Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like Councell in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Sonne Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessefull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert D. of Savoy repenting of his warre undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arrians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practise till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empresse Irene who put her Sonnes eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruell as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coales to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affaire in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Iustinian the Emperour A. D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome it selfe but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I at the same instant the Gothes invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true beliefe who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds doe persecute an errour lesse materiall in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common faith And I have heard it observ'd as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice chang'd his mind yet to Tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the secular power to be kild that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he dyed and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come and yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arrians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himselfe to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Iustinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons but as yet it came not so farre as death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted only to the Friers of his Order and if there be any force in dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mothers dreame who the night before Dominick was born dream'd she was brought to Bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his disciples expound the dreame it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in this Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom hee so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before B. Bruno Berengarianes è suâ diocesi expulit non morti aut suppliciis corporalibus tradidit Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they cald Heresy and recanted and relapsed and recanted againe and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died siccâ morte his own naturall death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his judge which shewes that at that time Rome was not come to so great heigths of bloodshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any where yet there were no Executions for matter of opinion known till the time of Henry the Fourth who because he Usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endeare the Clergy by destroying their Enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the pollicies of evill persons but never the pure and chaste designs of Christianity which admits no blood but Christs and the imitating blood of Martyrs but knowes nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unlesse so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny Popery and Faction did teach indifferency for I have shewn that Christianity does not punish corporally persons erring spiritually but indeed Popery does The Donatists and Circumcellians and Arrians and the Itaciani they of old did In the middle Ages the Patrons of Images did and the Papists at this day doe and have done ever since they were taught it by their S. Dominick Seventhly And yet after all this I have something more to exempt my selfe from the clamour of this Objection For let all errours be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that but let it be done by such meanes as are proper instruments of their suppression by Preaching and Disputation so that neither of them breed disturbance by charity and sweetnesse by holinesse of life assiduity of exhortation by
Faith but especially by the insinuation and consequent De Rom. Pont. l 4. c. 2. § secunda sententia acknowledgement of Bellarmine that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility for Nilus Gerson Alemain the Divines of Paris Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI persons who liv'd 1400 after Christ affirm that infallibility is not seated in the Popes person that he may erre and sometimes actually hath which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor generall opinion of the Fathers or of any age before them and therefore this opinion which Bellarmine would faine blast if he could yet in his Conclusion he sayes it is not propriè haeretica A device and an expression of his own without sense or precedent But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it For as Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers he sayes that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children and therefore they cannot depose against him and if that be true why shall we take their Testimonies for him for if Sonnes depose in their Fathers behalfe