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
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
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
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
to obey the Popes prohibition of this Oath of allegiance Pag. 44. A boy vnder age hanged in Rome Pag. 46. A nephew of old Nauarre the Canonist by the Popes commandement hanged in hast Ibid. Card. Mendoza depriued of his Deanry of Toledo by force Pag. 47. A Gentleman of Card. Farnesius put to death by Pope Clement Pag. 8. 48. The opinion of some ouermuch deuoted to the obedience of the Pope Pag. 50. Obedience due to all superiors yet is their power contained within certaine limits Pag. 51. Ecclesiasticall and ciuill power both immediate from God both distinct and independant of each other Pag. 53. A superior yea the Pope in diuers cases may be disobeyed without sinne Pag. 57. The Breues of Paulus 5. prohibiting the Oath of allegiance may be not obeyed without sinne Pag. 59. Many euils ensue vpō obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath Pag. 60. A cōmandement vpon error of wrong information bindeth not Pag. 62. The Popes bare precept not alway sufficient to cause men to hazard their temporall states Ibid. Cases not doubtfull but manifest as is this of the Oath need no solution from the Pope Pag. 63. Subiects bound to obey all iust lawes of their temporall Princes Pag. 64. The law of the Oath of allegiance iust Pag. 65. The Kings Maiestie in setting forth this Oath hath not exceeded his limits Pag. 66. All lawfull Kings be they heathens or heretickes are to be obeyed by their subiects in temporals Pag. 68. That the Pope or Church do permit euill Princes to reigne a strange phrase Pag. 70. The place of S. Paul Omnis anima to be vnderstood principally of subiection to secular power Pag. 72. The material sword forbiddē to be vsed by Ecclesiasticall persons Pag. 74 Not without a mystery that Peter shold strike none but Malchus Pag. 78. The Apostles and their successors subiect to Emperours and Kings de iure Pag. 79. Gregory 7. the first that chalenged tēporal power to depose Princes Pag. 84 The doctrine and practise of deposing when it began according to Cardinall Bellarmine Pag. 85. Whether the Pope by his spirituall power wherein he is successor to Peter may depose Princes Pag. 87. 91. Excommunication what it is the nature and effects thereof Pag. 95. No denial of the Popes power of binding to say that Princes notwithstanding excōmunicatiō ought to be obeyed of their subiects Pag. 100. The Popes spirituall power of excommunicating Kings not denied as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth Pag. 104. Whether I may renounce all pardons dispensations which shal be against this Oath of Alleg. without denying the Popes power Pag. 108. No deniall of the Popes power of absoluing to say that he cannot absolue me of this Oath Pag. 112. Whether the Pope may remit lawful oaths compelled by feare Pag. 114. How a matter onely of opinion may be truly sworne Pag. 116. The doctrine that teacheth That Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects may be abiured as impious and hereticall Pag. 119. To teach it lawfull to murther yea a tyrant is hereticall Pag. 123. The Oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistorie of the murther of the King of France Pag. 128. The Pope as a temporall Prince may wage warre but not inuade any Kings dominions as he is Christs Vicar Pag. 149. Priests and reconciled persons as such onely no traitors by the intention of the Oath Pag. 150. How an Oath is to be interpreted Pag. 152. In what sort a man is to sweare before a lawfull magistrate Pag. 153. Not such as take but the refusers of the Oath giue cause of scādal Pag. 154. The Authors exhortation to Catholickes Pag. 156. Strange Reports or Newes from Rome Pag. 159. TO THE CATHOLICKES OF ENGLAND BEloued brethren in Christ Iesus Whereas the Kings most excellent Maiestie being the true lawful and right inheritour to the Crowne and Realme of England by the prouidence of almightie God entred and possessed the same with tranquillity and peace and the great applause of all his subiects as well Catholickes as Protestants or others of different sects and opinions his Highnesse as it were to requite their dutifull affection forthwith gaue great hope of a most happie and prosperous regiment and out of his bountie and clemencie extended many his most royall fauours indifferently vpon all till such time as some of the one sort to wit a few giddie headed desperate and disloyall Catholicks associated with certaine of the Societie prouoked his wrath and indignation against them yea and all the professors of the same religion for their fact Who was not moued as all men will confesse without iust cause for that they viz. Catholickes onely either concealed or most barbarously attempted in that hellish-like manner of gunpowder fire the memorie whereof must needs remaine for euer most grieuous to all true hearted Catholike subiects the cruell murther of so many worthie Commons and Noble personages in Parliament assembled yea of the most towardly and innocent yong Prince the Queene and King himselfe and then soone after also had followed vndoubtedly the desolation ruine and destruction of the whole realme of England Hereupon by the generall consent of all three estates and the Kings Maiestie it was thought necessarie an Oath of allegeance in such forme should be framed and enacted as Catholikes for whom chiefly it was made should haue no cause scrupulously to refuse to take the same and the Kings Highnesse with his whole estate might be better secured and freed from all feares and dangers imitating herein other Kings and Princes as occasions shall be offered them If euer the Kings of France or Spaine or other Princes whatsoeuer had cause to exact an Oath of fealtie of their subiects for safetie of their persons or state then certes no man that hath but common sense will denie but our King hath more then iust vpon so horrible and monstrous cause giuen as the like haply was neuer heard of from the beginning of the world Could any man haue thought it strange or held it crueltie if being in such wise and by such persons prouoked he had in his wrath and indignation rigorously proceeded against all others of the Romane religion as suspecting them to beare no better mind towards him though manie thousands doubtlesse no way consented nor were euer priuie to that horrible fact And if he had what ruine of Catholike families what hauocke of Christian bloud with the destruction of soules and other infinite miseries should we haue seene But the omnipotent God whose name be blessed for euer who hath the rule and gouernment of the hearts of Kings inclined his royall heart to mercie and compassion of his subiects knowing right well the faith and loyaltie of many of the same religion as his Maiestie most benignely expressed in his Proclamation and that he should haue punished the innocent with the nocent as well his friends as his foes Oh what follie were it for a
