be obeyed in such a precept So say Panorm and Syluester ver obed § 5. where they say that in this case we are not to obey although the superiour command vnder paine of excommunication for it bindeth not quando malè imponitur when it is iniustly imposed Emmanuel Sa likewise Obediendum non est cum creditur inde malum oriturum Aphoris Sa ver obedien When it is thought euill may come by obeying we are not to obey Againe He is not bound to obey that thinketh the superiour commandeth vpon error as being misinformed and that if he knew the truth he would not command and also that superiours by their generall edicts intend not to bind with great detriment This Sa. And had not Catholickes I pray you before the Popes second Briefe iust cause to be perswaded that the Breues were procuted by sinister suggestions and wrong informations of some ouer-hastie and busie person and that if his Holinesse had had true and particular notice by some other true harted subiect how things stand with them have in England what perturbations they might breed in the Church and what losse and detriment was vndoubtedly to fall on such as should obey them and thereby refuse the Oath that he would neuer haue granted forth the said Breues in maner and forme as he did nor when he had granted them intended to bind Catholickes to obey to their so great detriment and damage For that were addere afflictionem afflictis which kind of crueltie is not to be thought can proceed from that holy Sea And this may suffise for answer to the point so much stood vpon by many inconsideratly precise of obeying or disobeying the Popes Breues prohibiting the iust Oath of allegiance Howbeit a word or two more may not be omitted vt obstruatur os loquentiū iniqua to flop the mouth of standerous tongues and to answer a fond or rather strong argument as some thinke and say that in dubijs as is the Popes power of deposing Princes in their opinions we are to haue recourse to the Sea of Peter for solution and there to learne what is truth to be embraced what is errour to be auoided Yea what is there decided the Church is bound to beleeue though it be that vertue is euill and vice good as Cardinal Bellarmine formerly hath taught strange doctrine Lib. 4. de sum Pont. cap. 5. §. Vltimo but now in his late Recognition retracted saying that he spake of doubtfull acts of vertues or vices For if in the old law the decision of difficult and doubtfull questions and ambiguities inter sanguinem sanguinem causam causam Deut. 17. lepram lepram were granted to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke and to the Iudge that should be for the time much more to the Priests of the new law and to Christs Vicar the chiefe Iudge and interpreter in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies Therefore in this case of the Oath now controuerted Catholickes are to require no more but his bare precept and whosoeuer disobeyeth it taking the oath sinneth deadlie This some wise in their owne conceits and learned in the estimation of others haue said and taught howsoeuer otherwise verie inconstant in their opinions iudgements but how prudently charitably or learnedly let the discreet reader iudge These haue forgotten who it is that saith Nolite iudicare non iudicabimini Luc. 6. nolite condemnare non condemnabimini And what S. Thomas teacheth Ecclesia non debet praesumere de alique peccatum Supplem q. 47. ar 3. quousque probetur The Church ought not to iudge any of sin till it be proued Indeed if the Popes precept were such as S. Iohn Euangelist recommended and often inculcated to his Disciples at his departure out of this world Hieron lib. descrip Eccles which was as S. Hierome writeth Filioli diligite alterutrum Little children loue ye one another then as he said vpon their tediousnesse of hearing it so oft repeated Praeceptū Domini est si solum fiat sufficit It is our Lords precept and if it only be done it sufficeth then I say we should not need to diue farther in seeking reasons but simply to obey quia praeceptum Papae est because it is the precept of the Pope but by reason of the infinite difference betweene the commanders and the commandements we must craue pardon if we say Et si solum fiat non sufficit if in this case of the Oath there be but his bare precept it is not sufficient Touching the other point I must needes confesse that in obscurities and doubtfull questions and difficulties in the Law of Christ all Christians are to repaire to him that sitteth in Peters chaire for the light of interpretation and true solution thereof as S. Hierome did to Pope Damasus Hieron ep ad Damasum desiring if he had erred in his writings to be corrected by him Also Athanasius in his distresses appealed to Foelix and Iulius Popes of Rome S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius Coste rus in Enchir. de sum Pont. Calendion of Antioch to Pope Foelix and other ancient Fathers in their distresses and difficult causes were wont alway to seeke for succour and redresse of the Pope