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
man to wake a sleeping Lion or stirre a nest of waspes or hornets whereby he might endanger himselfe to be bitten or stong most grieuously Then how much greater is the follie of such as feare not to irritate or incense a King who naturally desireth nothing more then peace and quietnesse to himselfe and his people We learne in holy writ how dreadfull is the terror of a King in that it is compared to the roaring of a Lion Prou. 20. Sicut rugitus Leonis ita terror Regis qui prouocat eum peccat in animam suam As the roaring of a Lion so is the terrour of a King he that prouoketh him offendeth against his owne life Example we haue of King Dauid who was stirred to wrath by Hanon King of Ammonites vpon ingratitude for his loue and kindnesse For Dauid hearing of his fathers death sent some of his seruants to comfort him Hanon following euill counsell forsooth that Dauid did not send to condole with him and comfort him but to espie the Citie and ouerthrow it Whereupon most vngratefully he euill intreated the embassadours shauing halfe their beards and ignominiously cutting their garments vnto the buttockes King Dauid herewith moued to anger prouided an armie to reuenge this iniurie ouerthrew of the Syrians that assisted the Ammonites seuen thousand chariots and slue forty thousand footmen made hauock of the Ammonites bloud and wasted the cities of King Hanon destroying the people in most rufull maner as you may reade in the second booke of the Kings and Paralipomenon 2. Reg. 10. 1. Paralip 19.20 Consider the imprudence and wickednesse of this king imprudence in not foreseeing what dangers he might cast himselfe into by making his friend his foe and stirring him to ire that sought to liue in peace Wickednesse in rendring euill for good and procuring warres the euent whereof is various which was cause that many innocent persons who were not consenting to Hanons fact nor euer haply wished Dauid hurt were in that fury slaine We reade likewise how this holy king Dauid 1. Reg. 25. being in the desert persecuted by Saul purposed and prepared to reuenge himselfe on malicious Nabal for contemning him and his seruants whom in his distresse he had sent in peaceable and friendly sort for victuals and reliefe saying Who is Dauid and what is the sonne of Isai There are seruants multiplied now a dayes which flie from their maisters Shall I then take my breads and my waters and the flesh of my cattell which I haue killed for my shearers and giue it to men whom I know not whence they are Hereupon Dauid in wrath set forward to be reuenged and purposed not to haue left nor Nabal nor any belonging to him to pisse against a wall had not his wife Abigail by her wisedome preuented the shedding of innocent blood meeting with Dauid and pacifying him with gifts prudent speeches and discreete behauiour In the Ecclesiasticall historie is likewise noted Theod. lib. 5. cap. 17. how that renowmed Emperour Theodosius vpon rage caused many innocents in Thessalonica to be put to death for the murther of one Noble man of his court Many moe examples both sacred and prophane might be here alledged to this purpose but these may suffise to giue vs a taste of the miseries that fal on many yea on such as neuer offended when a Prince is iniured and prouoked to anger Indignatio Regis nuncij mortis Prou. 16. vir sapiens placabit eam The indignation of a king is messengers of death and a wise man will appease it If king Dauid or Theodosius might pretend iust cause to reuenge their wrongs in such sort by seuere punishment not onely of the offenders but also of the guiltlesse then surely none can deny but king Iames our dread Soueraigne had much more against the conspirators in the notorious gunpowder-treason and many others of the same religion whō he might well suspect to be of the same confederation In this there was not a contempt onely of his seruants nor a shauing of beards or paring their garments to the buttocks nor yet the murthering of one of his Nobles but out alas here was intended a most pitifull slaughter of the Kings owne person the Queene his wife the yong Prince his sonne the Nobilitie and people in great numbers and then eftsoones had followed a finall destruction of infinite soules and bodies and of this whole florishing kingdome as euery one that is but meanely wise must needes know In that his Highnesse then proceeded no further in furie and indignation against Catholickes being by them so incensed but staied his hands by the execution only of a few principals in that actiō must needs be imputed first to the prouidence of Almightie God who guideth the hearts of kings and next to his rare and singular clemency See his Maiesties proclamation who seemed ready to pardon loath to punish by bloud so many as in that conspiracy offended or to vse such seueritie as the crime deserued In punishing some he practised iustice in pardoning others he extended his mercie