Oath as In any case whatsoeuer Neither is the Popes spirituall authoritie limited or once touched therein as by his Maiesties intention sufficiently made knowne vnto vs doth manifestly appeare And Caietan teacheth that in such like case if the intention of the man that commandeth may be knowne Caietan ver praecepti trangressio it is inough because the force of the precept dependeth of the intention of him that commandeth Now to end this matter I wish you to note the fraude of that Catholicke letter writer for to haue set downe in plaine termes that his Holinesse may depose his Maiestie dispose his kingdomes to whom he list licence subiects to raise tumults take armes against him or murther him and such like he knew would sound to good subiects most odious therefore he thought it to be a point of policie not to deale plainely but leaue the Reader perplexed with this obscuritie What his Holinesse cannot do towards his Maiestie in any case whatsoeuer Whose bare assertion without proofe or truth can in reason conuince none but such as want their common sense Now that it hath bene proued nothing to be contained in the Oath against the law of God nor decrees of any generall Councell and that his Maiestie in making this law and requiting of his subiects the performance thereof according to his intention which is but iust and good hath not gone beyond his bounds will any yet be so wilfully blind as not to see that by the immaculate law of God he is bound in conscience to render to Caesar that is Caesars to be obedient to higher powers as well the ciuill in temporals as the Ecclesiasticall power in spirituals Saint Peter prince of the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Christians of the primitiue Church that they should submit themselues and be obedient to secular Princes and Magistrates though they were heathens 1. Pet. 2. Subiecti igitur estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum siue Regiquasi praecellenti siue Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis c. Be subiect therefore to euery humane creature for God whether it be to the King as excelling or to rulers as sent by him to the reuenge of malefactors but to the praise of the good for so is the will of God that doing wel you may make the ignorance of vnwise men to be dum And a little after exhorting thē to feare God his next lesson is to honor the King Deum timete Regem honorificate How I pray you is a King honoured when his iust precept is neglected or contemned Some haply without consideration both ignorantly vnwisely wil grant that Catholick kings are to be honoured and obeyed but doubt may be made of such as by the Church are reputed or rather condemned heretikes and aduersaries to the Catholicke faith I aske these if there be any so simple whether Emperours Kings and Princes to whom the Apostles preached this subiection and obedience were not aduersaries yea and persecutors of the Catholicke faith and continued such the space of more then three hundred yeares howbeit the Christians of those dayes instructed both by the doctrine and example of the Apostles in all dutifull humilitie did not giue freely but rendred to Caesar his due how peruerse soeuer their Gouernours were Which lesson Saint Peter their chiefe Pastor immediatly after in the same chapter had taught them Serui subditi estote in omni timore dominis non tantum bonis modestis sedetiam dyscolis Seruants be subiect in all feare to your maisters not onely to the good and modest but also to the wayward Ephes 6. Colos 3. This dutifull subiection likewise teacheth Saint Paul Serui obedite Dominis carnalibus cum timore tremore in simplicitate cordis vestri sicut Christo Seruants be obedient to your Lords according to the flesh with feare and trembling in the simplicitie of your heart as to Christ not seruing to the eye as it were pleasing men but as the seruants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart with a good will seruing as to our Lord and not to men If seruants then commanded by the Apostle were bound to serue and obey their temporall Lords and maisters with such care and diligence were they neuer so froward and wicked Pagans for such no doubt many Christians did serue who by their examples threats or enticements might hazard to withdraw them from the true worship of God are not subjects now by the same law as well bound to be obedient to lawfull Kings and Princes be they neuer so wicked in manners or opposite to faith and Christian religion as heretikes and apostates are Were they not Pagan Princes and Potestates whom Saint Paul willed Titus to admonish Christians to obey at a word Admone illos saith he Principibus Potestatibus subditos esse dicto obedire Admonish them to be subiect to Princes and Potestates to obey at a word S. Ambrose Vpon which place Saint Ambrose Admonish as if he should say Although thou hast spirituall gouernment ouer spirituall matters yet admonish them to whom thou preachest to be subiect to Kings and Princes because Christian religion depriueth none of his right The same holy Father and also Saint Augustine write of the prompt obedience of Christians to Iulian the Apostata which may be a verie good example for Catholickes of these latter times to shew like obedience if they light on like Princes saying Iulianus extitit infidelis Imperator Aug. in