of Rome then being but in cases perspicuous wherin are no ambiguities or doubts to be made against which nothing was euer formally decreed in any generall Coūcell nor by any ancient Father taught but is most plaine and euident in holy Scriptures and as cleare as the Sunne in the firmament that needeth not And such is the duty of inferiours to superiours of subiects to their lawfull Princes of children to parents of rendring to Caesar that is Caesars and so forth for which there is an expresse commandement from the Highest wherein no power created can dispence or iustly command the contrary Which if any should attempt to do as his Holinesse seemeth to haue done in prohibiting the Oath of allegiance it may well be by a Catholik English subiect in all humilitie and reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke yet with Christian courage answered Non obedio praecepto Regis sed praecepto legis 2. Macch. 7. I obey not the precept of the King that is the Pope but the precept of the law And Obedire opertet Deo magis quà m hominibus Act. 5. We must obey God rather then men To conclude in such a case not to do as the Pope commandeth in this Breues so there be no cōtēpt as I haue said of his precept is no mortall sinne ex fine enine morales actus speciem habent See Caiet 5. Precepti transgressio Tho. 2.2 q. 105. ◠1. ad 1. For morall acts haue their formality of the end and such disobedience being materialis tantum maketh not a deadly sinne cose quently no sin at al. And this much as touching obedience to the Popes H. Breues It followeth now that we treat briefly of a subiects dutie
person should not erre but to Peter together with the Apostles assembled at his sermon before his passion who represented the whole body of the Church as appeareth by the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Gospell Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus Iohn 14. c. quem mittet Pater in nomine meo ille vos docebit omnia suggeret vobis omnia quaecunque dixero vobis You may note how the holy Ghost then promised and afterward sent on the day of Pentecost was promised to all and sent vnto all not to Peter alone And in the same chapter that this holy Ghost was to remain with them and be in them Apud vos manebit in vobis erit And in another place Cū autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis Ioh. 16. docebit vos omnem veritatem And when he shall come the Spirit of truth he will teach you all truth In all these places is manifest that Christ spake alway in the plurall number that the holy Ghost the Comforter should remaine and be in his Church and should teach his Church all truth and not any one of his Apostles successors in particular This special priuiledge of not erring in matters of faith was reserued for his deare spouse the Catholike Church alone as appeareth euident likewise in Saint Matthewes Gospell Tu es Petrus Math. 16. super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam portaeinferi non praeualebunt aduersus eam Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her That is the Church as Iansenius and others vnderstand it represented in a generall Councell which Church is called by Saint Paul 1. Tim. 3. Columna firmamentum veritatis The pillar and groundworke of truth Not any one man in the house of God was euer such And Alphonsus de Castro a great learned man and an earnest defender of this Church against heresies and heretikes blusheth not to write plainely that Omnis homo errare potest in fide Contr. haeres l. 1. c. 4. etsi Papa sit Euerie man may erre in faith yea the Pope himselfe without exception Yet I neuer heard that he was condemned of heresie or sinne for saying so This then being so no man of vp right iudgement can with reason censure him of heresie that shall affirme The Pope may erre in his opinion of the Oath for Haeresis est circa eaqnae sunt fidei 2.2 q. 11. ar 2 sicut circa propriam materiam 2.2 11. ar 2. as S. Thomas saith Nor of mortall sin if he refuse to obey his prohibition for taking thereof the taker not intending to contemne his commandement Tho. 22. q. 104.2.2 ad 1. ad inobedientiam enim requiritur quòd actualiter contemnat praeceptum nor to transgresse against the law of God but onely to render to Caesar that which is Caesars that is ciuill obedience due vnto him both by the law of God and nature without denying or derogating anie authoritie spirituall of the Sea Apostolicke according to his Maiesties declaration and interpretation of his owne meaning set downe at large in his Apologie and Praemonition The intention then being good the end good and iust the act of such as take it cannot be but good and lawfull and no sin at all For secundum finem morales actus species sortiuntur Tho. 2.2 q. 89 ar 5. ad 1. q. 105 2.1 And as true it is that Actus agentium non operantur vlira ipsorum voluntatem seu intentionem And this much as touching the Popes opinion or assertion in his Breues Now it remaineth to resolue the difficultie of his precept or prohibition