BEloued brethren in Christ Iesus: Whereas the Kings most excellent Maiestie, being the true, lawful, and right inheritour to the Crowne and Realme of England, by the proui­dence of almightie God entred and possessed the same with tranquillity and peace, and the great applause of all his subiects, as well Catholickes as Protestants, or others of different sects and opinions: his Highnesse, as it were to requite their dutifull affection, forthwith gaue great hope of a most happie and prosperous regiment; and out of his bountie and clemencie extended many his most royall fa­uours indifferently vpon all, till such time as some of the one sort (to wit, a few giddie headed, desperate, and disloyall Catholicks associated with certaine of the Societie) prouo­ked his wrath and indignation against them, yea and all the professors of the same religion for their fact. Who was not moued (as all men will confesse) without iust cause, for that they (viz. Catholickes) onely either concealed, or most bar­barously attempted in that hellish-like manner of gunpow­der fire (the memorie whereof must needs remaine for euer most grieuous to all true hearted Catholike subiects) the cruell murther of so many worthie Commons, and Noble personages, in Parliament assembled; yea of the most to­wardly and innocent yong Prince, the Queene, and King himselfe: and then soone after also had followed vndoub­tedly the desolation, ruine, and destruction of the whole [Page 2]realme of England.

Hereupon by the generall consent of all three estates and the Kings Maiestie, it was thought necessarie, an Oath of allegeance in such forme should be framed and enacted, as Catholikes (for whom chiefly it was made) should haue no cause scrupulously to refuse to take the same; and the Kings Highnesse with his whole estate might be better secured, and freed from all feares and dangers: imitating herein other Kings and Princes as occasions shall be offered them.

If euer the Kings of France or Spaine, or other Princes whatsoeuer had cause to exact an Oath of fealtie of their subiects for safetie of their persons or state; then certes no man that hath but common sense will denie but our King hath more then iust, vpon so horrible and monstrous cause giuen, as the like haply was neuer heard of from the begin­ning of the world.

Could any man haue thought it strange, or held it cruel­tie, if, being in such wise, and by such persons prouoked, he had in his wrath and indignation rigorously proceeded a­gainst all others of the Romane religion, as suspecting them to beare no better mind towards him? though manie thou­sands doubtlesse no way consented, nor were euer priuie to that horrible fact.

And if he had, what ruine of Catholike families, what ha­uocke of Christian bloud, with the destruction of soules, and other infinite miseries should we haue seene? But the omni­potent God (whose name be blessed for euer) who hath the rule and gouernment of the hearts of Kings, inclined his royall heart to mercie and compassion of his subiects, know­ing right well the faith and loyaltie of many of the same re­ligion, as his Maiestie most benignely expressed in his Pro­clamation; and that he should haue punished the innocent with the nocent, as well his friends as his foes. Oh what fol­lie were it for a man to wake a sleeping Lion, or stirre a nest of waspes or hornets, whereby he might endanger himselfe to be bitten or stong most grieuously? Then how much greater is the follie of such, as feare not to irritate or incense [Page 3]a King, who naturally desireth nothing more then peace and quietnesse to himselfe and his people? We learne in holy writ how dreadfull is the terror of a King, in that it is com­pared to the roaring of a Lion: Prou. 20. Sicut rugitus Leonis, ita & terror Regis: qui prouocat eum, peccat in animam suam. As the roaring of a Lion, so is the terrour of a King: he that pro­uoketh him offendeth against his owne life.

Example we haue of King Dauid, who was stirred to wrath by Hanon King of Ammonites vpon ingratitude for his loue and kindnesse. For, Dauid hearing of his fathers death, sent some of his seruants to comfort him: Hanon fol­lowing euill counsell, forsooth, that Dauid did not send to condole with him and comfort him, but to espie the Citie and ouerthrow it. Whereupon most vngratefully he euill in­treated the embassadours, shauing halfe their beards, and ignominiously cutting their garments vnto the buttockes. King Dauid herewith moued to anger, prouided an armie to reuenge this iniurie; ouerthrew of the Syrians that assi­sted the Ammonites seuen thousand chariots, and slue forty thousand footmen, made hauock of the Ammonites bloud, and wasted the cities of King Hanon, destroying the people in most rufull maner: as you may reade in the second booke of the Kings and Paralipomenon. 2. Reg. 10. 1. Paralip. 19.20. Consider the imprudence and wickednesse of this king; imprudence, in not foreseeing what dangers he might cast himselfe into, by making his friend his foe, and stirring him to ire that sought to liue in peace. Wickednesse, in rendring euill for good, and pro­curing warres (the euent whereof is various) which was cause that many innocent persons, who were not consenting to Hanons, fact, nor euer haply wished Dauid hurt, were in that fury slaine.

We reade likewise how this holy king Dauid, 1. Reg. 25. being in the desert persecuted by Saul, purposed and prepared to re­uenge himselfe on malicious Nabal, for contemning him and his seruants (whom in his distresse he had sent in peaceable and friendly sort for victuals and reliefe) saying, Who is Dauid? and what is the sonne of Isai? There are seruants mul­tiplied [Page 4]now a dayes, which flie from their maisters. Shall I then take my breads, and my waters, and the flesh of my cattell which I haue killed for my shearers, and giue it to men whom I know not whence they are? Hereupon Dauid in wrath set forward to be reuenged, and purposed not to haue left nor Nabal, nor any belonging to him, to pisse a­gainst a wall, had not his wife Abigail by her wisedome pre­uented the shedding of innocent blood, meeting with Da­uid and pacifying him with gifts, prudent speeches, and dis­creete behauiour.

In the Ecclesiasticall historie is likewise noted, Theod. lib. 5. cap. 17. how that renowmed Emperour Theodosius vpon rage caused many innocents in Thessalonica to be put to death, for the mur­ther of one Noble man of his court. Many moe examples both sacred and prophane might be here alledged to this purpose, but these may suffise to giue vs a taste of the mise­ries that fal on many, yea on such as neuer offended, when a Prince is iniured and prouoked to anger. Indignatio Regis, nuncij mortis: Prou. 16. & vir sapiens placabit eam. The indignation of a king, is messengers of death: and a wise man will appease it.

If king Dauid or Theodosius might pretend iust cause to reuenge their wrongs in such sort by seuere punishment not onely of the offenders, but also of the guiltlesse: then surely none can deny but king Iames our dread Soueraigne had much more against the conspirators in the notorious gun­powder-treason, and many others of the same religion, whō he might well suspect to be of the same confederation. In this, there was not a contempt onely of his seruants, nor a shauing of beards, or paring their garments to the buttocks, nor yet the murthering of one of his Nobles: but (out alas) here was intended a most pitifull slaughter of the Kings owne person, the Queene his wife, the yong Prince his sonne, the Nobilitie, and people in great numbers: and then eftsoones had followed a finall destruction of infinite soules and bodies, and of this whole florishing kingdome; as euery one that is but meanely wise must needes know. In that his [Page 5]Highnesse then proceeded no further in furie and indigna­tion against Catholickes, (being by them so incensed) but staied his hands by the execution only of a few principals in that actiō, must needs be imputed, first to the prouidence of Almightie God, (who guideth the hearts of kings) and next to his rare and singular clemency, See his Maie­sties procla­mation. who seemed ready to par­don, loath to punish by bloud so many as in that conspiracy offended, or to vse such seueritie as the crime deserued. In punishing some, he practised iustice; in pardoning others he extended his mercie: which two vertues make a Prince re­nowmed, and by which, especially mercie or clemency, a king is most strongly fortified and preserued, according to that of Salomon: Misericordia & veritas custodiunt regem, Prou. 20. & roboratur clementia thronus eius. Mercie and Truth keepe the king, and with Clemencie his throne is strengthned.

Greatly were it to be wished that this his mercy might not, but it is to be feared, that through the default of some it may be turned into furie, as sometime it happeneth when the cle­mencie of a Prince is not regarded, or abused: that no Nabal were to be found so presumptuous hardie as to contemne, not the Kings seruants, but himselfe, in withstanding his will by vndiscreete, if not obstinate, refusing to take the Oath of allegeance so iust and reasonable, made onely for the safety of the King and kingdome, and exacted as a note to distin­guish friends from foes, good subiects from euill affected; and to take from Catholicks the heauie imputation of trea­son and treacherie, which hath lien long on their necks. A child if he see his father in anger chastising his brother, fea­reth, though he offended him not: and so doth the scholler in the schoole dread the rod when the maister in rage cor­recteth one of his fellowes. The Lion roareth in the desert, and all feare that here the noyse. Leo rugiet, quis non timebit? How much more then is a king to be feared, Amos. 3. who vnder God hath power of life and death, as Pilate said to our Sauiour: Nescis quia potestatem habeo crucifigere te, & potestatem habeo dimittere? Doest thou not know that I haue power to cruci­fie thee, and haue power to let thee go? Aug. Trac, 116. parum à medio Tom. 9. Which power was [Page 6]giuen him from aboue, as is plaine. Consider in what case rich Nabal was, when he heard his wife Abigail recount vn­to him (who by her prudence had appeased and pacified Dauid coming in furie and rage to reuenge) what Dauid had intended against him; he feared and trembled in such wise, as with the newes he became euen senslesse: Et emortuum est cor eius intrinsecus, 1. Reg. 25. & factus est quasi lapis: that is, And his heart was dead inwardly, and he became as a stone; and there upon within ten daies after, striken by God, gaue vp the ghost. Had Nabal cause to feare Dauid, not then accep­ted of the people for king, Saul being yet aliue: and haue not we iust cause to feare how we offend and stirre to ire our dread Soueraigne, so mightie a Monarch? Was the oc­casion that Nabal gaue, in comparison of that of our Catho­lickes alike? Conferre the crime of the one and the other, and you shall find great inequalitie, as great, as betweene a word and a blow; yea such a blow, as posterity will hardly beleeue could be offered, when they shal reade it in Chroni­cles. Meane while, we that by Gods goodnes are yet liuing, and be eye witnesses thereof, haue cause to lament and te­stifie with Habacuc the Prophet, Quia opus factum est in die­bus nostris, Habac. 1. quod nemo credet cum narrabitur. That a worke hath bene done in our daies, which no man will beleeue when it shall be told: and to wish that some discreete Abigail may be found to step forth and meete with our liege Lord com­ming in great ire to reuenge, and with prudence to pacifie and perswade him to surcease, for the loialtie and true affe­ction of many other his innocent Catholicke subiects, who lie prostate at his royall feete lamenting their brethrens fol­lie, and humbly beseeching pardon, with offer for, and in his defence of both life and limme.

But (woe is me) whilest some endeuour to quench a fla­ming fire, by taking away the wood, knowing that, Cum de­fecerint ligna, Prou. 26. extinguetur ignis; When the wood faileth, or is taken away, the fire will be quenched: others put more wood to the fire, and so increase the flame. Whilest his Ma­iestie meditateth mercie, and requireth that which iustly he [Page 7]may, and we in conscience are bound to performe; Nabal, yea many Nabals arise, and do adde matter to kindle his wrath, in resisting his will, and denying his iust demand: which is, only to discharge their duties, in rendering to Cae­sar that is Caesars, to sweare fealtie and true obedience vnto him in temporals, according to the tenure of the Oath, fra­med and enacted the third yeare of his reigne, without de­rogation to any spirituall authoritie of the Pope, or in­fringement of any point of the Catholicke faith. The cause then wherefore this Oath of allegeance was made, no man can doubt but the most barbarous Gun-powder conspiracy was the onely vrgent motiue, it neuer being (in common knowledge) so much as thought of before. The scope and end thereof was, that by taking or refusing the same, the King and State might distinguish betweene true and faith­full, and hollow-hearted Catholicke subiects: Regis Praemo, pag. 12. and his Ma­iestie might be more fully assured of their constancie and fidelitie in time of need, vpon any cause to be offered what­soeuer; or by Prince, people, Pope, or whosoeuer.

And can any man maruell, that the Pope is therein na­med? Doth this scandalize any? Consider but what they were that inserted it; the time, and place, and pretence of reason they had or might haue to imagine (being so ad­uerse or opposite to him in religion, and the Treason so fresh in memorie) that his Holinesse might giue leaue or encouragement, or at least be priuie, and so to winke at such an attempt; presuming that no Catholicke durst en­terprise such a fact, without conniuence at least of supreme authoritie. And had they not cause to feare or doubt him more then any other, none being therein culpable but only Iesuites and Catholickes; of whom, some haply thinke themselues bound to obey him whatsoeuer he command, for that in their opinion he cannot erre in commanding? Howbeit we that are by Gods grace Catholicks also, agree­ing in all points with Christ his Vicar the Pope of Rome, in vnitie of faith, do no way suspect that euer he was consen­ting, much lesse gaue way to authorize such enormous and [Page 8]wicked designements: though withall we dissent from them that thinke he cannot erre, no not in a matter of fact. The State there assembled, were not such babes, as that they needed be taught of the Pope his proceedings with Princes about their depriuations or depositions for diuers crimes, when he hath hope to preuaile, but especially for heresie or apostasie. They knew right well likewise, that if his Highnes should be by his Holinesse denounced and declared an he­reticke, what dangers might soone after ensue: therefore was it thought wisedome to preuent a mischiefe ere it hap­pen, in exacting an Oath of allegeance at Catholicks hands, in that maner and forme as it is set downe, thereby more firmly to binde them to the performance of their dutie, whereto otherwise by the law of God and nature they rest obliged. For it is to be presumed, that a Christian, an honest man, that hath feare of Gods iudgements, wil not become perfidious, nor rashly or vniustly breake that oath, which discreetly and iustly he consented to take. Iurabit proximo suo, Psal. 14. & non decipiet: He will sweare to his neighbour, and wil not deceiue him. By this now I trust (deare Catholicke brethren) you are satisfied, that an Oath of allegeance may be iustly exacted at our hands, and that we are bound to sweare fealtie to our Prince, when it shall be required of vs. But you make doubt, lest more be contained in this Oath, then fealtie or ciuill obedience to his Maiestie; viz. some points against the spirituall authoritie of the Pope, which you being Catholickes may not gainsay, but are bound in conscience to maintaine. If you could satisfie vs (say you) that nothing is therein contained against any ar­ticle of faith; and that we may disobey his Holinesse (who prohibiteth the taking thereof) without danger of mortall sinne, you shall do vs a singular pleasure: therfore I pray you resolue vs herein that are much perplexed about it, by rea­son of the great corporall troubles we are like to fall into, if by disobeying the King we refuse it; or for the hazard of our soules (as we thinke) if in disobeying the Pope, and scandalizing our brethren the Catholickes, we take it.

Beloued brethren, I trust you expect not at my hands that I should fully and exactly discusse euery point of the Oath, and answer euery scrupulous difficultie that some vse to make (albeit it might be easie to effect:) for it would re­quire a better librarie then mine is at this present, more la­bour then I can well affoord, by reason of my feeble bodie, and a larger treatise then I meane to make. Your desire is (as I presume) onely to know whether the principall points thereof, as deposing the Kings Maiestie, discharging his subiects of their obedience, dispensing and absoluing in this Oath, and such like, be matter of faith, which bind e­uery Christian man stedfastly to beleeue the same, vnder paine of damnation; or else but matter of opinion. And se­condly, what you ought to doe concerning the Popes Breues, whether you may lawfully disobey them or no. These points indeed are the chiefest, whereon the rest haue their dependāce, which with Gods assistance I shal endeuor so to handle, as you shall not need to doubt of the lawful­nes of the Oath, nor hazard all your estates for refusing the same; yet so, as whatsoeuer shall be here in this my treatise written, I humbly submit to the censure of the holy Catho­licke and Apostolicke Church. Errare quidem possum, homo enim sum, haereticus esse nolo: Well I may erre, for a man I am, but hereticke will I neuer be.

In the dayes of Samuel the Prophet, after the people of Israel had bene foure hundred yeares ruled and gouerned by certaine rulers called Iudges, vpon occasion of Samuels sonnes misdemeanour in their gouernment, 1. Reg. 8. all the elders of Israel came to Samuel in Ramatha, and they said vnto him: Behold thou art old, and thy sonnes walke not in thy wayes; appoint vs a King, like as all nations haue. Whereupon, though this word highly displeased Samuel, God commanded him to heare them; howbeit he should witnesse and foretell them the authoritie or right of a King: which he did, say­ing, This will be the right of a King that is to gouerne ouer you, &c. All which things in the text of Scripture expressed by Samuel, Gloss. ordin. in hunc locū. are a Kings right (as faith the Glosse) in time of [Page 10]neede, for the good of the weale publike; though it were to be wished that many of thē were moderatly vsed, Tho. 1. 2. q. 105. at. 1. ad 5 especially all those things which seeme to make the people that is sub­iect, to be seruile or slauish; and which respect not the com­mon good, but rather the will of the man exalted in the kingdome. These or such like did Samuel foretell them, to withdraw them from asking a king, because it was not ex­pedient for them: and because, that gouernment for the greatnesse or excellencie of power, is easily conuerted into tyrannie.