Psal 124. Super illud Non relinquet Domi nus virgam Habetur 11. q. 3. c. Iulian. nonne extitit Apostata iniquus idololatra c. Iulian was an infidell Emperour was he not an Apostata wicked an idolater Christian souldiers serued an infidell Emperour When they came to the cause of Christ they acknowledged not but him that was in heauen When he willed them to worship Idols to sacrifise they preferred God before him But when he said Bring foorth your armie go against that people they obeyed incontinently The distinguished the eternall Lord from a temporall Lord and yet for the eternall Lord they were subiect also to the temporall Lord. Hereby is euident that Iulian had right to command Christian souldiers in temporals and they shewed all prompt obedience knowing that their religion taught no iniustice that notwithstanding his Apostacie he being lawfully called to the Empire they were not nor could be absolued of their loyaltie and ciuill obedience towards him Was so notorious an Apostata to be of dutie obeyed and not a king who cannot be iudged an hereticke because he doth not pertinaciter defend any opinion against the Church of Christ but royally promiseth to forsake the religion he professeth if any point or head thereof belonging to faith can be proued not to be ancient catholicke and Apostolicke Here Cardinall Bellarmine will answer That the Church in her nouitie or beginning wanted forces forsooth after three yea foure hundred
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
of the Church against her persecutors was such as there could be no hope to preuaile As if true faith and religion which is now beside the Indies restrained into a corner of Europe onely did not replenish before that time Europe Africke and Asia No there wanted not necessitie to practise such authoritie on Constantius Iulian Valens Valentinian and other like professed aduersaries of Christ and his Church nor oportunitie Christians being so many so potent replete with maruellous zeale and constant courage in defence of Gods truth to the losse of lands and life if they had knowne such power of deposing to haue bene in the Church and chiefe Pastors thereof and the Pastors knew well what their dutie was in that behalfe But where I pray you lay this power hidden for the space of 700 hundred yeares after Christ by the Cardinals confession suppose I should grant so much vnto him of disposing of temporals in ordine ad finem spiritualem no Scripture no tradition no ancient Father or generall Councell in all that time teaching it If he say there was where or how doth it appeare His Grace hath not yet neither in Tortus nor against our Kings Apologie nor in his last against Barclai produced any such cleare testimonie as may conuince Our Sauiour Christ himselfe refused to intermeddle in deuiding a temporall inheritance betweene two saying Quis me constituit iudicē aut diuisorē super vos Luc. 12. Who hath constituted me a iudge or a diuider ouer you disdaining as it were as Iansenius noteth that he should be troubled or drawne frō the celestiall businesse Iansen conc for which only he was sent by his Father to haue care of carnall and base things thereby also to teach such as are his that they ought not to intangle themselues in profane businesse that gouerne the Apostolicke office According to this is that of S. Paul Nemo militans Deo 2. Tim. 2. implicat se negotijs secularibus No man that is a souldier to God entangleth himselfe with secular businesse What more intangling what more secular then to intermeddle in deuiding and disposing of temporals Non est discipulus super magistrum The disciple is not aboue his maister Therefore his Vicar ought not in such wise to be iudge ouer Kings in things terrene when they are taught by our Sauiours example not to be hindered from celestiall affaires which onely do concerne them whose power is ouer sinnes of men not ouer their possessions In criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra Bern. lib. 1. de consid cap. 2. Againe S. Peter prince of the Apostles hauing receiued of Christ all power necessary for the gouernement of his Church which was to be deriued to his successors had not that power which is temporall but onely spirituall for in the Apostles times the Ecclesiasticall and ciuill were distinct and separate as the Cardinall confesseth lib. 5. de sum Pont. cap. 6. Which could not be but were conioyned if they had any such power yea indirectly If then Peter had no temporall power directly or indirectly giuen him by Christs institution who doubtlesse foresaw that it was necessary to be in him and his successours for the correction and direction of soules to their spirituall end it were absurd to say that succeeding Popes as they are Peters successors should haue more ample power then he or any of the Apostles had De Ro. Pont. li. 5. c 4. And the Cardinals argument which he maketh against the Canonists helpeth for confirmation of this matter in hand to wit Christ saith he as he was man while he liued on earth receiued not nor would haue any temporall dominion but the Pope is Christs Vicar and representeth Christ vnto vs such as he was while he liued here among men Therefore the Pope as Christs Vicar and so as Pope hath not any temporall dominion How then cometh it that Popes in these latter ages practise on exorbitant