which two vertues make a Prince renowmed and by which especially mercie or clemency a king is most strongly fortified and preserued according to that of Salomon Misericordia veritas custodiunt regem Prou. 20. roboratur clementia thronus eius Mercie and Truth keepe the king and with Clemencie his throne is strengthned Greatly were it to be wished that this his mercy might not but it is to be feared that through the default of some it may be turned into furie as sometime it happeneth when the clemencie of a Prince is not regarded or abused that no Nabal were to be found so presumptuous hardie as to contemne not the Kings seruants but himselfe in withstanding his will by vndiscreete if not obstinate refusing to take the Oath of allegeance so iust and reasonable made onely for the safety of the King and kingdome and exacted as a note to distinguish friends from foes good subiects from euill affected and to take from Catholicks the heauie imputation of treason and treacherie which hath lien long on their necks A child if he see his father in anger chastising his brother feareth though he offended him not and so doth the scholler in the schoole dread the rod when the maister in rage correcteth one of his fellowes The Lion roareth in the desert and all feare that here the noyse Leo rugiet quis non timebit How much more then is a king to be feared Amos. 3. who vnder God hath power of life and death as Pilate said to our Sauiour Nescis quia potestatem habeo crucifigere te potestatem habeo dimittere Doest thou not know that I haue power to crucifie thee and haue power to let thee go a Aug. Trac 116. parum à medio Tom. 9. Which power was giuen him from aboue as is plaine Consider in what case rich Nabal was when he
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
were contempt as some either caried away with passion or through ignorance and small consideration beare you in hand then a hainous sinne would it be to transgresse the precept of the supreme Prelate Christs Vicar for contempt of any superiour though in re leuissima is always a mortall sinne But it is not so in this our case it is not all one we know nolle obedire and non obedire conscience setled on good grounds is the onely motiue to such as take it not to obey beleeuing it to be most lawfull That his Holinesse hath affirmed in genere as his opinion many things to be contained in the Oath repugnant to faith and health of soules is manifest in the Breues yet because he hath not Specified any one particular clause which was much desired nor Father Parsons in his Catholicke letter nor Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus or other booke of his haue explicated or cleared the Popes meaning what they be nor any other writers that haue handled this matter and written in defence of them as doubtlesse they would haue done if they could tell which were against faith his Holinesse in my iudgement cannot iustly condemne such of a contempt as with reason and vpon good grounds hold the contrary who are not bound to alter their opinions vpon any such assertion of any priuate Doctor vnlesse their vnderstanding be first conuinced either by good reason or authorities of Scriptures Fathers or some generall Councell If any man be scandalized and please to carpe hereat as at strange doctrine let him reade the famous and learned S. Tho. More in his Epistle to D. Wilson Tho. More in his epist to D. Wils p. 1445. where he shall see the very same taught in this manner Many things euerie man learned woteth well there are in which euery man is at libertie without perill of damnation to thinke which way he list till the one part be determined for necessarie to be belieued by a generall Councell And in another place of his workes In epist ad filiam pa. 1439. thus he writeth If it so hap that in any particular part of Christendome there be a law made that be such as for some part thereof some men thinke that the law of God cannot beare it and some other thinke yes the thing being in such manner in question that through diuers parts of Christendome some that are good men and cunning both of our owne dayes and before our dayes thinke some one way and some other of like learning and goodnesse thinke the contrary In this case he that thinketh against the law neither may sweare that law lawfully was made standing his own conscience to the contrary nor is bound vpon Gods displcasure to change his own conscience therein for any particular law made any where other then by the generall Councell and by a generall faith growne by the working of God vniuersally through all Christian nations nor other authoritie then one of these twaine except speciall reuelation and expresse commandement of God sith the contrary opinions of good men and well learned as I put you the case made the vnderstanding of the Scriptures doubtfull I can see none that lawfully may command and compell any man to change his own opinion translate his owne conscience from