After this, God sent Saul, and then reuealed vnto Sa­muel, that he was the king that should gouerne his people-Israel, and commanded to annoint him. Which he did, say­ing: Ecce vnxit te Dominus super haereditatem suam in Prin­cipem, 1. Reg. 10. & liberabis populum suum de manibus inimicorū eius qui in circuitu eius sunt. Behold our Lord hath annointed thee to be Prince ouer his inheritance, and thou shalt deliuer his people from the hands of their enemies which are round a­bout them. Not long after, king Saul for disobeying the precept of God giuen him by Samuel, was by God depri­ued of his kingdome, as the Scripture saith, and not by Sa­muel, as some would haue it. 1. Reg. 15. Quia proiecisti sermonem Domi­ni, & proiecit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel. Because thou hast reiected the word of our Lord, our Lord also hath re­iected thee, that thou maiest not be king ouer Israel.

By this example some gather (as they thinke) a strong ar­gument, viz. à fortiori, that the Church of God, and the Pope, Christs vicar in earth, may iustly depriue or dispossesse kings of their scepters and dominions vpon cause giuen, as for heresie or apostasie, &c. when as the Synagogue and Sa­muel had this authoritie, who de facto deposed Saul for diso­bedience onely.

If this were true, then indeede were the argument of some force; for it cannot be denied, but that the spirituall power of the Church of Christ, is much greater then was that of the Synagogue of the Iewes, and the Pope hath more ample * ordinarie authoritie then Samuel had: yet it [Page 11]followeth not hereof, that either the Pope, or Church, by a­ny power receiued from Christ Iesus, can depriue, depose, or disposses any lawfull Prince or priuate man, that is not a vas­sall, feudatarie or subiect vnto him, of his goods temporall, state, crowne, or dignitie: because neither the Synagogue, nor Samuel were euer endued with this power. It is not any where to be found in all the old Testament that the Syna­gogue of the Iewes (the figure of Christs Church) or high Priest or Bishop for the time being, could, or de facto euer did depose any lawfull king of Israel or Iuda from their Empire, were he neuer so wicked, neuer so peruerse or cruell, and in his place did substitute an other. Whereby then is euident, that no good argument can be gathered by this example, to proue such power to be in the new law, and in the Church or gouernours thereof.

That Samuel deposed not king Saul by any authoritie in him existing, but Almightie God himselfe, may easily be proued thus: for either he must depose him by temporall authoritie as he was a Iudge, which could not be, he being depriued thereof when Saul was made king, and was no more a gouernour but a subiect; or else by some ordinarie power of spirituall iurisdiction ouer him, which he had not, for that he was nor Bishop nor Priest (though a great Pro­phet) but only a Leuite, as Genebrard, Saint Hierome, Geneb. in Ps. 98. Hierom. lib. 1. in louin Bellar. in Psal. 98. Pintus in E­zech. c. 45. p. 549. Cardi­nall Bellarmine, Hector Pintus and others affirme; to whom such iurisdiction did no way appertaine. Therefore Samuel deposed him not, but onely as an extraordinarie Embassa­dor executed the will and iudgement of God in his depo­sition, who had giuen him a speciall warrant or commande­ment as touching the same, which will appeare manifestly to him that readeth the Scripture: Sine me, & indicabo tibi quae locutus est Dominus ad me nocte. 1. Reg. 15. Suffer me (said Samuel to the king when he came to him) and I will declare vnto you what our Lord hath spoken to me in the night. And then forthwith deliuered his message, that which God had reuea­led vnto him, to wit, that our Lord had so reiected him and his progenie, as (albeit he were in person to enioy the king­dome [Page 12]to his liues end, as he did fortie yeares) that none of his stocke or seed should successiuely reigne after him, and be of that line of whom Christ the Messias was to be incar­nate.

If then neither the Synagogue nor Samuel did, or could by any ordinarie power depose Saul, elected by God, I do not see how by this example any good argument can be drawne in consequence for the Churches, or the Popes or­dinarie power of deposing Princes. Had such authoritie bin graunted to the Synagogue or high Priests in the old law, why I pray you had it not bene practised on the persons of Achaz, Manasses, Amon, Ioachaz, and other kings of Iuda, who were much more wicked then Saul was? and on im­pious Ieroboam that led with him all Israel to Idolatrie? A­chab, Ochozias, Ioachaz, and the rest of the kings of Israel, who exceeded in all kind of impietie? in whose dayes flori­shed Ahias, Semeias, Elias, Eliseus, Isaias, Ieremy, and other great Prophets, indued with maruellous courage, zeale, au­thoritie, and sanctitie of life; yet none went about to de­pose or take the crowne from the head of any Prince law­fully inuested, though he were neuer so wicked: knowing right well, that whatsoeuer they wrought with Princes a­bout the ouerthrow of some, or setting vp of others, or fore­told what was to happen vnto them; it was not by any ordi­narie power that they had, but extraordinary, by speciall commandement and reuelation from Almightie God. Now by this fact of Samuel it may well be deduced, that whenso­euer the Pope, gouernour of Gods house, shall haue speciall reuelation from aboue, as Samuel had, that such a particular king is to be deposed, and another placed in his roome; thē it cannot be denied but he may do as Samuel did, that is, as I haue said, he may and ought to declare the will of God re­uealed vnto him without any concurrence to the execution thereof, onely denouncing Gods sentence of deiection or deposition of such a Prince, when he knoweth certainly, that so is the will and pleasure of our Lord, whose will none may contradict. Voluntati eius quis resistit? Who is able to [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 of any lay-mans temporall goods and patrimonie, for any cause whatsoeuer, yea for heresie it selfe, who is not temporally a vassall and subiect to his Holinesse. And if his spirituall authoritie giuen him by our Sauiour, can worke no such effect, much lesse his temporall, which was neuer granted by Christ (by whom he ought to haue whatsoeuer he hath for the good gouernment of his Church) but by holy secular Princes, whereof Cardinall Allen writeth thus: The chiefe Bishops of Christs Church, In his answer to the Eng. iust. pag. 144. our supreme Pastors in earth, by Gods prouidence, and by the graunts of our first most Christian Emperours and Kings, and by the humble and zealous deuotion of the faithfull Princes and people afterwards, haue their temporall states, dominions and patrimo­nies, whereby they most iustly hold and possesse the same, and are thereby lawfull Princes temporall, and may most rightfully by their soueraigntie make warres in their owne and other mens iust quarell, as occasion shall vrge them thereunto. This he. The like in effect writeth the most excellent lawyer D. Barclai, Lib. de pote­state Papae, [...] 15. that the Pope himselfe is no otherwise excluded from temporall subiection to secular Princes, then that by the benefite or li­beralitie of Kings he was made a King, forsooth a politicall [Page 16]Prince, acknowledging none for his superiour in temporals. And the same doth the most earnest maintainer of the Ec­clesiasticall Iurisdiction confesse, whom many thinke to be Cardinall Bellarmine, Sub nomine Francisci Ro­muli pag. 114. in his answer to the principall chap­ters of an Apologie, &c. Generalis (inquit) & verissima est illa sententia, debere omnes omnino superiori potestati obtempera­re. Sed quia, &c. It is a generall and most true sentence, that all ought to obey higher power: but because power is of two sorts, spirituall and temporall, ecclesiasticall and politi­call, whereof the one belongeth to Bishops, the other to Kings; Bishops ought to be subiect to Kings in temporall things, and Kings vnto Bishops in spirituals: as copiously do dispute Gelasius the first, Gelasius. Nicolaus. in his Epistle to Anastasius, and Nicolas the first, in his Epistle to Michael. But because the Bishop of Rome is not only the chiefe Ecclesiastical Prince, to whom all Christians by the law of God are subiect, but is also in his owne Prouinces a temporall Prince; neither doth he acknowledge any superiour in temporals, as nor o­ther absolute and soueraigne Princes do in their kingdoms and dominions, thence it proceedeth that he hath no power aboue him in earth. Not then because he is chiefe Bishop, and spirituall father of all Christians, therefore he is deliue­red from temporall subiection, but because he enioyeth a temporall principalitie subiect to none. In those things therefore which appertaine to the good of the common­wealth, and ciuill societie, and are not repugnant to the di­uine ordinance, Clerkes are no lesse bound to obey the so­ueraigne temporall Prince, then other citizens or subiects; as Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe verie notably sheweth: Quia clerici, In lib. de Cle­ricis, c. 28. praeterquā quod clerici sunt, sunt etiā ciues, & par­tes quaedam Reipub. politicae. Non sunt exempti clerici vllo modo, inquit, ab obligatione legum ciuilium, quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio clericali: That clergie men, besides that they are clergie men, are also citizens and certaine parts of the politicall commonwealth. Clerkes (saith he) are not ex­empted by any meanes from the bond of the ciuill lawes, which are not repugnant to the sacred canons, or their cle­ricall [Page 17]office. By this you may see, that the Pope hath his temporalities and temporall power, not from Christ, but from Constantine and other Christian Princes and people, and was euer subiect to ciuill gouernment of Emperours, till such time as by their graunts he was made a King and temporall Prince, and so had no superiour; and that Clerks (as parts of the political cōmonwealth) are bound to obey al iust lawes of the same cōmonwealth no lesse then the Laitie: but more of this in another place, as occasion shall serue. Now to come somewhat nearer the question that I promi­sed, and you desire to be resolued on, as touching the Popes authoritie to depose Princes of their temporall dominions: First you are to note, that of this matter there are two opi­nions much different the one from the other, one of the Canonists, another of Diuines. The Canonists hold it for true doctrine to be maintained, Tho. Bozius. Carerius. D. Marta. and others. that all power whatsoeuer is in this world, either temporall and ciuill, or spirituall and ecclesiasticall, was giuen directly by Christ to Peter and his successors; and what power any Kings or Princes in the whole world, either Christians or Infidels haue, it all de­pendeth of the Pope, and is deriued from him to them, as touching the temporall execution: so that as Lord of the world, he may depose Princes, take away their kingdomes and principalities, and giue or dispose them to whom he list, though no man know the cause why he doth so; if he shall iudge there is sufficient cause to do it. If this were true doctrine, then woe to all Princes that should at any time yea but breake amitie and friendship with him that sitteth in Peters seate: what securitie could they haue of their e­states? Then might they expect, of Princes and rulers to be made priuate men and subiects; then may it be granted that our Soueraigne were not vnlike to be depriued of his tem­porals, his subiects to be discharged of their obedience, and his territories giuen in prey to his enemies. But this o­pinion is held to be most false by many Diuines, because it cannot be proued either by authoritie of Scripture, or by [Page 18]tradition of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church, or by the doctrine and testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Howbeit Bozius a late writer most stoutly defendeth the same, Lib. 2. cap. 11 and greatly blameth many excellent Diuines (among whom is renowmed Cardinall Bellarmine) and calleth them new diuines, saying moreouer, that they teach most mani­festly false doctrine, Lib. 5. cap. vlt. and repugnant to all truth, because they say that Christ as man, was neuer a temporall king, nor had any temporall dominion on earth, nor did exercise or practise any regall power, (for by these assertions, the prin­cipall foundations of Bozius friuolous arguments are ouer­throwne) which as most true they confirme by the testimo­ny of our Sauiour himselfe. Math. 8. Luc. 9. Foxes (saith he) haue holes, and the foules of the aire nests, but the Sonne of man hath not where to put his head. If Christ Iesus as he was the son of mā had not so much in this world as a cottage to rest himself in: where I pray you is his kingdome? where is his temporall dominion? who can conceiue that one can be king and Lord, who hath no kingdome or Lordship in the vniuersall 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, [Page 19]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 [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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 hath no tem­porall power ouer Princes, nor can depose them, etiam iusta de causa, as the Cardinall saith, surely I cannot with cristall spectacles see how he can depose as a spiritual Prince, there being no perceptible difference betweene them.

If I should stand to note vnto you the rest of his obscuri­ties and ambiguities, I feare I should be too tedious, there­fore I purpose to surceasse, and leaue them to your prudent consideration: as, The Pope hath not any power meerely temporall; he cannot as Pope ordinarily depose temporall Princes, as an ordinarie iudge; he hath at least indirectly a certaine power, and that chiefest or highest in temporals: and such like, which seeme no lesse fearfully then obscurely written and taught.

This doubtful doctrine of most learned Cardinal Bellar­mine, and the varietie or contrarietie of opinions betweene him and other very learned Clerkes in Gods church about this matter of deposition, is to me a most strong argument, [Page 22]that it is not de fide: for if it were, then would there be an vniforme content and perfect agreement among them, not onely of the thing controuerted, but also of the manner, and causes thereof, no lesse then is of Purgatorie, prayer to Saints, of the reall presence of Christs bodie and bloud in the B. Sacrament, of the virginitie of our B. Ladie, incarna­tion of Christ, seuen Sacraments, and so of all other points of faith. Then would a matter of such moment haue bene found in the writings of some ancient Father, as well as o­ther of lesse importance; but for wel neare a thousand yeares continuance, till the time of Gregorie the 7. it was neuer chalenged, mentioned or defended by any writer: or else it would haue bene defined in some generall Councell, whose authoritie bindeth all Christians to beleeue whatso­euer is there decreed, to be de fide, without controuersie; which to this day neuer was, no not in the third Councell of Lateran vnder Innocentius 3. as some ignorantly thinke, and build them strong castles in the aire; and others incon­siderately auerre, howbeit not simply and plainly, but some­what timorously, which they need not do if it were so, but should confidently auouch it so to be. Prou. 10. Qui ambulat simplicit­ter, ambulat confidenter. He that goeth simply and plainly to worke, goeth confidently. A matter of faith is to be taught sincerely and perspicuously, not doubtfully or guilefully, as it were to deceiue his readers, or thereby to hold them in suspence in such wise, as they shall euer remaine perplexed and to seeke of the one meaning of what is written.

O sir, if you reade that Councell of Lateran, cap. 3. you shall finde it plainly decreed, that Princes which be negli­gent in purging out of their territories the filth of heresie, are to be deposed.

This indeed were somewhat to the purpose, if it were true as you say; but if you beleeue so, you are in an errour: for who readeth that chapter, shall well perceiue it was not there decreed or defined, but treated of the manner how certaine secular powers or temporall Lords (without spe­cifying Kings) might be proceeded withall; and nothing [Page 23]decreed de fide concerning deposition of Princes: if it had bene defined matter of faith, it must of necessity haue bound all Catholickes, as well Princes as people, to beleeue it, and accept thereof. Moreouer, such a decree must alwayes haue continued immutable, and could not be abrogated, as Car­dinall Bellarmine writeth: Decreta de fide immutabilia sunt, Bellar. Lib. 2. Conc c. 17. nec possunt vllo modo abrogari postquam semel statuta sunt. The decrees of faith are immutable, neither can they be abroga­ted by any meanes after they are once decreed. And if it be no decree of faith (as it is not) but onely of reformation, who I pray you will say it doth bind, till it be accepted and receiued? Famous Cardinall Tolet faith no; and for his as­sertion citeth the Canon law Can. In istis, dist. 4. Tolet. de 7. pec. Mor. c. 18. Vt lex vim habeat, debet esse recepta ab his quibus lex datur; si enim lex pro­mulgata est, sed non recepta, non obligat. For a law to be of force, it ought to be receiued of those to whom the law is giuen; for if a law (to wit Ecclesiasticke) be promulgated, but not receiued, it bindeth not. Do we not see that the wholesome lawes or decrees of the Councell of Trent tou­ching reformation, binde not where they are not yet recei­ued, as in France and other places? And is any man so vnwise to thinke, that Princes will euer receiue such decrees as may bereaue them of their scepters and temporall states, and turne to their vtter ruine? Neuer was it hitherto seene, nor euer will it be by all likelihood in Great Brittaine, or any other kingdome.

