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
of the Church against her persecutors was such as there could be no hope to preuaile As if true faith and religion which is now beside the Indies restrained into a corner of Europe onely did not replenish before that time Europe Africke and Asia No there wanted not necessitie to practise such authoritie on Constantius Iulian Valens Valentinian and other like professed aduersaries of Christ and his Church nor oportunitie Christians being so many so potent replete with maruellous zeale and constant courage in defence of Gods truth to the losse of lands and life if they had knowne such power of deposing to haue bene in the Church and chiefe Pastors thereof and the Pastors knew well what their dutie was in that behalfe But where I pray you lay this power hidden for the space of 700 hundred yeares after Christ by the Cardinals confession suppose I should grant so much vnto him of disposing of temporals in ordine ad finem spiritualem no Scripture no tradition no ancient Father or generall Councell in all that time teaching it If he say there was where or how doth it appeare His Grace hath not yet neither in Tortus nor against our Kings Apologie nor in his last against Barclai produced any such cleare testimonie as may conuince Our Sauiour Christ himselfe refused to intermeddle in deuiding a temporall inheritance betweene two saying Quis me constituit iudicē aut diuisorē super vos Luc. 12. Who hath constituted me a iudge or a diuider ouer you disdaining as it were as Iansenius noteth that he should be troubled or drawne frō the celestiall businesse Iansen conc for which only he was sent by his Father to haue care of carnall and base things thereby also to teach such as are his that they ought not to intangle themselues in profane businesse that gouerne the Apostolicke office According to this is that of S. Paul Nemo militans Deo 2. Tim. 2. implicat se negotijs secularibus No man that is a souldier to God entangleth himselfe with secular businesse What more intangling what more secular then to intermeddle in deuiding and disposing of temporals Non est discipulus super magistrum The disciple is not aboue his maister Therefore his Vicar ought not in such wise to be iudge ouer Kings in things terrene when they are taught by our Sauiours example not to be hindered from celestiall affaires which onely do concerne them whose power is ouer sinnes of men not ouer their possessions In criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra Bern. lib. 1. de consid cap. 2. Againe S. Peter prince of the Apostles hauing receiued of Christ all power necessary for the gouernement of his Church which was to be deriued to his successors had not that power which is temporall but onely spirituall for in the Apostles times the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill were distinct and separate as the Cardinall confesseth lib. 5. de sum Pont. cap. 6. Which could not be but were conioyned if they had any such power yea indirectly If then Peter had no temporall power directly or indirectly giuen him by Christs institution who doubtlesse foresaw that it was necessary to be in him and his successours for the correction and direction of soules to their spirituall end it were absurd to say that succeeding Popes as they are Peters successors should haue more ample power then he or any of the Apostles had De Ro. Pont. li. 5. c 4. And the Cardinals argument which he maketh against the Canonists helpeth for confirmation of this matter in hand to wit Christ saith he as he was man while he liued on earth receiued not nor would haue any temporall dominion but the Pope is Christs Vicar and representeth Christ vnto vs such as he was while he liued here among men Therefore the Pope as Christs Vicar and so as Pope hath not any temporall dominion How then cometh it that Popes in these latter ages practise on exorbitant Princes deposition and disposing of temporals when they shall iudge it necessarie or expedient to a spirituall end hauing no commission no warrant of our Sauiour so to do Is it by temporall onely or spirituall onely or by both By their temporall power which reacheth no further thē the patrimony of the Church it is euident they cannot for so they are but equals not superiours to absolute Princes and Par in parem non habet imperium No neither haue they which is more being no Monarchs authority from Christ to put any man to death to banish or to depriue any priuate man of his goods Cost in Osiand propos 7. as Costeru◠a learned Iesuite and other good Authors do hold Nemo Pontifex sanguinis leges tulit hoc munu◠Imperatorum est qui varia◠poenas de haereticis scripserunt quos bonorum spoliatione infamia exilio morte imòigne puniri iusserunt c. No Pope hath made lawes of life and death this is the office of Emperours who haue written downe diuerse puniments for heretickes whom they haue cōmanded to be punished with losse of goods infamie exile death yea with fire c. He goeth on The Pope at Rome putteth no man to death he hath his secular Iudges who minister iustice by the lawes of Caesar To this agreeth Iacobus Almain De ratione potestatis laicae est poenā ciuilem posse infligere Almain de dom nat ciuili in vlt. edit Gersonis vt sunt mors exilium bonorum priuatio c. It belongeth to the secular power to inflict a ciuill punishment as are death banishment depriuing of temporall goods But the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of God inflict any such paine no not imprison any as many Doctors hold but it reacheth onely to spirituall punishment that is to excommunication and the other punishments which he vseth ex iure purè positiuo sunt are onely by a positiue law Who in another place hath thus Alm. de pot Eccles laic c. 13. q. 1. c. 9. Christus secundum humanitatem c. Christ according to his humanity had greater power then the Pope hath as to institute the Euangelicall law neither had he his power limited to sacraments for he could pardō without application of sacraments his Vicar hath not such but onely that which is declared in his Vicarship for he gaue him power to remit sinnes to preach to giue indulgences c but it is no where found that he gaue him power to institute and depose Kings therefore by any power giuen him from Christ note well he hath not soueraigne power of iurisdiction in temporals This he With these may be ranked Ioannes Maior Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. Maximus Pontifex no◠habet dominium temporale super Reges c. The chiefe Bishop hath not temporall dominion ouer Kings For the contrary being granted saith he it followeth that Kings are his vassals and that he may expell them de facto out
of their kingdome c. but this is not to be granted And in the same question Si aliqui Reges c. If some Kings with the people haue deliuered ouer themselues to the Popes of Rome as it is said of Englishmen it is nothing to vs. Yet do I not thinke that Englishmen by any meanes would permit the Pope to depose their King and set vp another for they neuer yet suffered any of the Bishops of Rome to do it But lest any man here take hold and say that King Iohn was brought to yeeld his crowne to the Popes Legate and for redeeming it granted an annuall tribute to the Sea Apostolike let him reade S. Thomas More for his better satisfaction herein who plainely denieth it thus More supplic of soules pag. 296. If he the Author of the Supplication of beggers say as indeed some writers say Platina and others that King Iohn made EnglaÌ„d Ireland tributarie to the Pope the Sea Apostolike by the grant of a thousand markes we dare surely say againe that it is vntrue and that all Rome neither can shew such a grant nor neuer could and if they could it were nothing worth for neuer could any King of England giue away to the Pope or make the land tributarie though he would To conclude this point of deposing Princes I will note vnto you onely one place more to this purpose out of the Decrees of the Church of France collected by Bochellus a late writer Bochel ex Cod. libert Eccles Gallie li. 2. tit 16. c. 1. Regnum Franciae eiusque pertinentias dare in praedam Papa non potest c. The Pope cannot giue away for a prey the kingdome of France and the appertenances thereof or dispose therof in any other sort whatsoeuer And notwithstanding whatsoeuer admonitions excommunications or interdicts the subiects are bound to performe due obedience to their King in temporals neither can they be dispenced or absolued from the same by the Pope The reason hereof is that such obedience is due by the law of God and nature against which no man may dispence according to S. Thomas In his quae sunt de lege naturae c. In such things as are of the law of nature and in diuine precepts Tho 2.2 q. 88 ar 10. no man can disp ence O that French-men if that their doctrine be currant in France would vouchsafe to teach their doctrine here in great Brittaine In them it seemeth tollerable and would be doubtlesse vnpunishable But certaine English priests no lesse Catholicke then well affected subiects for teaching the like in defence of their King and countrey must be subiect to the losse of faculties the onely meanes that many haue of their reliefe calumniation obloquie of tongues reputed as schismatikes little better then heretikes and esteemed of some vnworthy of foode to maintaine life diuerse hauing bene forbidden to visite such in prison or relieue them This is too true would God it were not so O tempora O mores Wel may we cry out with S. Paul Miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus 1. Cor 15. Psal 13. we are more miserable then all men But though the throate of some be an opeÌ„ sepulcher and with their tongues they deale subtilly and the poison of aspes be vnder their lips yet we neede not one eye looke to his mercifull and most wonderfull care of Daniel feeding him imprisoned in the middest of Lions and with the other behold his daily relieuing the beasts of the field and fowles of the aire all made for man as man for God Then confortamini in Domino nolite timâ—re multis passeribus pluris estis vos Comfort your selues in our Lord and feare ye not you are much more worth then many sparrowes you I meane that intend not to derogate from the spiritual authoritie of Christs Vicar but to render no lesse vnto him his due then to Caesar his But to returne whence we haue digressed if it be true that a Councell may not iudge punish or depose the Pope though he endeuor to destroy the Church of God Li. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. 29. as Cardinall Bellarmine writeth which belongeth to none but to a superiour a Councell not being aboue the Pope as many hold why are we not to beleeue the same of Kings though they persecute the Church Li. 3. c 19. Tert. ad Scapulam praesid Carthag when as witnesse the same Author they acknowledge no superior no iudge on earth in temporals Well let such Doctors as teach deposition in schooles withdraw themselues from speculation to practise from scholasticall distinctions and disputations to Magistrates examinations such as haue potestatem crucifigendi vel dimittendi haply they may change their subtile shifts into a simple proposition that it is small wisedome to band with the supreme Magistrate in a matter so important as is Caesars right neuer any thing being yet determined by the Church of God to warrant them so to do And it may be in my iudgement admired that catholicke Princes permit such dangerous positions not onely to be disputed but also taught for truth within their dominions and to passe without controlement knowing that a sparkle of fire lying smothering in combustible matter if it be neglected and left vnquenched may cause in short space an vnquenchable flame so such a speculatiue doctrine litle regarded is not vnlike in time to breed a wofull practicall ruine of kingdomes and nations And this of the Popes temporall power Is it then by spirituall authoritie alone or by both that Princes maybe deposed for it seemeth by later Diuines that Popes may depose them directly or indirectly The mirror of this age for diuine literature Cardinall Bellarmine in his late booke against Barclai cap. 5. and elsewhere writeth not so plainely as were to be wished nor so as he satisfieth his reader whether it be spirituall onely or temporall onely but seemeth to incline more to the spirituall power yet mixt with temporall Iam dixi inquit potestatem de qua loquimur c. I haue alreadie said In Barcl c. 5. that the power wherof we speake is to be found expresly in the Scriptures but generally not in particular to wit in the 16. of Saint Matthew Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum And Iohn 21. Pasce oues meas and by these same diuine testimonies may be gathered that accession and coniunction of power to dispose of temporals in ordine ad spiritualia as more then once is declared And may it not I pray you be as well said with due respect to his dignitie that by those diuine testimonies no such glosse of accession or coniunction of power may be gathered because those places were euer vnderstood by all ancient Fathers of the sole spiritual authority of the Pope without accession or coniunction of temporall power yea in ordine ad spiritualia By the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised to Peter yet not for Peter
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
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
