is not deliuered vs by man but is proclaimed from God admitteth no humane dispensation at all neither is it lawfull for any man in any sort to absolue from these that is Ioan. De Turrecrē in can Lector dist 34. diuine precepts Such I take our Oath of allegiance to be published and proclaimed by God commanding subiects and all inferiors to render vnto Caesar and all superiours their due against which no dispensation no absolution can be of force And herein I say not that his Holinesse cannot dispence or absolue from any Oath but from this particular Oath wherein is nothing promised which is not manifestly law full and profitable and due to him to whom it is made and in such an Oath S. Thomas saith 2.2 q. 89. ar 9. ad 3. dispensation seemeth to haue no place because besides the obligation to Almightie God there riseth a new to his Maiestie which cannot be released by Pope subiects or any other then by himselfe to whom it is made Neither doth the Popes power extend to the taking away of the right of a third person in matters which are not Ecclesiasticall as Caietan affirmeth And therefore cannot absolue a subiect from an Oath of allegiance to his Prince for that it would be preiudiciall vnto him Caiet In 2 2. q. 89. ar 9. Praelatus Ecclesiasticus etiam Papa c. An Ecclesiasticall Prelate saith he yea the Pope hath not in such maner power ouer Oathes as ouer vowes Because it is not in the Popes power to take away the right of a third man in matters not Ecclesiasticall as it is in his power to change to wit vowes into something more acceptable to God for that he is Gods Vicar and is not the Vicar of that man neither is he so ouer him as he may depriue him of his goods at his pleasure Tolet. instr sacer li. 4. c. 23. nu 3. Whereto agreeth Card. Tolet Quando iuramentum c. When an Oath is to the vtilitie of some third person it cannot be dispenced withall no not by the Pope without the consent of the third person as also the Pope cannot take away an other mans goods Whereto tendeth our Oath but to the vtilitie or good of his Maiesty and to his great preiudice would it not be if his subiects should accept of any absolution from the same Speculator likewise denieth that the Pope may absolue any man from a lawfull Oath Tit. de legato §. nunc ostendendum n. 24. because the bond of keeping an Oath and performing it to God is of the law of nature and diuine By this appeareth that iust and lawfull Oathes being such as may be preiudiciall to a third person cannot be dispenced withall But the Church vseth to remit an Oath extorted by force or feare It may be answered that if such an Oath extorted be manifestly vniust and would be against the law of God to be taken without force or feare no violence or feare of losing goods or life can make it lawfull Which doctrine is taught in the Canon-law lib. 1. Decretal de his quae vi metusue cap. 2. in glossa and 15. c.q. 6. in glossa Extra de iureiurando that for no feare it is lawfull to incurr e a mortall sin C. super co de vsuris Which in another place is taught also of a veniall sinne Therfore an Oath extorted of a thing vnlawfull the Church vseth not to remit or release when as no man will thinke that vnlawfull Oaths are to be kept as hath bene said before What say you then to lawfull Oathes yet compelled by feare of losing goods libertie c If it be iust and lawfull which thou art required to do why doest thou refuse to do it and why expectest thou compulsion to make thee to performe that which in dutie thou art bound I know thou wilt grant that a father may shake his rod threaten to correct his child and beate him if of stubburnnesse will not aske blessing or will not do his dutie by obeying him So may the Magistrate who carrieth the sword ad vindictam malefactorum not onely threaten but really punish and force thee to performance of that which is lawfull and thou oughtest otherwise to do And God himself the patterne of good gouernment threatneth hell fire and punisheth seuerely the transgressors of his law with many corporall afflictions and therby forceth many to obserue and keepe his commandements which of loue without any such compulsion they ought in dutie to do Will any hereof inferre that the Pope or any power on earth can absolue these from performing their duty to God or man for that it is extorted by feare Then I conclude that lawfull Oathes such as are made by subiects to Princes of their fidelitie bind in conscience although they be forced on them by feare of punishments and cannot be dispenced withall To this purpose Caietan saith that Oathes of him that promiseth whether they be coacted or voluntarie Caiet in 2.2 si habent materiam bonam moraliter do binde in the court of conscience Whereas some will say that Popes haue practised this authorie of absoluing subiects from lawfull Oaths it may be answered with Ioan. de Turrecrecremata Syluester Soto and others That the facts of Popes make not an article of faith And it is one thing to do somewhat de facto and another to determine that so it ought to be done de iure Turrecremata speaking of vnlawfull dispensations saith And if it were so done at any time by some Pope either ignorant in diuine learning or blinded with couetousnesse of mony which for such exorbitant dispensatiōs is accustomed to be offered or else to please men it followeth not that he could do it iustly that was Clement 3. dispencing with Constantia a professed Nunne to marrie with Henrie 6. Emperor son to Fredericke 2. The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by rights lawes not by such facts or examples Thus you see that it is no denying his Holinesse spirituall power to say that he cannot dispence in all lawes all vowes or all oathes nor consequently absolue me of this Oath of allegiance How I pray you can I sweare truly as I must if I do well that which neuer was determined or defined by the Church but is matter of opiniō diuersly held of diuers learned men Verie well and without sinne And you may obserue what is commanded in holy Scripture to such as shall take an Oath Ierem. 4. Iurabis Domino in veritate in iudicio in iustitia For then is a man said to sweare truly that his doctrine of opinion v. g. that the Pope cannot by any authoritie depose Princes or such a thing is true not onely when he certainly knoweth it to be so but also when he is perswaded in his conscience vpon probable reason Tolet. instru sacer l. 4. c. 21 nu 4. Syl. verb. periurium 22. q. 2.