Furthermore, in that chapter is no mention made of ex­communicating Emperour or Kings, nor deposing them, nor absoluing their subiects from their naturall obedience, but of excommunicating heresie, giuing ouer such as are condemned for that crimce, to the secular magistrate to be punished; and ordering withall, that certaine other secular powers or principall Lords inferiour to Kings, as may be Potestates, Consuls, Rectors, or such like (which by the constitution of Fredericke 2. pag. 66 Emperour is euident) should be compelled (if neede were) to take an oath to do their endeuour for the extirpation of heretickes out of such pla­ces [Page 24]as should be vnder their gouernment; when of necessitie both Emperour and kings ought to haue bene specified, if the Councell had meant to haue included them in that law. Sa Apho. v. lex. de elect. l. 6 ca 22. & de reg in edic. & in poenis, sc. reg. 16. & 49. l. 6. In poenalibus (saith Samuel Sa) & restrictione vtendum, & pia interpretatione. In penals we are to vse both a restriction, and a pious interpretation. Likewise, Poenae non extendendae vltra casus iure expressos: Punishments are not to be extended be­yond the cases expressed in the law. Then why shall this be enlarged, and extended to kings, who are not expressed in the decree of the Councell? Therefore this chapter maketh nothing for the Popes authoritie to depriue kings of their crownes and dignities: and so consequently is of no validitie against the Oath of Allegiance made anno tertio Iacobi Regis serenissimi.

But for better clearing this point, it shall not be amisse to set downe the decree of the Councell as it is, leauing it to the considerations of the learned, [...] iudge whether it be of faith or no, which beginneth thus:

Excommunicamus & anathematizamus omnem haeresim, Conc. Later. 3 c. 3. &c. We excōmunicate and anathematize all heresie that exal­teth it selfe against this holy, orthodoxe, Catholicke faith, Note that the punishment of heretickes is to be com­mutted by sen­tence of this Councell to secular powers. which aboue we haue declared, &c. And let such as are con­demned, be left vnto secular powers if they be present, or vnto their Bailiffes (or Presidents) to be punished with due punishment, Clearkes being first degraded from their or­ders. And such as shall be found noted with suspition one­ly, vnlesse according to the consideration of the suspition and the qualitie of the person, they shew their owne inno­cencie by a meete purging, let them be excommunicated, and the qualitie of the person, they shew their owne inno­cencie by a meete purging, let them be excommunicated, and auoyded of all, till they haue made condigne fatisfa­ction so that if for the space of a yeare they stand excommu­nicate, from that time forward let them be condemned as heretikes. All which seemeth not to serue the Cardinals turne to proue the Pope to haue power to depose, and ther­fore in his answer to D. Barclai page 30. he omitted it sauing the first sentence Excommunicamus. It followeth in the Councell:

Moneantur autem & inducantur, &c. And let the secular powers, yea of what office soeuer, be admonished and indu­ced, and if need be, compelled; as they desire to be reputed and accompted faithfull, so for the defence of faith, let them take publikely an Oath, that they will endeuour bona fide, to their power, to roote out of the lands subiect to their iu­risdiction all heretikes marked out by the Church, so that henceforward, whensoeuer any shall be assumed into either spirituall or temporall potestacie, he be bound to confirme this chapter. This part also the Cardinall left our, as not be­ing any thing for his purpose, and taketh hold of this clause ensuing.

Sivero Dominus temporalis. And if the temporall Lord being required and admonished by the Church, shall neg­lect to purge his land from this hereticall filth, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and comprouinciall Bishops. And if he shall contemn to make satisfaction with­in a yeare, let this be signified to the Pope, that he may from that time denounce his vassals absolued from his fealtie, and may expose his land to be occupied by Catholikes, who ha­uing rooted out the heretickes, may possesse it without any contradiction, and conserue it in the puritie of faith, the right of the principall Lord referued, so that to this he be no hinderance, nor oppose any impediment, the same law notwithstanding being kept about those who haue not principall Lords.

How greatly might it haue bene wished, that the most il­lustrous Cardinall Bellarmine, either in Tortus, See Tortus p. 73. Colon. or in his an­swer to D. Barclai, or in some other of his learned workes, had so clearely explicated this latter part of the Councell, e­steemed of him the greatest and most famous (howbeit the Councell of Chalcedon for number of Bishops was much greater) that all might haue rested satisfied of the irrefraga­ble decree of the Popes power to depose Princes? May it not be said vnto him; Quous (que) animam nostram tollis? if this be of faith, dic nobis palam. But this, his Gr. (with his good leaue be it spoken) hath not yet performed, no not in his last against [Page 26] Bellar. in Barc p. 31. Colon. D. Barclai; howsoeuer he laboutech to beate downe a sim­ple reader with words full of terror, to wit: That it is the voice of the Catholicke Church, and he that contemneth to heare her as (he saith) Barclai hath done, is no way to be ac­compted a Christian, but as a Heathen and Publican. And, if the Pope hath not power in earth, to dispose of temporals, euen to the deposition of those Princes, who are either thē ­selues heretikes, or in any sort do fauour heretikes; why at the edition of this Canon, did none of so great a number, reclame against it? Why durst not, no not one, among so ma­ny Embassadors of Emperours and kings, once mutter at it?

This lo, is all the Cardinall bringeth for proofe of the sup­posed decree of faith, in the third Councell of Lateran, (which is little to the purpose, and not so dreadfull as the words import, if it be well considered) saying: It is the voice of the Catholicke Church. What? that it is a point of faith there concluded, binding all Christians to beleeue, that the Pope hath power to depose kings, and dispose of temporals? Was there Anathema thundred against any that should not beleeue it? Nothing lesse, as you may see if ye note the words. And therefore Barclai hath not contēned the Church (nor others that agree with him in opinion) who did alway highly reuerence whatsoeuer she decreed, tanquam de fide, in any general Councell; whose soule I trust doth rest in peace, and whose defence I make no doubt but some will take in hand.

Then his Grace demandeth, why none reclamed against this Canon, nor any Embassadour once muttered at it? This why, in my judgement, may be answered with a, Wherfore haue Metropolitans and Bishops all this time, being almost 400. yeares agone, bin so negligent in performing their du­tie, The 3 Coun­cell of Late­ran held an. [...]alutis 1215. by admonishing and excommunicating their Princes, if this decree did bind them? And wherefore haue not Bishops that were remisse and negligent in purging heresie out of their Diocesses, bene deposed according to the Councels order, as appeareth in the end of this Canon? The words are, Volumus igitur & mandamus, & in virtute obedientiae districte [Page 27]praecipimus, &c. We will therefore and cōmand, & in the ver­tue of obedience do straightly charge, that for the effectuall execution of these things, Bishops watch diligently ouer thei Diocesses, as they will auoide the Canonicall reuenge. For if any Bishop shall be negligent or remisse in purging out of his diocesse the leauen of hereticall deformitie, when that shall appeare by euident signes, let him be deposed frō Episcopall office, and into his roome let another that is fit be substituted, who will, and is able to confound hereticall prauitie. This out of the Councell. Are these to be reputed as Heathens and publicans for not obeying the voice of the Church in this point? I know the Cardinall will not be so se­uere a iudge, in such wise to censure them, albeit they obey not the straight commandement of this great and famous Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 22. & de reform. cap. 20. Councell, whose decrees of reformation, as also of all other general Councels, they are more bound to accept and put in execution, then kings and secular potentates.

And is it not more then probable that some there recla­med, some muttered, though the Cardinall haply find it not registred, when according to the order of the Councell, and by vertue of this decree it was neuer executed? Then, Nonne frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum? Yes saith Cardinal Bellarmine, speaking in a like case, of Christs regall power in earth, vpon those words of our Sauiour: Ioan. 18. Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Christ neuer exercised regal power in this world: for he came to minister, not to be ministred vn­to. Therefore in vaine (saith he) had he receiued regall au­thoritie; frustra est enim potentia quae, nunquam redigitur in actum.

But supposing with the Cardinall there were not then a­ny reclamation nor any muttering against it, yet may such a constitution being neuer receiued, Panormitan. 10. Andr. or vpon disuse of so long time, be iustly said to be abrogated, as many Canons and Decrees of this, and other Councels haue bene. And name­ly, that in this Councell which forbiddeth new religions to arise, Can. 13. since which time, notwithstanding, Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. c. 16. haue risen the Minims of S. Francis de Paula, the religiō of the Iesuites, [Page 28]and others. That Metropolitans should celebrate prouin­ciall Councels euery yeare, was appointed ca. 6. which is not obserued. Can. 3. And in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo 10. was decreed, that Monasteries after the deceasse of the Ab­bots should not be giuen away to any in commenda, or cō ­mended to any who were not religious: but how this like­wise is obserued, Constantino. Conc. can. 50 & 59. the Monkes and religious of Italie, France, and other countries can testifie. In the sixth generall Coun­cell, clergie men were forbidden to play at dice; and it was ordered that Baptisme should be administred onely in Churches: which are not kept. Many mo instances out of o­ther Councels might be to this purpose produced, but to a­uoide tediousnesse these few may suffise.

Now for a further answer, I wish you to note, that this Councell indeed (as by the words in the chapter is cleare) did first excommunicate all heresie that lifted vp it selfe against that faith which the Fathers had set down in the two precedent chapters: and ordained that such as were there­fore condemned, as also all other heretickes, should be left vnto the secular powers to be condignly punished. Second­ly, this holy Synode decreed, that such as were onely suspe­cted of heresie should cleare themselues of that note within a yeare after admonition; otherwise they were to be excom­municated and auoyded till they had made condigne satif­faction. Which was but the right practise and true procee­ding of the Church, to inflict spirituall censures, that the soules of the offendors might be saued in the day of our Lord, leauing them to the secular Magistrates to be further punished temporally.

Thirdly, it was set downe in this Synode, as meete and conuenient, that secular powers should be admonished, and if need were, compelled to take a publike oath for defence of faith, and to do their best endeuours to roote out of their territories, all such heretikes as should be denounced by the Church: & none to be assumed into office which should not by oath confirme this chapter. By secular powers and such as shall be assumed into potestacie or office, either spirituall [Page 29]or temporal, was not nor could be meant Emperor or King, but rather Presidents or Gouerners of Prouinces subiect vnto Kings, and absolute Princes; who being Catholickes, may by their excelling power assisting the Church, compell them to confirme this chapter by taking such an Oath: but themselues cannot be compelled by any, hauing no superior on earth in temporals to force them thereunto. Neither may it be said properly, that a King, coming to his crowne by lawfull succession and inheritance, or election, is assumed into office by any, his subiects or others; for then it would follow, that he were not supremus Dominus, a Soueraigne, but in some sort inferiour to those that do assume him; be­cause he that is assumed or taken into office, receiueth au­thoritie from him that assumeth. As, the Pope creating a Cardinall, and saying, Assumimus te insanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, We assume thee to be a Cardinall of the holy Romane Church, giueth him by his supreme authoritie that spirituall office and dignitie of assisting him in the gouern­ment of the Church, and his temporall state, and to haue vocem actiuam & passiuam in the election of the Pope, &c. But his Holinesse, though elected by the Cardinals, cannot properly be said to be assumed by them to the Popedome, because he receiueth no power or authoritie from them, but immediatly from God.

Finally, to the latter part, Si vero dominus temporalis: on which Cardinall Bellarmine fortifieth his assertion of the Popes authoritie to depose Princes, saying, It is the voice of the Church: it may be answered, that the Church here defined it not, as he well knoweth; if she had, no doubt but his Grace would haue spoken it plainly, to put all out of doubt. By temporall Lords in this place, ought not to be vnderstood Kings, but rather such as are explicated in the Emperours constitution, to wit, Potestates, Consuls, Re­ctors, is hereafter followeth pag. 34. or such feudatarie Princes as haue principall Lords ouer them, like to certaine in Italy, where this Councell was held: which is manifest by this Canon, that reserueth the right of the principall [Page 30]Lord, Saluo iure Domini principalis. But I know some will say, that Kings and absolute Princes are to be also included, for that the words in the latter end seem to import so much, The same law being kept about those who haue not principall Lords: which ought to be vnderstood of absolute Princes. Lord, being a generall word, signifying sometime Kings. May it not be admired, that out of this obscuritie of the law, men will enforce Kings to be vnderstood, and to be subiect to temporall punishments, who acknowledge no superiour on earth to punish them in temporals, especially when as no mention is made of them at all in the law? In pe­nals (as I haue said before pag. 51.) a restriction is to be v­sed, not an ampliation; and Kings are no lesse to be named or specified by the orderly proceeding of the Church, then Cardinals, Conc. Trid. sess. 24. de re­form. cap. 1. who are alwayes named in poenis, or else not in­cluded, though the Pope command sub poena excommunicati­onis all Patriarchs, Archbishops or Bishops, of what digni­tie soeuer. If yet any will enforce, that By those who haue not principall Lords, Kings are or may be vnderstood, it helpeth them nothing at all, for that such a law, first neuer receiued, and againe per desuetudinem, being neuer by the Church put in practise, is abrogated and of no validitie.

Neither was it defined in this Councell (as all men of meane iudgement may see) that the Pope hath authoritie to absolue subiects from their loyaltie or naturall obedi­ence due to their Princes; but onely signified, that he might denounce the vassals of certaine temporall Lords, absolued (as it were by vertue of some former law, to wit, that of Gregorie 7, Nos sanctorum, 15. q. 6. ca: Nos sanctorū or some other) from their fealtie, who being admonished and excommunicated by the Me­tropolitane, shall contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare: which is not to absolue them by any authoritie giuen by this Councell, and so it maketh nothing against the Oath of allegiance: That the Pope cannot absolue me from this Oath.

Then lastly it followeth: And may expose his land to be occu­pied by Catholickes. Is not this (trow ye) the groundworke of the Cardinals bulwarke for the Apostolicall authoritie [Page 31]of deposing Princes, and disposing of their temporals? It see­meth yes, in his answer to D. Barclai; howbeit his Grace bringeth nothing to proue such power to be in the Pope, Supra pag. 54 but onely saith that, you wote not what, is the voice of the Catholicke Church, and he that contemneth to heare her, is no way to be accounted a Christian, but as a heathen and Publican. What words here in the name of God import a definition? The Councell, as you may see, vseth none of these words to make a decree de fide, ordinamus, statuimus, definimus, we or­daine, decree, define the Pope to haue authoritie to depose, nor anathema qui hoc non credit, anathema to him that belee­ueth not this, nor yet, Haec est fides Catholica, This is the Ca­tholicke faith: but onely saith, That if the temporall Lord admonished by the Church, shal neglect to purge his coun­trey from heresie, he is to be excommunicated by the Me­tropolitan; and if he contemne to make satisfaction within a yeare, it is to be signified to the Pope, that he may expose his land (which is not to depose authoritatiuè) to be occu­pied by Catholickes, crucem praedicando, that is, to giue indulgences or pardons to such as shall voluntarily take armes, and aduenture their liues to fight against heretickes; and as he is accustomed in like sort to grant to all Christi­ans that shall arme themselues and labour to expell the Turks or Saracens out of the countries they vsurpe vpon, or the holy land: as will appeare plainly to him that readeth this Canon of the Councell. For, it followeth immediatly: Catholici vero, qui crucis assumpto charactere ad haereticorum exterminium se accinxerint, illa gaudeant indulgentia, illo (que) pri­uilegio sint muniti, quod accedentibus in terrae sanctae subsidium conceditur. And let the Catholickes, who hauing taken the signe of the crosse, shall addresse themselues to the rooting out of heretickes, enioy the same indulgence, and be armed with the same priuiledge which is granted to such as pre­pare themselues to the recouery of the holy land. Hereby euery man may see, that in this wise to expose a country by such priuiledges and pardons to Prince or people, who ei­ther vpon zeale of dying Martyrs, as they thinke, or rather [Page 32]couetous desire to enlarge their dominions, and to enrich themselues with others spoiles, are ready to take such an occasion, and to runne before they be sent; is nothing to this purpose, for deposing a lawfull Prince by any authority giuen the Pope by our Sauiour Christ in S. Peter, or by the holy Ghost in a generall Councell. You will say vnto me, Are not heretickes being obstinate, vpon contempt of the Churches sword of excommunication, to be punished tem­porally by depriuation and confiscation of their goods, yea and by death too? Yes. But by whom? Not by any decree of Pope or Councell, but by the wholesome lawes of Em­perors and Kings: for the Church, that is, the Pastors therof, after excommunication, Tho. 2.2. q. 11. ar. 3. quia non habet vltra quod agat, be­cause she can proceed no further, is accustomed to deliuer ouer obstinate heretickes and such as she condemneth, to the secular magistrate to be punished temporally, whose right it is, Costerus in fidei demonst propo. 3. c. 12. Con. Constan sess. 21 as Costerus writeth; which is also manifest in the Councell of Constance, in the punishment of Hierome of Prage and Iohn Husse, who being declared to be heretickes, excommunicated and condemned, were forthwith deliue­red ouer to the secular power to be punished by death. Ro­manae Ecclesiae consuetudo (saith Costerus loco citato) in punien­dis haereticis talis est, &c. The custome of the Church of Rome in punishing heretickes, is after this manner: After they are apprehended by the ciuill or ecclesiasticall magistrate, first they are examined by learned & ecclesiastical men whether they be indeed heretickes: which being found, they are in­structed in the right faith, &c. Then (saith he) if they remain obstinate, ab Ecclesiae gremio vt putrida mēbra excōmunicationis gladio resecantur: qui secundùm legum Regum (que) decreta, prout fas est, in eos animaduertant. Nulli enim competit Ecclesiastico, vel sanguinem fundere, vel capitis quenquam condemnare. They are cut off with the sword of excommunication as rotten members from the lap of the Church, and are deliuered to the ciuill magistrate to be punished, who according to the decrees of lawes and Kings may punish them, as reason is. For it is not meete for any Ecclesiasticall person either to [Page 33]shed blood, or to condemne any to death.