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
receiued regall authoritie frustra est enim potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum But supposing with the Cardinall there were not then any reclamation nor any muttering against it yet may such a constitution being neuer receiued Panormitan 10. Andr. or vpon disuse of so long time be iustly said to be abrogated as many Canons and Decrees of this and other Councels haue bene And namely that in this Councell which forbiddeth new religions to arise Can. 13. since which time notwithstanding Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 16. haue risen the Minims of S. Francis de Paula the religiō of the Iesuites and others That Metropolitans should celebrate prouinciall Councels euery yeare was appointed ca. 6. which is not obserued Can. 3. And in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo 10. was decreed that Monasteries after the deceasse of the Abbots should not be giuen away to any in commenda or cōmended to any who were not religious but how this likewise is obserued Constantino Conc. can 50 59. the Monkes and religious of Italie France and other countries can testifie In the sixth generall Councell clergie men were forbidden to play at dice and it was ordered that Baptisme should be administred onely in Churches which are not kept Many mo instances out of other Councels might be to this purpose produced but to auoide tediousnesse these few may suffise Now for a further answer I wish you to note that this Councell indeed as by the words in the chapter is cleare did first excommunicate all heresie that lifted vp it selfe against that faith which the Fathers had set down in the two precedent chapters and ordained that such as were therefore condemned as also all other heretickes should be left vnto the secular powers to be condignly punished Secondly this holy Synode decreed that such as were onely suspected of heresie should cleare themselues of that note within a yeare after admonition otherwise they were to be excommunicated and auoyded till they had made condigne satiffaction Which was but the right practise and true proceeding of the Church to inflict spirituall censures that the soules of the offendors might be saued in the day of our Lord leauing them to the secular Magistrates to be further punished temporally Thirdly it was set downe in this Synode as meete and conuenient that secular powers should be admonished and if need were compelled to take a publike oath for defence of faith and to do their best endeuours to roote out of their territories all such heretikes as should be denounced by the Church none to be assumed into office which should not by oath confirme this chapter By secular powers and such as shall be assumed into potestacie or office either spirituall or temporal was not nor could be meant Emperor or King but rather Presidents or Gouerners of Prouinces subiect vnto Kings and absolute Princes who being Catholickes may by their excelling power assisting the Church compell them to confirme this chapter by taking such an Oath but themselues cannot be compelled by any hauing no superior on earth in temporals to force them thereunto Neither may it be said properly that a King coming to his crowne by lawfull succession and inheritance or election is assumed into office by any his subiects or others for then it would follow that he were not supremus Dominus a Soueraigne but in some sort inferiour to those that do assume him because he that is assumed or taken into office receiueth authoritie from him that assumeth As the Pope creating a Cardinall and saying Assumimus te insanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem We assume thee to be a Cardinall of the holy Romane Church giueth him by his supreme authoritie that spirituall office and dignitie of assisting him in the gouernment of the Church and his temporall state and to haue vocem actiuam passiuam in the election of the Pope c. But his Holinesse though elected by the Cardinals cannot properly be said to be assumed by them to the Popedome because he receiueth no power or authoritie from them but immediatly from God Finally to the latter part Si vero dominus temporalis on which Cardinall Bellarmine fortifieth his assertion of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes saying It is the voice of the Church it may be answered that the Church here defined it not as he well knoweth if she had no doubt but his Grace would haue spoken it plainly to put all out of doubt By temporall Lords in this place ought not to be vnderstood Kings but rather such as are explicated in the Emperours constitution to wit Potestates Consuls Rectors is hereafter followeth pag. 34. or such feudatarie Princes as haue principall Lords ouer them like to certaine in Italy where this Councell was held which is manifest by this Canon that reserueth the right of the principall Lord Saluo iure Domini principalis But I know some will say that Kings and absolute Princes are to be also included for that the words in the latter end seem to import so much The same law being kept about those who haue not principall Lords which ought to be vnderstood of absolute Princes Lord being a generall word signifying sometime Kings May it not be admired that out of this obscuritie of the law men will enforce Kings to be vnderstood and to be subiect to temporall punishments who acknowledge no superiour on earth to punish them in temporals especially when as no mention is made of them at all in the law In penals as I haue said before pag. 51. a restriction is to be vsed not an ampliation and Kings are no lesse to be named or specified by the orderly proceeding of the Church then Cardinals Conc. Trid. sess 24. de reform cap. 1. who are alwayes named in poenis or else not included though the Pope command sub poena excommunicationis all Patriarchs Archbishops or Bishops of what dignitie soeuer If yet any will enforce that By those who haue not principall Lords Kings are or may be vnderstood it helpeth them nothing at all for that such a law first neuer receiued and againe per desuetudinem being neuer by the Church put in practise is abrogated and of no validitie Neither was it defined in this Councell as all men of meane iudgement may see that the Pope hath authoritie to absolue subiects from their loyaltie or naturall obedience due to their Princes but onely signified that he might denounce the vassals of certaine temporall Lords absolued as it were by vertue of some former law to wit that of Gregorie 7 Nos sanctorum 15. q. 6. ca Nos sanctorū or some other from their fealtie who being admonished and excommunicated by the Metropolitane shall contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare which is not to absolue them by any authoritie giuen by this Councell and so it maketh nothing against the Oath of allegiance That the Pope cannot absolue me from this Oath Then lastly it followeth
they professe Tolet de 7. pec mort c. 16. n. 3. Tho. 2.2 q. 104. a. 5. ad 3. Innocen in c. no Dei 43. de Simon Martin de Carazijs in tract de principibus q. 48. Felin in cap. Accepimus de fide instrum And if their superiours shold by indiscretion or otherwise command any thing against the law of God yea were he the Pope himselfe or against the profession of their rule such obedience I deeme nor they nor any will doubt to be vnlawfull and they were not bound to obey as Innocentius others affirme So then we may distinguish obedience to be of three sorts one sufficiēt to saluation which obeyeth in all matters wherein he is bound another perfect which obeyeth in all things lawfull and the third indiscreet which is ready to render obedience yea in vnlawfull or iniust things And this is the obedience wherewith may alas in these our angerous dayes seeme so deeply possessed dangerous I say for that within such obedience latet anguis in herba lyeth hidden a mystery of mischiefe and which is so highly by diuerse recommended to their auditours who sticke not boldly to say that by obeying Pastors and Praelats and the supreme Pastor among the rest he cannot sin but by refusing to obey he may sinne therefore it is best and securest alway to obey whatsoeuer is by them commanded alledging S. Paul Hebr. vlt. Obedite Praepositis vestris Obey your Prelats without distinction not attending that the same holy Ghost who taught vs this doctrine by the vessell of election hath likewise taught vs by the mouth of the Prince of Apostles and cannot be contrary to himselfe that we are no lesse bound to obey and be subiect to kings and their officers to wit 1. Pet. ◠Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regi quasi praecellenti siue ducibus tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum c. Be ye subiect to euery humane creature for God whether to the King as to the precellent or to his Captaines as sent from him for the punishment of malefactors c. For that the politicall or ciuill power yea of heathen or persecuting Neros as in the Apostles times were no other is no lesse from God and immediate from him then is the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo Rom. 13 for there is no power but of God When he saith No power is there any excepted Is it not meant as well of the temporall as of the spirituall Chrysostome vpon this place hath these words Deus it a exigit vt creatus ab eo Princeps vires suas habeat God so requireth that a Prince created haue his power from him then not from the people If you reade Salomon in the booke of Wisedome you shall find it most cleare that the power of Kings and Rulers is immediat not from men but from God Praebete aures vos Sap. 6. qui continetis multitudines c quoniam data est à Domino potestas vobis virtus ab Altissimo c. Giue care you that conteine multitudes who are they but temporal Princes because power is giuen to you from our Lord and vertue from the Highest without any distinction of mediatè c. It followeth a little after who are meant ver 10. Ad vos ergo Reges sunt hi sermones mei vt discatis sapiontiam c. To you therefore ô kings are these my words that you may learne wisedome c. These two powers then Ecelesiasticall and ciuill as they are both from God so are they both distinct and separate from other and independent of each other as after shall be proued And euen as God hath ordeined and concluded the waters and maine sea within certaine limits which the may not passe but must breake their raging waues where they are appointed as is in holy Writ Legem ponebat aquis Prou. 8. ne transirent fines suos He made a law for waters that they should not passe their bounds and in Iob Et Dixi Iob. 38. vsque huc venies non procedes amplius hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos And I said saith God hitherto thou shalt come thou shalt proceed no further and here thou shalt breake thy swelling sources So likewise his omnipotent wisdome haply to auoide all confusion and other mischiefes which might arise by intermedling with each others power hath appointed thē their seuerall and distinct ends their limits bounds which they may not passe not inuade each others empire Lib. 1. de consid cap. 5. as mellifluous S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius 3. doth more then insinuate Habent haec insima terrena Iudices suos Reges Principes terrae Quid fines alienos inuaditis quid falcem vestram in alienam messem extenditis These base and terrene things haue their Iudges Kings and Princes of the earth Why do you inuade other mēs boūds why do you thrust your sythe into others haruest By which is euident that Popes may and do sometimes exceede their limits to wit spirituall authority when by vsurpation they intermeddle in terrene things or temporall authority being the proper bounds of Kings and secular Princes which ought not to be inuaded by Ecclesiasticall persons And to this effect writeth most excellently amongst latter Diuines Ioannes Driedo affirming this distinction to be de iure diuino Lib. 2. de liber Eccle. c. 2. Christus saith he vtriusque potestatis officia discreuit vt vna diuinis spiritualibus rebus atque porsonis altera profanis ac mundanis praesideret Christ hath so parted the offices of both powers as the one might gouerne ouer diuine and spirituall things and persons the other ouer profane and mundane And a little after The distinction therefore of Ecclesiasticall Papall power from the secular and Imperiall power is made by the law of God And in the same chapter Whereupon the Pope and the Emperour are in the Church not as two chiefe gouernours deuided among themselues neither of which do acknowledge or honour the other as superiour because a kingdome deuided against it selfe will be desolate Neither are they as two Iudges subordinate so as the one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two gouernours which are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuers offices in such wise as the Emperour is to rule ouer secular causes persons for the peaceable liuing together in this world and the Pope may rule ouer spirituals to the gaine of Christian faith and charitie This Driedo That these two dignities are distinct hauing no dependance of each other Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe proueth cōparing them to the two great lights or planets the Sunne and Moone Nota saith he quemadmodum non est idem sydus Sol luna sicut lunā non instituit Sol sed Deus Bellar. l. 5.