world We know well that as he is the Sonne of God he is the King of glory King of kings Lord of heauen and earth and of all things Psal 23. Domini enim est terra plenitudo eius and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for euer but what is this to a temporall kingdome what is this to the imperiall dignitie of secular maiestie Therefore I meane not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists which hath bene most learnedly confuted by Cardinall Bellarmine Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. 3 but to let it passe as most absurd that cannot be proued by any sound reason nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures Fathers or Councels but maintained by captious fallacies vnapt similitudes and corrupt interpretations An other opinion there is of Diuines who dislike and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positiōs but yet so as they vphold and labour to maintain the Popes temporall power though in other sort then the former that is De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6. indirectly or casually and by consequence This then they write and namely Cardinall Bellarmine Asserimus Pontificem vt Pontificem et si non habeat vllam merè temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum We affirme that the Pope as Pope although he hath not any meerly temporal power yet in order to the spiritual good he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tēpotall goods of all Christians And againe in the same chapter Quantum ad personas non potest Papa vt Papa ordinariè temporales Principes deponere etiam iusta decausa eo modo quo deponit Episcopos id est tanquam ordinarius iudex c. As touching the persons the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporall Princes yea for a iust cause after that sort as he deposeth Bishops that is as an ordinary iudge yet he may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to an other as the chiefe spirituall Prince if that be necessarie to the health or sauing of soules And in the same booke the first chapter where he putteth downe the Catholicke opinion as he saith he altereth it somewhat in this manner Pontificem vt Pontificem c. That the Pope as Pope Lib. 5. cap. 1. hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power but only spirituall yet by reason of the spirituall he hath at least indirectly a certaine power that chiefe or highest in tēporals You haue here set downe by Cardinall Bellarmine the opinion of Diuines that the Pope as Pope or chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power to depose Christian Princes but that indirectly I wot not how he may depose them and dispose of their temporals and so in effect and after a sort agreeeth with the Canonists that indeed such power is rightly in him only he differeth about the manner with a restraint from infidels to Christian Princes But I trust as he in improuing the Canonists assertiō of direct power ouer al the world driueth them to Scriptures or tradition of the Apostles so likewise we may require that he proue his indirect power by one of these two wayes If he cannot as most certainely he cannot then why should men giue more credite to him then to the other they being as Catholike and haply no lesse learned then he Why should his opinion be thought more true then the former To disproue the Canonists thus he writeth Ex Scriptur is nihil habemus Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3. nisi datas Pontifici claues regni coelorum declauibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit Traditionem Apostolicam nullam aduersary proferunt Out of Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth no mention is made at all Apostolical tradition our aduersaries produce none Hereby it seemeth the Cardinall goeth about to proue against his aduersaries that because the keyes of the kingdome of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be giuen to Peter and his sucsessors therefore the Pope hath not any direct authoritie to depose the Princes of the world nor dispose of their temporals insinuating that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised and granted to Peter or to the Church in the person of Peter can worke no such effect nor were granted to depriue Christian Princes or others of their scepters and regall dignities but onely by censures and spirituall authority to exclude vnworthy sinners from eternall felicitie and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdome of heauen If this argument be good against the Canonists then why is it not also good against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe when as he can no more produce Apostolicall tradition to confirme his indirect authoritie then the other their direct And of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth required for deposing Princes and disposing of temporals no mention is made in all the Scriptures no not for his indirect or casuall authoritie Consider besides I pray you for it is worth the noting how obscurely and ambiguously he writeth of the Popes power to depose thereby haply intending to seeke some starting hole of equiuocation if occasion serue and meane while leaue his reader doubtfull and still to seeke of his meaning which in my simple Judgement is such as the iudicious wit can hardly conceiue nor tell what he would say As for example that the chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not any power meerly temporall c. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily note depose c. no not for a iust cause mary as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince he may depose and dispose c. Helpe me good Reader to vnderstand this riddle how these two differ in some essentiall point Pope and chiefe spirituall Prince I must confesse that I vnderstand not how he is the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope that is the Father of Fathers or chiefe Pastor of soules in the Church of God It is wel knowne that this title Pope or Papa in Latin hath bene attributed to many ancient Patriarchs and Bishops as well as to the Bishop of Rome though principally to him and now is appropriated to him alone and for nought else but for being Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Princes of the Church and for that cause only not for being a temporal Prince Peters successor hath his denomination Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth saying D. Kellisons Reply to M. Sutel ca. 1. f. 9. Bern. lib. 2. de consid I grant with S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope hath no temporall iurisdiction his power as he is Pope being onely spirituall If then it be so that the Pope as Pope