In the generall Councell of Constance was pronounced a definitiue sentence against Iohn Husse, wherein for his per­tinacie in heresie, as that Councell tooke it, Molanus de fide haeret. ser. l. 2. c. 2. his degradation was committed to sixe Bishops, as writeth Molanus out of Cochlaeus, and his execution to the secular power. Haec sancta Synodus Ioannem Husse, attento quòd Ecclesia Dei non habeat vltra quod agere valeat, iudicio saeculari relinquere, Can. corripi­antur. 24. q. 3. & ipsum cu­riae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit. This holy Synode de­creeth, considering that the Church of God can proceed no further, (to wit, then to excommunicate, and other spirituall punishments) to leaue Iohn Husse to secular iudgement, and that he ought to be left to the secular Court. Hence (saith Molanus) it is euident, with what small consideration some write, that Iohn Husse was burnt vpon the sentence of the Councell of Constance, when as it was left to secular iudge­ment. Taken out of Cochlaeus lib. 2. ex Hussita. Now let it be demanded why heretikes, noble or ignoble, haue not bene, and yet are to be depriued of their temporals, and punished by death, by vertue of that decree of Pope Innocentitus in the Councell of Lateran, but rather by the decree of Frede­ricke the second, Emperour, which he made (being solicited thereto by the Pope) anone after that Councell at Padua 22. Februarij, indict. 12. against certaine heretikes called Pa­tareni, if that of the Pope or Councell were to bind and be of force? If the first were obligatorie, what needed the se­cōd of like forme to be made? The Emperor might wel haue spared his labour, if that former had bene deemed sufficient. And this is certaine, and a sufficient proofe of the insufficien­cie thereof, that the subsequent Popes, Direct. inqui­sit. lit. Apost. p. 13. 17. 51. Innocentius 4. Ale­xander 4. and Clements 4. would haue their Iudges to punish and proceed against heretikes, by vertue of that constitution of Fredericke, and not by the chapter of Lateran: which they would neuer haue done by Caesars law, and not their owne, had they not knowne that Caesars law in that behalfe was of greater force, and much more moment then their owne.

And lest you should, hauing perchance neuer seene this imperiall Decree, doubt thereof, I haue thought good to set it downe at large, which is this. Statuimus etiam hoc edi­cto in perpetuum valituro, Constit. Fred. Imper. cont. Patarenos. vt Potestates & Consules, seu Recto­res, quibuscun (que) fungantur officijs, defensione fidei praestent publicū iuramentum quòd de terris suae ditioni subiectis vniuersos haere­ticos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminare stu­debunt, ita quod amodo quandocun (que) quis fuerit in perpetuam potestatem, vel temporalem assumptus, hoc teneatur capitulum iu­ramento firmare, alioquin neque pro Potestatibus, neque pro Con­sulibus, seu consimilibus habeantur: eorum (que) sententias ex tunc de­cernimus inutiles & inanes. Si vero Dominus tēporalis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab haere­tica prauitate, post annum à tempore monitionis elapsum, terrans ipsius exponimus Catholicis occupandum: qui eam exterminatis haereticis ab (que) vlla contradictione possideant, & in fidei puritate conseruent: saluo iure Domini temporalis: dummodo super hoc nul­lum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum apponat: eadē nihilominus lege seruata contra eos qui non habent Dominos tem­porales &c. Datum Paduae. 22. Februarij, indictione 12.

In English thus: We decree also by this edict, for euer to be of force, that Potestates, and Consuls, or Rectors, what offices soeuer they beare, for defence of faith, take a publike oath, that they shall seriously endeuour what in them lieth, to roote out all heretikes noted by the Church, out of the countries subiect to their gouernment, so that from hence­foorth, whensoeuer any shall be assumpted to a Potestacie for euer, or for a time, let him be bound to confirme this chapter by oath, otherwise let them not be esteemed for Potestates, or for Consuls, or such like: and their sentences we decree forthwith to be vnprofitable and of no force. And if the temporall Lord, required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his countrie from hereticall prauitie, after a yeare expired from the time of the admoni­tion, we expose his countrie to be occupied by Catholikes: who, when the heretikes are rooted out, may possesse it without any contradiction, and maintaine it in the puritie [Page 35]of faith: the right of the principall Lord being reserued: so that vpon this he bring no obstacle, nor procure any impe­diment: the same law notwithstanding being obserued a­gainst them that haue not principall Lords, &c. Giuen at Padua 22. of Februarie, indiction 12.

Now can any man perceiue by this imperiall law (procu­red, and vsed by the Church in the punishment of heretikes) that kings are bound to take the oath therein specified? or that it is meant, their countries should be giuen from them, if after the Churches admonition they yet remaine negli­gent in extirpating heretikes? Nothing lesse. First, because kings are not named or mentioned, which is requisite; but Potestates (as are in Italie) Consuls, and Rectors, or Gouer­nours of prouinces, such as are inferiors, or subiect to the Emperour or kings; therefore they are not comprised in the law. Nor secondly, can they be comprised therein (though perchance you will say, that by the latter clause, it is meant also by kings, and all other absolute Princes, who haue no dependance of the Emperour) for that they are not bound to the keeping of the law being penall. L. Princeps D de legibus. Princeps enim solutus est legibus. For the Prince is freed from lawes. That is, as the Grecians vnderstand, frō the penalty of lawes.

Thirdly, the Emperor being no superior to absolute kings, cannot constraine them by any law ciuill, nor punish them. L. non magi­stratus D. de recep. Qui arbi. For, Par in parem non habet imperium, multo minus inferior in superiorem. A peere or equall hath not dominion ouer his equall, much lesse an inferiour ouer his superiour; as sub­iects ouer their lawfull Prince. Now if the Emperour, or a­ny other Peere, may by vertue of that law, depriue an abso­lute king of his kingdome, and confiscate whatsoeuer he hath (which are grieuous punishments) then is he subiect to penall lawes, and to be corrected not onely by his peeres but also by inferiors, and his owne subiects: which is absurd, Tert. ad Sca­pulā Praesid. Carthag. Amb. in li. Qui inscrib. Apol. Dauid. and against the authorities abouesaid, and iudgement of ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregorius Turonensis, and others; who write, that a king is inferiour but to God a­lone, that is, in temporals: that they are not to be punished [Page 36]by penall lawes, being defended with the power of their em­pire: &, Greg. l. 5 hist. c 7. if thou (speaking of a king) dost offēd, who shall cor­rect thee, who shal cōdemn thee, but he that hath pronoūced himselfe to be Iustice? This being so, then cannot that law of the Emperor take hold on kings, nor punish thē temporally.

But supposing that chapter of the Councell, whereof we spake before, or rather of Innocentius in the Councell, were a decree, what then? doth it follow infallibly that it is. de fide? No. The most reuerend Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you, Bella l. 2. Concap. 12. that in Councels the greatest part of the acts appertaine not to faith, as disputations, reasons, explications, &c. Sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta, & ea non omnia, sed tantùm quae pro­ponuntur tanquam de fide. That is, But onely the verie bare decrees, and not all those neither, but onely such as are pro­posed as of faith. For sometime (saith he) Councels do de­fine somewhat, not as certaine, but as probable, as the Councell of Vienna, which decreed to be holden as the more probable, that grace and vertues are infused to infants in Baptisme, as is, Clement. vnica de summa Trinit. & fide Cath.

Why then Sir, how shal I know when a decree is of faith, and when it is not? Cardinall Bellarmine in the place aboue noted will put you out of doubt thereof. Quando autem de­cretum proponatur tanquam de side, facilè cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij; semper enim dicere solent, se explicare fidem Catholicam vel haereticos habendos qui contrariū sentiunt, &c. Whē a decree is proposed as of faith, it is easily knowne by the words of the Councel; for they are alway accustomed to say, that they explicate the Catholike faith, or, they are to be held for he­retikes that think the contrarie; or which is most vsuall, they say Anathema, and exclude out of the Church, those that are of contrary opinion. And when they haue none of these, it is not certaine that the matter is of faith. This he. By which you learne, & may secure your conscience, that the doctrine of depositiō of Princes, either directly or indirectly, ordina­rily, or extraordinarily, casually or by consequence, was ne­uer in such sort decreed in the Councell of Lateran, or any other Councell to this day: nor euer defined by any Pope [Page 37] ex cathedra (as some take it) in Consistorie tanquam res fidei formaliter, as a matter of faith formally.

If yet further you desire to know what Authors write, that the Popes authoritie in things temporall (as deposing Princes, and disposing kingdomes you take to be) was ne­uer defined; you may reade Cardinall Allen against the En­glish Iustice, c. 4. f. 326. who saith, Alanus. that it is a meere matter of Diuinitie disputable in schoole, and no certaintie as yet defined by the Church, touching the Popes authoritie in things temporall. The same affirme Couarruuias, Couarruuias. Nauarrus. Bensfildius. p. 2. pag. 504. Nauarrus, as is there noted by Couar. & in cap. Nouit de iudicio notab. Bensfildius de iure & damno dato, c. 7. and others.

Here it may be you will obiect vnto me, and say, that Paulus 5. in prohibiting by his Breues the Oath of allegi­ance, seemeth there to define ex cathedra the Popes autho­ritie in temporals, as some of our Pastors since this contro­uersie teach vs; I pray you let me know your opinion, whe­ther they be definitiue sentences or no.

Beloued brethren, assure your selues they deceiue you, that so ignorantly instruct you; and while they leade you into an errour, they hazard your ouerthrow. Those Breues are no definitions, but rather admonitions or aduertise­ments, as the first, dated 10. Kalendas Octobris, 1606. which hath: Propterea admonemus vos, vt ab hoc at que similibus iura­mentis praestandis omnino caueatis, &c. Therefore we admonish you to beware of taking this and the like Oaths; affirming it withall to be vnlawfull. Or else precepts, (though not obli­gatorie ad mortale peccatum) as the second seemed to be, dated 10. Kalend. Septembris, 1607. prohibiting the taking thereof. All which make not a definition ex cathedra; and it may wel be presumed, that his Holinesse neuer had any such intention to set forth such a decree. To know when a decree is de fide, you may learne by that I told you a little before out of Cardinall Bellarmine, whose rule is well to be consi­dered. If these Breues were definitions de fide ex cathedra (as some most fondly and ignorantly sticke not to auouch) some of those clauses and interminations mentioned by Cardinal [Page 38] Bellarmine had bene inserted; they must haue bene generall, and ought to bind all Christian people as well as English Catholickes: for what is faith in one countrey, ought to be such through the world, and to be agreed vpon among learned men without controuersie. But these, being dire­cted to one particular nation, and for this one particular cause of the Oath of allegiance, can be no decree ex cathe­dra, but rather priuate exhortatory letters, no precepts, as a late writer affirmeth them to be: Andraeas Eu­daemon socie­tatis Ies. in praefat. ad Tortur Torti. Priuatis literis Catholicos monuit Pontifex (saith Eudaemon) iuramentum id suscipi per diuinam legem non licere, proinde quiduis potius paterentur. The Pope admonished Catholickes in his priuate letters (saith Eudaemon a Iesuite) that it was not lawful by the law of God to take that Oath, therefore they should rather suffer any thing. Which may be of little force, and not bind, specially if they were procured by sinister meanes, as by surreption, wrong information, and so forth, as with great reason it may be presumed these were, by a person more turbulent then was fitting for one of his function and vocation, whose merit haply might haue bene greater by deuout saying one paire of beades, then was by his labours and trauailes with his Holinesse to kindle quenched coales, as most probably he did in playing the soliciter, and procuring those Breues; whereby he hath brought all in brandlement, set no small contention and diuision among brethren and friends, and raised a tempestuous sea of calamities and troubles, where a happie calme of peace and quietnesse was not vnlike to be: for which God pardon his soule.

Moreouer, some good Authors not only doubt whether the Pope alone may determine or define matters of faith, but plainely seeme to say, such a determination doth not bind; and so he cannot without a generall Council. Deter­minatio solius Papae (saith Gerson) in his quae sunt fidei, Io. Gerson. tract. de ex. aminatione doctrinarum, consid. 2. non ob­ligat, vt praecise est talis ad credendum. The determination of the Pope alone, in matters of faith, as it is precisely such, bindeth not to beleeue. And Petrus de Alliaco sometime Cardinall of Cambray, in his treatise of the reformation of [Page 39]the Church of Rome, offered to the Councell of Constance begun an. 1414. writeth in this sort, as appeareth in M. Blackwels large examination. Petrus de Al­liaco. In hoc non debet Papa aut eius Curia, &c. Herein (as touching the reformation of the bo­die of the whole Church of Rome) the Pope or his Consi­storie ought not to reiect the deliberation of a generall Councell, because, as the Glosse, 19. dist. super cap. Anasta­sius, 19. dist. super cap. Anastas. saith, The Pope is bound to require a Councell of Bi­shops, when any point of faith is to be handled: which I do not vnderstand of the articles of faith, but of difficult mat­ters, that touch the vniuersall state of the faithfull Church: which Archidiaconus noteth, 15. dist. c Sicur where approuing the said Glosse, he addeth, That it were too dangerous a matter to commit our faith to the arbitrement of one man, and that therefore the Pope in new and hard cases, was accustomed to haue recourse to the deliberation of a Councell. Now let your learned instructors peruse and consider well the foresaid Authors (Catholicke) and the Glosse, with the ap­probation thereof, also Catholicke; and then I perswade my selfe, they wil with more aduisement giue you better instru­ctions, and confesse that those Breues are farre from defini­tiue sentences; if not, I wish for your good, you may light on better, and better experienced, lest the blind leading the blind, both fall into the pit: Si enim coecus coecum ducit, ambo in foueam cadent.

Well, grant they are no definitions, yet it cannot be de­nied, but that therein his Holinesse hath declared, many things to be contained in the Oath against faith, and the health of soules, and thereupon prohibited all Catholickes to take the same; whose commandement (if any other) is to be obeyed, by S. Pauls doctrine: Obedite Praepositis vestris, & subiacete eis: Heb. 13. ipsi enim peruigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris redd [...]uri. Obey your Prelates, and be subiect vnto them; for they watch, as to render account for your soules. How can this be answered? or how can they free themselues from mortall sinne, that by taking the Oath, seeme to con­temne soueraigne authoritie? Very well. If indeede there [Page 40]were contempt as some either caried away with passion, or through ignorance and small consideration beare you in hand) then a hainous sinne would it be to transgresse the precept of the supreme Prelate Christs Vicar; for, contempt of any superiour, though in re leuissima, is always a mortall sinne. But it is not so in this our case, it is not all one we know, nolle obedire, and non obedire: conscience setled on good grounds, is the onely motiue to such as take it, not to obey, beleeuing it to be most lawfull.