it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such topicks and that where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engag'd men by not regarding what any man sayes proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine sayes nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say for that will bee Numb 13. but to presse upon personall perswasions or to urge a generall Question with a particular defaillance and the Question is never the nearer to an end for if Bellarmine sayes any thing that is not to another mans purpose or perswasion that man will be tryed by his own Argument not by anothers And so would every man doe that loves his liberty as all wise men doe and therefore retain it by open violence or private evasions But to return An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question and on behalf of the Popes infallibility or the Authority of the Sea of Rome Numb 14. or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation and answering such Authorities yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question it is protestatio contra factum For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victors infallibity that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter day and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then why is she not now where is the succession of her doctrine But if she was not of that opinion then and Irenaeus was where was his beliefe of that Churches infallibility The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of rebaptization and he and the abettors Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voisinage spoke harsh words of Stephen and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor and the supreme Head of the Church I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that Sea but only note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him because it is of good use to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority For he sayes that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles cum in multis sacramentis divinae rei à Epist. Firmiliani contr Steph. ad Cyprian Vid. etiam Ep. Cypriani ad Pompeium principio discrepet ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitanâ defamet Petrum Paulum tanquam authores And a little after justè dedignor sayes he apertam manifestam stultitiam Stephani per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution and from the Church of Jerusalem which they had as great esteeme of for Religion sake as of Rome for its principality and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication which words I confesse passe my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of infallibility and although they were spoken by an angry person yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they were at Rome Nam Cyprian Epist ad Quintum 〈◊〉 nec Petrus quem primum Dominus clegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolentèr aut arrogantèr assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere That was their belief then and how the contrary hath grown up to that heigth where now it is all the world is witnesse And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius Qui tecum non colligit spargit For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer but if Liberius's name had been put instead of Damasus the case had been altered with the name for S. Hierom did believe and write it so that Liberius had subscrib'd to Arrianism And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the De Script Eccles. in Fortunatiano Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith faile but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendome Why did they not appeale to the Pope in the Arrian Controversy why was the Bishop of Rome made a Party and a concurrent as other good Bishops were and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question Why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of heresy Why were the Emperours at so much charge and the Church at so much trouble as to call and convene in Councels respectively to dispute so frequently to write so sedulously to observe all advantages
fit maxime in Angliâ haec est ratio quia in peccatis concepta fuit sicut caeteri Sancti And the Commissaries of Sixtus V. and Gregory XIII did not expunge these words but left them upon Record not only against a received and more approved opinion of the Jesuites and Franciscans but also in plain defiance of a Decree made by their visible head of the Church who if ever any thing was decreed by a Pope with an intent to oblige all Christendome decreed * Hâc in perpetuum valiturâ constitutione statuimus c. De reliquiis c. Extrav Com. Sixt. 4 cap. 1. this to that purpose So that without taking particular notice of it that egregious sophistry and flattery of the late Writers of the Roman Church is in this instance besides divers others before mentioned clearly made invalid For here the Bishop of Rome not as Numb 16. a private Doctor but as Pope not by declaring his own opinion but with an intent to oblige the Church gave sentence in a Question which the Dominicans will still account pro non determinatâ And every decretall recorded in the Canon Law if it be false in the matter is