de Ro. Pont. c. 3. it a quoque non esse idem Pontificatum Imperium nec vnum ab alio absolute pendere Note that euen as the Sunne and Moone are not one and the same planet and as the Sunne did not institute or appoint the Moone but God so likewise the Papacy and Impery are not one and the same nor the one do absolutely depend of the other By these two great lights Sun and Moone Cap. Solitae de maiorit obedien Pope Inocentius interpreteth to be meant two dignities which are Pontificall authority and Regall power Moreouer this distinction of these two great powers that ancient and renowmed Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to Constantius the Arrian Emperour most manifestly sheweth L. 2. de liber Christ c. 2. whose sentence is related in an Epistle of holy Athanasius in this manner Tibi Deus imperium commisit Atha ep ad solit vitam agentes nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit quemadmodū c. To you God hath committed the Empire to vs he hath deliuered those things which belong to the Church and euen as he that with malignant eyes carpeth your Empire contradicteth the ordinance of God so do you also beware lest if you draw to you such things as belong to the Church you be made guiltie of a great crime Giue it is written Math. 22. Mar. 12. to Caesar those things which are Caesars and to God those which belong to God Therefore neither is it lawfull for vs in earth to hold the Empire nor you ô Emperour haue power ouer incense and sacred things Thus this learned Bishop and renowmed in the first Councell of Nice In cap. Inquisitioni de sen excom Hereupon Innocentius the third and Panormitan conclude that laickes are not bound to obey the Pope in those things that are not spirituall or which concerne not the soule as they speake but onely in those places which are subiect to his temporall iurisdiction That these two powers are independent of each other and the temporall not subordinate to the spirituall but since the comming of Christ separate and so distinguished by their proper acts offices and dignities that the one may not vsurpe the right and power of the other without iniurie to each other Pope Nicolas the first plainly witnesseth in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour as appeareth also in the Canon law Can cum ad verum ventū est dist 96. Barcl de potest Pap. c. 13. L. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. which you may reade in D. Barclai of worthie memorie in case you can get it Which place I may not pretermit to note vnto you as it is set downe in Cardinall Bellarmine Idem mediator Dei hominum homo Christus Iesus sic actibus proprijs dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis vtriusque discreuit c. The same Mediator of God and men the man Christ Iesus hath so seuered the offices of both powers by proper acts and distinct dignities that both Christan Emperours for eternall life should haue neede of the chiefe Bishops and the chiefe Bishops for the course of temporall things onely should vse Imperiall lawes Here saith the Cardinall the Pope speaketh not of the onely execution but of power and dignitie c. For whatsoeuer Emperours haue Pope Nicholas saith they haue it from Kings and Emperours this execution as being himselfe chiefe King and Emperour or else he cannot If he can then is he greater then Christ if he cannot then hath he not in deed Regall power This he Who in the same chapter bringeth Pope Gelasius to this purpose Duo sunt inquit Imperator Auguste Gelas ep ad Anast Imp. Decret dist 96. Can. Duo sunt quibus principaliter mundus hicregitur Authoritas sacra Pontificum Regalis potestas c. There are two things O noble Emperour whereby principally this world is gouerned the sacred authoritie of Bishops and Regall power c. Where it is to be noted saith Bellarmine that Gelasius speaketh not onely of the excution but of the verie power and authoritie lest our aduersaries say as they are accustomed that the Pope hath indeed both powers but committeth the execution to others That the ends likewise of these two powers are different the Cardinall confesseth saying that the politicall hath for her end temporall peace and the Ecclesiasticall eternall saluation And hereto agreeeth Nauarre in Relect. cap. Nouit do iudic nu 90. Nauar. By this now is apparent that these two powers their ends offices and dignities are distinct and separate from each other If then the one command any thing which appertaineth not to his power or wherein he is not superiour it is a generall rule as Cardinall Tolet noteth that such a one is not of dutie to be obeyed Tolet. de 7. peccatis mort c. 15. Vnicuique superiori saith he obediendum est ex obligatione in his tantum in quibus est superior And the inferior dischargeth well his dutie if he promptly obey in those things wherein he is inferior as a seruant in seruilibus such as appertaine to a seruant and for this citeth Pope Innocentius cap. Inquisitioni de sent excom Whereupon if the Pope should in virtute obedientiae command any man to giue away his vineyard or house or sell his patrimonie as Bellocchio cupbearer to Sixtus 5. would haue had the Pope by his Breue to command a subiect of his to do because the poore mans land lay commodiously for him and pleased him Naboths case which his Holinesse refused to do answering he could not he might do no mā wrōg or a cleargie man to resigne his benefice with cure to some vnworthy person which is against a diuine precept he is not to be obeyed as the same author affirmeth in the chapter aforesaid And alledgeth Panorm in cap. Inquisitioni de sent excom and Io. Andr. c. Cum à Deo de rescript Much lesse is any n = a Cap. litteras de rest spoliat superior yea the Pope himselfe to be obeyed according to n = b Cap. Inquisit c. Panormitan commanding any sinne though but n = c 11. q. 3. can Quid ergo veniall And n = d Verbo obedientia nu 5. Syluester Intellige etiam si Papa credit mādatum iustum tamen subdito constat illud in se continere peccatum Vnderstand although the Pope beleeueth his mandateto be iust but yet the subiect knoweth it contains a sin de restit spol lit Here may be noted that the Pope may hold one opinion and an inferiour may hold the contrarie and more true without sinne Yea and a Bishop in case the Pope should command him to be absent from his residence without some necessitie he is not bound to obey because saith Tolet cum absque causa rationabili aliquid praecipitur Instruct sacer l. 5. c. 4. nu 3. non debemus audire When any thing is
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
alone but for the n = * O igen In hunc loc ho. 1 Aug tract vlt. in Ioan. l. 1. d◠doct Chr. c. 18. Coster in O. siand c. 4. Church signifying power to be giuen to bind and loose to admit the worthy to the kingdome of heauen and to exclude the vnworthie can any other power be vnderstood then meerely spirituall most certainely there cannot For aske when this promise of our Sauiour was performed No man I thinke will denie but then Christ gaue these keyes when after his resurrection he vsed this ceremonie of breathing on his eleuen Apostles giuing them all like power to forgiue or reteine sinnes by these words Quorum remiseritis peccata c. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue Ioan. 20. they are forgiuen them and whose you shall reteine they are reteined By which words the Fathers often say that the keyes were giuen to all the Apostles If any man so build on that which Christ said to Peter Quodcunque ligaueris super terram c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth Math. 16. it shal be bound also in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth it shall be loosed also in the heauens that Peter and his successors haue power to set vp and plucke downe Kings then must it of necessitie follow See Iansenius Concor c. 72. that the rest of the Apostles had the same because he vsed the like phrase to them also Quaecunque alligaueritis c. Whatsoeuer ye shall bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen c. And so consequently all Bishops who are appointed gouernours likewise of the Church of God Act. 20. as Saint Paul saith Attendite c. Take heed to your selues and to the whole flock wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood may dethrone Kings if they iudge it expedient which is not to be granted This former interpretatiō of anciēt diuines seemes more agreeable to Christs words as Iansenius noteth to vnderstand by these keyes power to bind and loose because with these two powers as with two keyes the kingdom of heauē is opened to the truly penitēt with the other it is shut against the vnworthy impenitēt sinner then is the interpretatiō of later Diuines who say that Christ meant of the keyes of knowledge of discerning inter leprā lepram who is worthy to be absolued who vnworthie and of power to bind loose Howsoeuer they are to be vnderstood yet therby cannot be gathered power to depose or dispose of temporals Theophylact vpon this place hath thus Claues autē intelligas quaeligant soluunt hoc est delictorū vel indulgentias vel poenas Theoph. in 16. Math. c. And vnderstand keyes which bind and loose that is either pardons or punishments of sinnes For they haue power to remit and to bind who haue attained to the grace of Episcopacie as Peter hath Which power he affirmeth was granted to all the Apostles Quamuis autem soli Petro dictum sit Dabo tibi c. And although saith he it be spoken to Peter alone I will giue thee yet the keyes are granted to all the Apostles When When he said Cap. firmiter de summa Trinit fide Cath. c loquitur 24. q. 1 Vict. de clauibus nu 4. Rabanus Whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted For when he said dabo he signified a time to come to wit after his resurrection So Theophylact. If they were giuen to Peter doth it not follow that the Apostles receiued them of Peter But Victoria teacheth that they receiued them of Christ not of Peter Rabanus likewise Albeit this power of binding and loosing seeme to be giuen onely to Peter yet it is also giuen to the rest of the Apostles and is now likewise to all the Church in Bishops and Priests But therefore Peter specially receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the principalitie of iudiciarie power that all beleeuers through the world may vnderstand that whosoeuer do separate themselues in any sort from the vnitie of his faith and societie that such can neither be absolued from the bonds of sins nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen This he But let it be granted according to the sentēce of many anciēt Fathers that Christ speaking specially to Peter gaue him more ample power then he gaue to the rest of the Apostles yet all was but spirituall as the words import and to a spirituall end in aedificationem non in destructionem to edification not to destruction not tending to deposition or depriuation of the temporall goods of any within his gouernment but to excommunication or separation of certaine obstinate offenders from the common goods of the Church militant and so consequently from the ioyes of the Church triumphant And let it be that Peter receiued