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
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
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
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
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
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
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
extraordinarily casually or by consequence was neuer in such sort decreed in the Councell of Lateran or any other Councell to this day nor euer defined by any Pope ex cathedra as some take it in Consistorie tanquam res fidei formaliter as a matter of faith formally If yet further you desire to know what Authors write that the Popes authoritie in things temporall as deposing Princes and disposing kingdomes you take to be was neuer defined you may reade Cardinall Allen against the English Iustice c. 4. f. 326. who saith Alanus that it is a meere matter of Diuinitie disputable in schoole and no certaintie as yet defined by the Church touching the Popes authoritie in things temporall The same affirme Couarruuias Couarruuias Nauarrus Bensfildius p. 2. pag. 504. Nauarrus as is there noted by Couar in cap. Nouit de iudicio notab Bensfildius de iure damno dato c. 7. and others Here it may be you will obiect vnto me and say that Paulus 5. in prohibiting by his Breues the Oath of allegiance seemeth there to define ex cathedra the Popes authoritie in temporals as some of our Pastors since this controuersie teach vs I pray you let me know your opinion whether they be definitiue sentences or no. Beloued brethren assure your selues they deceiue you that so ignorantly instruct you and while they leade you into an errour they hazard your ouerthrow Those Breues are no definitions but rather admonitions or aduertisements as the first dated 10. Kalendas Octobris 1606. which hath Propterea admonemus vos vt ab hoc at que similibus iuramentis praestandis omnino caueatis c. Therefore we admonish you to beware of taking this and the like Oaths affirming it withall to be vnlawfull Or else precepts though not obligatorie ad mortale peccatum as the second seemed to be dated 10. Kalend. Septembris 1607. prohibiting the taking thereof All which make not a definition ex cathedra and it may wel be presumed that his Holinesse neuer had any such intention to set forth such a decree To know when a decree is de fide you may learne by that I told you a little before out of Cardinall Bellarmine whose rule is well to be considered If these Breues were definitions de fide ex cathedra as some most fondly and ignorantly sticke not to auouch some of those clauses and interminations mentioned by Cardinal Bellarmine had bene inserted they must haue bene generall and ought to bind all Christian people as well as English Catholickes for what is faith in one countrey ought to be such through the world and to be agreed vpon among learned men without controuersie But these being directed to one particular nation and for this one particular cause of the Oath of allegiance can be no decree ex cathedra but rather priuate exhortatory letters no precepts as a late writer affirmeth them to be Andraeas Eudaemon societatis Ies in praefat ad Tortur Torti Priuatis literis Catholicos monuit Pontifex saith Eudaemon iuramentum id suscipi per diuinam legem non licere proinde quiduis potius paterentur The Pope admonished Catholickes in his priuate letters saith Eudaemon a Iesuite that it was not lawful by the law of God to take that Oath therefore they should rather suffer any thing Which may be of little force and not bind specially if they were procured by sinister meanes as by surreption wrong information and so forth as with great reason it may be presumed these were by a person more turbulent then was fitting for one of his function and vocation whose merit haply might haue bene greater by deuout saying one paire of beades then was by his labours and trauailes with his Holinesse to kindle quenched coales as most probably he did in playing the soliciter and procuring those Breues whereby he hath brought all in brandlement set no small contention and diuision among brethren and friends and raised a tempestuous sea of calamities and troubles where a happie calme of peace and quietnesse was not vnlike to be for which God pardon his soule Moreouer some good Authors not only doubt whether the Pope alone may determine or define matters of faith but plainely seeme to say such a determination doth not bind and so he cannot without a generall Council Determinatio solius Papae saith Gerson in his quae sunt fidei Io. Gerson tract de ex aminatione doctrinarum consid 2. non obligat vt praecise est talis ad credendum The determination of the Pope alone in matters of faith as it is precisely such bindeth not to beleeue And Petrus de Alliaco sometime Cardinall of Cambray in his treatise of the reformation of the Church of Rome offered to the Councell of Constance begun an 1414. writeth in this sort as appeareth in M. Blackwels large examination Petrus de Alliaco In hoc non debet Papa aut eius Curia c. Herein as touching the reformation of the bodie of the whole Church of Rome the Pope or his Consistorie ought not to reiect the deliberation of a generall Councell because as the Glosse 19. dist super cap. Anastasius 19. dist super cap. Anastas saith The Pope is bound to require a Councell of Bishops when any point of faith is to be handled which I do not vnderstand of the articles of faith but of difficult