hath no temporall power ouer Princes nor can depose them etiam iusta de causa as the Cardinall saith surely I cannot with cristall spectacles see how he can depose as a spiritual Prince there being no perceptible difference betweene them If I should stand to note vnto you the rest of his obscurities and ambiguities I feare I should be too tedious therefore I purpose to surceasse and leaue them to your prudent consideration as The Pope hath not any power meerely temporall he cannot as Pope ordinarily depose temporall Princes as an ordinarie iudge he hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that chiefest or highest in temporals and such like which seeme no lesse fearfully then obscurely written and taught This doubtful doctrine of most learned Cardinal Bellarmine and the varietie or contrarietie of opinions betweene him and other very learned Clerkes in Gods church about this matter of deposition is to me a most strong argument that it is not de fide for if it were then would there be an vniforme content and perfect agreement among them not onely of the thing controuerted but also of the manner and causes thereof no lesse then is of Purgatorie prayer to Saints of the reall presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the B. Sacrament of the virginitie of our B. Ladie incarnation of Christ seuen Sacraments and so of all other points of faith Then would a matter of such moment haue bene found in the writings of some ancient Father as well as other of lesse importance but for wel neare a thousand yeares continuance till the time of Gregorie the 7. it was neuer chalenged mentioned or defended by any writer or else it would haue bene defined in some generall Councell whose authoritie bindeth all Christians to beleeue whatsoeuer is there decreed to be de fide without controuersie which to this day neuer was no not in the third Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius 3. as some ignorantly thinke and build them strong castles in the aire and others inconsiderately auerre howbeit not simply and plainly but somewhat timorously which they need not do if it were so but should confidently auouch it so to be Prou. 10. Qui ambulat simplicitter ambulat confidenter He that goeth simply and plainly to worke goeth confidently A matter of faith is to be taught sincerely and perspicuously not doubtfully or guilefully as it were to deceiue his readers or thereby to hold them in suspence in such wise as they shall euer remaine perplexed and to seeke of the one meaning of what is written O sir if you reade that Councell of Lateran cap. 3. you shall finde it plainly decreed that Princes which be negligent in purging out of their territories the filth of heresie are to be deposed This indeed were somewhat to the purpose if it were true as you say but if you beleeue so you are in an errour for who readeth that chapter shall well perceiue it was not there decreed or defined but treated of the manner how certaine secular powers or temporall Lords without specifying Kings might be proceeded withall and nothing decreed de fide concerning deposition of Princes if it had bene defined matter of faith it must of necessity haue bound all Catholickes as well Princes as people to beleeue it and accept thereof Moreouer such a decree must alwayes haue continued immutable and could not be abrogated as Cardinall Bellarmine writeth Decreta de fide immutabilia sunt Bellar. Lib. 2. Conc c. 17. nec possunt vllo modo abrogari postquam semel statuta sunt The decrees of faith are immutable neither can they be abrogated by any meanes after they are once decreed And if it be no decree of faith as it is not but onely of reformation who I pray you will say it doth bind till it be accepted and receiued Famous Cardinall Tolet faith no and for his assertion citeth the Canon law Can. In istis dist 4. Tolet. de 7. pec Mor. c. 18. Vt lex vim habeat debet esse recepta ab his quibus lex datur si enim lex promulgata est sed non recepta non obligat For a law to be of force it ought to be receiued of those to whom the law is giuen for if a law to wit Ecclesiasticke be promulgated but not receiued it bindeth not Do we not see that the wholesome lawes or decrees of the Councell of Trent touching reformation binde not where they are not yet receiued as in France and other places And is any man so vnwise to thinke that Princes will euer receiue such decrees as may bereaue them of their scepters and temporall states and turne to their vtter ruine Neuer was it hitherto seene nor euer will it be by all likelihood in Great Brittaine or any other kingdome Furthermore in that chapter is no mention made of excommunicating Emperour or Kings nor deposing them nor absoluing their subiects from their naturall obedience but of excommunicating heresie giuing ouer such as are condemned for that crimce to the secular magistrate to be punished and ordering withall that certaine other secular powers or principall Lords inferiour to Kings as may be Potestates Consuls Rectors or such like which by the constitution of Fredericke 2. pag. 66 Emperour is euident should be compelled if neede were to take an oath to do their endeuour for the extirpation of heretickes out of such places as should be vnder their gouernment when of necessitie both Emperour and kings ought to haue bene specified if the Councell had meant to haue included them in that law Sa Apho. v. lex de elect l. 6 ca 22. de reg in edic in poenis sc reg 16. 49. l. 6. In poenalibus saith Samuel Sa restrictione vtendum pia interpretatione In penals we are to vse both a restriction and a pious interpretation Likewise Poenae non extendendae vltra casus iure expressos Punishments are not to be extended beyond the cases expressed in the law Then why shall this be enlarged and extended to kings who are not expressed in the decree of the Councell Therefore this chapter maketh nothing for the Popes authoritie to depriue kings of their crownes and dignities and so consequently is of no validitie against the Oath of Allegiance made anno tertio Iacobi Regis serenissimi But for better clearing this point it shall not be amisse to set downe the decree of the Councell as it is leauing it to the considerations of the learned 〈◊〉 iudge whether it be of faith or no which beginneth thus Excommunicamus anathematizamus omnem haeresim Conc. Later 3 c. 3. c. We excōmunicate and anathematize all heresie that exalteth it selfe against this holy orthodoxe Catholicke faith Note that the punishment of heretickes is to be commutted by sentence of this Councell to secular powers which aboue we haue declared c. And let such as are condemned be left vnto secular powers if
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.