the one side to the other This he And in another Epistle to his daughter Margaret pag. 1440 If it be not so fully plaine and euident as appearing by the common faith of Christendome yet if he see but himselfe with farre the fewer part thinke the one way against far the more part of as learned and as good as those are that affirme the thing that he thinketh thinking and affirming the contrarie and that of such folke as he hath no reasonable cause wherefore he should not in that matter suppose that those which say they thinke against his mind affirme the thing that they say for none other cause but for that they so think indeed this is of very truth a very good occasion to moue him and yet not to compell him to conforme his mind and conscience vnto theirs By this doctrine of Sir Thomas More it is cleare that the Popes opinion of the Oath though it may seeme to some to be a verie good occasion to moue men not to take it yet it is not sufficient to compell them to conforme their mind and conscience vnto his when as they that haue taken it and also many others both vertuous and learned are of contrarie opinion nothing to be contained in that Oath against or repugnant to faith nor neuer hath this point in controuersie bene yet defined Will you say then that the Pope hath erred in setting forth this his opinion and prohibition No I dare not presume to affirme that therein he hath erred for the reuerence and honor I beare to the Sea Apostolick nor take vpon me to be iudge ouer him Qui parem super terram non habet to vse Saint Bernards words L. 2. de consid c. 2. Rom. 14. lest I be thought to neglect the doctrine of the holy Ghost taught by S. Paul Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum and Tu autem quid iudicas fratrem tuum aut tu quare speruis fratrem tuum Who art thou that iudgest anothers seruant and why doest thou iudge thy brother If I be taught and forbiddē tp iudge or despise my brother my equall then much more ought I not to iudge or contemne him qui à nemine iudicatur that is not to be iudged by any man absit hoc à me let such temeritie be farre from me the least in Gods house But when in matters of fact he proceedeth by information of others as in this our case of the Oath he hath I trust it is no temeritie or any sin at all to say that he may erre yea and sometimes by false suggestions or wrong informations he hath erred in Rome it selfe And which is more Councels also in facts or particular iudgements may erre as Cardinall Bellarmine noteth In Scriptura saith he nullus potest esse error Li. 2. Concil cap. 12. siue agatur de fide siue de moribus c. At Concilia in iudicijs particularibus errare possent Nec non in praeceptis morum quae non toti Ecclesiae sed vni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur In the Scripture can be no error whether it treate of faith or of manners c. but Councels in particular iudgements may erre And also in precepts of manners which are not proposed to the whole Church but to one or other people onely It seemeth also not to be any hereticall doctrine to hold that not onely in matters of fact but likewise in faith the Pope alone without a Councell may erre for that he is no God but a man subiect to errors to whom as he is Peters successor Christ neuer so promised the assistance of the holy Ghost that he in
commanded without reasonable cause we ought not to obey for it were more then is due And the same Cardinall in another place faith thus Li. de 7. pec mort c 15. Nullus obligatur obedire suo superiori in actibus interioribus puris puta intellectus voluntatis No man is bound to obey his superior in pure interior acts to wit of the vnderstanding and will Who explicateth himselfe If a superior say vnto his inferior Loue thine enemie See S. Tho. More epist ad filiam or this man in particular or else beleeue this or that opinion the inferior is not bound to beleeue it nor to obey because saith he the soule is subiect only to God And for proofe alledgeth Saint Thomas whose words are In his quae pertinent ad interiorem motum voluntatis 2.2 q. 104 art 5. homo non tenetur homini obedire sed solum Deo In such things as appertaine to the inward motion of the will a man is not bound to obey another man but onely God And this he affirmeth to be the common doctrine Out of these cases you may gather and secure your conscience that a superiour yea Christs Vicar the Popes Holinesse may be disobeyed without scruple of sinne modo absit contemptus notwithstanding his commandement prohibiting the Oath of allegiance because no man can force any to beleeue that which is matter onely of opinion not of faith formally vnlesse his vnderstanding be first conuinced that it is an infallible truth which is commanded And this of the Oath being an inward act of the vnderstanding is not subiect in that case to the commandement of any man according to the doctrine of the Authors aforesaid And furthermore by obeying his Holinesses Breues and