the keyes of our Sauior when he said vnto him Pasce oues meas Feed my sheep all was but spirituall Ioan. 21. for the same power is required to feed the flocke of Christ that is to open or shut the kingdome of heauen Vict de clau nu 4. And then was he instituted the Vicar of Christ on earth by whose institution and as he is Bishop or Pastor of the whole Church Card. Bellar. de Ro. Pont. l. 5. c. 10. the most illustrous Card. confesseth that he receiued not power to ouerrule dommari but pascere to feed Which kind of secular domination was forbidden the Apostles and ministration commanded as Saint Bernard saith Bern. de consid l. 2 c. 5. L. 4. c. 4. de consid Who in an other place explicateth what it is to feed Euangelizare pascere est Opus fac euangelistae pastorum opus implesti To euangelize is to feed Do the worke of an Euangelist and thou hast fulfilled the worke of Pastors But some are forced to say that excommunication of the Pope necessarily worketh this temporall effect of deposition for that they know not otherwise how his Holinesse can attaine to such power If this were so then what Bishop soeuer do excommunicate any within his diocesse doth also depose and depriue them of their temporals for what the Pope is in the vniuersall Church such is a Bishop in the particular L. 5. de sum Pont. c. 3. as Cardinall Bellarmine once held though lately in his Recognitions he retracteth it after this manner Whereas I said that a Bishop was the same in a particular Church as the Pope is in the vniuersall it is thus to be taken that as the Pope is the true Pastor and Prince of the Church vniuersall so is a Bishop a true Pastor and Prince of a particular Church not a Vicar or administrator for a certaine time c. Which yet serueth well for our purpose in hand for if a Bishop a spiritual Prince of a particular church cannot by vertue of
excommunication depose his subiects neither can the Pope as spirituall Prince ouer all And Victora plainly saith thus That a Bishop de iure diuino hath power to excommunicate his subiects ex officio Victor de excom nu 1◠and by ordinary and proper power And what the Pope can do throughout all the world a Bishop may also do in his Bishopricke a few things excepted as to create a Bishop Who disagreeth not with the Cardinall in this that a Bishop is a true Pastor in his particular Church as the Pope is in the Catholicke and vniuersall that he may as well excommunicate the subiects committed to his charge as the Pope may all Princes and people that are sheepe of Christs fold by the authoritie giuen to Peter in those word Pasce oues meat By which Christ indeed constituted him Pastor ouer his flocke marry a spirituall Pastor not a temporall giuing him all authoritie necessary for that office which was only spiritual without coniunction of any other By vertue then of this spirituall authoritie the principall part for gouernment in foro exteriori is excommunication being grauissima poenarum then which none is more grieuous no Bishop can depriue any priuate man whatsoeuer within his Diocesse of the least parcell of his lands or goods that being the office of the ciuill power how then can the chiefe Bishop depriue Kings and Princes of their crownes and dignities the nature of this censure being all one in both Excommunication is defined to be separatio à commumone Ecclesiae quoad fructum suffragia generalia Tho. in suppl q. 21. ar 1. in 4. dist 18. q. 2. c. Excommunication is a separation from the communiō of the Church as touching the fruite and generall suffrages The fruite of the Church cannot be vnderstood of the fruite of temporall goods because these are not taken away from excommunicate persons This S. Thomas plainly shewing that it is beyond the nature of this censure to worke any such effect as to take away temporall goods And in the same qu. ar 3. Sed quia excommunicatio est grauissma poenarum c. But becausce excommunication is the greatest of all punishments therefore excommunication ought not to be inflicted no not for a mortall sin vnlesse the offender be obstinate Tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit c. For then after he shall be admonished if he contemptuously disobey he is reputed stubburne and ought to be excommunicated by the Iudge now not hauing any more to do against him And the same Doctor disputing whether heretickes are to be tollerated saith That after the first and second admonition if yet he be found obstinate Tho. 2.2 q. 11 ar 3. the Church not hoping of his conuersion meaning no doubt such a one as hauing professed the Catholicke faith hath made shipwracke thereof and fallen to heresie prouideth for the health of others separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication and further leaueth him to secular iudgement to be put to death Whereby you see that in case yea of heresie the Church can proceed no further then to excommunication after she hath declared and condemned him for his crime Can. corripiantur 24. q. 3. To this agreeth Molanus writing of the condemnation of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage by the generall Councel of Constance Mola de fide haer ser l. 2. c. 2 l. 3. c. 4. who as he saith hauing excommunicated anathematized and condemned them for heretickes and hauing no more to do with them deliuered them ouer to Imperiall power by which they were burnt So that temporall punishment of heretickes whether it be by confiscation of goods and patrimonie or death belongeth and is proper to the secular power as the spirituall do to Ecclesiasticall persons Which we see manifest by practise of all Christian countries yea and out owne that no man is to be put to death nor lose his goods vpon excommunication but onely by execution of the Princes law And Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe will confesse Bellarm. in Barcl c. 23. that extra casum haeresit out of the case of heresie by vertue of the sentence of excommunication there followeth not depriuation of temporall dominion or of particular goods or kingdomes and princedomes though saith he by and by Kings and Princes may be for iust causes depriued by the Pope of their kingdome or princedome Variously and ambiguously insinuating that there are other iust causes besides heresie but listeth not or rather as may be supposed cannot set downe what they are for as yet neuer were any determinately made knowne more then such as shall be deemed worthy of depriuation ad arbitrium Pontificis But as farre as I can see his Grace must maintaine other causes as well as heresie otherwise how can the deposition of Henrie Frederick Otho and other Princes be defended to haue bene lawfull who were neuer condemned by the Church for heresie And if there be other causes current to depriue Princes of temporals then there is for priuate men surely the Christian princely state must needs be farre worse then the plebeian or then if they were Heathens or Publicans which were absurd when as God the giuer of all power for correction of men is not acceptor personarum but ministreth iustice equally or indifferently to all all both Princes and people being populus eius oues pascuae eius his people and the sheepe of his pasture If there be any as me thinketh I heare one say that he is not yet satisfied as touching this point but desireth to know the finall cause nature and effects of excommunication let him note wel what the most learned and graue Cardinall Tolet of famous memory and others write thereof Est autem excommunicatio Ecclesiastica censura Tolet. Lib. 1. instruc sacerd c. 4. nu 1. qua homo Christianus bonis fidelium communibus priuatur Excommunication is an Ecclesiasticall censure whereby a Christian man is depriued of the common goods of the faithfull Which goods he faith arc three 1. externall conuersation consisting in mutuall talke and societie 2. participation of sacraments 3. prayers and suffrages of the Church And these in his opinion are not so much the effects as the very nature and substance of excommunication The end whereof Lib. 1. c. 11. n. 1 Li. 1 c. 10. n. 14. without controuersie is the good and vtility of man that he may repent and conuert himselfe to good as he saith Cap. Medicinalis de sent excom in 6. Decret 2. par 24. q. 3. cap. 36 when as excommunication is medicinall not mortall instructing not plucking vp by the roote Which agreeth with the Epistle of Pope Vban set downe in the Canon law Liquido apparet aliud esse excommunicationem aliud eradicatiouem c. It euidently appeareth that excommunication is one thing eradication another For he that is excommunicated as the Apostle saith to this end is excommunicated that
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
And may expose his land to be occupied by Catholickes Is not this trow ye the groundworke of the Cardinals bulwarke for the Apostolicall authoritie of deposing Princes and disposing of their temporals It seemeth yes in his answer to D. Barclai howbeit his Grace bringeth nothing to proue such power to be in the Pope Supra pag. 54 but onely saith that you wote not what is the voice of the Catholicke Church and he that contemneth to heare her is no way to be accounted a Christian but as a heathen and Publican What words here in the name of God import a definition The Councell as you may see vseth none of these words to make a decree de fide ordinamus statuimus definimus we ordaine decree define the Pope to haue authoritie to depose nor anathema qui hoc non credit anathema to him that beleeueth not this nor yet Haec est fides Catholica This is the Catholicke faith but onely saith That if the temporall Lord admonished by the Church shal neglect to purge his countrey from heresie he is to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and if he contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare it is to be signified to the Pope that he may expose his land which is not to depose authoritatiuè to be occupied by Catholickes crucem praedicando that is to giue indulgences or pardons to such as shall voluntarily take armes and aduenture their liues to fight against heretickes and as he is accustomed in like sort to grant to all Christians that shall arme themselues and labour to expell the Turks or Saracens out of the countries they vsurpe vpon or the holy land as will appeare plainly to him that readeth this Canon of the Councell For it followeth immediatly Catholici vero qui crucis assumpto charactere ad haereticorum exterminium se accinxerint illa gaudeant indulgentia illoque priuilegio sint muniti quod accedentibus in terrae sanctae subsidium conceditur And let the Catholickes who hauing taken the signe of the crosse shall addresse themselues to the rooting out of heretickes enioy the same indulgence and be armed with the same priuiledge which is granted to such as prepare themselues to the recouery of the holy land Hereby euery man may see that in this wise to expose a country by such priuiledges and pardons to Prince or people who either vpon zeale of dying Martyrs as they thinke or rather couetous desire to enlarge their dominions and to enrich themselues with others spoiles are ready to take such an occasion and