another as derived from Christ and his Apostles must be received with the same Veneration and Obedience that we pay to the Holy Scriptures And for the ways of distinguishing a Tradition of the Church from any Imposture or Novelty There be four of them The first That is the most doubtful is That the greatest and most esteemed Doctors in any Age deliver as a Divine Truth Nor is it necessary that they formally say This is a Tradition but if many of them mention an Opinion and declare their own assent to it this passes as a sufficient proof of the Tradition of any Age of the Church So in all points of Controversie between them and us the greatest part of their Writers some few later and suspected ones only excepted think they have sufficiently justified their Church when they bring Testimonies out of any of the Writings of the Fathers that seem to favour their Opinion and will call it unreasonable for us to reject these because they only deliver their own opinion and do not call it the Tradition of the Church but conclude That many Writers in any age asserting an Opinion it may well be looked on as the Tradition of that Age. But because this is more liable to exception there is another way that is more infallible to judg of Tradition and that is by the conveyance of the See of Rome which they judg the chief Depository of the Faith and for which they fansie they have so many proofs from the high things some of the Fathers have said about the dignity of that See Now if these conclude any thing it must follow That whatever has been delivered in any Age by a Pope as conveyed down from Christ or his Apostles must either be so indeed or the See of Rome is not a faithful Transmitter of Tradition But there is yet a more certain way of judging of Tradition by what the chief Pastors of the Church have delivered when assembled in a general Council This being the Supreme Tribunal in the Church there can lie no appeal from it Nor can the Doctrines delivered or approved by it be questioned For instance If it were under debate How the Tradition about Transubstantiation can be made out in the Thirteenth Century it is needless to seek any other evidence than That one Almerick is condemned for denying it and in Opposition to that it was formally established in a general Council This is as much as can be had and he were very unreasonable that were not satisfied with it So if it be asked How can the Tradition of the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and giving away their Dominions in the same Century be proved The Answer is plain That same very Council decreed it Upon which a great Prince was deposed and his Dominions were given to another These are the Common Standards by which Traditions are Examined But to these a new one has been lately added which is indeed a much shorter and nearer way And that is whatever the Church holds in any one age as a Material point of Religion she must have received it from the former age and that age from the former and so it climbs upwards till the days of the Apostles If this be a certain Track of Tradition by which we may infallibly trace it Then for instance If in any one age it hath been believed That St. Peter had power from Christ which he left to the See of Rome by which his Successor in it can depose Kings then this must be an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence of equal authority with any thing written in the Scriptures To these General Considerations about the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition I shall add Two other about the Nature of Supreme and Soveraign Power By which we may judg of what Extent the Popes Power must be if he have an authority to depose Kings and transfer their Dominions to other persons First When the Soveraign Powers proceed in a Legal way against its Subjects If either they abscond so that they cannot be found Or have such a Power about them that the Sovereign cannot bring them to punishment He may declare them Rebels and set Prices on their Heads And in that case it is as lawful for any Subject to kill them as it is for an Executioner to put a condemned Person to Death These being the several ways the Law provides in those several cases So when a Pope deposes a Prince He may as lawfully set on private Assassinates to kill him as oblige his Subjects to rise with open force against him For if the Pope has a Power over him to depose him this clearly follows from the Nature of Sovereign Power and it is the Course that sometimes must be followed when the Rebel can be no other way brought to deserved punishment and if the Pope has the power of deposing then a Prince who after such a Sentence carries himself as a King is a Rebel against his Supreme Lord And is also an Usurper For his Title being destroyed by the Sentence He has no authority over his Subjects and therefore may be as lawfully killed as any Rebel or Usurper Secondly The Supreme power may in cases of great necessity when the thing is in it self materially just pass over such Forms as ought in ordinary Cases to be observed I need not tell you That in a great Fire Subordinate Magistrates may blow up Houses But doubtless the Supreme Power of all as a King in an absolute Monarchy and such is the Papal Power if these Opinions be true may dispence with some Forms when the Matter is in it self just and if the chief design of a Law be pursued the circumstantial parts of it may upon extraordinary occasions be superseded Therefore if the Pope is Supreme over all Kings and