That his Holinesse hath affirmed in genere, as his opinion, many things to be contained in the Oath repugnant to faith and health of soules, is manifest in the Breues; yet because he hath not Specified any one particular clause (which was much desired) nor Father Parsons in his Catholicke letter, nor Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus, or other booke of his, haue explicated or cleared the Popes meaning, what they be, nor any other writers that haue handled this matter, and written in defence of them (as doubtlesse they would haue done, if they could tell which were against faith) his Holi­nesse (in my iudgement) cannot iustly condemne such of a contempt, as with reason and vpon good grounds hold the contrary: who are not bound to alter their opinions vpon any such assertion of any priuate Doctor, vnlesse their vn­derstanding be first conuinced, either by good reason, or authorities of Scriptures, Fathers, or some generall Coun­cell. If any man be scandalized, and please to carpe hereat as at strange doctrine, let him reade the famous and learned S. Tho. More in his Epistle to D. Wilson, Tho. More in his epist. to D. Wils. p. 1445. where he shall see the very same taught in this manner. Many things (euerie man learned woteth well) there are, in which euery man is at libertie, without perill of damnation, to thinke which way he list, till the one part be determined for necessarie to be belieued by a generall Councell. And in another place of his workes, In epist. ad fi­liam, pa. 1439. thus he writeth: If it so hap, that in any par­ticular part of Christendome, there be a law made, that be such, as for some part thereof some men thinke that the law of God cannot beare it, and some other thinke yes; the thing [Page 41]being in such manner in question, that through diuers parts of Christendome, some that are good men and cunning, both of our owne dayes and before our dayes, thinke some one way; and some other of like learning and goodnesse, thinke the contrary. In this case he that thinketh against the law, neither may sweare that law lawfully was made, stan­ding his own conscience to the contrary; nor is bound vpon Gods displcasure to change his own conscience therein, for any particular law made any where, other then by the gene­rall Councell, and by a generall faith growne by the wor­king of God vniuersally through all Christian nations: nor other authoritie then one of these twaine (except speciall reuelation, and expresse commandement of God:) sith the contrary opinions of good men and well learned, as I put you the case, made the vnderstanding of the Scriptures doubtfull, I can see none that lawfully may command and compell any man to change his own opinion, & translate his owne conscience from the one side to the other. This he. And in another Epistle to his daughter Margaret, pag. 1440 If it be not so fully plaine and euident (as appearing by the common faith of Christendome) yet if he see but himselfe with farre the fewer part thinke the one way, against far the more part of as learned and as good as those are that affirme the thing that he thinketh, thinking and affirming the con­trarie, and that of such folke as he hath no reasonable cause, wherefore he should not in that matter suppose, that those which say they thinke against his mind, affirme the thing that they say, for none other cause, but for that they so think indeed: this is of very truth, a very good occasion to moue him, and yet not to compell him to conforme his mind and conscience vnto theirs. By this doctrine of Sir Thomas More it is cleare, that the Popes opinion of the Oath, though it may seeme to some, to be a verie good occasion to moue men not to take it, yet it is not sufficient to compell them to conforme their mind and conscience vnto his; when as they that haue taken it, and also many others both vertuous and learned, are of contrarie opinion, nothing to be contained [Page 42]in that Oath against or repugnant to faith; nor neuer hath this point in controuersie bene yet defined.

Will you say then that the Pope hath erred in setting forth this his opinion and prohibition? No, I dare not pre­sume to affirme that therein he hath erred, for the reuerence and honor I beare to the Sea Apostolick, nor take vpon me to be iudge ouer him, Qui parem super terram non habet, to vse Saint Bernards words; L. 2. de consid c. 2. Rom. 14. lest I be thought to neglect the doctrine of the holy Ghost taught by S. Paul: Tu quis es qui iudicas alienum seruum? and, Tu autem quid iudicas fratrem tuum? aut tu quare speruis fratrem tuum? Who art thou that iudgest anothers seruant? and why doest thou iudge thy brother? If I be taught and forbiddē tp iudge or despise my brother, my equall; then much more ought I not to iudge or contemne him, qui à nemine iudicatur, that is not to be iudged by any man: absit hoc à me, let such temeritie be farre from me, the least in Gods house. But when in matters of fact, he proceedeth by information of others, (as in this our case of the Oath he hath) I trust it is no temeritie, or any sin at all, to say that he may erre; yea and sometimes by false suggestions or wrong informations, he hath erred in Rome it selfe. And which is more, Councels also in facts, or parti­cular iudgements may erre, as Cardinall Bellarmine noteth. In Scriptura (saith he) nullus potest esse error, Li. 2. Concil. cap. 12. siue agatur de fide, siue de moribus, &c. At Concilia in iudicijs particularibus erra­re possent. Nec non in praeceptis morum, quae non toti Ecclesiae, sed vni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur. In the Scripture can be no error, whether it treate of faith, or of manners, &c. but Councels in particular iudgements may erre. And also in precepts of manners, which are not proposed to the whole Church, but to one or other people onely.

It seemeth also not to be any hereticall doctrine to hold, that not onely in matters of fact, but likewise in faith the Pope alone without a Councell may erre, for that he is no God, but a man subiect to errors; to whom as he is Peters successor, Christ neuer so promised the assistance of the holy Ghost, that he in person should not erre, but to Peter toge­ther [Page 43]with the Apostles, assembled at his sermon before his passion, who represented the whole body of the Church, as appeareth by the words of our Sauiour in Saint Iohns Go­spell: Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus, Iohn. 14. c. quem mittet Pater in nomine meo, ille vos docebit omnia, & suggeret vobis omnia, quae­cunque dixero vobis. You may note how the holy Ghost then promised, and afterward sent on the day of Pentecost, was promised to all, and sent vnto all, not to Peter alone. And in the same chapter, that this holy Ghost was to remain with them, and be in them. Apud vos manebit, & in vobis erit. And in another place. Cū autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, Ioh. 16. docebit vos omnem veritatem. And when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will teach you all truth. In all these places is manifest that Christ spake alway in the plurall number, that the holy Ghost the Comforter, should remaine and be in his Church, and should teach his Church all truth, and not any one of his Apostles successors in particular. This special priuiledge of not erring in matters of faith, was reserued for his deare spouse the Catholike Church alone, as appeareth euident likewise in Saint Matthewes Gospell: Tu es Petrus, Math. 16. & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portaeinferi non praeualebunt aduersus eam. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against her. That is, the Church (as Iansenius and o­thers vnderstand it) represented in a generall Councell, which Church is called by Saint Paul, 1. Tim. 3. Columna & firmamen­tum veritatis: The pillar and groundworke of truth. Not a­ny one man in the house of God was euer such. And Alphon­sus de Castro, a great learned man, and an earnest defender of this Church against heresies and heretikes, blusheth not to write plainely that, Omnis homo errare potest in fide, Contr. haeres. l. 1. c. 4. etsi Papa sit: Euerie man may erre in faith, yea the Pope himselfe, without exception. Yet I neuer heard that he was condem­ned of heresie, or sinne, for saying so. This then being so, no man of vp right iudgement, can with reason censure him of heresie, that shall affirme, The Pope may erre in his opinion of the Oath; for, Haeresis est circa eaqnae sunt fidei, 2.2. q. 11. ar. 2 sicut circa [Page 44]propriam materiam: 2.2. 11. ar. 2. as S. Thomas saith. Nor of mortall sin, if he refuse to obey his prohibition for taking thereof, the taker not intending to contemne his commandement, Tho. 22. q. 104.2.2. ad 1. (ad inobedientiam enim requiritur quòd actualiter contemnat praecep­tum) nor to transgresse against the law of God; but onely to render to Caesar that which is Caesars, that is, ciuill obedi­ence, due vnto him both by the law of God and nature; without denying or derogating anie authoritie spirituall of the Sea Apostolicke, according to his Maiesties declaration and interpretation of his owne meaning, set downe at large in his Apologie and Praemonition. The intention then be­ing good, the end good and iust, the act of such as take it cannot be but good and lawfull, and no sin at all. For se­cundum finem morales actus species sortiuntur. Tho. 2.2. q. 89 ar. 5. ad 1. & q. 105 2.1. And as true it is, that, Actus agentium non operantur vlira ipsorum voluntatem seu intentionem. And this much as touching the Popes opi­nion or assertion in his Breues. Now it remaineth to resolue the difficultie of his precept, or prohibition of the Oath; whether Priests and Catholickes in England be bound vn­der paine of deadly sinne to obey it, and so to disobey the Kings Highnesse, who for his more securitie, vpon so iust a cause, requireth the same.

The cause why the Pope prohibited Catholickes to take the Oath of allegiance as it lieth, may seeme to haue bene, for that in his opinion he was perswaded many things to be contained therein repugnant to faith. Which opinion sup­posed true, no man indeede can take it without perill of damnation; because euery Christian is bound vsque ad effu­sionem sanguinis inclusiue, to professe and maintaine all points of faith, when occasion of persecution shall be offered, a­gainst heretickes, Iewes, Turkes, or what infidels soeuer, according to the doctrine of our Sauiour: Math. 10. Luk. 9. Qui autem nega­uerit me coram hominibus, negabo & ego eum coram Patre meo: And he that shall denie me before men, I will also denie him before my Father. Likewise in another place; Qui non renunciat omnibus quae possidet, Luk. 14. non potest meus esse discipulus. And then were it malum, non quia prohibitum, verùm ex se, [Page 45]to take such an oath. But till it appeare more cleare, and be more substantially proued then hitherto hath bene by any, that some point therein contained, is manifestly against faith, & what that point is; I cannot see why any man should forthwith vpon a bare commandement, though of the su­preme Pastor, hazard his life in perpetuall bonds, with losse of all that he hath, and vtter ruine of his dearest wife and children. For his priuate will, subiect to error, can be no in­fallible rule of mans actions, but the will of God, which is alway right: and hereupon a man may in case be disobeied, be he Prince or Prelate, but the most righteous God neuer. For that the commandement of God is alway iust, wherein can be no error, Gen. 22. no not in willing Abraham to kill his sonne Isaac: Exod. 12. Ose. 1. nor in commanding the Iewes to spoile the Aegyp­tians of their goods: nor also in bidding the Prophet Osea to commit fornication. The reason hereof you may reade in S. Thomas. But an earthly King, Prince or Prelate, See S. Tho. 22 q. 104. ar. 4. yea the Prince of Prelates may, and doe sometimes command iniust things, or may vsurpe dominion iniustly: in which ca­ses, subiects are not bound to obey them, 22. q. 104. ar. 6. nisi fortè per acci­dens (as S. Thomas noteth) propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum: vnlesse haply accidentally, for auoiding scan­dall or danger. That some Kings and secular Princes haue vsurped domination, and commanded iniustly, no man I thinke will doubt, and our domesticke aduersaries will easily grant: but to say that the Prince of Prelates, the Pope, Peters successor should erre in commanding, or command that which is iniust ( guarda la gamba, take heed) some nice­ly precise, pure and rigid, if not simple and foolish people, audito verbo hoc scandalizabuntur, no lesse then the Pharisees were scandalized at the doctrine of our blessed Sauiour, as we reade in S. Mathewes Gospell: Math. 15. for that they thinke of like, the Pope so to be confirmed in grace, that he cannot once commit a mortall sin. If they will so easily be scanda­lized for speaking the truth, I trust I may be bold, Greg. hom. 7. in Ezech. Haimo in Math. c. 18. without sin, to say with S. Gregorie: Si de veritate scandalum sumitur, vtiliùs nasci permittitur scandalum, quàm quòd veritas relinqua­tur. [Page 46]If scandall be taken for speaking truth, it is better a scan­dall should be permitted to arise, then truth left vntold. I will relate therefore certaine true facts, but not censure them, which without this, or such like occasion offered, I e­uer purposed to haue concealed; and referre to the readers iudgements whether they were errors in gouernment, and sinnes, or no.

When Sixtus Quintus, otherwise a prudent Prince and learned Pastor, commanded a boy of fourteene yeares of age to be hanged in Rome, for a fault which in many mens iudgements deserued not death, but rather whipping, or some such punishment; and being in all humility told by the Iudge, that by the ciuill lawes he was not to be executed till he came to the age of 16: he answered, Then I will giue him two of my yeares. Whereupon the poore lad, contrarie to law, ended his life in port hast in a halter. Whether this were a iust sentence or iniust, I will not say; it seemed at his departure out of this life, to be scored among his misdeeds: for being in extremis, one like in habit to S. Francis appea­red to him, who had appeared long before, & foretold al his fortunate risings to honor, and now warned him to prepare to die, for his time was come. Hereat Sixtus appalled, said: Diddest thou not promise me that I should reigne one lustre and halfe? (a lustre is the space of fiue yeares.) Yes; and now it is in maner expired (he had then reigned fiue yeares, foure moneths, and three daies); for if you remember, you gaue a boy two yeares, to hang him. This I heard constantly repor­ted by manie in Rome presently vpon his death. But who this was that appeared, S. Francis, or some other transfigu­red in his habite, it was not knowne, and I leaue to the con­sideration of men to thinke what they list.

Likewise it happened, that in his time a Clergie man, ne­phew vnto old Martinus Nauarrus the great Canonist, co­ming into S. Peters Church (doubtlesse with intent to pray) found standing against a pillar by our Ladies altar a pil­grims staffe, wherewith he strake the Iudge of the Suitzers, being on his knees at his praiers before the crucifixe altar, [Page 47]and brake his head so, as the bloud ran about his eares, and fell on the pauement; whereby the Church being profaned, forthwith all Masses and other diuine seruice ceassed for a time, (I speake what I know, being then oculatus testis:) in­continently the partie fled toward the new Church, but pur­sued by certaine Suitzers attending on the said Iudge, was apprehended; and the Pope then sitting in Consistorie, ad­uertised of the fact, who commanded a ghostly father to be prouided for him, (religiously and well done for safetie of his soule) and that he should not hope for life, but prepare to die out of hand, (summum ius) for he would not dine till the offender were hanged. A hard sentence of the supreme Pastor. Haste here made waste of bloud. Would God he had well considered S. Ambrose his penance enioyned Theodosius the Emperour, and his humble acceptation thereof, viz. not to punish any malefactor to death for a moneths space after the crime committed; then haply his wrath and indigna­tion might haue bene pacified, and the offenders life saued. Incontinently a gallowes was set vp before the Suitzers gate, and the Spanish gentleman brought to execution within three houres after the blow giuen, the Pope stan­ding in a gallerie of his pallace (Consistorie being ended) to see him coming, as was most certainly reported vnto me then lying in the pallace, by such as had reason to know it: and would not be pacified or intreated for his life, neither by the Spanish Ambassadour, who posted to the Court to that end, though in vaine, for audience would not be gran­ted, nor by any other; howbeit his seruant the Suitzer, in short space after recouered, and liued diuers yeares after that to my knowledge. How [...] these commandements were, I referre to the readers iudgement; and whether they sauoured not more of a passionate secular Prince, then of a milde spirituall Pastor.

Moreouer, the said Pope hauing created Cardinall the Deane of Toledo, Mendoza by name, a verie noble and worthie gentleman, a comely and courteous Prelate, and well beloued of many; dealt often with the said Cardinall [Page 48]to resigne his Deanrie into his hands, by reason of the in­dignitie he should be driuen into, if at any time after, he were to reside in his Deanrie according to order, by taking inferior place in the Church to the Bishop of the Diocesse, being no Cardinall; which was a thing he would not con­sent vnto, saying, they were incompatibilia, Deane and Car­dinall in one person. The Cardinall vnwilling to lose so great reuenewes by making such a resignation, thought it no sinne therein not to yeeld to his Holinesse. Pope Sixtus notwithstanding out of his absolute authoritie volens nolens depriued him of his Deanry, & bestowed it on another Spa­niard, who after Sixtus death, plaied least in sight, for feare what might befall him by some of the Cardinall his friends for accepting or seeking it. And the Pope to make his dona­tiō valid, sent Monsignore Burghesius Auditor di camera, (who sitteth now in Peters chaire) with straight commandement vnto Cardinall Mendoza, either forthwith to send the wri­tings of his Deanrie, or else to go immediatly with the said Prelate to the Castle. The Cardinall hereat sore perplexed and straightned on euerie side, making choice of the lesse e­uill, chose rather quietly, though much against his liking, to send his writings, and be depriued of his Ecclesiasticall liuing, then bereaued of his temporall life in the castle of S. Angelo; whence is hard getting foorth for any that shall en­ter therein. Many hereat muttered and murmured, iudging the commandement to sauour of great iniustice.