to runne before they be sent is nothing to this purpose for deposing a lawfull Prince by any authority giuen the Pope by our Sauiour Christ in S. Peter or by the holy Ghost in a generall Councell You will say vnto me Are not heretickes being obstinate vpon contempt of the Churches sword of excommunication to be punished temporally by depriuation and confiscation of their goods yea and by death too Yes But by whom Not by any decree of Pope or Councell but by the wholesome lawes of Emperors and Kings for the Church that is the Pastors therof after excommunication Tho. 2.2 q. 11. ar 3. quia non habet vltra quod agat because she can proceed no further is accustomed to deliuer ouer obstinate heretickes and such as she condemneth to the secular magistrate to be punished temporally whose right it is Costerus in fidei demonst propo 3. c. 12. Con. Constan sess 21 as Costerus writeth which is also manifest in the Councell of Constance in the punishment of Hierome of Prage and Iohn Husse who being declared to be heretickes excommunicated and condemned were forthwith deliuered ouer to the secular power to be punished by death Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudo saith Costerus loco citato in puniendis haereticis talis est c. The custome of the Church of Rome in punishing heretickes is after this manner After they are apprehended by the ciuill or ecclesiasticall magistrate first they are examined by learned ecclesiastical men whether they be indeed heretickes which being found they are instructed in the right faith c. Then saith he if they remain obstinate ab Ecclesiae gremio vt putrida mēbra excōmunicationis gladio resecantur qui secundùm legum Regumque decreta prout fas est in eos animaduertant Nulli enim competit Ecclesiastico vel sanguinem fundere vel capitis quenquam condemnare They are cut off with the sword of excommunication as rotten members from the lap of the Church and are deliuered to the ciuill magistrate to be punished who according to the decrees of lawes and Kings may punish them as reason is For it is not meete for any Ecclesiasticall person either to shed blood or to condemne any to death In the generall Councell of Constance was pronounced a definitiue sentence against Iohn Husse wherein for his pertinacie in heresie as that Councell tooke it Molanus de fide haeret ser l. 2. c. 2. his degradation was committed to sixe Bishops as writeth Molanus out of Cochlaeus and his execution to the secular power Haec sancta Synodus Ioannem Husse attento quòd Ecclesia Dei non habeat vltra quod agere valeat iudicio saeculari relinquere Can. corripiantur 24. q. 3. ipsum curiae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit This holy Synode decreeth considering that the Church of God can proceed no further to wit then to excommunicate and other spirituall punishments to leaue Iohn Husse to secular iudgement and that he ought to be left to the secular Court Hence saith Molanus it is euident with what small consideration some write that Iohn Husse was burnt vpon the sentence of the Councell of Constance when as it was left to secular iudgement Taken out of Cochlaeus lib. 2. ex Hussita Now let it be demanded why heretikes noble or ignoble haue not bene and yet are to be depriued of their temporals and punished by death by vertue of that decree of Pope Innocentitus in the Councell of Lateran but rather by the decree of Fredericke the second Emperour which he made being solicited thereto by the Pope anone after that Councell at Padua 22. Februarij indict 12. against certaine heretikes called Patareni if that of the Pope or Councell were to bind and be of force If the first were obligatorie what needed the secōd of like forme to be made The Emperor might wel haue spared his labour if that former had bene deemed sufficient And this is certaine and a sufficient proofe of the insufficiencie thereof that the subsequent Popes Direct inquisit lit Apost p. 13. 17. 51. Innocentius 4. Alexander 4. and Clements 4. would haue their Iudges to punish and proceed against heretikes by vertue of that constitution of Fredericke and not by the chapter of Lateran which they would neuer haue done by Caesars law and not their owne had they not knowne that Caesars law in that behalfe was of greater force
offended departed and refused to come to the Court for the space of a moneth after Was this apprehension and execution for any hainous crime trow ye Thus stood the case Certaine Sbirri or Sergeants were sent from the Gouernour to the pallace of Cardinall Farnesius he being absent twelue miles off at Grotta ferrata to apprehend some other of his familie of baser condition who finding the partie in the open Court together with one of his fellowes they laide hands on him the partie and his fellow and the two Sbirri striuing and strugling each with other an English mastife dogge whereof the Cardinall made great reckoning fell on the Catchpols of himselfe and the meane while they gat out of their hands The sayd gentleman seing this stir came to them and demanded how they durst be so bold to make such an attempt in that place and whether they knew where they were and in whose house which being priuiledged as a sanctuarie ought better to be respected of such as they were and such like words The Sbirri departed with complaint to the Gouernour who hasteneth to the Pope and informeth him in such sort as the gentleman by his commandement was presently taken and executed as is aboue said and so should the dog bene hanged too if he could haue bene found but he was secretly conueyed away And this loe was the crime for which he lost his life as was bruited and knowne through all the citie and was besides told me by such of the family as had reason not to be ignorant of the businesse at which fact many grudging said The Pope might more fitlie haue bin called Leo then Clement Well if for relating these truths any man be offended let him blame certaine silie soules whose fond importunitie hath vrged me thereto for that they thinke and will sometime say that the Pope his actions are irreprehensible he cannot commit a mortall sinne nor command vniustly as if he were more then a mortall man halfe a God or so confirmed in grace that he could no way erre as was the Mother of God But the more prudent sort will easily grant that he is a man subiect to humane infirmities and not so confirmed in grace as that he cannot erre in his morall actions that is a priuiledge they know rather proper to the Mother of God then common to Christs Vicars which if I be not deceiued was neuer yet granted to any of them Marie some of these prudentes apud semetipsos dare boldlie auouch that if Peters successour shal at any time excommunicate a Prince fallen into schisme heresie or apostacie or other crime adiudged by him to deserue so to be censured and thereupon depriueth him of his Regall scepter deposeth him of all temporall dominion and disposeth of his territories to some other whom he shall iudge better to deserue the same or authoriseth subiects to raise tumults and take armes against such a one and absolueth them of their fidelitie and natural allegiance or inciteth other neighbour Kings and Princes by mightie power to inuade his dominions or finallie whatsoeuer he command in this or the like sort they are bound forthwith to obey him and his sentence what perill soeuer may fall vnto them for it though by so doing they are to lose their liues who as they imprudently thinke hath in such a case so supreme authoritie ouer him as exceedeth all limits is so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot command iniustly so omne nimium vertitur in vitium this loe is the prudence of some imprudent Catholickes who headlonglie without due consideration runne on themselues and animate others to run through ouer blind obedience to their vtter destruction but this point of obedience resteth now to be more largely discussed It cannot be denied but that obedience is a morall vertue whereas it is a part of iustice whose office is to render to euery one that which is his the speciall obiect of which is the secret or expresse precept of the superiour to whom euery inferiour both by the law and ordinance of God and nature ought in all things lawfull not to be refractarie but subiect obedient Yet it may so happen againe that for two respects a subiect or inferiour may not be bound alway to obey his superiour the one is by reason of the precept of a higher power commanding contrary as vpon that of S. Paul Qui potestati resistunt ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt Rom. 13. They that resist power the same get to themselues damnation The Glosse saith Si quid iusserit Curator c. Ang. in ser 6. de verbis Domini to 10. If the Curator or gouernour command and thing against the Proconsul art thou to do it Againe if the Proconsul command thee one thing and the Emperour an other thing is it to be doubted that contemning the one thou art to serue and obey the other Then if the Emperour one thing and God command an other thou art bound to obey God and not the Emperour So semblably if the Pope command one thing and the holy Ghost in Scriptures an other who doubteth which is to be obeyed or disobeyed The other is when the superiour commandeth any thing wherein the inferiour is not subiect vnto him exceeding the limits of his power all power whatsoeuer vnder the cope of heauen being contained within certaine limits which no powerable person is to exceede Here if any obiect S. Paul teaching children and seruants to obey their parents and maisters in all they cōmand Coloss 3. Filij obedite parentibus per omnia and Serui obedite per omnia dominis carnalibus children obey your parents in all things seruants obey in all things your carnall maisters therefore the Pope is to be obeyed in all things I answer them that it is to be vnderstood in all things that appertaine to the right of parents maisters and as farre as they haue power to command as maisters their seruants in seruile things Tho. 2.2 q. 104. c. 5. and parents their children in domesticall affaires belonging to their paternall care for neither can they command such as are vnder them to keepe virginitie or to marry or to enter into religion to go in pilgrimage or such like if they should the inferiour is not bound to obey No more can the Pope albeit he hath plenit udinem potestatis in Ecclesia iustly command any thing wherein he hath no power nor any persons which are not subiect vnto him for that none is to be reputed a superior Tho. 2.2 q. 67. ar 1. but in respect of them ouer whom as ouer subiects he receiueth power whether he hath it ordinary or by commission Neither are Religious men who vow obedience to their superious bound of necessity to obey them in all whatsoeuer lawfull things they command albeit in way of perfection they may but onely in such as appertaine to their regular conuersation or according to their rule which