this confidence then of Gods assistance and for the instruction of certaine Catholikes who simply beleeue the inconsiderat assertions of some of their teachers that such as take the Oath do and must renounce the Popes spirituall auctoritie of excommunication and abiure or condemne for heresie a disputable position to wit that the Pope may depose for heresie or apostacie which is most vntrue as will easily appeare to him that without passion and with iudgement shall reade the Oath or this my booke These and such like I exhort not to be too credulous in a matter of so great moment as this is giuing eare to euery one that will say it may not be taken and can shew them no true reason why nor in what point it is vnlawfull If any list wilfully to reiect this my wholsome counsaile and will rather still giue eare to such as worke their ouerthrow what else can they in reason expect but losse of lands and goods perpetuall imprisonment by the law finall destruction to them and theirs and haply get no merite to benefite their soules if his Maiestie in clemencie excelling be much exasperated which with carefull regard ought to be looked vnto because Qui nimium emungit elicet sanguinem He that straineth too much draweth bloud And may not his Princely Maiestie be well sayd to excell in mercie and clemencie who first with speede vpon the discouery of the Gun-powder treason set forth his Proclamation worthy neuer to be forgottē therby to stay the furie of the people readie doubtlesse at that time to haue murthered all that should beare the name of Catholike without respecting who were innocēt or who were nocent after himselfe Suetonius in Augusto as Augustus Caesar in person pleaded for the life of a souldier by his pen interpreting the Oath of allegiāce pleaded as it were to giue satisfactiō of his Royall meaning intent of the law for such as he needed not so farre to condescend vnto This rare worthy example of our most learned most prudent Prince I must needes say was to me the least among many others a very vrgent motiue to aduenture this spirituall combat of defending according to my power the Oath of allegiance Cic. lib. 1. Offic. Studiosè saith Cicero plerique facta Principum imitantur Many follow diligently the facts or examples of Princes And if you reade the booke of the Iudges you shal see what encouragement the example of Gedeon then Iudge of the Israelites gaue vnto his small armie consisting but of 300 souldiers against the Madianites their enemies in number almost infinite Iudic. 7. Quod me videritis facere said this great Captaine hoc facite ingrediar partem castrorum quod fecero sectamini What you shall see me do do you the same I will enter into a part of the army and what I shall do that do you follow which they did and obtained a happie victory To whom can I better liken our mightie Monarch king Iames then to that worthy Gedeon To me he seemeth likewise in effect to say vnto his subiects What you see me do do ye the same as I haue begun to write so follow my example endeuoring by pen to defend my right which is all I require by the Oath Who admireth not the profound wisdome and great pietie of his Maiestie that he foreseeing the fatall and wilfull fall of diuers of his beloued subiects by reason of the Popes Breues prohibiting the Oath of allegiance would be pleased for them their good to retire himselfe from his princely recreations to painefull labor both with mind and body and to be the first that with his pen writ a learned Apologie for the Oath Wherein for satisfaction of the perplexed consciences of some of his subiects his Highnesse imitating our Blessed Sauiour 1. Tim. 4. qui vult omnes saluos fieri neminem vult perire who is willing all should be safe will haue none to perish interpreted his meaning to be not to derogate from the Popes spiritual authoritie but to require his subiects to performe their loyalty naturall obedience onely in temporals which is due by the law of God nature therby to draw all to his loue and their owne safety Vouchsafe then beloued reader to spend some idle and vacant time to peruse this short Treatise written by thy welwiller for thy behoofe to confirme thee if thou take the Oath or to perswade thee if thou fearest it to be vnlawfull the time thou spendest herein may counteruaile thy paines Doubt nothing if thou be Catholike he is a Catholike priest that writeth and teacheth thee herein Catholike doctrine if thou be none yet giue this booke the reading assuring thy selfe this Author to be likewise a good loyall subiect and as such he purposeth to liue and die Feare God honor the King and in charitie pray for me thy hearty welwiller Thine euer in Christ Iesus WILLIAM WARMINGTON Priest A Table of the principall points contained in this Treatise THe most barbarous conspiracie of certaine Catholickes cause of the Oath of Allegiance Pag. 1. No wisedome to prouoke a clement Prince to wrath Pag. 2. Many miseries fall yea on innocent persons when a Prince exasperated punisheth in ire Pag. 3. Our King peerlesse for clemencie in the Gun-powder treason Pag. 5. The end why the Oath was made Pag. 7. Great reason for naming the Pope in the Oath Ibid. Samuel at Gods appointment annointed Saul King but did not nor could depose him Pag. 9. The obiection of Ioiada the high priests deposing Queene Athalia answered Pag. 13. Whether the Church or the Pope may iustly depose Kings Ibid. Pag. 87. Popes haue their temporall states not by Christ but by the grants of secular Princes Pag. 15. The Canonists opinion of the Popes deposing Princes Pag. 17. The opinion of certaine Diuines touching the same point Pag. 18. To depose Princes is no matter of faith Pag. 21. 