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
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 their kingdome c. but this is not to be granted And in the same question Si aliqui Reges c. If some Kings with the people haue deliuered ouer themselues to the Popes of Rome as it is said of Englishmen it is nothing to vs. Yet do I not thinke that Englishmen by any meanes would permit the Pope to depose their King and set vp another for they neuer yet suffered any of the Bishops of Rome to do it But lest any man here take hold and say that King Iohn was brought to yeeld his crowne to the Popes Legate and for redeeming it granted an annuall tribute to the Sea Apostolike let him reade S. Thomas More for his better satisfaction herein who plainely denieth it thus More supplic of soules pag. 296. If he the Author of the Supplication of beggers say as indeed some writers say Platina and others that King Iohn made EnglaÌ„d Ireland tributarie to the Pope the Sea Apostolike by the grant of a thousand markes we dare surely say againe that it is vntrue and that all Rome neither can shew such a grant nor neuer could and if they could it were nothing worth for neuer could any King of England giue away to the Pope or make the land tributarie though he would To conclude this point of deposing Princes I will note vnto you onely one place more to this purpose out of the Decrees of the Church of France collected by Bochellus a late writer Bochel ex Cod. libert Eccles Gallie li. 2. tit 16. c. 1. Regnum Franciae eiusque pertinentias dare in praedam Papa non potest c. The Pope cannot giue away for a prey the kingdome of France and the appertenances thereof or dispose therof in any other sort whatsoeuer And notwithstanding whatsoeuer admonitions excommunications or interdicts the subiects are bound to performe due obedience to their King in temporals neither can they be dispenced or absolued from the same by the Pope The reason hereof is that such obedience is due by the law of God and nature against which no man may dispence according to S. Thomas In his quae sunt de lege naturae c. In such things as are of the law of nature and in diuine precepts Tho 2.2 q. 88 ar 10. no man can disp ence O that French-men if that their doctrine be currant in France would vouchsafe to teach their doctrine here in great Brittaine In them it seemeth tollerable and would be doubtlesse vnpunishable But certaine English priests no lesse Catholicke then well affected subiects for teaching the like in defence of their King and countrey must be subiect to the losse of faculties the onely meanes that many haue of their reliefe calumniation obloquie of tongues reputed as schismatikes little better then heretikes and esteemed of some vnworthy of foode to maintaine life diuerse hauing bene forbidden to visite such in prison or relieue them This is too true would God it were not so O tempora O mores Wel may we cry out with S. Paul Miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus 1. Cor 15. Psal 13. we are more miserable then all men But though the throate of some be an opeÌ„ sepulcher and with their tongues they deale subtilly and the poison of aspes be vnder their lips yet we neede not one eye looke to his mercifull and most wonderfull care of Daniel feeding him imprisoned in the middest of Lions and with the other behold his daily relieuing the beasts of the field and fowles of the aire all made for man as man for God Then confortamini in Domino nolite timâ—re multis passeribus pluris estis vos Comfort your selues in our Lord and feare ye not you are much more worth then many sparrowes you I meane that intend not to derogate from the spiritual authoritie of Christs Vicar but to render no lesse vnto him his due then to Caesar his But to returne whence we haue digressed if it be true that a Councell may not iudge punish or depose the Pope though he endeuor to destroy the Church of God Li. 2 de Rom. Pont. c. 29. as Cardinall Bellarmine writeth which belongeth to none but to a superiour a Councell not being aboue the Pope as many hold why are we not to beleeue the same of Kings though they persecute the Church Li. 3. c 19. Tert. ad Scapulam praesid Carthag when as witnesse the same Author they acknowledge no superior no iudge on earth in temporals Well let such Doctors as teach deposition in schooles withdraw themselues from speculation to practise from scholasticall distinctions and disputations to Magistrates examinations such as haue potestatem crucifigendi vel dimittendi haply they may change their subtile shifts into a simple proposition that it is small wisedome to band with the supreme Magistrate in a matter so important as is Caesars right neuer any thing being yet determined by the Church of God to warrant them so to do And it may be in my iudgement admired that catholicke Princes permit such dangerous positions not onely to be disputed but also taught for truth within their dominions and to passe without controlement knowing that a sparkle of fire lying smothering in combustible matter if it be neglected and left vnquenched may cause in short space an vnquenchable flame so such a speculatiue doctrine litle regarded is not vnlike in time to breed a wofull practicall ruine of kingdomes and nations And this of the Popes temporall power Is it then by spirituall authoritie alone or by both that Princes maybe deposed