the Iewes at the same time liued whosoeuer without sufficient authority were spied so much as to haue a sword about him to murther any mā with was in a manner in as euill a case as he that had murthered one indeed If Peter exercising a materiall sword in defence of Christ and at such time as the vse thereof might seeme to him very necessary was sharply reprehended for that he had no lawfull authoritie in such wise to fight for him is it not a sufficient document for his successours not to vse violence on secular Princes by exercising the materiall sword no not in ordine ad spiritualia in defence of Christs spouse the Church for that she hath no warrant so to do Our Sauiour a little before his passion seeing his Apostles to contend about superiority teaching them their duties and in them all their successours and the different gouernment betweene them and secular Princes said Luc. 22. Reges gentium dominātur eorum qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur vos autem non sic c. The Kings of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that haue power vpon them are called beneficials But you not so but he that is the greater among you let him become as the yonger c. Vpon which place Origen S. Hierome Chrysostome and Basil with one assent vnderstand that secular Princes are not content onely to haue subiects but also by ouerruling they vse thē but you not so to wit you my Apostles and successours after me for it is your part to serue to minister and to feede by word and example c. And in Saint Matthewes Gospell Math. 20. our Sauiour said vnto two of his disciples Iames and Iohn You know that the Princes of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that are the greater exercise power against them It shall not be so among you but whosoeuer will be the greater among you let him be your minister c. Is it not plaine tnat our Lord Iesus though he teach not paritie with Puritans nor forbiddeth superiority among Christians neither Ecclesiasticall nor temporall yet he will not that his Apostles nor their successors Bishops and Priests being called to the state of a celestiall kingdome that differeth from the conditiō of a temporall kingdome should rule like vnto Kings and secular Princes who cary a materiall sword ad vindictam malefactorum for reuenge of malefactors and some now and then imperiously gouerne their subiects with pride tyranny contempt of inferiours and for their owne lucre more then the vtility of their subiects Which kind of gouernement is forbidden both by the doctrine and example of our Sauiour 1. Pet. 5. Presbyteros Compresbyter so readeth and expoundeth S. Hierome ep 85. So translate Erasmus and Beza and humility commended to all the Cleargie yea to Peter himselfe who cōformably to this likwise instructed such as at any time to the worlds end should beare rule in Gods Church saying Seniores igitur qui sunt inter vos obsecro ego consenior c. The seniors therefore that are among you I beseech my selfe a consenior with them c or Priests my selfe a fellow Priests feede the flocke of God which is among you prouiding not by cōstraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucre sake but voluntarily neque vt dominātes neither as ouerruling the Clergie but made examples of the flocke from the heart Whereby appeareth that all violence coaction and compulsion by exercising the temporall sword which is the sword of Kings is wholly forbidden all Ecclesiasticall persons To me it seemeth not without a mysterie that onely Peter among the rest of the Apostles should not strike any in all that hellish troupe coming in fury to lay violent hands on their Lord no not the traytor Iudas that with a kisse betraied him the ringleader of the rest and so better deserued to haue had his head cut off but onely him whose name is so precisely recorded by the Euāgelist to be Malchus and that he should be checked and reproued by our Sauiour Iohan. c. 18. of whom haply he expected to be commended for his zeale But though Peter might pretend iust cause to be moued to strike as he did yet was his fact reprehensible in two respects First for that asking Christ the question whether he and his fellow for no moe of the eleuen had swords about them should strike or no stroke without his grant yea against his will Secondly because his fact had rather a shew of reuenge then of defence For what might he think to do with 2. swords against so many what possibility to preuaile And as may appeare likwise by Christs words vnto him Math. 26. Returne thy sword into his place for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword And in S. Iohns Gospell Iohan. 18. Put vp thy sword into the scabbard the chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it By all which is cleare that Peter was iustly reprehended for striking without commission the high Priests seruant Malchus which name in Hebrew or Malcuth signifieth Rex or Regnum doubtles in my iudgemēt not without a great mystery the admirable prouidence of God thereby haply instructing posterity that no lesse reprehensible is it in Peters successours as they are Peters successors to dethrone Kings and depriue them of their kingdomes which cannot be done without drawing forth and striking with the materiall sword then it was in Peter himselfe for cutting off Malchus eare And that they ought not to vse such kind of violence on the persons of Kings no nor inferiors to Kings hauing no commission from Christ to punish corporally no more then Peter had against Malchus but onely spiritually Now to returne to the authoritie or power meant by S. Paul Rom. 13. Omnis anima It is most plaine that the Apostle in that chapter recommended to Christians their dutiful obedience to secular Potestates because hauing preached obedience to spirituall Pastors some newly conuerted thought themselues being Christians See S. Chrysost in c. 13. ho. 23. Ro. to be freed by Christ from al former subiection now not bound to obey either Emperour King or any temporall Lord for that they were heathens and persecutors of the Apostles and Christs religion For which cause and for that the Apostles generally were slandered and said to be seditious and vntruly charged of their aduersaries that they withdrew men from order and obedience to ciuill lawes and officers Saint Paul here as S. Peter doth in his first Epistles to stop the mouth of such flanderous tongues cleareth himselfe and expresly chargeth euery man and woman to be subiect to their temporall Princes and superiors howbeit in such matters as they may lawfully command and in things wherein they are superiors Conformable to his doctrine was likewise his example and of the rest of the Apostles who in all matters not repugnant to
in temporals wherein they ought by the law and ordinance of God to be no lesse obedient then to their Pastors and Prelates in spirituals It followeth now to know what authoritie it is the Pope pretendeth to haue whether Ecclesiasticall or ciuill to depose lawfull Kings and dispose of their temporals and absolue subiects of their bounden dutie and naturall allegiance Which question who so desireth to see it more at large he may reade D. Barclai de potestate Papae and M. Widdrington de iure Principum where it is most sufficiently and learnedly handled and before in this my treatise pag. 17 I haue briefly touched it whereto I adde in this place a word or two more for your better satisfaction Among such Catholickes as refuse to take the Oath of allegiance are many who thinke indeed the Pope to haue no power to depose Kings or dispose of their kingdoms howbeit either vpon pretended scruple of conscience or other humane respects are against the taking and takers of the Oath as if they were little better then Heathens or Publicans And some so simple and ignorant as beleeue that no Pope euer challenged or attempted such authoritie on any Kings or Emperors and that no Iesuit or other learned man allowed or euer taught such doctrine so odious it seemeth vnto them But the wiser sort and more learned know how it hath bene challenged and practised by Popes on the persons of Henrie Otho Fredericke Emperours Iohn King of Nauarre for neither heresie or apostasie and since on Henrie 8. and Queene Elizabeth as by censures do appeare And that it is the moderne doctrine of many both Canonists and Diuines in these latter ages which at the first teaching thereof being so farre dissonant from the writings and practise of all antiquitie was generally adiudged to be noua haeresis as Sigebert reporteth S. Iohn Chrysostome that great Doctor vpon that place of S. Paul 2. Cor. 1. Non dominamur fidei vestrae We ouerrule not your faith Sigebertus in Chro. ad an 1088. Chrysost lib. 2 de dig sacerd c. 3. attributeth such power as forcibly restraines offenders from their wickednesse of life vnto secular Iudges vnder whose dominion they are not vnto the Church because saith he neither is such power giuen vnto vs by the lawes with authoritie to restraine men from offences nor if such power were giuen vs could we haue wherewith we might exercise such power c. So in his time and long after such power of compelling offenders by temporall punishments to conuert to better life was vnheard of to be in Bishops of the Church Cardinall Bellarmine in the catalogue of his ancient writers which he produceth against Barclai for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes beginneth with one who was iudge in his owne cause Gregorie the seuenth that began his reigne in the yeare of our Lord 1073. not able of like to proue it out of any more ancient Father or generall Councell That this Pope was the first that challenged or attempted to practise such authoritie Otho in chro l. 6. c. 35. witnesseth Otho Frisengen a most learned and holy Bishop and highly commended by the Cardinall himselfe lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Lego saith he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Rom. Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno priuatum c. I reade and reade ouer againe the acts of the Kings and Emperors of Rome and in no place can I find any of them before this to wit Henrie the fourth to be excommunicated or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse haply any take this for excommunication that Philip the first Christian Emperor who succeeded Gordianus for a short space Euseb hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. was by the Bishop of Rome or as Eusebius reporteth of the Bishop of that place where he then resided placed among publicke penitents and Theodosius sequestred by S. Ambrose from entrance into the Church for cruell murther Whereby we may note that this learned man could not find no not one example in all precedent ages of depriuing kings of their regal scepters though of excommunication he proposeth onely these two which may haue some shew of truth for meere excommunication howbeit more probable it is they were not excommunicated at all maiore excommunicatione Then this Author in the next chapter following Otho ibid. c. â—6 describeth the intestine warres destruction of soules and bodies setting vp of Pope against Pope schismes and other manifold lamentable miseries that ensued vpon that fact of Pope Gregory against Henrie the 4 who commanded the Bishops of Ments and Colen to constitute Rodolph Duke of Burgundie Emperor Spec. hist l. 27. and to put downe Henrie whereupon followed a most grieuous warre wherein Rodolphus was ouercome who dying repentant said The Apostolicall commandement and the intreatie of Princes haue made me a trangressor of my oath behold therefore my hand cut off or wounded wherewith I sware to my Lord Henrie not trecherously to practise any thing against his life nor his glorie Who being ouercome the Bishop of Ments by the Popes commandement and with helpe of Saxons raised an other aduersary against the Emperor one Hermannus Knoflock whereupon followed likewise bloudie warres After this Henrie gathering his armie together driueth the Pope into France and setteth vp the Bishop of Rauenna against him whom he named Clement and so caused a schisme This sparsim out of the history Such like calamities are more then probable to fall on people and the Church when Emperors or Kings are so violently proceeded withall assured destruction of many and no hope of the correction of any by such means is like to ensue Was such power trow ye giuen by Christ to his Apostles tending to destruction not to edification No all to edification according to S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. none to destruction Otho Frisengensis in another place of his workes Li. 1. de gestis Frederici c. 1. writing of the Popes excommunicating the Emperour sheweth that Henrie 4. thought it to be such a nouitie as he had neuer knowne the like sentence to be denounced against any Romane Emperor before He liued an 1150. And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests By euill kings he meaneth such as are deposed Cont. Barcl cap. 5. teaching that no subiection is to be yeelded to euill Kings and though they sweare fidelitie are not bound to performe it to be noua haeresis a new heresie sprung vp Howbeit Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you that such doctrine and practise began about the yeare of our Lord 700 for before that time there wanted as he affirmeth either necessitie or oportunitie to teach or vse such power By reason of like there were no hereticall Princes impugners of the true faith before that time or that the paucitie of Christian Kings to assist the weake forces
taken without deniall of their faith neuer shewing them any particular point which it is for to say truth they cannot So then their bare word must be beleeued as an oracle or else in fine with a bat they will beate men downe The Popes commandement not hauing ought else to say which may conuince It may be admired they make no more conscience in such an important businesse as this is not hauing the Churches definition nor ancient Fathers approbations for their assertions After all some burst forth in most vncharitable railing slanderous backbitings against such priests as in conscience haue performed their dutie in taking it and persist in teaching the lawfulnesse thereof withdrawing friends and charitable almes from them counselling some and commanding others not to resort vnto them as I haue bene credibly told by some that haue themselues bene forbidden and much more such like dealings which shall not be here rehearsed Ignosce illis Deus quia nesciunt quid faciunt These ought not to be the proceedings neither of good subiects nor of discreete guides of mens soules or true disciples of Christ who are made knowne to all by a notorious cognisance commonly called loue or charity giuen by our Sauiour Christ In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis Ioan. 13. si dilectioneÌ„ habueritis Adinuicem In this all men shal know that you are my disciples if you haue loue one to another Which badge were to be wished more visible then it is in some that pretend to be true followers of Christ Now to the authoritie of S. Paul may be answered that an hereticke so taken condemned and denounced by the Church is to be auoided in his heresie to be taken heed of that he be not seduced by him haeresis enim serpit vt cancer for heresie creepeth as a canker and in humane conuersation also when there is hope to reduce him thereby to a better mind Vt spiritus saluus sit But as no Catholike is by the lawes of this realme to be accompted a Recusant till he be conuicted so is none by the lawes of the Church to be reputed an hereticke to be auoided till he be by her admonished condemned and denounced for such which is neuer without pertinacie in heresie And what maketh this for them that say we denie the Popes authoritie God forbid that I by his grace a Catholicke priest should euer denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate any Prince or people that were once incorporated into the body mysticall of Christ by Baptisme but as I haue denied excommunication of her owne nature to extend to deposition and taking away of temporals so I may not grant that euery excommunicate person is to be abandoned of all and debarred of all humane society and conuersation Though humane communication esteemed one of the common goods is found also among the faithfull as to eate together to salute to talke negotiate and such like yet this sort of communication belongeth not to them properly as they are Christians and members of the Church but as they are citizens parts of the body politick And as they are such they are bound to adhere vnto the head of this body their Prince not to forsake but obey him in all iust ciuill causes notwithstanding any sentence of excommunicatioÌ„ as hath bene proued before out of Syluester Panormitan others which is not to deny the Popes power No if you reade Tortus and beleeue him I know you wil change your opinion for vpon those words That the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome hath any power or authority to depose the king c. or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie c. He writeth thus Torâ—us par 3. Here it is manifestly seene that this Oath doth not containe onely ciuill obedience in things meerely temporall as the Authour of the Apologie our Soueraigne so oft hath repeated but it containeth also a denyall of the Popes power which is not a thing meerely temporall but a holy thing and giuen from aboue which no mortall man can take away or diminish It is strange that his Maiesties oft repetition of a truth nothing to be contained in the Oath or required but ciuil obedience seemeth irkesome to the Cardinal it being very necessary wheÌ„ men will not vnderstand but his Grace goeth not about to disproue it And who I pray you is a better interpreter of a law when doubts or difficulties arise then he that made the law If it containes a deniall of the Popes power his Grace should haue done well to haue proued it and shewed wherein Though the Cardinall for many respects ought of me somtime not vnknown vnto him highly to be reuerenced and his writings credited yet in this matter to me most cleare I must craue pardon if I differ from him in opinion and write otherwise not being able after study and diligent search of this matter to see it so manifest as his Grace wold make his reader beleeue It is most manifest the ancient Fathers neuer taught so viz. to be in the Popes power to depose Kings nor discharge subiects of their loyaltie and dutifull obedience the Church neuer yet defined it so can I then be so credulous to beleeue his bare word without better proofe His ipse dixit in this will not be sufficient The other florish to leade away a simple and inconsiderate reader forsooth that the Popes power is spirituall a holy thing from heauen c. is somewhat vainely and to no purpose inserted for no Catholicke denieth it and we that haue taken the Oath of allegiance are readie with Gods grace if need were to shed our bloud in defence therof and euerie point of Catholicke faith albeit we suffer disgraces and neuer receiued temporall benefite nor euer tooke oath vsque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiuè so to do as the most illustrous and most reuerend purple Fathers are accustomed to take when in publicke consistory they receiue their hats The Cardinall in Tortus goeth on further to prooue by subsequent words in the Oath that the Popes spirituall power is denied Parag. 4. which were enough to terrifie Christian subiects if it were true The words are these Also I do sweare from my heart that notwithstanding any declaration or sentence of excommunication or depriuation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his successors or by any authoritie deriued or pretended to be deriued from him or his Sea against the said King his heires or successours or any absolution of the said subiects from their obedience I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie his heires and successors Here saith the Card. is openly denyed that the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings though they be heretikes Note his proofe For how saith he can a Catholicke lawfully and iustly sweare that he will
that he acknowledged himselfe vnable to effect it yet at last wonne by their importunitie they being his friends promised to do the best he could hoping they would when they saw it with their memories helpe to supply his defects The same afternoone he began to set downe in writing the Popes speech in his owne phrase and stile as neare as he could remember and when he had done he commanded me being one of his Chaplains and two other of his gentlemen to write out copies thereof which he after presented to the Cardinals his friends who had importuned him to that labour Afterwards they gaue him thankes saying that it was the very Oration which Sixtus had vttered in Consistory and as I was enformed the Pope himselfe liking his doing therein said it was his speech indeed By this meanes the Oration was set forth and published among diuers particular friends and so I reserued to my self a copie which I sent as I haue said soon after to my beloued friend M. William Reynolds And as far as my memory serueth me this here printed according to the Parisian copie doth well agree with the originals first written in Rome for I do yet perfectly remember the beginning out of Abacucke to be the same likewise the facts of Eleazar and of Iudith with the circumstances to haue bene in that Oration as also the circumstances of the Friars going to certaine aduersaries of the league for letters of credence to the King Brisac then prisoner in the Bastile his going forth of the gate so dangerously and his passage through the heretickes campe to his Maiestie with other like circumstances there specified But whether the Pope in this his Oration approueth or alloweth of the Friars fact killing his King for that he had caused the Cardinall of Guise Archbishop of Rhemes to be put to death was esteemed of some a tyrant and fauourer of heretickes or onely admired the prouidence of almightie God as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth I do not presume to define but leaue it to the consideration of each prudent reader What if the Pope vpon wrongs done to himselfe as a temporall Prince in Italy should authorize some of his vassals or feudatary Princes to wage warre against our King and inuade his dominions is not this lawfull for him by the law of nations