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
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
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
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
this confidence then of Gods assistance and for the instruction of certaine Catholikes who simply beleeue the inconsiderat assertions of some of their teachers that such as take the Oath do and must renounce the Popes spirituall auctoritie of excommunication and abiure or condemne for heresie a disputable position to wit that the Pope may depose for heresie or apostacie which is most vntrue as will easily appeare to him that without passion and with iudgement shall reade the Oath or this my booke These and such like I exhort not to be too credulous in a matter of so great moment as this is giuing eare to euery one that will say it may not be taken and can shew them no true reason why nor in what point it is vnlawfull If any list wilfully to reiect this my wholsome counsaile and will rather still giue eare to such as worke their ouerthrow what else can they in reason expect but losse of lands and goods perpetuall imprisonment by the law finall destruction to them and theirs and haply get no merite to benefite their soules if his Maiestie in clemencie excelling be much exasperated which with carefull regard ought to be looked vnto because Qui nimium emungit elicet sanguinem He that straineth too much draweth bloud And may not his Princely Maiestie be well sayd to excell in mercie and clemencie who first with speede vpon the discouery of the Gun-powder treason set forth his Proclamation worthy neuer to be forgottē therby to stay the furie of the people readie doubtlesse at that time to haue murthered all that should beare the name of Catholike without respecting who were innocēt or who were nocent after himselfe Suetonius in Augusto as Augustus Caesar in person pleaded for the life of a souldier by his pen interpreting the Oath of allegiāce pleaded as it were to giue satisfactiō of his Royall meaning intent of the law for such as he needed not so farre to condescend vnto This rare worthy example of our most learned most prudent Prince I must needes say was to me the least among many others a very vrgent motiue to aduenture this spirituall combat of defending according to my power the Oath of allegiance Cic. lib. 1. Offic. Studiosè saith Cicero plerique facta Principum imitantur Many follow diligently the facts or examples of Princes And if you reade the booke of the Iudges you shal see what encouragement the example of Gedeon then Iudge of the Israelites gaue vnto his small armie consisting but of 300 souldiers against the Madianites their enemies in number almost infinite Iudic. 7. Quod me videritis facere said this great Captaine hoc facite ingrediar partem castrorum quod fecero sectamini What you shall see me do do you the same I will enter into a part of the army and what I shall do that do you follow which they did and obtained a happie victory To whom can I better liken our mightie Monarch king Iames then to that worthy Gedeon To me he seemeth likewise in effect to say vnto his subiects What you see me do do ye the same as I haue begun to write so follow my example endeuoring by pen to defend my right which is all I require by the Oath Who admireth not the profound wisdome and great pietie of his Maiestie that he foreseeing the fatall and wilfull fall of diuers of his beloued subiects by reason of the Popes Breues prohibiting the Oath of allegiance would be pleased for them their good to retire himselfe from his princely recreations to painefull labor both with mind and body and to be the first that with his pen writ a learned Apologie for the Oath Wherein for satisfaction of the perplexed consciences of some of his subiects his Highnesse imitating our Blessed Sauiour 1. Tim. 4. qui vult omnes saluos fieri neminem vult perire who is willing all should be safe will haue none to perish interpreted his meaning to be not to derogate from the Popes spiritual authoritie but to require his subiects to performe their loyalty naturall obedience onely in temporals which is due by the law of God nature therby to draw all to his loue and their owne safety Vouchsafe then beloued reader to spend some idle and vacant time to peruse this short Treatise written by thy welwiller for thy behoofe to confirme thee if thou take the Oath or to perswade thee if thou fearest it to be vnlawfull the time thou spendest herein may counteruaile thy paines Doubt nothing if thou be Catholike he is a Catholike priest that writeth and teacheth thee herein Catholike doctrine if thou be none yet giue this booke the reading assuring thy selfe this Author to be likewise a good loyall subiect and as such he purposeth to liue and die Feare God honor the King and in charitie pray for me thy hearty welwiller Thine euer in Christ Iesus WILLIAM WARMINGTON Priest A Table of the principall points contained in this Treatise THe most barbarous conspiracie of certaine Catholickes cause of the Oath of Allegiance Pag. 1. No wisedome to prouoke a clement Prince to wrath Pag. 2. Many miseries fall yea on innocent persons when a Prince exasperated punisheth in ire Pag. 3. Our King peerlesse for clemencie in the Gun-powder treason Pag. 5. The end why the Oath was made Pag. 7. Great reason for naming the Pope in the Oath Ibid. Samuel at Gods appointment annointed Saul King but did not nor could depose him Pag. 9. The obiection of Ioiada the high priests deposing Queene Athalia answered Pag. 13. Whether the Church or the Pope may iustly depose Kings Ibid. Pag. 87. Popes haue their temporall states not by Christ but by the grants of secular Princes Pag. 15. The Canonists opinion of the Popes deposing Princes Pag. 17. The opinion of certaine Diuines touching the same point Pag. 18. To depose Princes is no matter of faith Pag. 21. 22. Not defined in the Councell of Lateran that the Pope hath power to depose Princes Pag. 22. The decree of that Councell Pag. 24. Cardinal Bellarmines assertion of this Councels definition refelled Pag. 26. Heretickes are to be punished temporally by the ciuill magistrate not by the Ecclesiasticall Pag. 32. The Constitution of Fredericke the Emperour Pag. 34. Frederickes law for the punishment of heretickes toucheth not Kings Pag. 35. The Chapter of the Councell of Lateran supposed a decree yet is not de fide Pag. 36. How you may know a decree to be de fide Ibid. The Breues of Pope Paul 5. are no definitions ex cathedra Pag. 37. Whether the Pope alone may define matters of faith Pag. 38. No sinne not to obey the Popes priuate assertion or opinion in matters vndetermined by the Church Pag. 39. That the Pope not only in matters of fact but also in faith he alone without a Councell may erre as some affirme Pag. 42. Whether Priests or Laicks are bound