for it seemeth by later Diuines that Popes may depose them directly or indirectly The mirror of this age for diuine literature Cardinall Bellarmine in his late booke against Barclai cap. 5. and elsewhere writeth not so plainely as were to be wished nor so as he satisfieth his reader whether it be spirituall onely or temporall onely but seemeth to incline more to the spirituall power yet mixt with temporall Iam dixi inquit potestatem de qua loquimur c. I haue alreadie said In Barcl c. 5. that the power wherof we speake is to be found expresly in the Scriptures but generally not in particular to wit in the 16. of Saint Matthew Tibi dabo claues regni coelorum And Iohn 21. Pasce oues meas and by these same diuine testimonies may be gathered that accession and coniunction of power to dispose of temporals in ordine ad spiritualia as more then once is declared And may it not I pray you be as well said with due respect to his dignitie that by those diuine testimonies no such glosse of accession or coniunction of power may be gathered because those places were euer vnderstood by all ancient Fathers of the sole spiritual authority of the Pope without accession or coniunction of temporall power yea in ordine ad spiritualia By the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised to Peter yet not for Peter
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
they professe Tolet de 7. pec mort c. 16. n. 3. Tho. 2.2 q. 104. a. 5. ad 3. Innocen in c. no Dei 43. de Simon Martin de Carazijs in tract de principibus q. 48. Felin in cap. Accepimus de fide instrum And if their superiours shold by indiscretion or otherwise command any thing against the law of God yea were he the Pope himselfe or against the profession of their rule such obedience I deeme nor they nor any will doubt to be vnlawfull and they were not bound to obey as Innocentius others affirme So then we may distinguish obedience to be of three sorts one sufficiēt to saluation which obeyeth in all matters wherein he is bound another perfect which obeyeth in all things lawfull and the third indiscreet which is ready to render obedience yea in vnlawfull or iniust things And this is the obedience wherewith may alas in these our angerous dayes seeme so deeply possessed dangerous I say for that within such obedience latet anguis in herba lyeth hidden a mystery of mischiefe and which is so highly by diuerse recommended to their auditours who sticke not boldly to say that by obeying Pastors and Praelats and the supreme Pastor among the rest he cannot sin but by refusing to obey he may sinne therefore it is best and securest alway to obey whatsoeuer is by them commanded alledging S. Paul Hebr. vlt. Obedite Praepositis vestris Obey your Prelats without distinction not attending that the same holy Ghost who taught vs this doctrine by the vessell of election hath likewise taught vs by the mouth of the Prince of Apostles and cannot be contrary to himselfe that we are no lesse bound to obey and be subiect to kings and their officers to wit 1. Pet. ◠Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regi quasi praecellenti siue ducibus tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum c. Be ye subiect to euery humane creature for God whether to the King as to the precellent or to his Captaines as sent from him for the punishment of malefactors c. For that the politicall or ciuill power yea of heathen or persecuting Neros as in the Apostles times were no other is no lesse from God and immediate from him then is the Ecclesiasticall or spirituall Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo Rom. 13 for there is no power but of God When he saith No power is there any excepted Is it not meant as well of the temporall as of the spirituall Chrysostome vpon this place hath these words Deus it a exigit vt creatus ab eo Princeps vires suas habeat God so requireth that a Prince created haue his power from him then not from the people If you reade Salomon in the booke of Wisedome you shall find it most cleare that the power of Kings and Rulers is immediat not from men but from God Praebete aures vos Sap. 6. qui continetis multitudines c quoniam data est à Domino potestas vobis virtus ab Altissimo c. Giue care you that conteine multitudes who are they but temporal Princes because power is giuen to you from our Lord and vertue from the Highest without any distinction of mediatè c. It followeth a little after who are meant ver 10. Ad vos ergo Reges sunt hi sermones mei vt discatis sapiontiam c. To you therefore ô kings are these my words that you may learne wisedome c. These two powers then Ecelesiasticall and ciuill as they are both from God so are they both distinct and separate from other and independent of each other as after shall be proued And euen as God hath ordeined and concluded the waters and maine sea within certaine limits which the may not passe but must breake their raging waues where they are appointed as is in holy Writ Legem ponebat aquis Prou. 8. ne transirent fines suos He made a law for waters that they should not passe their bounds and in Iob Et Dixi Iob. 38. vsque huc venies non procedes amplius hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos And I said saith God hitherto thou shalt come thou shalt proceed no further and here thou shalt breake thy swelling sources So likewise his omnipotent wisdome haply to auoide