that perill NOVICE. But may not one from thence draw that consequence which Mariana maketh If thou seest saith hee thy Mother or thy-dearest Wife vexed in thy presence and dost not succour them being able shalt thou not be cruell and incurre the reproach of cowardise and impiety and wilt thou let thy Countrey be vexed and tormented by a Tyrant at his pleasure vnto which we owe more then to our parents IESVITE The consequence is good in the like case For saith Father Suarez grant that the King doth actually set vpon the Citie for to ruine it iniustly or to kill the Citizens or some such like thing then it shall be lawfull to resist the Prince euen in killing him if the defence cannot otherwaies be made For if it be lawfull to doe it for a mans owne life much more for the publike good because a City or Common-wealth doth then make a iust defensiue warre against an iniust oppressor though its owne proper King and so euery Citizen as a member of the Common-wealth and moued by it eyther expresly or tacitely may defend the Common-wealth in that conflict in