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
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
his spirit may be saued in the day of our Lord. 1. Cor. 5. Disciplina est enim excommunicatio non eradicatio Now what can here be gathered by the definition end effects or substance of this spirituall censure for deposing Kings and disposing of temporals Marry sir that subiects are bound obeying the chiefe Pastors censure to shun their Prince excommunicated performing no dutie vnto him nor in any sort to communicate with him for an excommunicate person by name ought of all to be auoided to whom os orare vale communio mensa negatur And then when all forsake him is he not in effect deposed Yes truly when all his subiects do forsake him and he left alone Sed quando haec eruâ—â— Is a King more like to be forsaken then a paterfamilias a priuate man Almaine saith indeede Alm. de pot Eccl. laicâ— q. 1. cap. 9. that the Pope may forbid the subiects of a Prince vnder paine of excommunication to performe any dutie vnto him whereby in effect he loseth his kingdome when no man doth regard him yet cannot depose him though he abuse his authoritie to the destruction of the Christian faith But if a generall defection of subiects follow not if according to their dutie they adhere faithfully vnto him without regard to his censure how then What his Holinesse may do in this case of excommunication with absolute Princes being sheepe of Christs fold to be directed and corrected with that spirituall rod when there is hope of amendment as well as priuate men I will not dispute but experience of former ages teacheth it is not expedient See S. Aug. lib 3. c. 2. cont ep Parm. c. 26. and that such practise breedeth oft schismes reuolts troubles and tendeth rather to destruction of many then to edification of any when as S. Paul professeth power to be giuen to the Church to edifie not to destroy And when this power is exercised in destructionem it is not that power which cometh from God but impotencie and defect This we may be said to do that we may lawfully do Which power Doctor Sanders calleth the sword of the Church and sheweth how it should be vsed Sand. de clau Dauid c. 9. Gladius Ecclesiae in aedificationem datus est c. The sword of the Church is giuen to edification not to destruction to conferre life not to inferre death for defence of the flocke not for hurt of the sheepe to driue away the Wolfe not to deuoure the lambe This sword being spirituall and is to worke vpon soules not bodies or goods of any may be drawne foorth I must coÌ„fesse by the supreme Pastor against exorbitant Princes whose superior he ought to be acknowledged but onely in spirituals when there is hope to saue not to destroy to do good no harme and rather to make a wolfe a lambe then cause a lambe to become a wolfe ready to deuoure the flocke as sometimes such censures haue done which lameÌ„table experience on the persons of many Princes can testifie whereupon they proceeded further haply in rigor with their subiects then otherwise they would haue done and not so much for excommunication onely as for the clauses of depriuation deposition and absolution of subiects from their dutifull obedience which are farre from the nature and substance of a spirituall censure and exceedeth the limited of that power as very learned Catholike Authors go about to proue Excommunicatio saith Ludouicus Richeom non nisi excommunicatum facere potest Richeom in apolog eáque fulminatur in Principes c. Excommunication cannot cause one to be but excommunicated and it is thundred out against Princes not that they may become tyrants nor remoued from their possessions nor to slacken the raines vnto subiects or that they may be freed from their sworne fidelitie To this agreeth Medina Excommunicato non est priuatio alicuius boni proprij Medina in 1.2 q. 96. ar 4. citans Sotum quod transgressor legis prius possederat sed est priuatio bonorum communium c. Excommunication is not a taking away of any proper good which the transgressor of the law before had possessed but it is a depriuing of the common goods which he was to receiue of the Church as spirituall communion and receiuing sacraments By which doctrine is plaine that none poore or rich subiect or Prince may by vertue of excommunication meerely be dispossessed of any temporall goods whatsoeuer If they could then woe to all Christians in this respect that liue in such times as Bishops and Popes are not saints Any man excommunicated vpon repeÌ„tance may returne to grace be receiued of the Church and may recouer those spirituall goods he had lost as prayers suffrages and sacraments of the Church c. But if temporals especially kingdomes be once lost and confiscate what hope of recouery Wil it not be too late to cry Peccaui So then that punishment which God hath ordained for the good of soules would be most like to turne to the destruction of bodies soules and goods for euer if excommunication could worke such effect and were not as it ought to be medicinalis but exitialis which is not to be granted Moreouer if ye looke backe to ancient Canons of generall Councels yea to the Canons of the Apostles you shall see for the same or like crimes punishments to be inflicted on offendors but deposition inflicted on Clercks and on Laicks excommunication or depriuing onely of sacraments and communion making this distinction Si Clericus sit deponitor si Laicus à communione eijcitor Insinuating thereby as may seeme that the Church hath superioritie directly ouer Clerks to deposition or degradation of persons not so ouer the persons of Laicks further then to the censure of excommunication and therefore not ouer kingdomes and Kings who acknowledge no superiour on earth in temporals But I pray you if the Popes Holines vpon cause of heresie do excommunicate a Prince or priuate man and all that shall communicate with him or obey him is he not then to be auoided and forsaken of his subiects and inferiours or others whosoeuer He that denieth this seemeth to deny the Popes spirituall authority of binding that of S. Paul Haereticum hominem post primam secundam correptionem denita Tit. 3. A man that is an hereticke after the first and second admonition auoide What is this to our Oath Is there any such clause for heresie in it Are we to adde vnto it by our idle inuentions or are we vrged to take it otherwise then the words import simply as they lye framed by act of Parliament But these and such like fond verball obiections are the cauilling shifts of such as know not how to giue better answers to the substantiall points of the Oath and perswade some to the losse of their liues and others of their lands and goods to their vtter ruine if iustice without mercy be executed that it cannot be