has this deposing Power Then though by the Canon a King ought to be first a Year Excommunicated for his Heresy or favouring Hereticks and at the Years end he may be Deposed by the Pope There are also other Rules for Excommunications tho the Summary way in some cases may be used yet all these are but circumstantial and lesser Matters The design of that Law is That no Heretical Prince or favourer of Heresie be continued in his Power The other are but Forms of Law that cannot be indispensibly necessary in all cases Besides the very Canon Law teaches that when there is both a Notorietas juris Facti Summary proceedings are Legal when then it is Notorious that the Doctrines of the Church of England for Instance are Heretical and that the King is an Obstinate Favourer of these Heresies and will not extirpate them Summary and Secret proceedings are justifiable There is no hope that Bulls Breves or Citations would do any good in this case These would on the contrary alarm the State and bring all the Party under great hazards Therefore from the Nature of Supreme Power it is most justly Inferred That
Church for several Ages and by consequence it must be looked on as derived down from the Apostles If the Doctrine of any one Age of the Church can lead us backward in a certain Track to discover what it was in the Apostles days By the first Position about the Nature of Supreme Power it is apparent that in the Case of Heresy a Prince deposed by the Pope if he stands out against the Sentence may be as lawfully killed as any Tory or Moss-Trooper or Bantito may be for he is a Rebel against his Lord and an Usurper over the People from that day forward And therefore tho Mariana told a Secret too publickly yet it cannot be denied to be a certain Consequent of their Principles It had been indeed more discreetly done to have ordered this only to be infused unto Peoples Consciences by their Confessors in secret And for Mariana tho the Book in gross is condemned as they give out yet the Opinions set down in it are not censured But Suarez writing against K. James tells him in plain Terms That a King who is canonically deposed may be killed by any man whatsoever This was not only published with an ordinary License but the whole University of Alcala declared every thing in it to be according to the Doctrine of the Church Valentia tho he disguises it a little yet says That an Heretical Prince may by the Popes Sentence be deprived of his Life Foulis cites ten more Doctors for the same Opinion of killing Kings by private persons I do not build upon the Assertions of these Jesuits as binding Authorities in that Church but make use of them to shew that some of their own eminentest Writers acknowledg the force of this Consequence which is indeed so evident that nothing but good Manners and some small Care not to provoke Princes too much by such bare-faced Positions keeps others from asserting it Few Princes are so tame as Childeric was to go into a Monastery after they are deposed Therefore this Doctrine is but a lame provision for the Churches Security from Heresie if the Lawfulness of killing does not follow that of deposing Kings And it was so generally received that it is told of Gerson that he was at great pains to get it declared that no private Cut-throat might kill a King and that by consequence it was only the Popes Prerogative to order them to be destroyed By the second Position about the Nature of Supreme Power that in extraordinary Cases Forms of Law may be superseded It is also clear that tho we know nothing of any Sentence of Deposition given out against the King yet he is not a whit the safer for he lies under an yearly Curse every Maundy Thursday The Notoriousness of his Heresy will sufficiently justify a particular Sentence without any further Process or Citation according to the Maxims of the Canon Law And there may be for ought we can know as valid a Deposition as Parchment and Lead can make it already expeded And if it be not yet done we are sure it may be done very suddenly and will be done whensoever they see any probability of Success Bellarmine hath very sincerely told us the Reason why Heretical Princes are not deposed because the Church has not strength enough to make such a Sentence good or does not think it expedient that is to say They will do it whensoever they find a Prince who will execute the Sentence and yet by that Conquest not grow so strong as by that means to turn the Ballance So the two Considerations to which we owe our Security are the want of Force and the Fear of another Prince his becoming too powerful by the Conquest But I must add that Bellarmine while he was a Jesuite had taught that Heretical Princes were not to be deposed except they endeavoured to turn their people from the Faith This was all his Bounty to them of which we could not pretend to a Crumb since there were such Laws made against Popery among us Yet when he became a Cardinal he considered better of the Matter so that in his Recognitions he retracts that and says therein be followed Durandus his Opinion who maintains it against Aquinas but he thinks the latter was in the right and says Even in that Case they may be deposed only the Church does it not always either because she wants Strength or does not judge it expedient But he concludes If Princes endeavour to draw their Subjects from the Faith they may and ought to be deposed So in our Case there is no Mercy to be expected unless we repeal all Laws against that Religion But after all this there