Princes deposition and disposing of temporals when they shall iudge it necessarie or expedient to a spirituall end hauing no commission no warrant of our Sauiour so to do Is it by temporall onely or spirituall onely or by both By their temporall power which reacheth no further thē the patrimony of the Church it is euident they cannot for so they are but equals not superiours to absolute Princes and Par in parem non habet imperium No neither haue they which is more being no Monarchs authority from Christ to put any man to death to banish or to depriue any priuate man of his goods Cost in Osiand propos 7. as Costeru◠a learned Iesuite and other good Authors do hold Nemo Pontifex sanguinis leges tulit hoc munu◠Imperatorum est qui varia◠poenas de haereticis scripserunt quos bonorum spoliatione infamia exilio morte imòigne puniri iusserunt c. No Pope hath made lawes of life and death this is the office of Emperours who haue written downe diuerse puniments for heretickes whom they haue cōmanded to be punished with losse of goods infamie exile death yea with fire c. He goeth on The Pope at Rome putteth no man to death he hath his secular Iudges who minister iustice by the lawes of Caesar To this agreeth Iacobus Almain De ratione potestatis laicae est poenā ciuilem posse infligere Almain de dom nat ciuili in vlt. edit Gersonis vt sunt mors exilium bonorum priuatio c. It belongeth to the secular power to inflict a ciuill punishment as are death banishment depriuing of temporall goods But the Ecclesiasticall power cannot by the institution of God inflict any such paine no not imprison any as many Doctors hold but it reacheth onely to spirituall punishment that is to excommunication and the other punishments which he vseth ex iure purè positiuo sunt are onely by a positiue law Who in another place hath thus Alm. de pot Eccles laic c. 13. q. 1. c. 9. Christus secundum humanitatem c. Christ according to his humanity had greater power then the Pope hath as to institute the Euangelicall law neither had he his power limited to sacraments for he could pardō without application of sacraments his Vicar hath not such but onely that which is declared in his Vicarship for he gaue him power to remit sinnes to preach to giue indulgences c but it is no where found that he gaue him power to institute and depose Kings therefore by any power giuen him from Christ note well he hath not soueraigne power of iurisdiction in temporals This he With these may be ranked Ioannes Maior Maior in 4. dist 24. q. 3. Maximus Pontifex no◠habet dominium temporale super Reges c. The chiefe Bishop hath not temporall dominion ouer Kings For the contrary being granted saith he it followeth that Kings are his vassals and that he may expell them de facto out
freed from the law as touching the compulsiue force of the law because no man may giue iudgement of condemnation against him if he do against the law if none then not the people nobles or commons assembled whereupon on that of the Psalme Psal 50. Tibisolipeccaui To thee only O God I haue sinned the Glosse saith Quòd Rex non habet hominem qui sua facta dijudicet That a King hath not any man that may determine his facts But as touching the directiue power of the law the Prince is subiect to the law by his owne will as it is said Extra de constitut cap. Cum omnes Quod quisque iuris c. What law any do decree for another he ought to vse the same law himselfe According to that Patere legem quam ipse tuleris What if a Prince will not do what he ought to do what then who may compell him None but God to whom onely he is inferiour Tert. Ad Scapulam in Apologet. Greg. Nazian orat in Iulian. Amb. orat ad pop inter ep 32.33 Tertullian and other Fathers affirme who ruleth the hearts of Kings at his pleasure being his Vicegerents in earth and other remedy then prayers teares and patience subiects haue none at all I will not deny the Popes Holinesse to haue power to dispence in vowes yet if I should affirme that in solemne vowes of religion he cannot I should not disagree from S. Thomas and other Diuines Papa non potest facere c. 2.2 q. 88. a. 11. The Pope cannot make one that is professed in religion to be no religious man that is release or free him of the bonds of chastitie pouertie and obedience vowed Abdicatio proprietatis c. The renouncing of proprietie as also the keeping of chastitie is so essentially annexed to the monasticall rule or the state of a Moncke that against it the Pope himselfe cannot dispence This is the opinion of S. Thomas as Caieta◠affirmeth as much as it dependeth of the Decretall Extra de statu Monach. in fine illius cum ad monasterium And he concludeth And therefore in a solemne vow of religion it cannot be dispenced withall by the Church Who will say that this holy Doctor denieth the Popes spirituall power though he differ from Cardinall Bellarmine Were he not a great Doctor and blessed Saint that writeth in this wise I know some of our tender consciences would be much scandalized for they cannot endure to heare any man talke a word of the limitation of the Popes power what he cannot do forsooth as if he were omnipotent But these are for the most part the ignorant sort that beleeuing him to be Christs Vicar beleeue also that he is endued with Christs power of excellency and can do all that he could do as man when he was