disturbance of him or his people c. This they so vertuous and learned did with their Prince without resistance as knowing it to be their dutie so to do and his case to be farre different from that of our Soueraigne who was neuer excommunicated nor relapsed or indeede hereticke as I haue alreadie said and could more largely proue if need were yet they did not then nor euer will denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate And may not the King of great Brittaine require the like of his subiects both Clergie and people and they performe the same as well as the French without preiudicating the Apostolicall power When Monsignore Fontana Bishop of Ferrara knowing well the now Duke of Modina then vsurping the title and dominion of Ferrara to be excommunicated by name in most parts of Italie did notwithstanding of necessitie communicate with him as a subiect with his Prince and did refuse to publish it in his owne Church without the Dukes consent notwithstanding the Popes order and commandement vnto him Will any man say that this good Bishop denied the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate That were ridiculous or offended in disobedience No necessitie if nought else excused So enough of this matter There is another knot to be vntied which seemeth insoluble to wit that I do beleeue that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoeuer hath power to absolue me of this Oath or any part thereof c. And that I doe renounce all pardons dispensations to the contrary Is not this a plaine denying of the Popes spirituall authoritie Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus plainly teacheth me Tortus §. 5. that he who a little before by swearing denieth the Popes power to bind the same doth now denie his power to loose For of those words of our Lord Quodcunque solueris super terram erit solutum in coelis all Catholicke men gather that power belongeth to the chiefe Bishop to absolue not onely from sins but also from punishments censures lawes vowes and oathes when it may be expedient to the glorie of God and health of soules This knot to him that vieweth it well will not be found to haue more difficultie to vnknit then the former of binding For as it is an vndoubted veritie that no Bishop no nor the Pope can by vertue of excommunication lesse by any temporall power out of his owne territories thrust any priuate Christian man out of his possessions who before had right thereto and bereaue him thereof as hath bene proued so it is as certaine that they can no more absolue a subiect of his dutie and naturall allegiance to his Prince and of his oath of fealtie made vnto him discharging him of all subiection and obedience then they can a wife of her dutie to her husband of childrens honoring their parents or seruants their maisters being warranted for the performance thereof by the law of God Honour thy father and thy mother c. against which no power in earth can dispence nor absolue them that is release them of such dutie At this word Absolue some silly soules yea and others that would be accounted wise are as it were scandalized beleeuing that taking the Oath they shall denie the Popes spirituall power of absoluing a sinner of his sinnes in foro conscientiae which euery Priest hauing iurisdiction may do little considering that they are not like to confesse their sinnes to him this yeare or euer in their life and out of confession his authoritie stretcheth not to remit or absolue one from deadly sinne These in a sort resemble some good creatures that I haue noted in Italie when they heare the Preacher in his sermon vtter this word Confiteor will by and by knocke their breasts thinking he is talking of confession when as the word signifieth sometime to giue thankes And like people of small vnderstanding beleeue that by renouncing all pardons and dispensations to the contrary they must denie the Popes power of granting indulgences or pardons as the practise is to beades graines crosses c. and of dispensing in any case whatsoeuer it being spirituall as cannot be denied Here I stand ambiguous Prou. 26. whether I should follow Salomons counsell or no Responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne sibi sapiens esse videatur Answer a foole according to his folly lest he thinke himselfe wise It shall not be haply amisse for their more satisfaction to condescend somewhat vnto such letting them to vnderstand that to men of any iudgement it must needs be ridiculous who know it cannot nor ought so to be vnderstood but onely of pardoning and dispencing or releasing subiects of a lawfull Oath of fealtie and dutifull obedience to their Soueraigne This is not spirituall power which belongeth to the Church and therefore when such pardons and dispensations shall be offered by his Holines as is neuer like to be euery good subiect is bound to renounce them as being contrary to the ordinance of almightie God I aske these what they thinke whether the Pope or any power in earth can command absolue in this sence as we take it or dispence against the law of God and nature They must needs say as truth is he cannot and according to S. Thomas doctrine In his quaesunt de lege naturae 2.2 q. 88. ar 10. in praeceptis diuinis non potest per hominem dispensari In such things as are of the law of nature and in diuine precepts it cannot be dispensed withall by man Then I inferre and it is Barclaies argument not solued by Cardinall Bellarmine But subiection and obedience due to Princes and superiors is de iure naturali diuino this cannot be denied being euident in Scriptures Therefore neither the Pope nor any power in earth can command any thing absolue or dispense against it and consequently cannot command subiects not to performe obedience to their Prince or superior in that wherein he is superior if he should it is lawfull for them not to obey him not to accept of such a dispensation We grant with the Cardinall that it appertaineth to the Popes spirituall power to absoblue from sins also from paines and censures lawes vowes and oathes verumt amen non quidquid libet licet it is not meant in all lawes all vowes nor all oathes No man I thinke will say that he can absolue from the iust ciuill lawes of secular Princes for that were in alienam messem falcem mittere and to be a monarchicall superior in temporals which is not to be admitted but onely in his owne lawes and the Canons Decrees or positiue lawes of the Church wherein I confesse he hath plenitudinem potestatis as likewise Princes haue in the commonwealth and thereby may dispense in their owne lawes as S. Thomas teacheth 2.2 q. 6.7 ar 4. Princeps habet plenariam potestatem in republica 1.2 q. 96. a. 5. ad 3. Who according to the same in another place is said to be