is another Device in the canon-Canon-Law called Ipso facto by which a Sentence is incurred immediately upon the doing of a Fact This began in the Priviledges granted to Monasteries or Churches in most of which this Clause is to be found That if any King or Prince c. did any thing contrary to these Priviledges he thereby fell from his Power and Dignity Now that Heresy is one of the things upon which a Prince is ipso facto under Excommunication and Deposition we have the Authority of Father Parsons or Creswel who tells us That the whole School of Divines and Canonists agree in it and That it is certain and of Faith That a Prince falling from the Catholick Religion and endeavouring to draw away others from it does immediately fall from all his Power and Dignity even before the Pope has pronounced any Sentence and that his Subjects are free from their Oaths of Obedience and may eject such an one as Apostate and Heretick But there is a clearer Evidence for this the great and famous College of the Sorbon seventy Doctors being present when consulted whether the People of France were not freed from their Obedience to Henry the third upon his putting the Duke and Cardinal of Guise to death they before ever the Pope had given Sentence declared That they were absolved from their Obedience and might with a good Conscience make War upon him for the defence of the Catholick Faith Upon which the Parisians wrote to the Pope to desire the Confirmation of that Decision From all which it appears that if the deposing Power be in the Pope the King is not a whit the safer because we know nothing of any such Sentence pronounced against him And thus having made good and illustrated the Positions I laid down against all the Exceptions which that small and condemned Party of Widdrington's Followers make use of to cover themselves from the Charge of Treason that lies against their Church I go next to lay open the Evidence after which I shall leave it to every Man's Conscience to pass the Verdict There are in Pope Gregory the Great 's Works four Priviledges granted one to the Abbey of St. Medard another to the Hospital a third to the Nunnery a fourth to St. Martin's
Church of Autim In which after the Priviledges are granted a Sanction is added in these words If any Kings c. shall endeavour to countervene this Writing let him lose the Dignity of his Power and Honour Or shorter in that of St. Medard Let him be deprived of his Dignity These are to be found both in all the MSS and Printed Editions of that Popes Works It is true the first of these to Saint Medard's Monastery is looked on as a forged Piece both by Cardinal Perron Sirmond and Lannoy But as it went for a true one till of late and is still defended by others Baronius in particular concluding from thence for the Popes Power over Kings so the other Priviledges are not denied to be true by any except Lannoy of late for ought I know These have been for above 600 years looked on as the Grants of that Pope But this may seem a private Writing and not of such force About 130 years after that Pope Gregory the 3d deposed Leo the Emperor from all his Dominions in Italy because he would not tolerate the Worship of I mages And if that single Heresie merited such a Sentence what may we look for among whose many imputed Errors this is but one and none of the most considerable Not many years after that did his Successor Zacharias upon a Message he received from France absolve that Nation from their Oaths to Childeric and ordered Boniface to Crown Pepin in his stead And not long after that Pope Adrian gave the Empire of Rome and of the West to Charles the Great As Bellarmine proves from above 30 of the Historians of that time and the Testimony of many Soveraign Princes Yet these being dark Ages in which there was more of Action than Dispute we do not find the Grounds laid down on which those Proceedings were founded But the constant Maxim of the Papacy was once to begin a Practice and then to find Arguments to defend it among which the Practice it self was no inconsiderable one for he was a mean spirited Pope that would in a Title fall short of what his Predecessors had assumed About 250 years after Charles the Great had assumed the Empire of the West there arose a Pope Gregory the Seventh that resolved to make the most of his See that could be and reckoning That the Empire of the West was the Gift of his Predecessors and building on that known Maxim That none can give that which they have not he looked on the supreme Dominion of it as one of the Perquisites of the See which he would by no means part with And therefore in his Dictatis in which he asserts the several Branches of his Prerogative these be three of them That the Pope only may use the Imperial Ensigns That he may depose Emperours And That he can absolve Subjects from their Fidelity to wicked Princes And to shew he was in earnest in these Doctrines he began soon to lay about him His first Threatnings were against King Philip of France who was a vicious Prince In a Letter to the Bishops of France he requires them to admonish the King for his Faults and if he did not mend them to put the whole Kingdom under an Interdict And if after all that he continued still Disobedient he Swaggers out in these Words We will have none to be ignorant or doubtful what we intend to do upon it for by the help of God we will endeavour by all Means to wrest the Kingdom of France out of his Possession But upon the submission of that King these Threatnings came not to