How then doth the Oath say that the Pope neither of himselfe nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome or by any other meanes with any other hath any power or authoritie to depose the King or to dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or dominions or to authorize any forrein Prince to inuade or annoy him or his countries That his Holinesse as he is a temporall Prince in Italy may vpon iust cause reuenge iniuries offered by attempting the various euents of warre and thereby seeke to annoy his Maiestie or his countries no man I thinke will doubt but can any man hereby inferre that so doing he hath more authoritie to depose our King or dispose any of his Maiesties kingdomes or inuade his dominions then hath the Emperour French King King of Spaine or any other secular Prince And in case he should attempt in hostile manner not as he is a spirituall Pastor but a secular Prince by himselfe or by the helpe of any forreine Prince to inuade or annoy his Maiestie or his countries euery good subiect may lawfully and in dutie is bound to take armes in defence of his King and countrey against him no lesse then he ought to do against any other secular Potentate whatsoeuer But our Oath speaketh not of the secular power of the Bishop of Rome which he hath onely by the bountie and liberalitie of temporall Princes or by prescription in the temporall dominions he possesseth but of any authoritie whatsoeuer receiued from Christ or his Apostles as he is Christs Vicar and Peters successor as the words of the Oath seeme to import viz. That the Pope neither of himselfe that is as he is Pope nor by any authoritie of the Church or sea of Rome For thus his authoritie is onely and meerly spirituall which was neuer ordained by God to produce such effects as waging of warre inuasion of kingdomes deposing and dethroning of Princes as hath bene said before but onely to practise spirituall censures to wit excommunication suspension interdiction and such like which maketh nothing for such as refuse the taking of the Oath Another obiection some vse to make for their iustification against the Oath viz That he who sweareth must do his best endeuour to disclose and make knowne vnto his Maiestie his heires and successours all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know or heare of to be against him or any of them But to be a Priest to reconcile or to be reconciled to the Church of Rome is treason by the statutes of this kingdome Anno 23.27 Elizab. Therefore he is bound by this Oath to reueale Priests and all reconciled persons which no man can do without committing a most grieuous and hainous crime Are not these men narrowly driuē to their shifts trow ye when after labouring their wits to defend their refusall of the Oath they can find no better arguments The words of the Oath import that such as take it must make knowne all treasons and traiterous conspiracies which he shall know to be against him How I pray you can this be vnderstood of any who is not disposed to cauill to be meant of Priesthood and confession of sins or reconcilement to the fauour of God or vnitie of his Church and not rather of such like treasons and traitorous conspiracies as were inuented and should haue bene practised by those late wicked sulphurean traitors These indeed and others of like nature and qualitie are directly against his Maiestie his hieres and successours for repressing and detecting such this Oath was inuented and the Act framed not for disclosing Priests or reconciled persons who acccording to the intentiō of the Act are no such traitors as long as they enter not into any treasonable practise against his Maiestie and the State whereof God forbid all Priests should be guiltie And I trust both his Maiestie most learned and wise together with his graue and prudent Councell in their wisedomes know that besides some few who haue already giuen good proofe of their loialtie and dutifull affection though to their great temporall detriment for the same there are many moe who beare likewise a true English heart to their King and countrey and would be ready to make also proofe thereof if occasion were offered Wherefore supposing it were true that by the letter of the law all Priests Jesuites c. mentioned in the statute are to be reputed traitors and all reconciling treason yet I dare auouch it was neuer his Maiesties nor the lawmakers intent to bind any called to the Oath to reueale such kind of traitours or treasons which is made
other kings of Iuda who were much more wicked then Saul was and on impious Ieroboam that led with him all Israel to Idolatrie Achab Ochozias Ioachaz and the rest of the kings of Israel who exceeded in all kind of impietie in whose dayes florished Ahias Semeias Elias Eliseus Isaias Ieremy and other great Prophets indued with maruellous courage zeale authoritie and sanctitie of life yet none went about to depose or take the crowne from the head of any Prince lawfully inuested though he were neuer so wicked knowing right well that whatsoeuer they wrought with Princes about the ouerthrow of some or setting vp of others or foretold what was to happen vnto them it was not by any ordinarie power that they had but extraordinary by speciall commandement and reuelation from Almightie God Now by this fact of Samuel it may well be deduced that whensoeuer the Pope gouernour of Gods house shall haue speciall reuelation from aboue as Samuel had that such a particular king is to be deposed and another placed in his roome thē it cannot be denied but he may do as Samuel did that is as I haue said he may and ought to declare the will of God reuealed vnto him without any concurrence to the execution thereof onely denouncing Gods sentence of deiection or deposition of such a Prince when he knoweth certainly that so is the will and pleasure of our Lord whose will none may contradict Voluntati eius quis resistit Who is able to resist his will nor is any to expostulate why he doth so And if such a thing should euer happen then were the argument good and sound otherwise weake and of no force If any man after this obiect vnto me that Athalia was deposed and slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest when she had reigned seuen yeares therefore it seemeth he had authoritie frō God so to do and if he had why should not the Pope haue the like ouer exorbitant Princes For solution hereof I referre him to the place of holy Scripture where he may see with halfe an eye 4. Reg. 11. that Athalia was no lawfull Queene but an vsurping tyrant who had murthered all the kingly race and so intruded her selfe most vniustly Whereupon Ioiada high Priest brought forth and presented to the people Ioas sonne to Ochozias who was strangely preserued by meanes of his Aunt Iosaba when he was but an infant from that tyrannous slaughter made by his Grandmother Athalia and together with their full consents performing the dutie of a good subiect restored the true heire to the right of his kingdome which could hardly haue bene effected without the high Priests assistance who was the chiefest in matters of religion and therefore much honoured and respected of the people So this fact of Ioiada proueth nothing but that it is lawfull for a state or commonwealth to depose an vsurper and restore the true heire to his right and not that he had any authoritie to depose any lawfull Prince were he otherwise neuer so exorbitant in life manners and beleefe or cruell in his gouernment Well Sir though this be granted that neither the Synagogue of the Iewes nor Samuel the Prophet nor Ioiada the high Priest had authoritie to depose Princes and dispose of their temporals yet can we not be perswaded but that the Church of Christ and his Vicar in earth the Pope whose power is not limited to one sort of people as it was in the old law but is extended ouer all Christians as well Princes as people throughout the world may iustly depose kings and dispose of their kingdomes when he shall iudge it expedient to the glory of God and vtilitie of the Church And the rather because this hath bene practised by diuerse precedent Popes vpon certaine Princes in these latter ages for crimes adiudged by them to deserue the same which we suppose they would neuer haue enterprised had they not sufficient warrant out of holy Scriptures or examples of the Apostles and ancient Bishops of Gods Church or else authoritie from the holy Ghost by a definitiue sentence in some generall Councell We pray you touch this point so as you may resolue vs throughly whether they haue all or some of these proofes for that authoritie if they haue not then is it cleare in our opinions not to be de fide and if it be not a point of faith binding all to beleeue that his Holines hath such authoritie we see no reason why vpon his bare commandement we should so deepely plunge our selues into a sea of calamities as of necessitie we must by losing all lands and goods whatsoeuer we haue to the vtter vndoing of our selues wiues and children and hazarding our liues by perpetuall imprisonment for refusing to performe our dutie to our Soueraigne by taking the Oath of allegiance wherein we sweare fealtie and ciuill obedience which is due by the law of God and nature Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae Dei Deo Render saith our Sauiour to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Besides if we refuse it we shall not take away but greatly increase the heauie imputation of treason and treacherie which our aduersaries haue this long time layd on Catholickes and confirme them in this their wrong opinion that to be a true Catholicke of the Romane Church and a good subiect cannot stand and agree together Beloued brethren lest any man be scandalized at this my writing iudging it not to sauour of a true Catholick heart nor of an obedient child of the Apostolicke Church but rather to proceed from an euill affected minde fraught with passion accept for a premunition and I wish I may not be mistaken * that sincerely and without spleene or passion I intend to set downe nothing but what I shall thinke in my opinion to be truth and that I honour and reuerence with heart and mind the holy Catholicke Church of Rome acknowledging and stedfastly beleeuing with the holy Fathers that to be the mother of Churches the Sea of Peter the rocke against which hell gates shall not preuaile the house of God out of which who eateth the Lambe is profane and out of which no saluation is to be hoped for as the great D. S. Augustine and others do teach vs In serm super gestis Emer Donat. and elsewhere Hieron ep ad Dam. Amb. 1. Tim. 3. Athan. ep ad Felicem and that the Pope is the chiefe Bishop and Pastor thereof Christs Vicar in earth and successor to S. Peter prince of the Apostles who by his spirituall power giuen by Christ our Lord hath iurisdiction ouer all Christian Princes and monarchs as well as poore men so farre as is requisite to the conuersion and feeding of soules But I cannot easily be induced to beleeue that this power giuen him by Christ in S. Peter extendeth it selfe to the depriuation or deposition of secular Princes of their dominions or to the deposing