all confusion and other mischiefes which might arise by intermedling with each others power hath appointed thē their seuerall and distinct ends their limits bounds which they may not passe not inuade each others empire Lib. 1. de consid cap. 5. as mellifluous S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius 3. doth more then insinuate Habent haec insima terrena Iudices suos Reges Principes terrae Quid fines alienos inuaditis quid falcem vestram in alienam messem extenditis These base and terrene things haue their Iudges Kings and Princes of the earth Why do you inuade other mēs boūds why do you thrust your sythe into others haruest By which is euident that Popes may and do sometimes exceede their limits to wit spirituall authority when by vsurpation they intermeddle in terrene things or temporall authority being the proper bounds of Kings and secular Princes which ought not to be inuaded by Ecclesiasticall persons And to this effect writeth most excellently amongst latter Diuines Ioannes Driedo affirming this distinction to be de iure diuino Lib. 2. de liber Eccle. c. 2. Christus saith he vtriusque potestatis officia discreuit vt vna diuinis spiritualibus rebus atque porsonis altera profanis ac mundanis praesideret Christ hath so parted the offices of both powers as the one might gouerne ouer diuine and spirituall things and persons the other ouer profane and mundane And a little after The distinction therefore of Ecclesiasticall Papall power from the secular and Imperiall power is made by the law of God And in the same chapter Whereupon the Pope and the Emperour are in the Church not as two chiefe gouernours deuided among themselues neither of which do acknowledge or honour the other as superiour because a kingdome deuided against it selfe will be desolate Neither are they as two Iudges subordinate so as the one receiueth his iurisdiction from the other but they are as two gouernours which are the Ministers of one God deputed to diuers offices in such wise as the Emperour is to rule ouer secular causes persons for the peaceable liuing together in this world and the Pope may rule ouer spirituals to the gaine of Christian faith and charitie This Driedo That these two dignities are distinct hauing no dependance of each other Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe proueth cōparing them to the two great lights or planets the Sunne and Moone Nota saith he quemadmodum non est idem sydus Sol luna sicut lunā non instituit Sol sed Deus Bellar. l. 5.
yeares from her beginning to depose Iulian Constantius Valens and other hereticall Princes and therefore permitted Christians to obey them in temporals Saint Cyprian saith that in his time the number of Christians were verie great Cypr. in Demetrianum Tertul. in Apologet. And Tertullian writeth thus Were we disposed not to practise secret reuenge but to professe open hostilitie should we want number of men or force of armes Are the Moores or the Parthians or any one nation whatsoeuer more in number then we that are spread ouer all the world We are not of you and yet we haue filled all the places and roomes which you haue Your Cities Ilands Castles Townes Assemblies your Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Imperiall Pallace Senate and seate of judgement Euseb l. 3. de rita Constan Niceph. l. 5. c. 25. c. Eusebius likewise and Nicephorus report That the whole world as it were vnder Constantius was Christian and the greater part Catholicke How then is it true that the Church in her nouitie wanted forces And therefore she permitted Christians to obey their Princes in temporals saith the Cardinall Euen so permitted as father Parsons in his letter to the Catholickes of England against the Oath of allegiance affirmeth that Pope Clement by a Breue had permitted ciuill obedience to our King and recommended to all Catholickes soone after his Highnesse entrance vnto the Crowne As if ciuill obedience had not bene otherwise due but by his Holinesse permission Who would haue thought such an imprudent and strange kind of phrase could haue so escaped his pen But it seemeth he had learned the same out of Cardinall Bellarmines writings and so presumed it would passe as current without controlement And may not the world maruell be it spoken with due reuerence to his great dignitie which I haue euer and in heart still do honour that a man so excellently learned will teach that Christian subiects vnlesse they be permitted by the Church are not bound to render obedience to their lawfull Kings and Princes if they become heretickes or aduersaries to true religion and persecutors Princes infidels lose no right but are the true and supreme Princes of their kingdomes as he himselfe teacheth Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 2. for dominion is not founded either in grace or in faith so as the Pope hath no authoritie to meddle with them Marry if these become Christians and after fall to heresie what then In that case saith he Potest regna mutare vni auferre Cap. 6. alteri conferre He may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to another saith he Then is their condition worse as touching temporall possessions then it was when they were infidels worse then the conditiō of the basest of their subiects But Christian religion depriueth no man of his right who had right in infidelitie cannot lose the same by receiuing the grace and faith of Christ which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Cardinall howsoeuer he seemeth sometime to teach contrary to himselfe Bellar. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. Christ did not saith he nor doth take kingdomes from them to whom they belong for Christ came not to destroy those things which were well setled but to establish them And therefore when a King becometh a Christian he doth not lose his earthly kingdome which by right he held but purchaseth a new interest to an euerlasting kingdome otherwise the benefites receiued by Christ should be hurtfull to Kings and grace should destroy nature If Christian Kings lawfully attaining to their dominions by right of nature enioy the same as cannot be denied and so are to be obeyed why not also if they happen to fall backe into heresie or infidelitie their right not being founded in grace or in faith To say that such Princes or magistrates are not to be obeyed cometh neare the heresie charged vpon Wickliffe and condemned in the Councel of Constance and is repugnant to the doctrine of the holy Ghost in sacred Scriptures and practise of all blessed Saints and Martyrs who most promptly without any permission of the Pope or Church obeyed Pagan Princes vnder whom they were subiect in all ciuill causes onely in defence of faith and Gods truth made choice rather to shed their bloud then by obeying Caesar to disobey God And where such a permission was euer granted as to obey Iulian or other hereticall Emperour cannot be found in any generall Councell or ancient Fathers writings before the dayes of S. Thomas of Aquine 2.2 q. 12.2.2 of whom the Cardinall learned his doctrine of permission to obey till such time as they had forces to depriue them of their Empire Consider I pray you that S. Paul hauing receiued his doctrine immediatly from heauen writing to the Christians in Rome permitted not for a time but strictly commanded them euer to obey higher powers Rom. 13. Sap. 6. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers Was this meant trow ye for onely higher powers Christians or heathen onely for a time No but for all sorts of rulers and as long as there be superiors and inferiors The holy Apostle in this and other his Epistles often inculcateth this necessary vertue of obedience diligently exhorting and commanding as well subiects to be obedient to their Princes as seruants to their masters and all inferiors to their superiors And were not these maisters and higher powers for the most part Pagans Were they not enemies to Christian religion whom they were taught to obey Was any sort of inferiors exempted from obeying S. Iohn Chrysostome will put you out of doubt that such subiection is commanded to all sorts Priests Monkes Chrysost in cap. 13. Rom. hom 23. August in lib. expositionis quorundam propos ex epist ad Rom. and secular men as the Apostle himselfe declareth in the verie beginning Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etiam si Apostolus sis si Euangelista si Propheta siue quisquis tandem fueris neque enim pietatem subuertit ista subiectio Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers yea if thou art an Apostle if an Euangelist if a Prophet or finally whosoeuer thou art Marke well For this subiection subuerteth not pietie or religion And he specially noteth that S. Paul saith not simply Obediat but subdita sit And why because power is of God Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo For there is no power but of God Quid dicis saith this holy Father to S. Paul Omnis ergo Princeps à Deo constitutus est Istud inquit non dico Neque enim de quouis Principum sermo mihi nunc est sed de ipsa re What saist thou O Paul is then euery Prince constituted of God This saith he I say not For neither of euery Prince do I now speake but of the thing it selfe that is of power And the Apostle
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
the Iewes at the same time liued whosoeuer without sufficient authority were spied so much as to haue a sword about him to murther any mā with was in a manner in as euill a case as he that had murthered one indeed If Peter exercising a materiall sword in defence of Christ and at such time as the vse thereof might seeme to him very necessary was sharply reprehended for that he had no lawfull authoritie in such wise to fight for him is it not a sufficient document for his successours not to vse violence on secular Princes by exercising the materiall sword no not in ordine ad spiritualia in defence of Christs spouse the Church for that she hath no warrant so to do Our Sauiour a little before his passion seeing his Apostles to contend about superiority teaching them their duties and in them all their successours and the different gouernment betweene them and secular Princes said Luc. 22. Reges gentium dominātur eorum qui potestatem habent super eos benefici vocantur vos autem non sic c. The Kings of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that haue power vpon them are called beneficials But you not so but he that is the greater among you let him become as the yonger c. Vpon which place Origen S. Hierome Chrysostome and Basil with one assent vnderstand that secular Princes are not content onely to haue subiects but also by ouerruling they vse thē but you not so to wit you my Apostles and successours after me