any effect Yet he went on against the Emperor Hen. the 4th at the rate he had threatned the King of France I need not tell what all the World knows That he first Excommunicated and Deposed the Emperor in the Year 1076. Then upon his doing of Penance he received him into his Favour But upon new provocations he deposed him a second a third and fourth time in the years 1080 1081 and 1083. In all which he had the concurrence of so many Roman Councils and set up against him first Rodolph after that Herman as his Successors did first Conrade and then Henry that Emperor 's unnatural Sons The prosecution of the History is needless to my Design But in his Letter to Herman Bishop of Mets we meet with that which is more considerable For there he largely justifies his Proceedings which he grounds on the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being given to St. Peter and the power of Binding and Loosing joined to them More places of Scripture he sought not but his Successor Boniface the 8th made use of Ecce duo Gladii and the power given to the Prophet Jeremiah Over Kingdoms to Root out Pull down Destroy Throw down to Build and to plant And they took it in great dudgeon if any would compare a single Prophet under the Law to Christ's Vicar under the Gospel But Gregory goes on in his Proofs to the Tradition of the Church And says The Fathers had often both in General Councils and in their particular Writings acknowledged That this Power was in the See of Rome That it was the Mother and Head of all other Churches That all matters were to be judged by it from whose Sentence no Appeal could lye Nor could there be a Review made of the Judgments passed in that See And to confirm what he had asserted he cites some Passages out of Gelasius and Julius and that Clause in the Priviledges granted by Gregory the Great formerly mentioned So here he very fully and formally delivers the Tradition of the Church and builds upon it He also cites the Precedent of Pope Zacharias his Deposing Childeric not for any fault he found in him but because he thought him not fit to Govern From that he goes on to some Reasons such as they are for the justification of his Proceedings The Pope having thus declared the Tradition and Doctrine of the Church it is not to be wondered at if both the Schoolmen mixt it with the Instructions they gave their Scholars and the Canonists made it a part of the Law of the Church Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexander Alensis Bonaventure Durand Peter of Aliac John of Paris Almain Gabriel Biel Henry of Ghant John Driodo John de Terre iremata Albert Pighius Thomas Waldensis Petrus de Palude Cajetan Franciscus Victoria Dominicus a Soto and many others in all 70 are reckoned by Bellarmin but Foulis enlarges the number to 177 whom he cites who did formally assert it Aquinas also taught it tho' in some places he contradicted himself But Boniface the 8th thought his Predecessors had proceeded in this matter too cautiously and therefore he went more roundly to work In the Jubilee in the year 1300 He shewed himself the first day in the Pontifical Habit but the second day he was clothed with the Imperial Habit a naked Sword being carried before
him and cried out with a loud voice I am Pope and Emperor and have both the Earthly and Heavenly Empire This upon so publick an occasion looks very like the Teaching the Church Ex Cathedra But because words vanished into Air he left it in writing in these terms We say and define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to Salvation for every humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome This being put into the Text of the Canon Law in which it is continued to this day we cannot think it Strange that Panorimitan Ostiensis Silvester with all the other Canonists assert the Popes direct Dominion over all the World And what can they say less Believing him to be Christs Vicar on Earth to whom all Power in heaven and earth was given of his Father therefore the power in Heaven being judged enough for Christ to manage himself they thought all the power in Earth was Committed to the Vicar This passed down without Contradiction among them but was not received by the rest of the Church yet the Indirect or as they termed it the Ecclesiastical power in cases of Heresie was Universally agreed to not one person Opposing it till Luther and his Followers came sawcily to look into the Popes Title to this and many other pretended Rights of the See of Rome But because the Plea for an Indirect Power was not Sufficient Since if a Prince did not Favour Heresie it was of no use And the pretention to a direct power was of an harsh sound Therefore a Title of another kind was set up It was pretended That all the Kingdoms in the Western and Northern parts of Europe were by formal Surrenders offered up to St. Peter and St. Paul And therefore whatever the Popes did was said to be done in Defence of their Rights which made Gregory the 7th fly to them in that flanting Address with which he begins his Sentences against the Emperor First of all the Donation of Constantine the Great was forged By which the Power of all the West Italy Sicily Sardinia Germany France Spain and England were given to the Pope This was put into the Text of the Canon Law and was stood to by all the Canonists It is true the Civilians wrote generally against it Among whom Bartholus may be reckoned for in his Preface to the Digests having mentioned the Opinions of some against it when it comes to his own he