just such another instance And Alphonsus à Castro sayes it to the same purpose in the instance of Celestine dissolving Marriages for heresy Neque Caelestini error talis fuit qui soli negligentiae imputari debeat ita ut illum errasse dicamus velut privatam personam non ut Papam quoniam hujusmodi Caelestini definitio habetur in antiquis decretalibus in cap. Laudabilem titulo de conversione infidelium quam ego ipse vidi legi lib. 1. adv haeres cap. 4. And therefore 't is a most intolerable folly to pretend that the Pope cannot erre in his Chaire though he may erre in his Closet and may maintaine a false opinion even to his death For besides that it is sottish to think that either he would not have the world of his own opinion as all men naturally would or that if he were set in his Chaire he would determine contrary to himselfe in his study and therefore to represent it as possible they are faine to flie to a Miracle for which they have no colour neither instructions nor insinuation nor warrant nor promise besides that it were impious and unreasonable to depose him for heresy who may so easily even by setting himselfe in his Chaire and reviewing his Theorems be cured it is also against a very great experience For besides the former Allegations it is most notorious that Pope Alexander III in a Councell at Rome of 300 Archbishops and Bishops A. D. 1179. condemn'd Peter Lombard of heresy in a matter of great concernment no lesse then something about the incarnation from which sentence he was after 36 years abiding it absolv'd by Pope Innocent III without repentance or dereliction of the opinion Now if this sentence was not a Cathedrall Dictate as solemn and great as could be expected or as is said to be necessary to oblige all Christendome let the great Hyperaspists of the Roman Church be Judges who tell us that a particular Councell with the Popes confirmation is made Oecumenicall by adoption and is infallible and obliges all Christendome so Bellarmine And therefore he sayes that it is temerarium erroneum proximum haeresi to L. 2. de Concil cap. 5. deny it but whether it be or not it is all one as to my purpose For it is certain that in a particular Councell confirm'd by the Pope if ever then and there the Pope sate himselfe in his Chaire and it is as certain that he sate besides the cushion and determined ridiculously and falsly in this case But this is a device De Pontif. Rom. c. 14. § respondeo In 3. sent d. 24. q. in conl 6. dub 6. in fine for which there is no Scripture no Tradition no one dogmaticall resolute saying of any Father Greek or Latine for above 1000 years after Christ And themselves when they list can acknowledge as much And therefore Bellarmine's saying I perceive is believ'd by them to be true That there are many things in the * Proverbialitèr olim dictuÌ„ erat de Decretalibus Malè cum rebus humanis actum esse ex quo decretis alae accesserunt scil cum Decretales post decretum Gratiani sub nomine Gregorii noni edebantur Decretall Epistles which make not Articles to be de fide And therefore Non est necessariò credendum determinatis per summum Pontificâ—m sayes Almain And this serves their turns in every thing they doe not like and therefore I am resolved it shall serve my turn also for some thing and that is that the matter of the Pope's infallibility is so ridiculous and improbable that they doe not believe it themselves Some of them clearly practised the contrary and although Pope Leo X hath determined the Pope to be above a Councell yet the Sorbon to this day scorn it at the very heart And I might urge upon them that scorn that Almain truly enough by way of Argument alledges It is a wonder that they who affirm the Pope cannot De Authorit Eccles. cap 10. in fine erre in judgement doe not also affirm that he cannot sinne they are like enough to say so sayes he if the vitious lives of the Popes did not make a daily confutation of such flattery Now for my own particular I am as confident and think it as certain that Popes are actually deceived in matters of Christian Doctrine as that they doe prevaricate the lawes of Christian piety And therefore †L. 1. ca. 4. advers haeres edit Paris 1534. In seqq non expurgantur ista verba at idem sensus maner Alphonsus à Castro calls them impudentes Papae assentatores that ascribe to him infallibility in judgement or interpretation of Scripture But if themselves did believe it heartily what excuse is there Numb 11. in the world for the strange uncharitablenesse or supine negligence of the Popes that they doe not set themselves in their Chaire and write infallible Commentaries and determine all Controversies without errour and blast all heresies with the word of their mouth declare what is and what is not de fide that his Disciples and Confidents may agree upon it reconcile the Franciscans and Dominicans and expound all Mysteries for it cannot be imagined but he that was endued with so supreme power in order to so great ends was also fitted with proportionable that is extraordinary personall abilities succeeding and deriv'd upon the persons of all the Popes And then the Doctors of his Church need not trouble themselves with study nor writing explications of Scripture but might wholly attend to practicall devotion and leave all their Scholasticall wranglings the distinguishing opinions of their Orders and they might have a fine Church something like Fairy land or Lucians Kingdome in the Moone But if they say they