of the Oath whether Priests and Catholickes in England be bound vnder paine of deadly sinne to obey it and so to disobey the Kings Highnesse who for his more securitie vpon so iust a cause requireth the same The cause why the Pope prohibited Catholickes to take the Oath of allegiance as it lieth may seeme to haue bene for that in his opinion he was perswaded many things to be contained therein repugnant to faith Which opinion supposed true no man indeede can take it without perill of damnation because euery Christian is bound vsque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiue to professe and maintaine all points of faith when occasion of persecution shall be offered against heretickes Iewes Turkes or what infidels soeuer according to the doctrine of our Sauiour Math. 10. Luk. 9. Qui autem negauerit me coram hominibus negabo ego eum coram Patre meo And he that shall denie me before men I will also denie him before my Father Likewise in another place Qui non renunciat omnibus quae possidet Luk. 14. non potest meus esse discipulus And then were it malum non quia prohibitum verùm ex se to take such an oath But till it appeare more cleare and be more substantially proued then hitherto hath bene by any that some point therein contained is manifestly against faith what that point is I cannot see why any man should forthwith vpon a bare commandement though of the supreme Pastor hazard his life in perpetuall bonds with losse of all that he hath and vtter ruine of his dearest wife and children For his priuate will subiect to error can be no infallible rule of mans actions but the will of God which is alway right and hereupon a man may in case be disobeied be he Prince or Prelate but the most righteous God neuer For that the commandement of God is alway iust wherein can be no error Gen. 22. no not in willing Abraham to kill his sonne Isaac Exod. 12. Ose 1. nor in commanding the Iewes to spoile the Aegyptians of their goods nor also in bidding the Prophet Osea to commit fornication The reason hereof you may reade in S. Thomas But an earthly King Prince or Prelate See S. Tho. 22 q. 104. ar 4. yea the Prince of Prelates may and doe sometimes command iniust things or may vsurpe dominion iniustly in which cases subiects are not bound to obey them 22. q. 104. ar 6. nisi fortè per accidens as S. Thomas noteth propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum vnlesse haply accidentally for auoiding scandall or danger That some Kings and secular Princes haue vsurped domination and commanded iniustly no man I thinke will doubt and our domesticke aduersaries will easily grant but to say that the Prince of Prelates the Pope Peters successor should erre in commanding or command that which is iniust guarda la gamba take heed some nicely precise pure and rigid if not simple and foolish people audito verbo hoc scandalizabuntur no lesse then the Pharisees were scandalized at the doctrine of our blessed Sauiour as we reade in S. Mathewes Gospell Math. 15. for that they thinke of like the Pope so to be confirmed in grace that he cannot
yeares from her beginning to depose Iulian Constantius Valens and other hereticall Princes and therefore permitted Christians to obey them in temporals Saint Cyprian saith that in his time the number of Christians were verie great Cypr. in Demetrianum Tertul. in Apologet. And Tertullian writeth thus Were we disposed not to practise secret reuenge but to professe open hostilitie should we want number of men or force of armes Are the Moores or the Parthians or any one nation whatsoeuer more in number then we that are spread ouer all the world We are not of you and yet we haue filled all the places and roomes which you haue Your Cities Ilands Castles Townes Assemblies your Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Imperiall Pallace Senate and seate of judgement Euseb l. 3. de rita Constan Niceph. l. 5. c. 25. c. Eusebius likewise and Nicephorus report That the whole world as it were vnder Constantius was Christian and the greater part Catholicke How then is it true that the Church in her nouitie wanted forces And therefore she permitted Christians to obey their Princes in temporals saith the Cardinall Euen so permitted as father Parsons in his letter to the Catholickes of England against the Oath of allegiance affirmeth that Pope Clement by a Breue had permitted ciuill obedience to our King and recommended to all Catholickes soone after his Highnesse entrance vnto the Crowne As if ciuill obedience had not bene otherwise due but by his Holinesse permission Who would haue thought such an imprudent and strange kind of phrase could haue so escaped his pen But it seemeth he had learned the same out of Cardinall Bellarmines writings and so presumed it would passe as current without controlement And may not the world maruell be it spoken with due reuerence to his great dignitie which I haue euer and in heart still do honour that a man so excellently learned will teach that Christian