delivers it thus Take notice that we are now in the Territory of the Church for he taught at Bulloigne and therefore I say that Donation is valid But till Valla discovered the Impostures of it so manifestly that they are now ashamed to maintain it any longer their plea from it was never laid down But Augustinus Steuchus who undertakes the Vindication of that Donation against Valla does likewise alledge from some Instruments in the Vatican that both the Kingdoms of Spain Arragon France England Denmark Muscovy Sicily and Croatia and Dalmatia did Subject their Crowns to the See of Rome Krantzius tells us that Lakold King of Poland made it Tributary to Rome And for the German Empire tho Steuchus says nothing of it perhaps that he might not offend Charles the 5th yet there is both in the Canon Law and the Letters of Popes more to be said upon that Head than for any of the rest They pretend the Popes set up first the Empire of the West Then gave the Princes of Germany the Right of choosing the Emperor and does still give the Imperial Crown upon the Emperors Swearing an Oath of Homage to them according to the verse under that Insolent Picture set up by Pope Innocent the 2d In the Lateram of the Emperor lying prostrate at his feet and receiving the Crown from him Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dante Coronam But all these Surrenders were made use of only to strengthen the great pretention they had of being Christs Vicars and St. Peters Successours which from the end of the 11th Century till the beginning of the 16th for above 4 Ages together was as Authoritatively asserted by Popes as positively taught by Divines and as tamely received by the whole Church Emperors and Kings not presuming to contradict it as any other Article of Faith And for proofs of this we need appeal to no other witnesses than those 3. great Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron who may be presumed to have understood the Doctrine of their own Church better than any body else The First of those through his whole work strains his Industry to discover as many Instances as he can of it and never parts with any without expressing the particular satisfaction he had in so pleasant a Discovery I shall only set down what he says on the two 1st occasions that he met with When he takes notice of Gregory the Great 's priviledges formerly mentioned he adds You see Reader That the Popes can make Laws to which if Kings themselves do not yield Obedience they shall lose their Kingdoms Upon the first Deposition mâ—de by Gregory the 3d. He adds The Faithful in the West being awakened by this Thunder do immediately fall from the Obedience to Leo adhering to this Apostolical Pope So this Gregory left a worthy Precedent to Posterity that Heretical Princes be not suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if having been often admonished they continue to persist obstinately in their Errors Such strains as these do so often occur afterwards that they can scarce be reckoned It is well known what advice he gave P. Paul the 5th in the quarrel with the Venetians applying the voice to St. Peter Arise and Kill to the case in hand and that with his Insolent Paraenesis to that Republick are clear Evidences of his sence in this matter What Bellarmin taught more shortly and obscurely in his Controversies was afterwards made more plain both by his Writings about the Translation of the Roman Empire upon the Interdict of Venice and against King James and William Barklay And Cardinal Perrons Eloquent speech against the Bill put in by the Third Estate of France for Condemning those pretensions of a Deposing Power shews us not only his own sense but the sense of the whole Clergy of France in whose name he delivered it He calls the Contrary Opinion a Doctrine that breeds Schisms a Gate that leads unto all Heresie and so detestable that he and his Fellow Bishops will choose to burn at a Stake rather than consent to it He affirming That all the parts of the Catholick Church and of the Church of France in particular and all the Schools of Divinity till the coming of Calvin held the affirmative and says That no where in France since the Divinity Schools were set up can they find any one Doctor Divine or Lawyer any Decree Council or Sentence of Parliament or any one Magistrate Ecclesiastick or Politick who had held that in case of Heresie or
Idolatry Subjects might not be absolved from their Oaths of Fidelity to their Princes It is true at first he spake more modestly and pretended the thing was problematical and so was not fit matter for an Oath but when that modester Strain tho it tended all to depress the Regal and exalt the Papal Power had so far prevailed with the King that he ordered the matter to be laid aside and not to be further insisted on They were not satisfied with this but made a new Address in the Name of the Clergy and the Cardinal spake now in a higher tone asserting formally the Popes indirect Power in Temporals and that all who maintained the contrary were Schismaticks and Hereticks even those of the Parliament it self and did plainly threaten the King That if he did not raze all the Proceedings out of the Register the Clergy would leave the Assembly and Excommunicate all who denied the Popes Power of Deposing And if the King would not suffer them to execute these Censures they would proceed upon their hazard tho they were to suffer Martyrdom for it For which zeal they received a Breve from the Pope giving them his solemn Thanks for what