here on earth Let these learne that his Holinesse neither challengeth Christs power of excellencie as to institute sacraments to remit sinnes without out the ministery of a sacrament to make an article of faith and such like but onely that which it pleased our Lord to communicate vnto him nor the most learned Diuines yeeld him all authority without limitation For beside that which S. Thomas writeth of dispensation in vowes Victoria de sacram ord Franciscus à Victoria disputing whether the Pope may delegate power vnto a Priest who is not a Bishop to giue orders concludeth that S. Thomas Paludanus and all say he cannot And against his dispencing in matrimony before consummatiō Idem tract De matrim cland nu 282. Teneamus cum tota caterua Theologorum quòd Papa non potest dispensare in matrimonio rato Let vs hold with the whole troupe of Diuines thant the Pope cannot dispence in matrimony called ratum that is before it be consummate And Cardinall Bellarmine admitteth a limitation Dicimus Papam habere c. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. cap. 4. We say that the Pope hath that office which Christ had whē he liued here on earth but we cannot giue him those offices which Christ had as he was God or as a man immortall and glorious but onely those which he had as a mortall man Whereby you see that the Popes power is not without some limitation howbeit he exceedeth in yeelding him all that Christ had as he was a mortall man as is said before Now remaines to be discussed whether his Holinesse may absolue from all oathes and so from this Oath of allegiance Which question serueth most for our purpose in hand It is to be noted that euery oath is either assertory that is of things present or past or else promissorie of things to come and either of good and lawfull matters or of euill and vnlawfull An vnlawfull thing and that which cannot be performed without sinne is not matter of an oath and therefore requireth no dispensation or absolution from it as is manifest for whosoeuer should sweare to commit adultery which is promissorie or neuer to pray neuer to fast and such like will any man say that he must seeke to be absolued from that oath and not rather that he is bound ex naturarei not to performe it 2.2 q. 89. ar 9. ad 3. being euill in it selfe S. Thomas saith Sometime it happeneth that that which falleth vnder a promissorie Oath is repugnant to iustice either becausce it is a sinne and so is bound not to keepe it or else for that it is a hinderer of a greater good as not to liue a virgine not to enter into religion and such an Oath needeth no dispensation but is lawfull for him that sweareth to keepe it or not to keepe it And somtime he saith somewhat is promised of which there is doubt whether it be lawfull or vnlawfull profitable or hurtfull absolutely or in some case and in this euery Bishop may dispence But in an assertorie Oath Syluester verbo Iuramentum 5. n 2. S. Thomas in the place aboue said ad 1. and all Dolors hold there can no dispensation or absolution be granted by any Bishop or Pope The reasons such as vnderstand may see in S. Thomas When in an Oath is any thing sworne or promised to Prince or priuate man which is manifestly iust according to the law of God and accompanied with these three associates Veritie Iudgment and Iustice that ought duly to be performed of him that so sweareth Exod. 20. Matth. 5. Reddes Domino iuramenta tua and cannot be dispenced withall when as the obseruation of an Oath falleth vnder a diuine precept which is indispensable as S. Thomas writeth in the place aboue noted ad primum And in euery such Oath yea though it be coacted riseth an obligation whereby a man resteth bound to God which is not taken away in foro conscientiae as he affirmeth To which purpose S. Bernard writeth thus Bern. lib. de praecepto disp c. 5. Illud quod non ab homine traditum c. That which
in temporals wherein they ought by the law and ordinance of God to be no lesse obedient then to their Pastors and Prelates in spirituals It followeth now to know what authoritie it is the Pope pretendeth to haue whether Ecclesiasticall or ciuill to depose lawfull Kings and dispose of their temporals and absolue subiects of their bounden dutie and naturall allegiance Which question who so desireth to see it more at large he may reade D. Barclai de potestate Papae and M. Widdrington de iure Principum where it is most sufficiently and learnedly handled and before in this my treatise pag. 17 I haue briefly touched it whereto I adde in this place a word or two more for your better satisfaction Among such Catholickes as refuse to take the Oath of allegiance are many who thinke indeed the Pope to haue no power to depose Kings or dispose of their kingdoms howbeit either vpon pretended scruple of conscience or other humane respects are against the taking and takers of the Oath as if they were little better then Heathens or Publicans And some so simple and ignorant as beleeue that no Pope euer challenged or attempted such authoritie on any Kings or Emperors and that no Iesuit or other learned man allowed or euer taught such doctrine so odious it seemeth vnto them But the wiser sort and more learned know how it hath bene challenged and practised by Popes on the persons of Henrie Otho Fredericke Emperours Iohn King of Nauarre for neither heresie or