freed from the law as touching the compulsiue force of the law because no man may giue iudgement of condemnation against him if he do against the law if none then not the people nobles or commons assembled whereupon on that of the Psalme Psal 50. Tibisolipeccaui To thee only O God I haue sinned the Glosse saith Quòd Rex non habet hominem qui sua facta dijudicet That a King hath not any man that may determine his facts But as touching the directiue power of the law the Prince is subiect to the law by his owne will as it is said Extra de constitut cap. Cum omnes Quod quisque iuris c. What law any do decree for another he ought to vse the same law himselfe According to that Patere legem quam ipse tuleris What if a Prince will not do what he ought to do what then who may compell him None but God to whom onely he is inferiour Tert. Ad Scapulam in Apologet. Greg. Nazian orat in Iulian. Amb. orat ad pop inter ep 32.33 Tertullian and other Fathers affirme who ruleth the hearts of Kings at his pleasure being his Vicegerents in earth and other remedy then prayers teares and patience subiects haue none at all I will not deny the Popes Holinesse to haue power to dispence in vowes yet if I should affirme that in solemne vowes of religion he cannot I should not disagree from S. Thomas and other Diuines Papa non potest facere c. 2.2 q. 88. a. 11. The Pope cannot make one that is professed in religion to be no religious man that is release or free him of the bonds of chastitie pouertie and obedience vowed Abdicatio proprietatis c. The renouncing of proprietie as also the keeping of chastitie is so essentially annexed to the monasticall rule or the state of a Moncke that against it the Pope himselfe cannot dispence This is the opinion of S. Thomas as Caieta◠affirmeth as much as it dependeth of the Decretall Extra de statu Monach. in fine illius cum ad monasterium And he concludeth And therefore in a solemne vow of religion it cannot be dispenced withall by the Church Who will say that this holy Doctor denieth the Popes spirituall power though he differ from Cardinall Bellarmine Were he not a great Doctor and blessed Saint that writeth in this wise I know some of our tender consciences would be much scandalized for they cannot endure to heare any man talke a word of the limitation of the Popes power what he cannot do forsooth as if he were omnipotent But these are for the most part the ignorant sort that beleeuing him to be Christs Vicar beleeue also that he is endued with Christs power of excellency and can do all that he could do as man when he was here on earth Let these learne that his Holinesse neither challengeth Christs power of excellencie as to institute sacraments to remit sinnes without out the ministery of a sacrament to make an article of faith and such like but onely that which it pleased our Lord to communicate vnto him nor the most learned Diuines yeeld him all authority without limitation For beside that which S. Thomas writeth of dispensation in vowes Victoria de sacram ord Franciscus à Victoria disputing whether the Pope may delegate power vnto a Priest who is not a Bishop to giue orders concludeth that S. Thomas Paludanus and all say he cannot And against his dispencing in matrimony before consummatiō Idem tract De matrim cland nu 282. Teneamus cum tota caterua Theologorum quòd Papa non potest dispensare in matrimonio rato Let vs hold with the whole troupe of Diuines thant the Pope cannot dispence in matrimony called ratum that is before it be consummate And Cardinall Bellarmine admitteth a limitation Dicimus Papam habere c. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. cap. 4. We say that the Pope hath that office which Christ had whē he liued here on earth but we cannot giue him those offices which Christ had as he was God or as a man immortall and glorious but onely those which he had as a mortall man Whereby you see that the Popes power is not without some limitation howbeit he exceedeth in yeelding him all that Christ had as he was a mortall man as is said before Now remaines to be discussed whether his Holinesse may absolue from all oathes and so from this Oath of allegiance Which question serueth most for our purpose in hand It is to be noted that euery oath is either assertory that is of things present or past or else promissorie of things to come and either of good and lawfull matters or of euill and vnlawfull An vnlawfull thing and that which cannot be performed without sinne is not matter of an oath and therefore requireth no dispensation or absolution from it as is manifest for whosoeuer should sweare to commit adultery which is promissorie or neuer to pray neuer to fast and such like will any man say that he must seeke to be absolued from that oath and not rather that he is bound ex naturarei not to performe it 2.2 q. 89. ar 9. ad 3. being euill in it selfe S. Thomas saith Sometime it happeneth that that which falleth vnder a promissorie Oath is repugnant to iustice either becausce it is a sinne and so is bound not to keepe it or else for that it is a hinderer of a greater good as not to liue a virgine not to enter into religion and such an Oath needeth no dispensation but is lawfull for him that sweareth to keepe it or not to keepe it And somtime he saith somewhat is promised of which there is doubt whether it be lawfull or vnlawfull profitable or hurtfull absolutely or in some case and in this euery Bishop may dispence But in an assertorie Oath Syluester verbo Iuramentum 5. n 2. S. Thomas in the place aboue said ad 1. and all Dolors hold there can no dispensation or absolution be granted by any Bishop or Pope The reasons such as vnderstand may see in S. Thomas When in an Oath is any thing sworne or promised to Prince or priuate man which is manifestly iust according to the law of God and accompanied with these three associates Veritie Iudgment and Iustice that ought duly to be performed of him that so sweareth Exod. 20. Matth. 5. Reddes Domino iuramenta tua and cannot be dispenced withall when as the obseruation of an Oath falleth vnder a diuine precept which is indispensable as S. Thomas writeth in the place aboue noted ad primum And in euery such Oath yea though it be coacted riseth an obligation whereby a man resteth bound to God which is not taken away in foro conscientiae as he affirmeth To which purpose S. Bernard writeth thus Bern. lib. de praecepto disp c. 5. Illud quod non ab homine traditum c. That which