they had done desiring them to persevere in the same mind So we have in this Instance not only Cardinal Perrons own mind but the sense of the whole Clergy of France I do not think it necessary to enquire further into the opinion of later Writers tho it were easie to shew that to this day both the Court of Rome the whole Order of the Jesuites the Writers both of Controversies and Cases of Conscience and the Expositors of Scripture do as oft as occasion offers assert the power of Deposing Kings to be still in the See of Rome And tho some few Writers of that Religion since Barkelay and Widdrington's time both of the English and Irish Nation have adventured to deny this power they have been censured for it and branded with Heresy This has been so notorious in the matter of the Irish Remonstrance that I need say no more of it But whether the Writers of this Age allow it or not they are bound according to their Doctrine about Tradition to acknowledg it since two of the Characters of Tradition are found to agree to it For it has been delivered in several Ages of the Church as true Catholick Doctrine by all the publick Doctors in these times so that either This is a Tradition of the Church or That is not a true mark of Tradition nor is it a certain conveyance of Truth if we may be thus deceived in a clear Tradition for four Ages successively It does also appear that if the See of Rome be a faithful Depositary and Transmitter of Church Traditions this must be one since it is delivered to the world by so many Popes in the names of St. Peter and St. Paul and founded on the Power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing granted to St. Peter But I shall next shew how the third mark of Tradition the Authority of General Councils agrees to this Doctrine When this Doctrine had been so well spread over Europe then the Popes found it was safe to trust it to the judgment of such an Assembly as they esteemed a General Council And they proceeded in this matter after the same manner that they had done in the worship of Images and as they did afterwards in the points of Transubstantiation and denying the Chalice in the Communion They took care first to infuse it into all the Clergy which God wot's was no hard thing and then brought them together and made up the Pageant of a Council for giving it more authority So above an hundred years after Gregory the VII had first taught this Doctrine a thing under the name of a General Council sate in the Lateran at Rome where upon the advantage the Popes had against the Albigenses and others who were according to their Opinion most pestiferous Hereticks they first procured a Decree for it It is true many Provincial Councils had concurred with Gregory the VII one of these is called a General one 110 Bishops being present and the other Popes who had formerly given out these Thunders But now the matter was to be more solemnly Transacted In this Council many Hereticks are condemned and Excommunicated and all that had sworn Oaths of Fidelity or Homage to them are Absolved from those Oaths and they are required in order to the obtaining the Remission of their sins to fight against them and those who die doing penance in that manner may without doubt expect Indulgence for their sins with eternal rewards And in conclusion by the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul they Remit to all who shall rise and fight against them two years Penance Here the Council does industriously infuse this Doctrine into all people and calls Rebellion Penance a very easy one to a poor or discontented Subject and assures them of a deliverance from Purgatory and that they should be admitted straight to Heaven for it In an Age in which these things were believed more effectual means than those could not be found out to engage the people in it By this Decree if we are guilty of the Heresies then condemned as no doubt we are of most of them without more ado or any further Sentence upon the declaring us guilty of the Heresies of the Albigenses the Subjects are delivered from their obligations to the King And when they conspire or rebel against him they are only doing penance for their sins and he were hard-hearted that would punish men only for doing of penance About thirty years after that Council the Pope had a mind to regulate the former Law That the Deposing of Kings might be declared a part of his Prerogative and that thereby he might with authority Dispose of their Kingdoms to others For hitherto the Popes had only pretended to the Power of Deposing and then the States of the Kingdom as in an Interregne were to choose a new Prince But P. Innocent the III. thought it was half work except he could bestow as well as take away Crowns His Predecessor Celestine had in a most extravagant humour set the Crown on Henry the Sixth his head with his two feet and then kickt it off again to shew according to Barronius his Comment That it was in his power to give to maintain and take away the Empire A very full Assembly therefore being called of about 1200 of one sort or other to the Lateran again It was first Decreed That the aid of Secular Princes should be required for the Extirpating of Hereticks after that they proceed and enact thus When the Temporal Lord required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Territory from Heretical wickedness let him be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans And if he persist in neglecting to give satisfaction for the space of a year let him be signified