disobeying his Highnesse law in a matter as yet vndetermined great damage to many is more then likely to ensue and infinite scandals to the losse of soules to arise in the Church which euerie Christian man and good subiect is bound to auoide Qui amat periculum peribit in illo He that loueth danger shall perish in it And Qui causam damus dat damnum dedisse viderur It seemeth he doth the hurt that giueth cause thereof If this satisfie you not lend me a patient and diligent eare and you shall heare more If I shew you by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolicke that his Holines who sitteth now at the sterne Paulus Quintus forbidding all Catholickes to take the Oath of allegiance is not therein to be obeyed I trust you will require no other testimonie but beleeue it to be lawfull and resolue not to hazard your estates for refusing it hereafter Marke then what a learned Cardinal writeth of Innocentius 3. Pope Eleganter dicit Innocentius de sent excom cap. Inquisitioni Franciscus de Zabarel de schismat quòd Papae non est obediendum quando vehementer praesumitur statum Ecclesiae perturbari vel alia mala ventura Et peccaret obediendo cum deberet futura mala praecauere Elegantly saith Innocentius that we are not to obey the Pope when there is vehement presumption that the state of the Church is to be perturbed or other euils are like to ensue And in obeying a man should sin when as he ought to preuent future euils Now tell me I pray you or let our domesticke aduersaries or such as are inwardly perswaded that the Pope cannot by any authoritie deriued from Christ dethrone Kings directly or indirectly howbeit forsooth in policie refuse to take the Oath and discharge their dutie to Caesar for feare of losing friends and commodities nor dispossesse any priuate man of his temporals who is not his subiect of which sort there are many let them I say or any one of them tell me whether by disobeying the Kings highnesse and obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath the Catholick Church in England is not like to be greatly afflicted the memorie of the Gun-powder treason reuiued the Catholickes miseries aggrauated the heate of persecution continued and increased whole families vtterly ruined propagation of faith hindered many soules lost and a thousand euils like to follow with manie scandals to the State and all the Realme by reason of obeying his Holinesse Breues if our most clement Prince with rigour vpon this their indiscreete obedience prosecute his law made for the securitie of him and his posteritie The authoritie aforesaid being of a Pope as that Author affirmeth censureth such a one to offend note well in obeying whom the Pope when as he is bound to beware before hand or preuent such future euils or dangers Then ought not all Catholickes and good subiects doe what in them lieth to preuent the manifold euils that hang ouer their heads by satisfying the Magistrate and refusing to obey such a precept as is the only cause thereof for had no prohibion come from Rome few or none had stood against the Oath especially when as nothing hath bene yet proued by any that haue written of this subiect since the coming of the Breues foure yea fiue yeares agone and more to be contained in the Oath against faith Syluester likewise alledging Panormitane agreeable to the former authoritic Syluest vâ—rb obedietiâ— â—u â— saith that the Pope is not to be obeyed not onely when his precept is iniust or sauoureth sin but also when by such obedience it may be presumed that the state of the Church is like to be greatly disturbed or some other detriment or scandall is to ensue yea although he should command vnder paine of excommunication latae sententiae Nec est saith he ei obediendum si ex obedientia praesumeretur status Ecclesiae perturbandus vehementer vel aliud malum aut scandalum fut urum etiam si praeciperetur sub poena excommunicationis latae sent entiae Vt notat idem in cap. Si quando in cap. Panormit See â—elin in cap. Si quaÌ„do nu 4. in c. Accepimus Cum à Deo de rescrip And goeth forward Ex quo ipse in dicto cap. Si quando infert Quod si c. Whereupon he inferreth that if he the Pope command any thing vnder paine of excommunication ipso facto by execution whereof it is presumed there will be a scandall in the citie of soules or bodies he is not to be obeyed c. It followeth Imo ex cap. Officij de poenis remis habetur c. Yea it is euident that the positiue law interpreteth that restitution which is de iure diuino sometime is not to be made by reason of danger when it may happen to soules or bodies then it may be wel inferred that obedience in like case may be pernicious and so ought not to berendered Tolet. de 7. Pec. mort cap 15. The same writeth Cardinall Tolet citing these authors Nulli superiori praecipienti aliquid c. No superiour commanding any thing whereby scandall or any notable detriment of others do follow is to
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