for it is your part to serue to minister and to feede by word and example c. And in Saint Matthewes Gospell Math. 20. our Sauiour said vnto two of his disciples Iames and Iohn You know that the Princes of the Gentiles ouerrule them and they that are the greater exercise power against them It shall not be so among you but whosoeuer will be the greater among you let him be your minister c. Is it not plaine tnat our Lord Iesus though he teach not paritie with Puritans nor forbiddeth superiority among Christians neither Ecclesiasticall nor temporall yet he will not that his Apostles nor their successors Bishops and Priests being called to the state of a celestiall kingdome that differeth from the conditiō of a temporall kingdome should rule like vnto Kings and secular Princes who cary a materiall sword ad vindictam malefactorum for reuenge of malefactors and some now and then imperiously gouerne their subiects with pride tyranny contempt of inferiours and for their owne lucre more then the vtility of their subiects Which kind of gouernement is forbidden both by the doctrine and example of our Sauiour 1. Pet. 5. Presbyteros Compresbyter so readeth and expoundeth S. Hierome ep 85. So translate Erasmus and Beza and humility commended to all the Cleargie yea to Peter himselfe who cōformably to this likwise instructed such as at any time to the worlds end should beare rule in Gods Church saying Seniores igitur qui sunt inter vos obsecro ego consenior c. The seniors therefore that are among you I beseech my selfe a consenior with them c or Priests my selfe a fellow Priests feede the flocke of God which is among you prouiding not by cōstraint but willingly according to God neither for filthy lucre sake but voluntarily neque vt dominātes neither as ouerruling the Clergie but made examples of the flocke from the heart Whereby appeareth that all violence coaction and compulsion by exercising the temporall sword which is the sword of Kings is wholly forbidden all Ecclesiasticall persons To me it seemeth not without a mysterie that onely Peter among the rest of the Apostles should not strike any in all that hellish troupe coming in fury to lay violent hands on their Lord no not the traytor Iudas that with a kisse betraied him the ringleader of the rest and so better deserued to haue had his head cut off but onely him whose name is so precisely recorded by the Euāgelist to be Malchus and that he should be checked and reproued by our Sauiour Iohan. c. 18. of whom haply he expected to be commended for his zeale But though Peter might pretend iust cause to be moued to strike as he did yet was his fact reprehensible in two respects First for that asking Christ the question whether he and his fellow for no moe of the eleuen had swords about them should strike or no stroke without his grant yea against his will Secondly because his fact had rather a shew of reuenge then of defence For what might he think to do with 2. swords against so many what possibility to preuaile And as may appeare likwise by Christs words vnto him Math. 26. Returne thy sword into his place for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword And in S. Iohns Gospell Iohan. 18. Put vp thy sword into the scabbard the chalice which my Father hath giuen me shall not I drinke it By all which is cleare that Peter was iustly reprehended for striking without commission the high Priests seruant Malchus which name in Hebrew or Malcuth signifieth Rex or Regnum doubtles in my iudgemēt not without a great mystery the admirable prouidence of God thereby haply instructing posterity that no lesse reprehensible is it in Peters successours as they are Peters successors to dethrone Kings and depriue them of their kingdomes which cannot be done without drawing forth and striking with the materiall sword then it was in Peter himselfe for cutting off Malchus eare And that they ought not to vse such kind of violence on the persons of Kings no nor inferiors to Kings hauing no commission from Christ to punish corporally no more then Peter had against Malchus but onely spiritually Now to returne to the authoritie or power meant by S. Paul Rom. 13. Omnis anima It is most plaine that the Apostle in that chapter recommended to Christians their dutiful obedience to secular Potestates because hauing preached obedience to spirituall Pastors some newly conuerted thought themselues being Christians See S. Chrysost in c. 13. ho. 23. Ro. to be freed by Christ from al former subiection now not bound to obey either Emperour King or any temporall Lord for that they were heathens and persecutors of the Apostles and Christs religion For which cause and for that the Apostles generally were slandered and said to be seditious and vntruly charged of their aduersaries that they withdrew men from order and obedience to ciuill lawes and officers Saint Paul here as S. Peter doth in his first Epistles to stop the mouth of such flanderous tongues cleareth himselfe and expresly chargeth euery man and woman to be subiect to their temporall Princes and superiors howbeit in such matters as they may lawfully command and in things wherein they are superiors Conformable to his doctrine was likewise his example and of the rest of the Apostles who in all matters not repugnant to
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
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