matters that touch the vniuersall state of the faithfull Church which Archidiaconus noteth 15. dist c Sicur where approuing the said Glosse he addeth That it were too dangerous a matter to commit our faith to the arbitrement of one man and that therefore the Pope in new and hard cases was accustomed to haue recourse to the deliberation of a Councell Now let your learned instructors peruse and consider well the foresaid Authors Catholicke and the Glosse with the approbation thereof also Catholicke and then I perswade my selfe they wil with more aduisement giue you better instructions and confesse that those Breues are farre from definitiue sentences if not I wish for your good you may light on better and better experienced lest the blind leading the blind both fall into the pit Si enim coecus coecum ducit ambo in foueam cadent Well grant they are no definitions yet it cannot be denied but that therein his Holinesse hath declared many things to be contained in the Oath against faith and the health of soules and thereupon prohibited all Catholickes to take the same whose commandement if any other is to be obeyed by S. Pauls doctrine Obedite Praepositis vestris subiacete eis Heb. 13. ipsi enim peruigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddâ—â—uri Obey your Prelates and be subiect vnto them for they watch as to render account for your soules How can this be answered or how can they free themselues from mortall sinne that by taking the Oath seeme to contemne soueraigne authoritie Very well If indeede there
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
once commit a mortall sin If they will so easily be scandalized for speaking the truth I trust I may be bold Greg. hom 7. in Ezech. Haimo in Math. c. 18. without sin to say with S. Gregorie Si de veritate scandalum sumitur vtiliùs nasci permittitur scandalum quà m quòd veritas relinquatur If scandall be taken for speaking truth it is better a scandall should be permitted to arise then truth left vntold I will relate therefore certaine true facts but not censure them which without this or such like occasion offered I euer purposed to haue concealed and referre to the readers iudgements whether they were errors in gouernment and sinnes or no. When Sixtus Quintus otherwise a prudent Prince and learned Pastor commanded a boy of fourteene yeares of age to be hanged in Rome for a fault which in many mens iudgements deserued not death but rather whipping or some such punishment and being in all humility told by the Iudge that by the ciuill lawes he was not to be executed till he came to the age of 16 he answered Then I will giue him two of my yeares Whereupon the poore lad contrarie to law ended his life in port hast in a halter Whether this were a iust sentence or iniust I will not say it seemed at his departure out of this life to be scored among his misdeeds for being in extremis one like in habit to S. Francis appeared to him who had appeared long before foretold al his fortunate risings to honor and now warned him to prepare to die for his time was come Hereat Sixtus appalled said Diddest thou not promise me that I should reigne one lustre and halfe a lustre is the space of fiue yeares Yes and now it is in maner expired he had then reigned fiue yeares foure moneths and three daies for if you remember you gaue a boy two yeares to hang him This I heard constantly reported by manie in Rome presently vpon his death But who this was that appeared S. Francis or some other transfigured in his habite it was not knowne and I leaue to the consideration of men to thinke what they list Likewise it happened that in his time a Clergie man nephew vnto old Martinus Nauarrus the great Canonist coming into S. Peters Church doubtlesse with intent to pray found standing against a pillar by our Ladies altar a pilgrims staffe wherewith he strake the Iudge of the Suitzers being on his knees at his praiers before the crucifixe altar and brake his head so as the bloud ran about his eares and fell on the pauement whereby the Church being profaned forthwith all Masses and other diuine seruice ceassed for a time I speake what I know being then oculatus testis incontinently the partie fled toward the new Church but pursued by certaine Suitzers attending on the said Iudge was apprehended and the Pope then sitting in Consistorie aduertised of the fact who commanded a ghostly father to be prouided for him religiously and well done for safetie of his soule and that he should not hope for life but prepare to die out of hand summum ius for he would not dine till the offender were hanged A hard sentence of the supreme Pastor Haste here made waste of bloud Would God he had well considered S. Ambrose his penance enioyned Theodosius the Emperour and his humble acceptation thereof viz. not to punish any malefactor to death for a moneths space after the crime committed then haply his wrath and indignation might haue bene pacified and the offenders life saued Incontinently a gallowes was set vp before the Suitzers gate and the Spanish gentleman brought to execution within three houres after the blow giuen the Pope standing in a gallerie of his pallace Consistorie being ended to see him coming as was most certainly reported vnto me then lying in the pallace by such as had reason to know it and would not be pacified or intreated for his life neither by the Spanish Ambassadour who posted to the Court to that end though in vaine for audience would not be granted nor by any other howbeit