22. Not defined in the Councell of Lateran that the Pope hath power to depose Princes Pag. 22. The decree of that Councell Pag. 24. Cardinal Bellarmines assertion of this Councels definition refelled Pag. 26. Heretickes are to be punished temporally by the ciuill magistrate not by the Ecclesiasticall Pag. 32. The Constitution of Fredericke the Emperour Pag. 34. Frederickes law for the punishment of heretickes toucheth not Kings Pag. 35. The Chapter of the Councell of Lateran supposed a decree yet is not de fide Pag. 36. How you may know a decree to be de fide Ibid. The Breues of Pope Paul 5. are no definitions ex cathedra Pag. 37. Whether the Pope alone may define matters of faith Pag. 38. No sinne not to obey the Popes priuate assertion or opinion in matters vndetermined by the Church Pag. 39. That the Pope not only in matters of fact but also in faith he alone without a Councell may erre as some affirme Pag. 42. Whether Priests or Laicks are bound
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
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
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
they be present or vnto their Bailiffes or Presidents to be punished with due punishment Clearkes being first degraded from their orders And such as shall be found noted with suspition onely vnlesse according to the consideration of the suspition and the qualitie of the person they shew their owne innocencie by a meete purging let them be excommunicated and the qualitie of the person they shew their owne innocencie by a meete purging let them be excommunicated and auoyded of all till they haue made condigne fatisfaction so that if for the space of a yeare they stand excommunicate from that time forward let them be condemned as heretikes All which seemeth not to serue the Cardinals turne to proue the Pope to haue power to depose and therfore in his answer to D. Barclai page 30. he omitted it sauing the first sentence Excommunicamus It followeth in the Councell Moneantur autem inducantur c. And let the secular powers yea of what office soeuer be admonished and induced and if need be compelled as they desire to be reputed and accompted faithfull so for the defence of faith let them take publikely an Oath that they will endeuour bona fide to their power to roote out of the lands subiect to their iurisdiction all heretikes marked out by the Church so that henceforward whensoeuer any shall be assumed into either spirituall or temporall potestacie he be bound to confirme this chapter This part also the Cardinall left our as not being any thing for his purpose and taketh hold of this clause ensuing Sivero Dominus temporalis And if the temporall Lord being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his land from this hereticall filth let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and comprouinciall Bishops And if he shall contemn to make satisfaction within a yeare let this be signified to the Pope that he may from that time denounce his vassals absolued from his fealtie and may expose his land to be occupied by Catholikes who hauing rooted out the heretickes may possesse it without any contradiction and conserue it in the puritie of faith the right of the principall Lord referued so that to this he be no hinderance nor oppose any impediment the same law notwithstanding being kept about those who haue not principall Lords How greatly might it haue bene wished that the most illustrous Cardinall Bellarmine either in Tortus See Tortus p. 73. Colon. or in his answer to D. Barclai or in some other of his learned workes had so clearely explicated this latter part of the Councell esteemed of him the greatest and most famous howbeit the Councell of Chalcedon for number of Bishops was much greater that all might haue rested satisfied of the irrefragable decree of the Popes power to depose Princes May it not be said vnto him Quousque animam nostram tollis if this be of faith dic nobis palam But this his Gr. with his good leaue be it spoken hath not yet performed no not in his last against Bellar. in Barc p. 31. Colon. D. Barclai howsoeuer he laboutech to beate downe a simple reader with words full of terror to wit That it is the voice of the Catholicke Church and he that contemneth to heare her as he saith Barclai hath done is no way to be accompted a Christian but as a Heathen and Publican And if the Pope hath not power in earth to dispose of temporals euen to the deposition of those