the precept gather not the tares by themselves but let them both grow together till the harvest that is till the day of Judgement This Parable hath been tortur'd infinitely to make it confesse its meaning but we shall soone dispatch it All the difficulty and variety of exposition is reducible to these two questions What is meant by Gather not and what by Tares That is what kind of sword is forbidden and what kind of persons are to be tolerated The former is cleare for the spirituall sword is not forbidden to be used to any sort of criminals for that would destroy the power of excommunication The prohibition therefore lyes against the use of the temporall sword in cutting off some persons Who they are is the next difficulty But by tares or the children of the wicked one are meant either persons of ill lives wicked persons onely in re practicâ or else another kind of evill persons men criminall or faulty in re intellectuali One or other of these two must be meant a third I know not But the former cannot be meant because it would destroy all bodies politique which cannot consist without lawes nor lawes without a compulsory and a power of the sword therefore if criminalls were to be let alone till the day of Judgement bodies politique must stand or fall ad arbitrium impiorum and nothing good could be protected not Innocence it selfe nothing could be secure but violence and tyrannie It followes then that since a kind of persons which are indeed faulty are to be tolerated it must be meant of persons faulty in another kind in which the Gospell had not in other places cleerely established a power externally compulsory and therefore since in all actions practically criminall a power of the sword is permitted here where it is denyed must meane a crime of another kind and by consequence errors intellectuall commonly call'd heresie Numb 7. And after all this the reason there given confirmes this * Vide S. Chrysost homil 47. in Cap. 13. Matth. et S. August interpretation for therefore it is forbidden to cut off these tares lest we also pull up the wheat with them which is the summe of these two last arguments For because Heresie is of so nice consideration and difficult sentence in thinking to root up heresies Quest. in cap. 13 Mat. S. Cyprian Ep. lib. 3 Ep. 1. we may by our * S. Hieron in cap 13. Matth. ait per hanc parabolam significari ne in rebus aubâ—is praecepâ— fiat judicium mistakes destroy true doctrine which although it be possible to be done in all cases of practicall question by mistake yet because externall actions are more discernable then inward speculations and opinions innocent persons are not so Theophyl in 13. Matth. easily mistaken for the guilty in actions criminall as in matters of inward perswasion And upon that very reason Saint Martin was zealous to have procured a revocation of a Commission granted to certaine Tribunes to make enquiry in Spaine for sects and opinions for under colour of rooting out the Priscilianists there was much mischiefe done and more likely to happen to the Orthodox For it happened then as oftentimes since Pallore potius veste quam fide haeretieus dijudicari solebat aliquando per Tribunos Maximi They were no good inquisitors of hereticall pravity so Sulpitius witnesses But secondly the reason sayes that therefore these persons are so to be permitted as not to be persecuted lest when a revolution of humane affaires sets contrary opinions in the throne or chaire they who were persecuted before should now themselves become persecutors of others and so at one time or other before or after the wheat be rooted up and the truth be persecuted But as these reasons confirme the Law and this sense of it so abstracting from the Law it is of it selfe concluding by an argument ab incommodo and that founded upon the Numb 8. principles of justice and right reason as I formerly alledged 4. We are not onely uncertaine of finding out truths in matters disputable but we are certaine that the best and ablest * Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inveniatur quam difficilè caveantur errores Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quam rarum et arduum sit carnalia phantasmatae piae mentis serenitaete supevare Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt quibus suspiriis gemitibus fiat ut exquantulaÌ„cunque parte possit intelligi Deus Postremo illi in vos saeviant qui nullo tali errore decepti sunt quali vos deceptos vident Doctors of Christendome have been actually deceived in matters of great concernment which thing is evident in all those instances of persons from whose doctrines all sorts of Christians respectively take liberty to dissent The errors of Papias Irenaeus Lactantius Iustin Martyr in the Millenary opinion of Saint Cyprian Firmilian the Asian and African Fathers in the question of Re-baptization Saint Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the unbaptized children of Christian parents the Roman or the Greek Doctors in the question of the procession of the holy Ghost and