his seruant the Suitzer in short space after recouered and liued diuers yeares after that to my knowledge How 〈◊〉 these commandements were I referre to the readers iudgement and whether they sauoured not more of a passionate secular Prince then of a milde spirituall Pastor Moreouer the said Pope hauing created Cardinall the Deane of Toledo Mendoza by name a verie noble and worthie gentleman a comely and courteous Prelate and well beloued of many dealt often with the said Cardinall to resigne his Deanrie into his hands by reason of the indignitie he should be driuen into if at any time after he were to reside in his Deanrie according to order by taking inferior place in the Church to the Bishop of the Diocesse being no Cardinall which was a thing he would not consent vnto saying they were incompatibilia Deane and Cardinall in one person The Cardinall vnwilling to lose so great reuenewes by making such a resignation thought it no sinne therein not to yeeld to his Holinesse Pope Sixtus notwithstanding out of his absolute authoritie volens nolens depriued him of his Deanry bestowed it on another Spaniard who after Sixtus death plaied least in sight for feare what might befall him by some of the Cardinall his friends for accepting or seeking it And the Pope to make his donatiō valid sent Monsignore Burghesius Auditor di camera who sitteth now in Peters chaire with straight commandement vnto Cardinall Mendoza either forthwith to send the writings of his Deanrie or else to go immediatly with the said Prelate to the Castle The Cardinall hereat sore perplexed and straightned on euerie side making choice of the lesse euill chose rather quietly though much against his liking to send his writings and be depriued of his Ecclesiasticall liuing then bereaued of his temporall life in the castle of S. Angelo whence is hard getting foorth for any that shall enter therein Many hereat muttered and murmured iudging the commandement to sauour of great iniustice After this Pope Clement in the beginning of his reigne with more haste thē good speed resembling likewise rather a passionate Prince then a meek Pastor gaue order or commandement that a certain gentleman of Cardinall Farnesius apprehended on Saturday before Palmsunday should be executed the wednesday following being the feast of the Annunciation of the blessed virgine Marie and in the holy weeke against all clement Christian customes and good order which spare to execute any malefactor on such times would not hearken to any other information then that of the Gouernour the gentleman 's knowne aduersarie no not of the Cardinall who hearing thereof with all speed posted from Grotta ferrata toward his Holinesse at Rome for his seruants life albeit in vaine for he was inexorable and audience would not be granted him till the poore gentleman had lost his head whereupon the Cardinall being
Oath as In any case whatsoeuer Neither is the Popes spirituall authoritie limited or once touched therein as by his Maiesties intention sufficiently made knowne vnto vs doth manifestly appeare And Caietan teacheth that in such like case if the intention of the man that commandeth may be knowne Caietan ver praecepti trangressio it is inough because the force of the precept dependeth of the intention of him that commandeth Now to end this matter I wish you to note the fraude of that Catholicke letter writer for to haue set downe in plaine termes that his Holinesse may depose his Maiestie dispose his kingdomes to whom he list licence subiects to raise tumults take armes against him or murther him and such like he knew would sound to good subiects most odious therefore he thought it to be a point of policie not to deale plainely but leaue the Reader perplexed with this obscuritie What his Holinesse cannot do towards his Maiestie in any case whatsoeuer Whose bare assertion without proofe or truth can in reason conuince none but such as want their common sense Now that it hath bene proued nothing to be contained in the Oath against the law of God nor decrees of any generall Councell and that his Maiestie in making this law and requiting of his subiects the performance thereof according to his intention which is but iust and good hath not gone beyond his bounds will any yet be so wilfully blind as not to see that by the immaculate law of God he is bound in conscience to render to Caesar that is Caesars to be obedient to higher powers as well the ciuill in temporals as the Ecclesiasticall power in spirituals Saint Peter prince of the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Christians of the primitiue Church that they should submit themselues and be obedient to secular Princes and Magistrates though they were heathens 1. Pet. 2. Subiecti igitur estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regiquasi praecellenti siue Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis c. Be subiect therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling or to rulers as sent by him to the reuenge of malefactors but to the praise of the good for so is the will of God that doing wel you may make the ignorance of vnwise men to be dum And a little after exhorting thē to feare God his next lesson is to honor the King Deum timete Regem honorificate How I pray you is a King honoured when his iust precept is neglected or contemned Some haply without consideration both ignorantly vnwisely wil grant that Catholick kings are to be honoured and obeyed but doubt may be made of such as by the Church