After this, Pope Clement in the beginning of his reigne, with more haste thē good speed, resembling likewise rather a passionate Prince then a meek Pastor, gaue order or com­mandement that a certain gentleman of Cardinall Farne­sius apprehended on Saturday before Palmsunday, should be executed the wednesday following, being the feast of the Annunciation of the blessed virgine Marie, and in the holy weeke, against all clement Christian customes and good or­der, which spare to execute any malefactor on such times: & would not hearken to any other information then that of the Gouernour, the gentlemans knowne aduersarie, no not [Page 49]of the Cardinall, who hearing thereof, with all speed po­sted from Grotta ferrata toward his Holinesse at Rome, for his seruants life: albeit in vaine, for he was inexorable, and audience would not be granted him, till the poore gentle­man had lost his head; whereupon the Cardinall being of­fended, departed, and refused to come to the Court for the space of a moneth after. Was this apprehension and execu­tion for any hainous crime trow ye? Thus stood the case. Cer­taine Sbirri or Sergeants, were sent from the Gouernour to the pallace of Cardinall Farnesius (he being absent twelue miles off, at Grotta ferrata) to apprehend some other of his familie of baser condition, who finding the partie in the open Court together with one of his fellowes, they laide hands on him: the partie and his fellow, and the two Sbirri striuing and strugling each with other, an English mastife dogge, whereof the Cardinall made great reckoning, fell on the Catchpols of himselfe, and the meane while they gat out of their hands. The sayd gentleman seing this stir, came to them, and demanded how they durst be so bold to make such an attempt in that place, and whether they knew where they were, and in whose house, which (being priuiledged as a sanctuarie) ought better to be respected of such as they were, and such like words. The Sbirri de­parted with complaint to the Gouernour, who hasteneth to the Pope, and informeth him in such sort, as the gentle­man by his commandement was presently taken, and exe­cuted as is aboue said: and so should the dog bene hanged too if he could haue bene found, but he was secretly con­ueyed away. And this loe was the crime for which he lost his life, as was bruited and knowne through all the citie, and was besides told me by such of the family as had reason not to be ignorant of the businesse: at which fact many grudging said, The Pope might more fitlie haue bin called Leo then Clement.

Well, if for relating these truths any man be offended, let him blame certaine silie soules whose fond importunitie hath vrged me thereto, for that they thinke, and will some­time [Page 50]say, that the Pope his actions are irreprehensible, he cannot commit a mortall sinne, nor command vniustly; as if he were more then a mortall man, halfe a God, or so con­firmed in grace that he could no way erre, as was the Mo­ther of God. But the more prudent sort will easily grant that he is a man, subiect to humane infirmities, and not so confirmed in grace as that he cannot erre in his morall acti­ons; that is a priuiledge they know rather proper to the Mother of God, then common to Christs Vicars, which (if I be not deceiued) was neuer yet granted to any of them. Marie some of these, prudentes apud semetipsos, dare boldlie auouch, that if Peters successour shal at any time excommu­nicate a Prince fallen into schisme, heresie or apostacie, or other crime adiudged by him to deserue so to be censured, and thereupon depriueth him of his Regall scepter, depo­seth him of all temporall dominion, and disposeth of his ter­ritories to some other whom he shall iudge better to de­serue the same; or authoriseth subiects to raise tumults and take armes against such a one, and absolueth them of their fidelitie and natural allegiance, or inciteth other neighbour Kings and Princes by mightie power, to inuade his domi­nions, or finallie whatsoeuer he command in this or the like sort, they are bound forthwith to obey him and his sentence, what perill soeuer may fall vnto them for it; though by so doing they are to lose their liues who (as they imprudently thinke) hath in such a case so supreme autho­ritie ouer him as exceedeth all limits, & is so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot command iniustly: so omne ni­mium vertitur in vitium, this loe is the prudence of some im­prudent Catholickes, who headlonglie without due consi­deration runne on themselues, and animate others to run through ouer blind obedience to their vtter destruction; but this point of obedience resteth now to be more largely discussed.

It cannot be denied but that obedience is a morall ver­tue (whereas it is a part of iustice, whose office is to render to euery one that which is his:) the speciall obiect of which [Page 51]is the secret or expresse precept of the superiour, to whom e­uery inferiour, both by the law and ordinance of God and nature, ought in all things lawfull, not to be refractarie, but subiect & obedient. Yet it may so happen againe, that for two respects a subiect or inferiour may not be bound al­way to obey his superiour: the one is by reason of the pre­cept of a higher power commanding contrary, as vpon that of S. Paul, Qui potestati resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acqui­runt: Rom. 13. They that resist power, the same get to themselues damnation. The Glosse saith, Si quid iusserit Curator, &c. Ang. in ser. 6. de verbis Do­mini, to. 10. If the Curator, or gouernour, command and thing against the Proconsul, art thou to do it? Againe if the Proconsul com­mand thee one thing, and the Emperour an other thing, is it to be doubted that contemning the one, thou art to serue and obey the other? Then if the Emperour one thing, and God command an other, thou art bound to obey God and not the Emperour. So semblably if the Pope command one thing, and the holy Ghost in Scriptures an other, who doubteth which is to be obeyed or disobeyed? The other is, when the superiour commandeth any thing wherein the inferiour is not subiect vnto him, exceeding the limits of his power: all power whatsoeuer vnder the cope of heauen being contained within certaine limits, which no power­able person is to exceede.

Here if any obiect S. Paul, teaching children and seruants to obey their parents and maisters in all they cōmand: Coloss. 3. Filij obedite parentibus per omnia: and, Serui obedite per omnia do­minis carnalibus: children, obey your parents in all things; &, seruants, obey in all things your carnall maisters: therefore the Pope is to be obeyed in all things. I answer them, that it is to be vnderstood, in all things that appertaine to the right of parents & maisters, and as farre as they haue power to command; as maisters their seruants in seruile things, Tho. 2.2. q. 104. c. 5. and parents their children in domesticall affaires belonging to their paternall care: for neither can they command such as are vnder them to keepe virginitie, or to marry, or to enter into religion, to go in pilgrimage, or such like; if they [Page 52]should, the inferiour is not bound to obey. No more can the Pope, albeit he hath plenit udinem potestatis in Ecclesia, iustly command any thing wherein he hath no power, nor any persons which are not subiect vnto him: for that none is to be reputed a superior, Tho. 2.2. q. 67. ar. 1. but in respect of them, ouer whom as ouer subiects he receiueth power, whether he hath it ordi­nary, or by commission. Neither are Religious men, who vow obedience to their superious, bound of necessity to o­bey them in all whatsoeuer lawfull things they command, (albeit in way of perfection they may) but onely in such as appertaine to their regular conuersation, or according to their rule which 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 [Page 53]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 [Page 54]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 [Page 55]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. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. it a quoque non esse idem Pontificatum & Imperium, nec vnum ab alio absolute pendere. Note that euen as the Sunne and Moone are not one and the same planet, and as the Sunne did not institute or appoint the Moone, but God: so like­wise the Papacy and Impery are not one and the same, nor the one do absolutely depend of the other. By these two great lights Sun and Moone, Cap. Solitae de maiorit. & obedien. Pope Inocentius interpreteth to be meant two dignities, which are Pontificall authority, and Regall power.

Moreouer this distinction of these two great powers, that ancient and renowmed Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to Constantius the Arrian Emperour most mani­festly sheweth: L. 2. de liber Christ c. 2. whose sentence is related in an Epistle of ho­ly Athanasius in this manner: Tibi Deus imperium commisit, Atha. ep. ad solit. vitam agentes. nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit: & quemadmodū, &c. To you God hath committed the Empire, to vs he hath deliuered those things which belong to the Church: and euen as he that with malignant eyes carpeth your Empire, contradi­cteth the ordinance of God, so do you also beware, lest, if you draw to you such things as belong to the Church, you be made guiltie of a great crime. Giue, it is written, Math. 22. Mar. 12. to Cae­sar those things which are Caesars, and to God those which belong to God. Therefore neither is it lawfull for vs in earth to hold the Empire; nor you ô Emperour, haue power o­uer incense and sacred things. Thus this learned Bishop, and renowmed in the first Councell of Nice. In cap. Inqui­sitioni de sen. excom. Hereupon Innocen­tius the third, and Panormitan conclude, that laickes are not bound to obey the Pope in those things that are not spiri­tuall, [Page 56]or which concerne not the soule, as they speake: but onely in those places which are subiect to his temporall iu­risdiction. That these two powers are independent of each other, and the temporall not subordinate to the spirituall, but, since the comming of Christ, separate, and so distingui­shed by their proper acts, offices and dignities, that the one may not vsurpe the right and power of the other without iniurie to each other, Pope Nicolas the first, plainly witnes­seth in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour; as appeareth also in the Canon law; Can cum ad verum. ventū est, dist. 96. Barcl. de po­test. Pap. c. 13. L. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 3. which you may reade in D. Barclai of worthie memorie, in case you can get it. Which place I may not pretermit to note vnto you as it is set downe in Cardinall Bellarmine: Idem mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus Iesus, sic actibus proprijs, & dignitatibus distinctis of­ficia potestatis vtrius (que) discreuit, &c. The same Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Iesus, hath so seuered the offices of both powers, by proper acts and distinct digni­ties, that both Christan Emperours for eternall life, should haue neede of the chiefe Bishops, and the chiefe Bishops for the course of temporall things onely, should vse Imperiall lawes. Here (saith the Cardinall) the Pope speaketh not of the onely execution, but of power and dignitie, &c. For whatsoeuer Emperours haue, Pope Nicholas saith, they haue it from Kings and Emperours this execution, as being him­selfe chiefe King and Emperour, or else he cannot? If he can, then is he greater then Christ: if he cannot, then hath he not in deed Regall power. This he: Who in the same chapter bringeth Pope Gelasius to this purpose. Duo sunt (inquit) Imperator Auguste, Gelas. ep. ad Anast. Imp. Decret. dist. 96. Can. Duo sunt. quibus principaliter mundus hicregitur, Au­thoritas sacra Pontificum, & Regalis potestas, &c. There are two things O noble Emperour, whereby principally this world is gouerned, the sacred authoritie of Bishops, and Regall power, &c. Where it is to be noted (saith Bellarmine) that Gelasius speaketh not onely of the excution, but of the verie power and authoritie, lest our aduersaries say (as they are accustomed) that the Pope hath indeed both powers, but [Page 57]committeth the execution to others. That the ends likewise of these two powers are different, the Cardinall confesseth, saying, that the politicall hath for her end temporall peace, and the Ecclesiasticall eternall saluation. And hereto agree­eth Nauarre in Relect. cap. Nouit do iudic. nu. 90. Nauar. By this now is apparent that these two powers, their ends, offices, and dignities are distinct and separate from each other.

If then the one command any thing which appertaineth not to his power, or wherein he is not superiour, it is a ge­nerall rule (as Cardinall Tolet noteth) that such a one is not of dutie to be obeyed: Tolet. de 7. peccatis mort. c. 15. Ʋnicuique superiori (saith he) obedi­endum est ex obligatione, in his tantum in quibus est superior. And the inferior dischargeth well his dutie, if he promptly obey in those things wherein he is inferior; as a seruant in seruili­bus, such as appertaine to a seruant: and for this citeth Pope Innocentius cap. Inquisitioni de sent. excom. Whereupon, if the Pope should (in virtute obedientiae) command any man to giue away his vineyard or house, or sell his patrimonie (as Bellocchio cupbearer to Sixtus 5. would haue had the Pope by his Breue to command a subiect of his to do, because the poore mans land lay commodiously for him, and pleased him ( Naboths case:) which his Holinesse refused to do, an­swering, he could not, he might do no mā wrōg,) or a clear­gie man to resigne his benefice with cure to some vnworthy person, which is against a diuine precept, he is not to be o­beyed, as the same author affirmeth in the chapter aforesaid. And alledgeth Panorm. in cap. Inquisitioni de sent. excom. and Io. Andr. c. Cum à Deo de rescript. Much lesse is any n="a" Cap. litteras de rest. spoliat superior, yea the Pope himselfe to be obeyed (according to n="b" Cap. Inqui­sit. &c. Panor­mitan) commanding any sinne, though but n="c" 11. q. 3. can. Quid ergo. veniall. And n="d" Verbo o­bedientia, nu. 5. Syluester: Intellige etiam si Papa credit mādatum iustum, & ta­men subdito constat illud in se continere peccatum: Vnderstand, although the Pope beleeueth his mandateto be iust, but yet the subiect knoweth it contains a sin. de restit. spol. lit. Here may be noted, that the Pope may hold one opinion, and an inferiour may hold the contrarie, and more true, without sinne. Yea and a Bishop, in case the Pope should command [Page 58]him to be absent from his residence without some necessitie, he is not bound to obey; because (saith Tolet) cum abs (que) causa rationabili aliquid praecipitur, Instruct. sacer l. 5. c. 4. nu. 3. non debemus audire. When any thing is commanded without reasonable cause, we ought not to obey, for it were more then is due. And the same Car­dinall in another place faith thus: Li. de 7. pec. mort. c 15. Nullus obligatur obedire suo superiori in actibus interioribus puris, puta intellectus & volun­tatis. No man is bound to obey his superior in pure interior acts, to wit, of the vnderstanding and will. Who explica­teth himselfe; If a superior say vnto his inferior, Loue thine enemie, See. S. Tho. More epist. ad filiam. or this man in particular; or else, beleeue this or that opinion, the inferior is not bound to beleeue it, nor to obey: because (saith he) the soule is subiect only to God. And for proofe alledgeth Saint Thomas, whose words are: In his quae pertinent ad interiorem motum voluntatis, 2.2. q. 104 art. 5. homo non tenetur homini obedire, sed solum Deo. In such things as appertaine to the inward motion of the will, a man is not bound to obey another man, but onely God. And this he affirmeth to be the common doctrine. Out of these cases you may gather, and secure your conscience, that a superiour, yea Christs Vi­car the Popes Holinesse, may be disobeyed without scruple of sinne, (modo absit contemptus) notwithstanding his com­mandement prohibiting the Oath of allegiance: because no man can force any to beleeue that which is matter onely of opinion, not of faith formally, vnlesse his vnderstanding be first conuinced, that it is an infallible truth which is com­manded. And this of the Oath being an inward act of the vn­derstanding, is not subiect in that case to the commande­ment of any man, according to the doctrine of the Authors aforesaid. And furthermore, by obeying his Holinesses Breues, and disobeying his Highnesse law in a matter as yet vndetermined; great damage to many is more then likely to ensue, and infinite scandals, to the losse of soules, to arise in the Church; which euerie Christian man and good sub­iect is bound to auoide. Qui amat periculum, peribit in illo. He that loueth danger shall perish in it. And, Qui causam damus dat, damnum dedisse viderur. It seemeth he doth the hurt, that [Page 59]giueth cause thereof. If this satisfie you not, lend me a pa­tient and diligent eare, and you shall heare more.

If I shew you by the authoritie of the Sea Apostolicke, that his Holines, who sitteth now at the sterne, Paulus Quin­tus, forbidding all Catholickes to take the Oath of allegi­ance, is not therein to be obeyed, I trust you will require no other testimonie; but beleeue it to be lawfull, and resolue not to hazard your estates for refusing it hereafter. Marke then what a learned Cardinal writeth of Innocentius 3. Pope: Eleganter dicit Innocentius de sent. excom. cap. Inquisitioni, Franciscus de Zabarel. de schismat. quòd Papae non est obediendum quando vehementer praesumitur statum Ecclesiae perturbari, vel alia mala ventura. Et peccaret obedien­do, cum deberet futura mala praecauere. Elegantly saith Inno­centius, that we are not to obey the Pope when there is ve­hement presumption that the state of the Church is to be perturbed, or other euils are like to ensue. And in obeying, a man should sin, when as he ought to preuent future euils.

Now tell me, I pray you, or let our domesticke aduersa­ries, or such as are inwardly perswaded, that the Pope can­not, by any authoritie deriued from Christ, dethrone Kings directly or indirectly (howbeit forsooth in policie refuse to take the Oath, and discharge their dutie to Caesar, for feare of losing friends and commodities) nor dispossesse any pri­uate man of his temporals, who is not his subiect (of which sort there are many:) let them I say, or any one of them tell me, whether by disobeying the Kings highnesse, and obey­ing the Pope in this case of the Oath, the Catholick Church in England is not like to be greatly afflicted, the memorie of the Gun-powder treason reuiued, the Catholickes mise­ries aggrauated, the heate of persecution continued and increased, whole families vtterly ruined, propagation of faith hindered, many soules lost, and a thousand euils like to follow, with manie scandals to the State and all the Realme, by reason of obeying his Holinesse Breues, if our most clement Prince with rigour vpon this their indiscreete obedience, prosecute his law, made for the securitie of him and his posteritie? The authoritie aforesaid being of a Pope [Page 60](as that Author affirmeth) censureth such a one to offend (note well) in obeying; whom? the Pope: when as he is bound to beware before hand, or preuent such future euils or dangers. Then ought not all Catholickes and good sub­iects doe what in them lieth to preuent the manifold euils that hang ouer their heads, by satisfying the Magistrate, and refusing to obey such a precept as is the only cause thereof, (for had no prohibion come from Rome, few or none had stood against the Oath) especially when as nothing hath bene yet proued by any that haue written of this subiect, since the coming of the Breues foure yea fiue yeares agone and more, to be contained in the Oath against faith?