in the matter of images are examples beyond exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if these great personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their opinions who should have answered the invaluable losse the Church of God should have sustained in missing so excellent so exemplary and so great lights But then if these persons erred and by consequence might have been destroyed what should have become of others whose understanding was lower and their security lesse their errors more and their danger greater At this rate all men should have passed through the fire for who can escape when Saint Cyprian and Saint Austin cannot Now to say these persons were not to be persecuted because although they had errors yet none condemned by the Church at that time or before is to say nothing to the purpose nor nothing that is true Not true because Saint Cyprians S. August Contr. Ep. Fund error was condemned by Pope Stephen which in the present sense of the prevailing party in the Church of Rome is to be condemned by the Church Not to the purpose because it is nothing else but to say that the Church did tolerate their errors For since those opinions were open and manifest to the world that the Church did not condemne them it was either because those opinions were by the Church not thought to be errors or if they were yet she thought fit to tolerate the error and the erring person And if she would doe so still it would in most cases be better then now it is And yet if the Church had condemned them it had not altered the case as to this question for either the persons upon the condemnation of their error should have been persecuted or not If not why shall they
impregnable or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered disgraced imprisoned condemned and afflicted neither his sleeps need to be disturbed nor his quietnesse discomposed But if a man cannot change his opinion when helists nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot do otherwise then to use force may make him an hypocrite but never to be a right beleever and so instead of erecting a trophee to God and true Religion we build a Monument for the Devill Infinite examples are recorded in Church story to this very purpose But Socrates instances in one for all for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatned by the Emperour Ualens with banishment and confiscation if he did not subscribe to the decree of Ariminum at last he yeilded to the Arrian opinion and presently fell into great torment of Conscience openly at Cyzicum recanted the errour asked God and the Church forgivenesse and complain'd of the Emperours injustice and that was all the good the Arrian party got by offering violence to his Conscience And so many families in Spain which are as they call them new Christians and of a suspected faith into which they were forc'd by the tyrannie of the Inquisition and yet are secret Moores is evidence enough of the * Ejusmodi fuit Hipponensium conversio cujus quidem species decepit August ita ut opinaretur haereticos licet non morte trucidandos vi tamen coercendos Experientiaenim demonstravit eos tam facile ad Arianismum transiisse atque ad Cathelicismum cum Arriani Principes rerum in ed civitate petirentur inconvenience of preaching a doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi For it either punishes a man for keeping a good conscience or forces him into a bad it either punishes sincerity or perswades hypocrisie it persecutes a truth or drives into error and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe but never to be honest 8. It is one of the glories of Christian Religion that it was so pious excellent miraculous and petswasive that it came in upon its owne piety and wisdome with no other force but a torrent Numb 12. of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit a mighty rushing wind to beat downe all strong holds and every high thought and imagination but towards the persons of men it was alwayes full of meeknesse and charity complyance and toleration condescension and bearing with one another restoring persons overtaken with an error in the spirit of meeknesse considering lest we also be tempted The consideration is as prudent and the proposition as just as the precept is charitable and the precedent was pious and holy Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution That precept which it chiefly preaches in order to all the blessednesse in the world that is of meekness mercy and charity should also preserve it selfe and promote its owne interest For indeed nothing will doe it so well nothing doth so excellently insinuate it selfe into the understandings and affections of men as when the actions and perswasions of a sect and every part and principle and promotion are univocall And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an institution that in its principle it should be mercifull and humane and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhumane And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the perswasion of one proposition and yet in the perswasion of the whole Religion nothing like it To doe so may serve the end of a temporall Prince but never promote the honour of Christs Kingdome it may secure a designe of Spaine but will very much disserve Christendome to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognisance of the Mahumetan Religion from the excellencie and piety of Christianity whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of S. Paul 2 Tim. 2. 