are reputed or rather condemned heretikes and aduersaries to the Catholicke faith I aske these if there be any so simple whether Emperours Kings and Princes to whom the Apostles preached this subiection and obedience were not aduersaries yea and persecutors of the Catholicke faith and continued such the space of more then three hundred yeares howbeit the Christians of those dayes instructed both by the doctrine and example of the Apostles in all dutifull humilitie did not giue freely but rendred to Caesar his due how peruerse soeuer their Gouernours were Which lesson Saint Peter their chiefe Pastor immediatly after in the same chapter had taught them Serui subditi estote in omni timore dominis non tantum bonis modestis sedetiam dyscolis Seruants be subiect in all feare to your maisters not onely to the good and modest but also to the wayward Ephes 6. Colos 3. This dutifull subiection likewise teacheth Saint Paul Serui obedite Dominis carnalibus cum timore tremore in simplicitate cordis vestri sicut Christo Seruants be obedient to your Lords according to the flesh with feare and trembling in the simplicitie of your heart as to Christ not seruing to the eye as it were pleasing men but as the seruants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart with a good will seruing as to our Lord and not to men If seruants then commanded by the Apostle were bound to serue and obey their temporall Lords and maisters with such care and diligence were they neuer so froward and wicked Pagans for such no doubt many Christians did serue who by their examples threats or enticements might hazard to withdraw them from the true worship of God are not subjects now by the same law as well bound to be obedient to lawfull Kings and Princes be they neuer so wicked in manners or opposite to faith and Christian religion as heretikes and apostates are Were they not Pagan Princes and Potestates whom Saint Paul willed Titus to admonish Christians to obey at a word Admone illos saith he Principibus Potestatibus subditos esse dicto obedire Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and Potestates to obey at a word S. Ambrose Vpon which place Saint Ambrose Admonish as if he should say Although thou hast spirituall gouernment ouer spirituall matters yet admonish them to whom thou preachest to be subiect to Kings and Princes because Christian religion depriueth none of his right The same holy Father and also Saint Augustine write of the prompt obedience of Christians to Iulian the Apostata which may be a verie good example for Catholickes of these latter times to shew like obedience if they light on like Princes saying Iulianus extitit infidelis Imperator Aug. in Psal 124. Super illud Non relinquet Domi nus virgam Habetur 11. q. 3. c. Iulian. nonne extitit Apostata iniquus idololatra c. Iulian was an infidell Emperour was he not an Apostata wicked an idolater Christian souldiers serued an infidell Emperour When they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged not but him that was in heauen When he willed them to worship Idols to sacrifise they preferred God before him But when he said Bring foorth your armie go against that people they obeyed incontinently The distinguished the eternall Lord from a temporall Lord and yet for the eternall Lord they were subiect also to the temporall Lord. Hereby is euident that Iulian had right to command Christian souldiers in temporals and they shewed all prompt obedience knowing that their religion taught no iniustice that notwithstanding his Apostacie he being lawfully called to the Empire they were not nor could be absolued of their loyaltie and ciuill obedience towards him Was so notorious an Apostata to be of dutie obeyed and not a king who cannot be iudged an hereticke because he doth not pertinaciter defend any opinion against the Church of Christ but royally promiseth to forsake the religion he professeth if any point or head thereof belonging to faith can be proued not to be ancient catholicke and Apostolicke Here Cardinall Bellarmine will answer That the Church in her nouitie or beginning wanted forces forsooth after three yea foure hundred
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
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
the Sorbons in Paris holding peremptorily as I haue said a Councell to be aboue the Pope will any man of iudgement say that the position is her esie and they hereticks Costerus and other learned men do cleare them from such a note and they are still ready to defend themselues against any that shall accuse them thereof Likewise if any abhorre drunkennesse detraction sowing discord betweene brethren and friends as he abhorreth heresie can it be said that drunkennesse detraction or sowing discord though they be great sins and abound in too too many is heresie it were too fond and childish This As signifieth here a similitude not an equalitie and all know that nullum simile est idem which may serue for one answer And for a second let it be granted that such as sweare thinke it indeed to be heretical doctrine albeit the Church hath not defined it so that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects c. what absurditie is like to follow I haue already as I trust sufficiently proued that neither Bishops nor the Pope by their spirituall censure haue authoritie to dispossesse any priuate man or Prince be he neuer so peruerse an hereticke of his lands goods or temporall dominions for that it is against the essence or nature