is not deliuered vs by man but is proclaimed from God admitteth no humane dispensation at all neither is it lawfull for any man in any sort to absolue from these that is Ioan. De Turrecrē in can Lector dist 34. diuine precepts Such I take our Oath of allegiance to be published and proclaimed by God commanding subiects and all inferiors to render vnto Caesar and all superiours their due against which no dispensation no absolution can be of force And herein I say not that his Holinesse cannot dispence or absolue from any Oath but from this particular Oath wherein is nothing promised which is not manifestly law full and profitable and due to him to whom it is made and in such an Oath S. Thomas saith 2.2 q. 89. ar 9. ad 3. dispensation seemeth to haue no place because besides the obligation to Almightie God there riseth a new to his Maiestie which cannot be released by Pope subiects or any other then by himselfe to whom it is made Neither doth the Popes power extend to the taking away of the right of a third person in matters which are not Ecclesiasticall as Caietan affirmeth And therefore cannot absolue a subiect from an Oath of allegiance to his Prince for that it would be preiudiciall vnto him Caiet In 2 2. q. 89. ar 9. Praelatus Ecclesiasticus etiam Papa c. An Ecclesiasticall Prelate saith he yea the Pope hath not in such maner power ouer Oathes as ouer vowes Because it is not in the Popes power to take away the right of a third man in matters not Ecclesiasticall as it is in his power to change to wit vowes into something more acceptable to God for that he is Gods Vicar and is not the Vicar of that man neither is he so ouer him as he may depriue him of his goods at his pleasure Tolet. instr sacer li. 4. c. 23. nu 3. Whereto agreeth Card. Tolet Quando iuramentum c. When an Oath is to the vtilitie of some third person it cannot be dispenced withall no not by the Pope without the consent of the third person as also the Pope cannot take away an other mans goods Whereto tendeth our Oath but to the vtilitie or good of his Maiesty and to his great preiudice would it not be if his subiects should accept of any absolution from the same Speculator likewise denieth that the Pope may absolue any man from a lawfull Oath Tit. de legato §. nunc ostendendum n. 24. because the bond of keeping an Oath and performing it to God is of the law of nature and diuine By this appeareth that iust and lawfull Oathes being such as may be preiudiciall to a third person cannot be dispenced withall But the Church vseth to remit an Oath extorted by force or feare It may be answered that if such an Oath extorted be manifestly vniust and would be against the law of God to be taken without force or feare no violence or feare of losing goods or life can make it lawfull Which doctrine is taught in the Canon-law lib. 1. Decretal de his quae vi metusue cap. 2. in glossa and 15. c.q. 6. in glossa Extra de iureiurando that for no feare it is lawfull to incurr e a mortall sin C. super co de vsuris Which in another place is taught also of a veniall sinne Therfore an Oath extorted of a thing vnlawfull the Church vseth not to remit or release when as no man will thinke that vnlawfull Oaths are to be kept as hath bene said before What say you then to lawfull Oathes yet compelled by feare of losing goods libertie c If it be iust and lawfull which thou art required to do why doest thou refuse to do it and why expectest thou compulsion to make thee to performe that which in dutie thou art bound I know thou wilt grant that a father may shake his rod threaten to correct his child and beate him if of stubburnnesse will not aske blessing or will not do his dutie by obeying him So may the Magistrate who carrieth the sword ad vindictam malefactorum not onely threaten but really punish and force thee to performance of that which is lawfull and thou oughtest otherwise to do And God himself the patterne of good gouernment threatneth hell fire and punisheth seuerely the transgressors of his law with many corporall afflictions and therby forceth many to obserue and keepe his commandements which of loue without any such compulsion they ought in dutie to do Will any hereof inferre that the Pope or any power on earth can absolue these from performing their duty to God or man for that it is extorted by feare Then I conclude that lawfull Oathes such as are made by subiects to Princes of their fidelitie bind in conscience although they be forced on them by feare of punishments and cannot be dispenced withall To this purpose Caietan saith that Oathes of him that promiseth whether they be coacted or voluntarie Caiet in 2.2 si habent materiam bonam moraliter do binde in the court of conscience Whereas some will say that Popes haue practised this authorie of absoluing subiects from lawfull Oaths it may be answered with Ioan. de Turrecrecremata Syluester Soto and others That the facts of Popes make not an article of faith And it is one thing to do somewhat de facto and another to determine that so it ought to be done de iure Turrecremata speaking of vnlawfull dispensations saith And if it were so done at any time by some Pope either ignorant in diuine learning or blinded with couetousnesse of mony which for such exorbitant dispensatiōs is accustomed to be offered or else to please men it followeth not that he could do it iustly that was Clement 3. dispencing with Constantia a professed Nunne to marrie with Henrie 6. Emperor son to Fredericke 2. The Church is gouerned or ought to be gouerned by rights lawes not by such facts or examples Thus you see that it is no denying his Holinesse spirituall power to say that he cannot dispence in all lawes all vowes or all oathes nor consequently absolue me of this Oath of allegiance How I pray you can I sweare truly as I must if I do well that which neuer was determined or defined by the Church but is matter of opiniō diuersly held of diuers learned men Verie well and without sinne And you may obserue what is commanded in holy Scripture to such as shall take an Oath Ierem. 4. Iurabis Domino in veritate in iudicio in iustitia For then is a man said to sweare truly that his doctrine of opinion v. g. that the Pope cannot by any authoritie depose Princes or such a thing is true not onely when he certainly knoweth it to be so but also when he is perswaded in his conscience vpon probable reason Tolet. instru sacer l. 4. c. 21 nu 4. Syl. verb. periurium 22. q. 2.
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