Princes who are either theÌ„selues heretikes or in any sort do fauour heretikes why at the edition of this Canon did none of so great a number reclame against it Why durst not no not one among so many Embassadors of Emperours and kings once mutter at it This lo is all the Cardinall bringeth for proofe of the supposed decree of faith in the third Councell of Lateran which is little to the purpose and not so dreadfull as the words import if it be well considered saying It is the voice of the Catholicke Church What that it is a point of faith there concluded binding all Christians to beleeue that the Pope hath power to depose kings and dispose of temporals Was there Anathema thundred against any that should not beleeue it Nothing lesse as you may see if ye note the words And therefore Barclai hath not conteÌ„ned the Church nor others that agree with him in opinion who did alway highly reuerence whatsoeuer she decreed tanquam de fide in any general Councell whose soule I trust doth rest in peace and whose defence I make no doubt but some will take in hand Then his Grace demandeth why none reclamed against this Canon nor any Embassadour once muttered at it This why in my judgement may be answered with a Wherfore haue Metropolitans and Bishops all this time being almost 400. yeares agone bin so negligent in performing their dutie The 3 Councell of Lateran held an â—alutis 1215. by admonishing and excommunicating their Princes if this decree did bind them And wherefore haue not Bishops that were remisse and negligent in purging heresie out of their Diocesses bene deposed according to the Councels order as appeareth in the end of this Canon The words are Volumus igitur mandamus in virtute obedientiae districte praecipimus c. We will therefore and coÌ„mand in the vertue of obedience do straightly charge that for the effectuall execution of these things Bishops watch diligently ouer thei Diocesses as they will auoide the Canonicall reuenge For if any Bishop shall be negligent or remisse in purging out of his diocesse the leauen of hereticall deformitie when that shall appeare by euident signes let him be deposed froÌ„ Episcopall office and into his roome let another that is fit be substituted who will and is able to confound hereticall prauitie This out of the Councell Are these to be reputed as Heathens and publicans for not obeying the voice of the Church in this point I know the Cardinall will not be so seuere a iudge in such wise to censure them albeit they obey not the straight commandement of this great and famous Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 22. de reform cap. 20. Councell whose decrees of reformation as also of all other general Councels they are more bound to accept and put in execution then kings and secular potentates And is it not more then probable that some there reclamed some muttered though the Cardinall haply find it not registred when according to the order of the Councell and by vertue of this decree it was neuer executed Then Nonne frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum Yes saith Cardinal Bellarmine speaking in a like case of Christs regall power in earth vpon those words of our Sauiour Ioan. 18. Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo Christ neuer exercised regal power in this world for he came to minister not to be ministred vnto Therefore in vaine saith he had he
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
of England and Protonotarie Apostolicall After which admonition the Archpriest proceeded no further nor euer afterwards did depriue nor declare any one to be depriued of his faculties as he should haue done strictly according to the order and commission granted him by his Holinesse that now is Paulus 5 and not to denounce them lost during the time of the admonition exceeding his bounds as he did saying And by this present do denounce Therefore most certaine it is that the Priests to whom knowledge of the admonition came did not then lose their faculties by vertue thereof Neither is it to be credited that the Cardinals of the Inquisition who are both wise and learned can iudge them lost by that act as the second report affirmeth if they were truly informed and as well experienced in the case as some here their inferiors in euery respect are If they haue bene of that opinion and iudged so yet is the contrary opinion of other learned men rather to be beleeued and followed being much more probable then theirs But suppose we should grant which is not to be granted that those Priests who receiued and tooke notice of the admonition were iustly depriued and had lost their faculties at least some others who haue taken the Oath since that generall letter being neuer admonished nor euer seeing that or any other letter from the Archpriest to any such end are free and haue not lost them the Archpriest being bound by his faculty admonere singulos to admonish each one in particular at least to giue him knowledge thereof that shall take the Oath or teach it lawfull or to go to the Protestants Churches to their Seruice