subiects vnlesse they be permitted by the Church are not bound to render obedience to their lawfull Kings and Princes if they become heretickes or aduersaries to true religion and persecutors Princes infidels lose no right but are the true and supreme Princes of their kingdomes as he himselfe teacheth Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 2. for dominion is not founded either in grace or in faith so as the Pope hath no authoritie to meddle with them Marry if these become Christians and after fall to heresie what then In that case saith he Potest regna mutare vni auferre Cap. 6. alteri conferre He may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to another saith he Then is their condition worse as touching temporall possessions then it was when they were infidels worse then the conditiō of the basest of their subiects But Christian religion depriueth no man of his right who had right in infidelitie cannot lose the same by receiuing the grace and faith of Christ which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Cardinall howsoeuer he seemeth sometime to teach contrary to himselfe Bellar. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. Christ did not saith he nor doth take kingdomes from them to whom they belong for Christ came not to destroy those things which were well setled but to establish them And therefore when a King becometh a Christian he doth not lose his earthly kingdome which by right he held but purchaseth a new interest to an euerlasting kingdome otherwise the benefites receiued by Christ should be hurtfull to Kings and grace should destroy nature If Christian Kings lawfully attaining to their dominions by right of nature enioy the same as cannot be denied and so are to be obeyed why not also if they happen to fall backe into heresie or infidelitie their right not being founded in grace or in faith To say that such Princes or magistrates are not to be obeyed cometh neare the heresie charged vpon Wickliffe and condemned in the Councel of Constance and is repugnant to the doctrine of the holy Ghost in sacred Scriptures and practise of all blessed Saints and Martyrs who most promptly without any permission of the Pope or Church obeyed Pagan Princes vnder whom they were subiect in all ciuill causes onely in defence of faith and Gods truth made choice rather to shed their bloud then by obeying Caesar to disobey God And where such a permission was euer granted as to obey Iulian or other hereticall Emperour cannot be found in any generall Councell or ancient Fathers writings before the dayes of S. Thomas of Aquine 2.2 q. 12.2.2 of whom the Cardinall learned his doctrine of permission to obey till such time as they had forces to depriue them of their Empire Consider I pray you that S. Paul hauing receiued his doctrine immediatly from heauen writing to the Christians in Rome permitted not for a time but strictly commanded them euer to obey higher powers Rom. 13. Sap. 6. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers Was this meant trow ye for onely higher powers Christians or heathen onely for a time No but for all sorts of rulers and as long as there be superiors and inferiors The holy Apostle in this and other his Epistles often inculcateth this necessary vertue of obedience diligently exhorting and commanding as well subiects to be obedient to their Princes as seruants to their masters and all inferiors to their superiors And were not these maisters and higher powers for the most part Pagans Were they not enemies to Christian religion whom they were taught to obey Was any sort of inferiors exempted from obeying S. Iohn Chrysostome will put you out of doubt that such subiection is commanded to all sorts Priests Monkes Chrysost in cap. 13. Rom. hom 23. August in lib. expositionis quorundam propos ex epist ad Rom. and secular men as the Apostle himselfe declareth in the verie beginning Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etiam si Apostolus sis si Euangelista si Propheta siue quisquis tandem fueris neque enim pietatem subuertit ista subiectio Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers yea if thou art an Apostle if an Euangelist if a Prophet or finally whosoeuer thou art Marke well For this subiection subuerteth not pietie or religion And he specially noteth that S. Paul saith not simply Obediat but subdita sit And why because power is of God Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo For there is no power but of God Quid dicis saith this holy Father to S. Paul Omnis ergo Princeps à Deo constitutus est Istud inquit non dico Neque enim de quouis Principum sermo mihi nunc est sed de ipsa re What saist thou O Paul is then euery Prince constituted of God This saith he I say not For neither of euery Prince do I now speake but of the thing it selfe that is of power And the Apostle
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
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
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