24. The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men in meeknesse instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth They that oppose themselves must not be strucken by any of Gods servants and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in opinion he will get nothing by that he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his paines And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiasticall will doe no advantage for an escape because even the Secular power if it be Christian and a servant of God must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I meane in those cases where meeknesse of instruction is the remedy or if the case be irremediable abscission by Censures is the penalty 9. And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust Numb 13. nor unreasonable yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the soule of man so as to command a perswasion or to judge a disagreeing Humane positive Lawes direct all externall acts in order to severall ends and the Judges take cognisance accordingly but no man can command the will or punish him that obeys the Law against his will for because its end is served in externall obedience it neither looks after more neither can it be served by more nor take notice of any more And yet possibly the understanding is lesse subject to humane power then the will for that humane power hath a command over externall acts which naturally and regularly flow from the will ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will but alwayes either a direct or indirect volition primary or accidentall but the understanding is a naturall faculty subject to no command but where the command is it selfe a reason fit to satisfie and perswade it And therefore God commanding us to beleeve such revelations perswades and satisfies the understanding by his commanding and revealing for there is no greater probation in the world that a proposition is true then because God hath commanded us to believe it But because no mans command is a satisfaction to the understanding or a verification of the proposition therefore the understanding is not subject to humane authority They may perswade but not enjoyne where God hath not and where God hath if it appeares so to him he is an Infidell if he does not beleeve it And if all men have no other efficacie or authority on the understanding but by perswasion proposall and intreaty then a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument and the energie of perswasion neither indeed can he though he would never so faine and he that out of feare and too much complyance and desire to be safe shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the beliefe of humane dictates and authorities may as often misse of the truth as hit it but is sure alwaies to
to move them to so damned a conspiracy or indeed to any just complaint Secondly if these were not the causes as they would faine abuse the world into a perswasion that they were what was I shall tell you if you will give me leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to derive it from its very head and then I will leave it to you to judge whether or no my Augury failes me First I guesse that the Traitors were encouraged and primarily mov'd to this Treason from the preuailing opinion which is most generally receiv'd on that side of the lawfulnesse of deposing Princes that are Hereticall I say generally receiv'd and I shall make my words good or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me when they declare their own mindes I instance first in the Fathers of the Society a Nec ulla eis injuria fier si deponantur Lib. 5 de Rom. Pontif. cap. 7. Ex ipsa vi juris ante omnem sententiam supreâ—i Pastor is ac Iudicis contra ipsum prolatam Lugduni impres 1593. p. 106. n 157. Amphith honor p. 117. Sed heus Arnalde à cuius institutione hau sisti nullaÌ„ posse intercidere causam quae regem cogat abire regno Non religionis Bellarmine teacheth that Kings have no wrong done them if they be deprived of their Kingdomes when they prove Heretiques Creswell in his Philopater goes farther saying that if his Heresy be manifest he is deposed without any explicite judiciall sentence of the Pope the Law it selfe hath passed the sentence of deposition And therefore Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald the French Kings Advocate for affirming that Religion could be no just cause to depose a lawfull Prince If hee had beene brought up in their Schooles hee might have learnt another lesson papa Potest mutare regna uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus Bellar. de Pont. R. â— â— lib 5. Princeps spiritualis si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem saith Bellarmine Hee gives his reason too quia alioqui possent mali Principes impunè sovere Haereticos which is a thing not to be suffered by his Holinesse Cap. â— This Doctrine is not the private opinion of these