Syluester likewise alledging Panormitane, agreeable to the former authoritic, Syluest. v [...]rb. obedieti [...]. [...]u. [...]. saith, that the Pope is not to be obeyed, not onely when his precept is iniust or sauoureth sin, but also when by such obedience it may be presumed, that the state of the Church is like to be greatly disturbed, or some other detriment or scandall is to ensue, yea although he should command vnder paine of excommunication latae sen­tentiae. Nec est (saith he) ei obediendum, si ex obedientia praesu­meretur status Ecclesiae perturbandus vehementer, vel aliud ma­lum aut scandalum fut urum, etiam si praeciperetur sub poena ex­communicationis latae sent entiae. Ʋt notat idem in cap. Si quando. & in cap. Panormit. See [...]elin. in cap. Si quādo. nu. 4. & in c. Accepimus. Cum à Deo de rescrip. And goeth forward, Ex quo ipse in dicto, cap. Si quando infert, Quod si, &c. Whereupon he in­ferreth, that if he (the Pope) command any thing vnder paine of excommunication ipso facto, by execution whereof it is presumed there will be a scandall in the citie of soules or bodies, he is not to be obeyed, &c. It followeth: Imo ex cap. Officij de poenis & remis. habetur, &c. Yea it is euident, that the positiue law interpreteth, that restitution, which is de iure diuino, sometime is not to be made, by reason of dan­ger, when it may happen to soules or bodies. then it may be wel inferred, that obedience in like case may be pernicious, and so ought not to berendered. Tolet. de 7. Pec. mort. cap 15. The same writeth Cardi­nall Tolet, citing these authors: Nulli superiori praecipienti a­liquid, &c. No superiour commanding any thing whereby [Page 61]scandall or any notable detriment of others do follow, is to be obeyed in such a precept. So say Panorm. and Syluester ver. obed. §. 5. where they say, that in this case we are not to obey, although the superiour command vnder paine of ex­communication: for it bindeth not quando malè imponitur, when it is iniustly imposed. Emmanuel Sa likewise: Obedi­endum non est cum creditur inde malum oriturum: Aphoris. Sa ver. obedien. When it is thought euill may come by obeying, we are not to obey. Againe, He is not bound to obey, that thinketh the supe­riour commandeth vpon error (as being misinformed,) and that if he knew the truth, he would not command: and also, that superiours by their generall edicts intend not to bind with great detriment. This Sa. And had not Catholickes I pray you, before the Popes second Briefe, iust cause to be perswaded, that the Breues were procuted by sinister sug­gestions and wrong informations of some ouer-hastie and busie person? and that if his Holinesse had had true and par­ticular notice by some other true harted subiect, how things stand with them have in England, what perturbations they might breed in the Church, and what losse and detriment was vndoubtedly to fall on such as should obey them, and thereby refuse the Oath, that he would neuer haue granted forth the said Breues in maner and forme as he did; nor when he had granted them, intended to bind Catholickes to obey to their so great detriment and damage? For that were addere afflictionem afflictis; which kind of crueltie is not to be thought can proceed from that holy Sea. And this may suffise for answer to the point, so much stood vpon by many inconsideratly precise, of obeying or disobeying the Popes Breues prohibiting the iust Oath of allegiance. How­beit a word or two more may not be omitted, vt obstruatur os loquentiū iniqua, to flop the mouth of standerous tongues; and to answer a fond, or rather strong argument, as some thinke and say, that in dubijs (as is the Popes power of de­posing Princes, in their opinions) we are to haue recourse to the Sea of. Peter for solution, and there to learne what is truth to be embraced, what is errour to be auoided. Yea, [Page 62]what is there decided, the Church is bound to beleeue, though it be that vertue is euill, and vice good; as Cardinal Bellarmine formerly hath taught (strange doctrine; Lib. 4. de sum. Pont. cap. 5. §. Vltimo.) but now in his late Recognition retracted, saying, that he spake of doubtfull acts of vertues or vices. For if in the old law, the decision of difficult and doubtfull questions and ambigui­ties inter sanguinem & sanguinem, causam & causam, Deut. 17. lepram & lepram, were granted to the Priests of the Leuiticall stocke, and to the Iudge that should be for the time: much more to the Priests of the new law, and to Christs Vicar, the chiefe Iudge and interpreter in all Ecclesiasticall controuer­sies. Therefore in this case of the Oath now controuerted, Catholickes are to require no more but his bare precept; and whosoeuer disobeyeth it, taking the oath, sinneth dead­lie. This, some wise in their owne conceits, and learned in the estimation of others, haue said and taught, howsoeuer otherwise verie inconstant in their opinions & iudgements; but how prudently, charitably, or learnedly, let the discreet reader iudge. These haue forgotten who it is that saith, No­lite iudicare, & non iudicabimini: Luc. 6. nolite condemnare, & non con­demnabimini. And what S. Thomas teacheth: Ecclesia non debet praesumere de alique peccatum, Supplem q. 47. ar. 3. quousque probetur: The Church ought not to iudge any of sin, till it be proued. Indeed if the Popes precept were such as S. Iohn Euangelist recom­mended, and often inculcated to his Disciples at his depar­ture out of this world, Hieron. lib. descrip. Eccles. which was, as S. Hierome writeth: Fi­lioli diligite alterutrum, Little children loue ye one another; then (as he said) vpon their tediousnesse of hearing it so oft repeated, Praeceptū Domini est, & si solum fiat, sufficit: It is our Lords precept, and if it only be done, it sufficeth; then I say, we should not need to diue farther in seeking reasons, but simply to obey, quia praeceptum Papae est, because it is the pre­cept of the Pope: but by reason of the infinite difference betweene the commanders and the commandements, we must craue pardon if we say, Et si solum fiat, non sufficit: if in this case of the Oath, there be but his bare precept, it is not sufficient.

Touching the other point, I must needes confesse that in obscurities, and doubtfull questions, and difficulties in the Law of Christ, all Christians are to repaire to him that sitteth in Peters chaire for the light of interpretation and true solution thereof: as S. Hierome did to Pope Damasus, Hieron. ep. ad Damasum. desiring, if he had erred in his writings, to be corrected by him. Also Athanasius in his distresses appealed to Foelix and Iulius Popes of Rome. S. Iohn Chrysostome to Innocentius, Coste rus in Enchir. de sum. Pont. Calendion of Antioch to Pope Foelix: and other ancient Fa­thers in their distresses and difficult causes were wont al­way to seeke for succour and redresse of the Pope of Rome then being: but in cases perspicuous, wherin are no ambi­guities or doubts to be made, against which nothing was euer formally decreed in any generall Coūcell, nor by any ancient Father taught, but is most plaine and euident in holy Scriptures, and as cleare as the Sunne in the firma­ment: that needeth not. And such is the duty of inferi­ours to superiours, of subiects to their lawfull Princes, of children to parents, of rendring to Caesar that is Caesars, and so forth: for which there is an expresse commandement from the Highest, wherein no power created can dispence or iustly command the contrary. Which if any should at­tempt to do (as his Holinesse seemeth to haue done in pro­hibiting the Oath of allegiance) it may well be by a Ca­tholik English subiect in all humilitie and reuerence to the Sea Apostolicke, yet with Christian courage answered: Non obedio praecepto Regis, sed praecepto legis. 2. Macch. 7. I obey not the precept of the King (that is, the Pope) but the precept of the law. And, Obedire opertet Deo magis quàm hominibus. Act. 5. We must obey God rather then men. To conclude, in such a case not to do as the Pope commandeth in this Breues, so there be no cōtēpt (as I haue said) of his precept, is no mor­tall sinne: ex fine enine morales actus speciem habent. See Caiet. 5. Precepti transgressio. Tho. 2.2. q. 105. [...]. 1. ad. 1. For mo­rall acts haue their formality of the end: and such disobedi­ence being materialis tantum, maketh not a deadly sinne, & cose quently no sin at al. And this much as touching obedi­ence to the Popes H. Breues. It followeth now that we treat [Page 64]briefly of a subiects dutie in this point towards his liege Lord and secular Prince.

If it must be granted that Christians by the law of God are strictly bound to obey all iust determinatiue sen­tences and decrees that proceed from the Sea Apostolicke, being the highest spirituall tribunall in Gods Church; why must it not likewise be granted that subiects, as wel Clercks as laicks, are by the same law no lesse boūd in foro cōscientiae to be obedient to the King and his iust lawes, the chiefest tribunall in the common wealth? This (I thinke) no Christian wil deny, as being most cleare and euident in holy Scriptures, taught, and practised by all ancient Fathers and holy Saints.

I confesse (you will say) that humane iust lawes haue their efficacie of binding all subiects to obey in the Court of conscience, Tho. 1.2. q. 96. ar. 4. from the eternall law of God, of which they are deriued, according to that of Salomon: Per me Reges regnant, Prou. 8 & legum conditores iusta decernunt. By me (saith God) Kings do reigne, and Law-makers decree iust things. But whether this law of the Oath (which you aime at) be such, some make doubt; for that Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus, and father Parsons in his Catholicke letter affirme, many things to be contained therein against the spirituall primacie of the chiefe Pastor, and his authoritie of binding and loosing: and concerning the limitation (to vse father Parsons owne words) of his Holinesse authoritie, to wit, what he cannot do towards his Maiestie, or his successors in anie case whatsoeuer. Moreouer, besides pro­mise of ciuill and temporall obedience in the Oath, other things are interlaced and mixt therewith, which do detract from the spirituall authoritie of the highest Pastor, at least wise indierectly, saith he. Therfore this law is iniust, as being preiudiciall to the law of God and holy Church.

Some I know will be carping at me for affirming father Parsons to be the author of that Catholicke letter; who be­ing ashamed (as may be thought) of the slender and in­sufficient clearing the important matter of the Oath, by [Page 65]foure seuerall and distinct waies according to his promise, denie that euer he wrote the same. But will they nill they, it is so well knowne to be his, and was to the Inquisition in Rome (if I haue not bene misinformed, and by a verie credible person, that heard it from a gentleman, present in the citie in his life time, and at his death) that he could not denie it; and vpon the acknowledgement thereof (whe­ther with sorrow and griefe for some points vnaduisedlie or erroneously written, and brought in question in his old age; or somewhat else in some other booke of his against Doctor Morton, touching the lawfulnesse of the Oath of Supremacie in some case, I cannot say) soone after fell sicke, and died within eight daies. But to returne to our matter. Then lawes are said to be iust, Tho. 1.2. q. 96.24. first when they are made for the common good: secondly when they exceede not his power that maketh them: and thirdly when they haue their due forme, to wit, when the burdens (or penalties) are imposed on the subiects with a certain equalitie of pro­portion, in order to the common good or vtilitie of the weale publicke, as S. Thomas noteth.

Such is this law of the Oath of allegiance, made by full authoritie in Parliament, for the conseruation of his Maie­stie and whole commonwealth in tranquillitie and peace, Tho. 22. q. 67.2.4. Innoc. 3. cap. Per venerabi­lem: Extra. Qui filij sint legitimi. which is both priuate and common good. When I say full authoritie, I meane, in temporals; for so the Prince hath, and onely in temporals in the common wealth: no lesse thē the Pope in spirituals in the patrimonie of the Church. Which law was generaly enacted for all English subiects, though principally intended as a distinctiue signe to detect, not Catholickes from Protestants, nor such as denie the Kings spirituall supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall, from the Popes spirituall primacy, as Cardinall Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth; but turbulent spirited Catholickes (and these to represse) from milde and dutifully affected subiects of the same religion: such as disliking haply in words that most horrible conspiracy of Gunpowder King-slaying, would in heart haue applauded the euent, from those who [Page 66]in affliction for their conscience, with patient perseuerance to the end, how long soeuer God permit it to continue for our sinnes, will in word and deede loue their enemies, beare wrongs without murmuring, and sincerely pray for the conuersion of their persecutors, if they haue any, fol­lowing the example and doctrine of our blessed Sauiour and his holy Apostles.

That our dread Soueraigne in setting forth this Oath by Act of Parliament, hath not exceeded the limites of his power, is manifest, in that it was framed onely for this end, that his Maiesties subiects should thereby make cleare pro­fession of their resolution, Praefat monit. Apolog. Reg. (to vse his Maiesties owne words) faithfully to persist in his Maiesties obediēce accor­ding to their naturall allegiance. And so farre was his in­tent by the same Oath to detract from the Primacy or spi­rituall authority of the Pope, of binding or loosing by Ec­clesiasticall censures or sacraments (as the Cardinall and father Parsons affirme,) that his Maiestie as it were by a most prudent preuention, Praefat. monit. to take away all scruples that might arise in Catholicke subiects consciences, tooke spe­ciall care that that clause inserted by the lower House into the Oath, which detracted from the Popes spirituall autho­rity of excommunicating his Maiestie, should be forthwith put out. And withall declared, that the vertue or force of this Oath was no other, then that the Popes excommuni­cation might not minister a iust and lawfull cause vnto his subiects to attempt any thing by open or priuie conspira­cies against his Maiestie or state. What more I pray you could he haue done for clearing this controuersie, and sa­tisfying his subiects?

If then it be so that nothing is contained in this Oath, but what appertaineth to naturall allegiance, nor more by his Maiestie required then profession of ciuill and tempo­rall obedience, which nature prescribeth to all borne sub­iects (as his Maiestie the interpreter of his owne law hath most sufficiently in his Premonition and Apologie made knowne to all by his pen) nor that he intended by interla­cing [Page 67]or mingling any thing, to detract from the spirituall authoritie of the Pope, no not indirectly, nor against the law of God, as is likewise manifest, none can iustly say he hath exceeded his limits, or that the law is vniust.

And wheras the Catholick letter hath: That there are some things (but specifying none of those some) concerning the limitation of his Holinesse authoritie (if he meane spirituall, it is vntrue) to wit, what he cannot do towards his Maiestie or his successours in any case whatsoeuer▪ That is a glosse of his owne inuention beside the text, a notorious vntruth; for there are no such words to be found in the 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 [Page 68]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, [Page 69]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 [Page 70]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, Ʋalens, 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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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 [Page 74]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 [Page 75]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 cō ­missiō & 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 quàm 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 [Page 76]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 [Page 77]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 [Page 78]not by cōstraint, but willingly according to God: neither for filthy lucre sake, but voluntarily: ne (que) vt dominā ­tes: 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, [Page 79](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 faith and religion, were most obedient to their tem­porall Gouernours, though Pagans and cruell persecutors: yea and their successors many hundred yeares after to their lawfull Princes, were they neuer so wicked heathens or he­retickes. When Saint Paul being accused of many crimes by the Iewes, appealed to Caesar, saying: Act. 25. Ad tribunal Caesaris sto, ibi me oportet iudicari: At Caesars iudgement seate do I stand, there I ought to be iudged: (because this is the place of iudgement, saith Gloss. interlin;) is it to be thought that [Page 80]he would haue said, he ought there to be iudged, if de iure he had not bene subiect to that tribunall? or that he did it for feare of death, who was ready before, not only to be bound and suffer imprisonment, but also to die in Ierusalem for the name of Iesus?

And who will iudge this holy Apostle to be so readie to commit such a crime for sauing his life, as by his doctrine and example to teach and do that which was vnlawfull to be taught or practised; to subiect against equitie, all Priesthood to the iurisdiction of a secular Prince? specially because he was not compelled to go to Ierusalem, to make a lie so preiudiciall to all the Clergie euer after. But well he knew that he was then, de iure, subiect to Caesars tribunall, being therein become an imitator of our Sauiour Christ; who in iudgement submitted himselfe to Pilate, Caesars Lieutenant; and said, that his power to iudge him was not onely permitted, Ioan. 19. but giuen from aboue. And our B. Sauiour (whose actions are our instructions) in paying tribute for himselfe and Peter as due to the Emperour, whose subiect he acknowledged to be as he was a mortall man, Math. 17. taught vs by his example that the adopted sonnes of God, ( Peter not ex­cepted) are not by the diuine law freed from subiection to secular authoritie in tributes, customes, and such like, when himselfe the naturall Sonne of his heauenly Father, King of kings, by yeelding it, shewed it to be Caesars due, and that it ought to be payed by all that after should be­leeue in him: (such excepted as by good Princes grants and priuiledges should be exempted) howbeit himselfe was not otherwise bound thereto then for auoyding scandall, for that he was the naturall Sonne and onely begotten of the King of heauen (which they knew not who exacted tribute) and therefore free.