Besides why I pray you should not that Priest be exempted from losing his faculties albeit he saw and read the admonition who wrote and endeuoured what he could possibly to send to the Archpriest as in his letter he required to giue him such satisfaction as might haue caused his Reuerence to stay from censuring him when the time prefixed should haue bene expired but could not find any meanes to conuey letters vnto him which some if need were can testifie This all know quod ad impossibile nemo tenetur that none is bound to a thing impossible to be effected So then consequently neither did that Priest lose his faculties by the admonition Howbeit all without exception and without any excuse for no excuse must be admitted are depriued all abandoned of Catholickes and as if they were the greatest offenders that euer were in Gods Church adiudged vnworthy of the charitable almes and poore meanes which they had to sustaine their painfull and tedious life And if the most illustrious and most reuerend Cardinals of the congregation of the holy Office haue taken them away as it is in the third report then is it requisite that the Priests whom this matter toucheth should see and know with what authoritie they do it whether by facultie from his Holinesse or of themselues by their owne power and also the forme of their sentence all which lieth hidden in the clouds and cannot be seene Whereas the fourth report hath that the Viceprotector of his owne authoritie by his letters written to the Archpriest depriued such Priests as are aboue mentioned of their faculties is most vaine and worthy to be exploded as a forged fable For it is not to be credited that a sage Prince and pillar of the Church wil euer attempt to do that which is not in his power vnlesse it be giuen by him whom we acknowledge to haue plenitudinem potestatis in spiritualibus specially in such a case as ours is What if his Grace hath done it by order from his Holines as the fift report saith is not his sentence then to be accepted and obeyed Yes I acknowledge as a child of the Church ought that a sentence or censure proceeding mediate or immediatly from the chiefe Pastor is to be respected and feared as S. Gregorie teacheth me Yet I thinke none wil denie but it ought orderly to be made knowne to the parties whom it concerneth and that vntill it come by orderly meanes to their knowledge it bindeth not nor then neither if the censure be manifestly vniust as procured by obreption false information or any sinister meanes which may vitiate the processe Whereto agreeth Petrus Gregorius in his bookes de Repub. Pet Greg de repub l. 26. c. 5 saying Sed neque rescripta omnia aut impetrata seu extorta à summo Pontifice per suggestionem falsam vel obreptionem aut in praeiudicium alterius devent effectum vel consequentiam habere quia haec Sedem Romanam quae iustitiae cultrix est redderent ignominiosam saepe praetâ—r intentionem Pontificum quorum rescriptis perpetuò duae clausulae adijciuntur vel omissae adiectae censentur Si preces veritate nitantur sine praeiudicio tertij inauditi L. 1. §. Si quid à principe nequid in loco publico p. But neither all rescripts or matters obtained or rather wrested from the Pope by false suggestion or obreption or to the preiudice of another ought to haue any consequence or take effect because such like proceedings would make the Sea of Rome which is a louer of iustice ignominious oftentimes be side the intentioÌ„ of Popes to whose writings alwaies two clauses are added or being omitted are adiudged to be added to wit If the petitions are grounded on truth and without preiudice of a third person that is vnheard Now that this censure of suspension from faculties if there be any such extant hath bene obtained or wrested out by some sinister meanes to wit by false suggestion or wrong information of one or other ouerhastie solicitor that is greedie to see what will be the euent and finall issue of this our controuersie is very probable The cause that maketh me suspect false information in this our case is that to my knowledge a certaine prime Priest in a letter to his friend affirmed he had sent information to Rome of as much as any of vs that haue taken the Oath can say in defence thereof yea and more Which doubtlesse is a most faise suggestion if he hath so informed and farre beyond his talent to performe What else I pray you is this but by obreption to procure or extort that from either the Cardinall Viceprotector or from the Pope which would neuer haue bene granted as may be presumed against reuerend Priests ne-neuer heard what they can say for themselues and to their great preiudice Therefore if the soliciter and informer haue so egregiously erred in deceiuing his Holinesse the censure or sentence so procured is of no validitie at all The sixt and last report is that the Pope in a Breue to the Archpriest commanded him to depriue all those Priests of their faculties which do or shall concurre with maister Blackwell without giuing any admonition admitting any excuse or obseruing any order of law So that the Archpriest