Doctors but est certa definita atque indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia saith F. Creswell I suppose Vbi saprà p. 107. hee meanes in his owne Order and yet I must take heed what I say for Eudaemon Iohannes is very angry with S r Edward Cooke for saying it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits Doe they then deny it No surely but Non est Iesuitarum propria it is not theirs alone Apol. pro Garnet â— â— sed ut Garnett us respondit totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta Doctrina nostra est and there hee reckons up seven and twenty famous Authors of the same opinion Creswell in his Philopater sayes as much if not more Hinc etiam infert Vniversa Theologorum Iuris consultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola est certum Num. 157. de fide quemcunque Principem Christianum si à religione Catholicà manifestè deflexerit alios avocare voluerit excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate ex ipsâ vi juris tum Humani tum Divini You see how easily they swallow this great camell Adde to this that Bellarmine himselfe prooves that the Popes temporall power or of disposing of Princes Kingdomes is a Catholique Doctrine for hee reckons Contra Barclaium in prin cip ferè up of this opinion one and twenty Italians fourteene French nine Germans seven English and Scotch nineteen Spaniards these not è faece plebis but è primoribus all very famous and very leading Authors You see it is good Divinity amongst them and I have made it good that it is a generall opinion received by all their Side if you will believe themselves and now let us see if it will passe for good Law as well as good Divinity It is not for nothing that the Church of France protests against some of their received Canons if they did not I know not what would become of their Princes Their Lillies may be to day and to morrow be cast into the oven if the Pope either call their Prince Huguenot as he did Henry the fourth or Tyrant as Henry the third or unprofitable for the Church or Kingdome as he did King Childeric whom Pope Zechary de facto did depose for the same cause and inserted his act into the body of the Law as a precedent for the future quod etiam ex authoritate Can. Alius caus 15. q. 6. frequenti agit sancta Ecclesia it is impaled in a parenthesis in the body of the Canon least deposition of Princes should be taken for newes The law is cleere for matter of fact the lawfulnesse followes Haereticis licitum est auferri quae habent and this not only from a private man but even from Princes Cl. 1. in Summa 23. q. 7. nam qui in majore dignitate est plus punitur or take it if you please in more proper termes Dominus Gl. cap. ExcoÌ„municaâ—â—â— tit de 〈◊〉 l. 5. Papa Principem saecularem deponere potest propter haeresim so another may be chosen like the Palatines and Castellans in Poland just as if the King were dead Nam per haeresim plusquam civilitèr mortuus censetur saith Simancha and that by vertue of a constitution of Gregory the ninth by which every Cap. 45. de paenit man is freed from all duty homage allegeance or subordination whatsoever due to a Heretick whether due by a naturall civill or politicall right aliquo pacto aut quâcunque firmitate vallatum Et sic nota saith the glosse quod Papa potest absolvere Laâ—cum de iur amento fidelitatis I end those things with the attestation of Bellarmine Contra Barclaiumc ap 3. Est res certa explorata a posse Pontificem maximum iust is de causis temporalibus iudicare atque ipsos Temporales Principes aliquando deponere And again that we may be sure to know of what nature this doctrine is he repeats it Sic igitur de potestate in Temporalibus quod ea sit in Papa non Opinio sed Certitudo apud Catholicos est And now let any man say if this be not a Catholike Doctrine and a likely antecedent to have Treason to be its consequent But I fixe not here onely this it is plain that this proposition is no friend to Loyalty but that which followes is absolutely inconsistent with it in case our Prince be of a different perswasion in matters of Religion For 2 It is not only lawfull to depose Princes that are hereticall but it is necessary and the Catholiks are bound to doe it sub mortali I know not whether it be so generally I am sure it is as confidently taught as the
former and by as great Doctors Ecclesia nimis graviter erraret si admitteret allquem Lib. 5. de Rom. Pout c. 7. Regem qui vellet impunè fovere quamlibet Sectam defendere haereticos So Bellarmine And again Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum si conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim But F. Creswell puts the businesse home to purpose Certè Ibid. non tantum licet sed summâ etiam iuris Divini necessitate ac praecepto imò conscientiae vinculo arctissimo Philopat p. 110 n. 162. extremo animarum suarum periculo ac discrimine Christianis omnibus hoc ipsum incumbit si praestare rem possint Vnder perill of their soules they must not suffer an hereticall Prince to reigne over them Possunt debent eum arcere ex hominum Christianorum Pag. 106. n. 157. dominatu ne alios inficiat c. 3 He that saith Subjects may and are bound to depose their Princes and to drive them from all rule over Christians if they be