apostasie and since on Henrie 8. and Queene Elizabeth as by censures do appeare And that it is the moderne doctrine of many both Canonists and Diuines in these latter ages which at the first teaching thereof being so farre dissonant from the writings and practise of all antiquitie was generally adiudged to be noua haeresis as Sigebert reporteth S. Iohn Chrysostome that great Doctor vpon that place of S. Paul 2. Cor. 1. Non dominamur fidei vestrae We ouerrule not your faith Sigebertus in Chro. ad an 1088. Chrysost lib. 2 de dig sacerd c. 3. attributeth such power as forcibly restraines offenders from their wickednesse of life vnto secular Iudges vnder whose dominion they are not vnto the Church because saith he neither is such power giuen vnto vs by the lawes with authoritie to restraine men from offences nor if such power were giuen vs could we haue wherewith we might exercise such power c. So in his time and long after such power of compelling offenders by temporall punishments to conuert to better life was vnheard of to be in Bishops of the Church Cardinall Bellarmine in the catalogue of his ancient writers which he produceth against Barclai for the Popes temporall authoritie ouer Princes beginneth with one who was iudge in his owne cause Gregorie the seuenth that began his reigne in the yeare of our Lord 1073. not able of like to proue it out of any more ancient Father or generall Councell That this Pope was the first that challenged or attempted to practise such authoritie Otho in chro l. 6. c. 35. witnesseth Otho Frisengen a most learned and holy Bishop and highly commended by the Cardinall himselfe lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Lego saith he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Rom. Pontifice excommunicatum vel regno priuatum c. I reade and reade ouer againe the acts of the Kings and Emperors of Rome and in no place can I find any of them before this to wit Henrie the fourth to be excommunicated or depriued of his kingdome by the Bishop of Rome vnlesse haply any take this for excommunication that Philip the first Christian Emperor who succeeded Gordianus for a short space Euseb hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. was by the Bishop of Rome or as Eusebius reporteth of the Bishop of that place where he then resided placed among publicke penitents and Theodosius sequestred by S. Ambrose from entrance into the Church for cruell murther Whereby we may note that this learned man could not find no not one example in all precedent ages of depriuing kings of their regal scepters though of excommunication he proposeth onely these two which may haue some shew of truth for meere excommunication howbeit more probable it is they were not excommunicated at all maiore excommunicatione Then this Author in the next chapter following Otho ibid. c. â—6 describeth the intestine warres destruction of soules and bodies setting vp of Pope against Pope schismes and other manifold lamentable miseries that ensued vpon that fact of Pope Gregory against Henrie the 4 who commanded the Bishops of Ments and Colen to constitute Rodolph Duke of Burgundie Emperor Spec. hist l. 27. and to put downe Henrie whereupon followed a most grieuous warre wherein Rodolphus was ouercome who dying repentant said The Apostolicall commandement and the intreatie of Princes haue made me a trangressor of my oath behold therefore my hand cut off or wounded wherewith I sware to my Lord Henrie not trecherously to practise any thing against his life nor his glorie Who being ouercome the Bishop of Ments by the Popes commandement and with helpe of Saxons raised an other aduersary against the Emperor one Hermannus Knoflock whereupon followed likewise bloudie warres After this Henrie gathering his armie together driueth the Pope into France and setteth vp the Bishop of Rauenna against him whom he named Clement and so caused a schisme This sparsim out of the history Such like calamities are more then probable to fall on people and the Church when Emperors or Kings are so violently proceeded withall assured destruction of many and no hope of the correction of any by such means is like to ensue Was such power trow ye giuen by Christ to his Apostles tending to destruction not to edification No all to edification according to S. Paul 2. Cor. 10. none to destruction Otho Frisengensis in another place of his workes Li. 1. de gestis Frederici c. 1. writing of the Popes excommunicating the Emperour sheweth that Henrie 4. thought it to be such a nouitie as he had neuer knowne the like sentence to be denounced against any Romane Emperor before He liued an 1150. And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests By euill kings he meaneth such as are deposed Cont. Barcl cap. 5. teaching that no subiection is to be yeelded to euill Kings and though they sweare fidelitie are not bound to performe it to be noua haeresis a new heresie sprung vp Howbeit Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you that such doctrine and practise began about the yeare of our Lord 700 for before that time there wanted as he affirmeth either necessitie or oportunitie to teach or vse such power By reason of like there were no hereticall Princes impugners of the true faith before that time or that the paucitie of Christian Kings to assist the weake forces