of excommunication to worke such an effect It is likewise proued to be against the law of God for children seruants and subiects to disobey their parents maisters and Princes commanding iustly notwithstanding any excommunication denounced against them which is the Churches period beyond which she may not go it being onely a depriuing of the common goods of the Church appertaining to Christians Now what doctrine soeuer is repugnant to Scripture euery word thereof being de fide may well be accounted heresie and as such abhorred and abiured for haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei Tho. 2.2 q. 11. ar 2 heresie is about those things which belong vnto or are of faith Such is the dutie of subiects to their lawfull Prince and of all inferiors to their superiors Then is it heresie directly to say that it is lawfull for subiects or any other whatsoeuer who is not his Iudge and superior in that kind to murther him it being expresly against a diuine precept Non occides and this saying of our Sauiour Matth. 26. Omnes qui acceperint gladium gladio peribunt All that take the sword shall perish with the sword By which are vnderstood all such as assume to themselues authoritie to vse the materiall for reuenge Iansen in â—unc locum before it be granted them by the Prince who onely hath his authoritie by the diuine ordinance which ought not to be resisted by subiects or others For as Cunerus writeth Cun. de offic Princip l. 4. c. 12. Nulla pacta vel contractuâ— No couenants or contracts may preiudicate the diuine ordinance whereby a King hath his power that the people at any time may take armes against their King And in my iudgement it may be admited that any Catholick wil stick at this point here being no mention of the Popes deposing that which many stand vpon but of subiects or any other whatsoeuer vnlesse they will ranke him among these whatsoeuer which ought not so to be vnderstood But if they will vnder this generall word vnderstand also the Pope yet may it be said it is heresie to wit May be murthered which cannot be vnderstood but of killing vniustly and without authoritie If you say that the other part May be deposed was neuer declared nor adiudged heresie and therefore the Oath cannot be taken because bonum is ex integra causa and malum ex singulis defectibus then one part not being hereticall how can this clause be lawfully sworne that Princes which be excommunicated may be deposed to be damnable and hereticall doctrine This indeed is such an obiection as in the iudgement of diuers cannot be answered and whereupon many pretend to haue great reason to stand but let all passion be layd aside lending me an indifferent care with Gods assistance such a solution may be framed as shall satisfie I trust and solue the difficultie In our Oath no man sweareth nor is vrged to sweare nor by the law ought to sweare further then the expresse words of the Oath which are after this sort as is also noted before pag. 119. And I do further sweare that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abiure as impious and hereticall What Note wel this damnable doctrine and position What position Forsooth that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their subiects c. This position is sworne not per partes by peecemeale but coniunctiuely and wholly as it lieth and so it cannot be denied but it is impious and hereticall doctrine heresie here being affirmed not on the parts of the position separated but on the 〈◊〉 hole together For in a sentence affirmatiue disiunctiue proposition or booke if any part be defectuous false or hereticall albeit some part thereof be true and sound doctrine it may wel be said that the whole sentence proposition or booke is defectuous false Gress l. 1. consider Pag. 47. or hereticall as Gretserus writeth Then that May be deposed closed in one proposition with the other part or murthered which is hereticall the whole position as it lieth must needes ber said and may be sworne to be hereticall For example The Inquisition vseth to condemne as a scandalous or hereticall booke if there be but one onely Chapter or sentence of scandalous or hereticall doctrine contained therein though all the rest be found and Catholicke And may not any man lawfully sweare that booke so condemned to be scandalous or hereticall albeit all the whole is not such or that man to be an hereticke which erreth against one onely article of the Catholicke faith But if the two parts of the proposition you thinke are sworne diuisim and by parts not coniunctim or totally together then let impious go with the first part may be deposed and hereticall with the latter or murthered and I cannot see how you can deny but so it may besworne If any will yet stand vpon the word abiure as I heare many do saying It signifieth not onely simply to deny a thing with an oath as al Dictionaries vnderstand the word but by oath to deny that which once he held before then he that neuer held the doctrine and position aboue named cannot take this Oath because he may not abiure that opinion which he neuer held But this will manifestly appeare to him that hath any experience in the practise of the Church to be false For let any be conuented into the Inquisition for any one heresie whatsoeuer as Anabaptisme Brownisme c if afterwards he repent and conuert to the Catholicke faith he shall be required and must of necessitie abiure
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
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