able meanes something more For what if the Prince resist still he is bound to depose him if he be able How if the Prince make a warre The Catholike subject must doe his duty neverthelesse and warre too if he be able He that saies he may wage a warre with his Prince I doubt not but thinks he may kill him and if the fortune of the warre lights so upon him the subject cannot be blamed for doing of his duty It is plain that killing a Prince is a certain consequent of deposing him unlesse the Prince be bound in conscience to think himselfe a Heretick when the Pope declares him so and be likewise bound not to resist and besides all this will performe these his obligations and as certainly think himselfe hereticall and as really give over his Kingdome quietly as he is bound For in case any of these should faile there can be but very slender assurance of his life I would be loth to obtrude upon men the odious consequences of their opinions or to make any thing worse which is capable of a fairer construction but I crave pard on in this particular the life of Princes is sacred and is not to be violated so much as in thought or by the most remote consequence of a publike doctrine But here indeed it is so immediate and naturall a consequent of the former that it must not be dissembled But what shall we think if even this blasphemy be taught in terminis See this too In the yeare 1407. when the Duke of Orleans had been slaine by Iohn of Burgundy and the fact notorious beyond a possibility of concealement he thought it his best way to imploy his Chaplaine to justify the act pretending that Orleans was a Tyrant This stood him in small stead for by the procurement of Gerson it was decreed in the Councell of Constance that Tyranny was no sufficient cause for a man to kill a Prince But yet I finde that even this decree will not stand Princes in much stead First because the decree runnes ut nemo privatâ Authoritate c. but if the Pope commands it then it is Iudicium publicum and so they are never the more secure for all this Secondly because Marianae tels us that this Decree is nothing Namque id decretum Concilij Constantiensis Romano Pontifici Martino quinto probatum non invenio non Eugenio aut De Reg R. instit lib. 1. c. 6 Successoribus quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat Thirdly because though the Councell had forbidden killing of Tyrannical Princes even by publique authority though this Decree had beene confirmed by the Pope which yet it was not yet Princes are never the more secure if they be convict of Heresy and therefore let them but adde Heresy to their Tyranny and this Councell Non obstante they may be killed by any man for so it is determin'd in an Apology made for Chastel Licitum esse privatis singulis Reges Principes Haereseos Franc. Verum Const. p. 2. c. 2. Tyrannidis condemnatos occidere non obstante Decreto Concilij Constantiensis And the Author of the Book de iustâ abdicatione Henrici 3. affirmes it not only lawfull but meritorious How much lesse then this is that of Bellarmine De Pont. R. lib. 5. c 6. Si Temporalia obsint fini Spirituali Spiritualis potestas potest debet coercere Temporalem omni ratione ac viâ If omni ratione then this of killing him in case of necessity or greater convenience must not be excluded But to confesse the businesse openly and freely It is knowne that either the Consent of the people or the Sentence of the Pope or Consent of learned men is with them held to be a publicum Iudicium and sufficient to sentence a Prince and convict him of Heresy or Tyranny That opinion which makes the people Iudge is very rare amongst them but almost generally exploded that opinion which Vide 〈◊〉 Image of both Churches makes the learned to be their Iudge is I thinke proper to Mariana or to a few more with him but that the sentence of the Pope is a sufficient conviction of him and a compleate Iudiciall act is the most Catholique opinion on that Side as I shall shew anon Now whether the Pope or learned men or the people be to passe this sentence upon the Prince it is plaine that it is an Vniversall Doctrine amongst them that after this sentence whosesoever it be it is then without Question lawfull to kill him and the most that ever they say is that it is indeed not lawfull to kill a King not lawfull for a private man of his owne head without the publike sentence of his Iudge but when this Iudge whom they affirme to be the Pope hath passed his sentence then they doubt not of its being lawfull That I say true I appeale to a Tom. 3. disp 5. q. 8. punct 3. Gregory de Valentia b In sum l. ◠c. 6. Apolog. ad Tolet c R. Angl. c. 13 Bellarmine d Defens fidei lib. 6 c. 4. Suarez e in 13 cap. ad Rom. disp 5. Salmeron f Quaest. p. in c. 3. Iud. Serarius g De iust iure to m. 4. tr 3. d. 6. Molina h Aphoris verb. Tyrannus 1. Instit Moral 2. p. lib. 11. c. 5. q 10. Emanuel Sà i Azorius k In Hercul Furent Martinus Delrius l de Iustit jure c 9. dub 4 Lessius m Chauuesauris polit Gretser n in resp ad Aphoris Calvinistarū Becanus o Contr. Calvinist Aphorism c. 3. ad Aphor. 1. Sebastan Heissius p In expostul ad Henrici Reg. pro Societate Richeome q in Apolog. pro Henrico Garnetto Eudaemon Iohannes r Ad annum 0undi 2669. n. 7. Salianus s Tract 29. p.