To which purpose Saint Augustine writeth thus: Quod dixit, Ergo liberi sunt filij, &c. That he said, Therefore the children are free, is to be vnderstood, that the children of a kingdōe are in euery kingdome free, Aug. l. 1. qu. Euan. q. 23. that is, are not tributa­ries. Which S. Augustine must needs mean of a kings natural [Page 81]children; and not of the sonnes and children of God by a­doption: for so all vertuous and good Christians should be freed from paying tribute; which is absurd, and contrarie to the doctrine of Saint Paul, Omnis anima, &c. euerie soule. To this agreeth Saint Thomas: Tho. 2.2 q. 104. a. 6. ad 1. That such as are made the sonnes of God by grace, are free from the spirituall serui­tude of sinne; but not from corporall seruitude, by which they remaine bound to their temporal Lords. And such sub­iection Saint Gregorie the Great acknowledged, both by his example and doctrine, to be due to the Emperour, as to his superior in temporals; following therein no doubt the steps of all his predecessors before him. Ego autem (saith he in an Epistle to Mauritius and Augusta) indignus pietatis vestrae fa­mulus: Greg. l. 2. ep. 61. And I an vnworthie seruant of your pietie. And a lit­tle after: For to this end power was giuen from aboue to the pietie of my Lords ouer all men. If ouer all men, then ouer himselfe, though Pope, and the adopted sonne of God by grace. But some will say, that Saint Gregorie submitted himselfe of humilitie, not of dutie. Which is a great iniury and derogation to this great Doctor and blessed Saint, who was vir simplex, & rectus, ac timens Deum, Iob. 1. Reall and simple without any duplicitie, fearing more God then the Empe­rour, without all fiction or lying; knowing well what a sinne it would be to him, by such a pernicious fiction to preiudice greatly all Pontificall dignitie euer after. Old Eleazarus in the Macchabees, he knew, 2. Macch. [...]. had taught him not so by faining to leaue an euill example to posteritie, but rather to suffer martirdome as he did. And Saint Augustine saith: Aug. ser. 29. de ver. Apost. That when a man maketh a lie for humilitie sake, if he were not a sinner before, by lying he is made a sinner. Albeit Saint Gregorie were an Italian and a most noble Romane, yet are we not to imagine that his Worthinesse would once vse to any, much lesse to the Emperour, such ceremoniall complements of courtesie, as many in those parts now adayes do, and not of the menest sort: to wit, Ton seruitore, anzisono schiano divostra signoria. I am your seruant, yea, I am a base seruant or slaue of your Maistership or Worship, and other such like; when [Page 82]they meane nothing lesse: or do an vnlawfull act, for feare of the Emperour? displeasure. Saint Gregorie vndoubtedly ex animo obeyed the Emperour commanding him to send a law which he had made, into diuers parts of the world to be promulgated: which he refused not to do, albeit the law in Saint Gregories iudgement contained many things against the Ecclesiasticall libertie. In fine epist. 61. l. 2. Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, ean­dem legem per diuersas terrarum partes transmitti f [...]ci, &c. I be­ing subiect to your commandement, haue caused the law to be sent through diuers parts of the world. In the end: Ʋtro­bique ergo quae debui exolui, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi minime tacui. On both sides therefore haue I performed my dutie, (or done what I ought, which is to be noted) who haue both obeyed the Emperour, and also for God haue not bene silent what I thought. This obedience Cardinall Bellarmine against Bar­clai saith was coacted, and de facto, but not de iure. By which answer, who seeth not what an imputatiō of frailty & weak­nesse is laid on him that ought to be and was murus aeneus, & petrafortitudinis, against any power whatsoeuer that com­mandeth vniustly? A weake defence for so strong a rocke; who both in doctrine and example left a perfect patterne of a most humble Pastor, and glorious Saint burning with the fire of charitie, readie, no doubt, to haue exposed himselfe to martirdome, rather then for sauing his life to consent to a veniall sinne. A mirror may he be to his successours and all Bishops; would God he had many followers in his pro­found humilitie, which is the vertue that most exalteth Pre­late, Prince, or people to glorie. And this much of subiects duties to their Princes 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 [Page 83]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, [Page 84]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. [...]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, [Page 85]and the intreatie of Princes haue made me a trangressor of my oath; behold therefore my hand cut off (or wounded) wherewith I sware to my Lord Henrie, not trecherously to practise any thing against his life, nor his glorie. Who being ouercome, the Bishop of Ments by the Popes commandement, and with helpe of Saxons, raised an other aduersary against the Emperor, one Hermannus Knof­lock: whereupon followed likewise bloudie warres. After this, Henrie gathering his armie together, driueth the Pope into France, and setteth vp the Bishop of Rauenna against him, whom he named Clement, and so caused a schisme. This sparsim out of the history. Such like calamities are more then probable to fall on people and the Church, when Empe­rors or Kings are so violently proceeded withall; assured de­struction of many, and no hope of the correction of any by such means, is like to ensue. Was such power, trow ye, giuen by Christ to his Apostles tending to destruction, not to e­dification? No, all to edification, according to S. Paul, 2. Cor. 10. none to destruction.

Otho Frisengensis in another place of his workes, Li. 1. de gestis Frederici, c. 1. writing of the Popes excommunicating the Emperour, sheweth that Henrie 4. thought it to be such a nouitie, as he had ne­uer knowne the like sentence to be denounced against any Romane Emperor before. He liued an. 1150.

And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests, By euill kings he meaneth such as are deposed. Cont. Barcl. cap. 5. teaching that no subiection is to be yeelded to euill Kings, and though they sweare fidelitie, are not bound to performe it, to be noua haeresis, a new heresie sprung vp. Howbeit Cardinall Bellarmine will tell you, that such do­ctrine and practise began about the yeare of our Lord 700: for before that time there wanted (as he affirmeth) either necessitie or oportunitie to teach, or vse such power. By rea­son, of like, there were no hereticall Princes impugners of the true faith before that time; or that the paucitie of Chri­stian Kings to assist the weake forces of the Church against her persecutors was such, as there could be no hope to pre­uaile. As if true faith and religion (which is now, beside the [Page 86]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, Ʋalens, Ʋalentinian, 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 [Page 87]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, [Page 88]or to depriue any priuate man of his goods, Cost. in Osi­and propos. 7. as Costeru [...] a learned Iesuite, and other good Authors do hold.

Nemo Pontifex sanguinis leges tulit, hoc munu [...] Imperato­rum est, qui varia [...] poenas de haereticis scripserunt; quos bonorum spoliatione, infamia, exilio, morte, imòigne puniri iusserunt, &c. No Pope hath made lawes of life and death: this is the of­fice of Emperours, who haue written downe diuerse puni­ments for heretickes; whom they haue cōmanded to be pu­nished with losse of goods, infamie, exile, death, yea with fire, &c. He goeth on, The Pope at Rome putteth no man to death; he hath his secular Iudges, who minister iustice by the lawes of Caesar. To this agreeth Iacobus Almain: De rati­one potestatis laicae est poenā ciuilem posse infligere, Almain. de dom. nat. & ciuili. in vlt. edit. Gersonis. vt sunt mors, exilium, bonorum priuatio, &c. It belongeth to the secular power to inflict a ciuill punishment, as are death, banish­ment, depriuing of temporall goods. But the Ecclesiasti­call power cannot by the institution of God inflict any such paine: no not imprison any, as many Doctors hold; but it reacheth onely to spirituall punishment, that is, to excom­munication: and the other punishments which he vseth, ex iure purè positiuo sunt, are onely by a positiue law. Who in another place hath thus: Alm. de pot. Eccles. & laic. c. 13. & q. 1. c. 9. Christus secundum humanitatem, &c. Christ according to his humanity had greater power then the Pope hath, as to institute the Euangelicall law: neither had he his power limited to sacraments, for he could par­dō without application of sacraments: & his Vicar hath not such, but onely that which is declared in his Vicarship; for he gaue him power to remit sinnes, to preach, to giue indulgences, &c: but it is no where found that he gaue him power to institute and depose Kings: therefore by any power giuen him from Christ (note well) he hath not so­ueraigne power of iurisdiction in temporals. This he. With these may be ranked Ioannes Maior: Maior in 4. dist. 24. q. 3. Maximus Pontifex no [...] habet dominium temporale super Reges, &c. The chiefe Bishop hath not temporall dominion ouer Kings. For the contrary being granted, (saith he) it followeth that Kings are his vassals, and that he may expell them de facto out of their [Page 89]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 Eng­lād & 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 eius (que) 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 [Page 90]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 opē 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 tim [...]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 [Page 92]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 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: Quodcun (que) 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 [Page 93]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 Ʋictoria 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 [Page 94]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 [Page 95]hand: for if a Bishop a spiritual Prince of a particular church, cannot by vertue of excommunication depose his subiects, neither can the Pope as spirituall Prince ouer all.

And Ʋictora plainly saith thus, That a Bishop de iure di­uino hath power to excommunicate his subiects ex officio, Victor. de ex­com. nu. 1 [...]. and by ordinary and proper power. And what the Pope can do throughout all the world, a Bishop may also do in his Bi­shopricke, a few things excepted, as to create a Bishop. Who disagreeth not with the Cardinall in this, that a Bishop is a true Pastor in his particular Church, as the Pope is in the Catholicke and vniuersall: that he may as well excommuni­cate the subiects committed to his charge, as the Pope may all Princes and people that are sheepe of Christs fold, by the authoritie giuen to Peter in those word, Pasce oues meat. By which Christ indeed constituted him Pastor ouer his flocke, marry a spirituall Pastor, not a temporall, giuing him all authoritie necessary for that office, which was only spiritual, without coniunction of any other. By vertue then of this spirituall authoritie (the principall part for gouernment in foro exteriori, is excommunication, being grauissima poena­rum, then which none is more grieuous) no Bishop can de­priue any priuate man whatsoeuer within his Diocesse of the least parcell of his lands or goods: (that being the office of the ciuill power) how then can the chiefe Bishop depriue Kings and Princes of their crownes and dignities, the nature of this censure being all one in both?

Excommunication is defined to be separatio à commumone Ecclesiae, quoad fructum & suffragia generalia, Tho. in suppl. q. 21. ar. 1. & in 4. dist. 18. q. 2. &c. Excommu­nication is a separation from the communiō of the Church, as touching the fruite and generall suffrages. The fruite of the Church, cannot be vnderstood of the fruite of tempo­rall goods, because these are not taken away from excom­municate persons. This S. Thomas: plainly shewing, that it is beyond the nature of this censure to worke any such effect, as to take away temporall goods. And in the same qu. ar. 3. Sed quia excommunicatio est grauissma poenarum, &c. But be­causce excommunication is the greatest of all punishments, [Page 96]therefore excommunication ought not to be inflicted, no not for a mortall sin, vnlesse the offender be obstinate. Tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit, &c. For then after he shall be admonished, if he contemptuously disobey, he is reputed stubburne, and ought to be excommunicated by the Iudge, now not hauing any more to do against him. And the same Doctor disputing whether heretickes are to be tollerated, saith, That after the first and second admonition, if yet he be found obstinate, Tho. 2.2. q. 11 ar. 3. the Church not hoping of his conuersion (meaning no doubt such a one as hauing professed the Ca­tholicke faith, hath made shipwracke thereof, and fallen to heresie) prouideth for the health of others, separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; and further leaueth him to secular iudgement to be put to death. Whereby you see that in case yea of heresie, the Church can proceed no further then to excommunication after she hath declared and condemned him for his crime. Can. corripi­antur. 24. q. 3.

To this agreeth Molanus, writing of the condemnation of Iohn Husse and Hierome of Prage by the generall Councel of Constance, Mola. de fide haer. ser. l. 2. c. 2 & l. 3. c. 4. who (as he saith) hauing excommunicated, a­nathematized and condemned them for heretickes, and ha­uing no more to do with them, deliuered them ouer to Im­periall power, by which they were burnt. So that temporall punishment of heretickes, whether it be by confiscation of goods and patrimonie, or death, belongeth and is proper to the secular power, as the spirituall do to Ecclesiasticall per­sons. Which we see manifest by practise of all Christian countries, yea and out owne, that no man is to be put to death, nor lose his goods vpon excommunication, but onely by execution of the Princes law. And Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe will confesse, Bellarm. in Barcl. c. 23. that extra casum haeresit, out of the case of heresie, by vertue of the sentence of excommunication there followeth not depriuation of temporall dominion, or of particular goods, or kingdomes and princedomes: though (saith he by and by) Kings and Princes may be for iust cau­ses depriued by the Pope of their kingdome or princedome. Variously and ambiguously insinuating, that there are other [Page 97]iust causes besides heresie, but listeth not, or rather (as may be supposed) cannot set downe what they are: for as yet ne­uer were any determinately made knowne, more then such as shall be deemed worthy of depriuation, ad arbitrium Pon­tificis.

But as farre as I can see, his Grace must maintaine other causes as well as heresie; otherwise how can the deposition of Henrie, Frederick, Otho, and other Princes, be defended to haue bene lawfull, who were neuer condemned by the Church for heresie? And if there be other causes current to depriue Princes of temporals then there is for priuate men, surely the Christian princely state must needs be farre worse then the plebeian, or then if they were Heathens or Publi­cans: which were absurd; when as God the giuer of all pow­er, for correction of men, is not acceptor personarum, but mi­nistreth iustice equally or indifferently to all; all, both Prin­ces and people being populus eius, & oues pascuae eius, his peo­ple, and the sheepe of his pasture. If there be any, as me thin­keth I heare one say, that he is not yet satisfied as touching this point, but desireth to know the finall cause, nature and effects of excommunication; let him note wel what the most learned and graue Cardinall Tolet of famous memory, and others write thereof.

Est autem excommunicatio Ecclesiastica censura, Tolet. Lib. 1. instruc. sacerd. c. 4. nu. 1. qua homo Christianus bonis fidelium communibus priuatur. Excommuni­cation is an Ecclesiasticall censure, whereby a Christian man is depriued of the common goods of the faithfull. Which goods, he faith arc three: 1. externall conuersation, consi­sting in mutuall talke and societie. 2. participation of sacra­ments: 3. prayers and suffrages of the Church. And these in his opinion, are not so much the effects, as the very nature and substance of excommunication. The end whereof, Lib. 1. c. 11. n. 1 Li. 1 c. 10. n. 14. with­out controuersie, is the good and vtility of man, that he may repent, and conuert himselfe to good, as he saith; Cap. Medici­nalis de sent. excom. in 6. Decret. 2. par. 24. q. 3. cap. 36 when as excommunication is medicinall, not mortall; instructing, not plucking vp by the roote. Which agreeth with the Epi­stle of Pope Ʋban, set downe in the Canon law: Liquido ap­paret [Page 98]aliud esse excommunicationem, aliud eradicatiouem, &c. It euidently appeareth, that excommunication is one thing, eradication another. For he that is excommunicated (as the Apostle saith) to this end is excommunicated, that 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 eru [...]? Is a King more like to be forsaken then a paterfamilias, a priuate man? Almaine saith indeede, Alm. de pot. Eccl. & laic [...], 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 cōfesse 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 lamē ­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 [Page 100]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 repētance 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, [Page 101]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 taken without deniall of their faith: neuer shew­ing them any particular point, which it is; for to say truth they cannot. So then their bare word must be beleeued as an oracle; or else in fine with a bat they will beate men downe, The Popes commandement; not hauing ought else to say, which may conuince. It may be admired they make no more conscience in such an important businesse as this is, not hauing the Churches definition, nor ancient Fathers approbations for their assertions. After all, some burst forth in most vncharitable railing & slanderous back­bitings against such priests as in conscience haue perfor­med their dutie in taking it, and persist in teaching the lawfulnesse thereof; withdrawing friends, and charitable almes from them, counselling some, and commanding o­thers, not to resort vnto them; as I haue bene credibly told by some that haue themselues bene forbidden, and much more such like dealings which shall not be here rehearsed.

Ignosce illis Deus, quia nesciunt quid faciunt. These ought not to be the proceedings neither of good subiects, nor of discreete guides of mens soules, or true disciples of Christ, who are made knowne to all by a notorious cognisance, commonly called loue or charity, giuen by our Sauiour Christ. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, Ioan. 13. si dilecti­onē habueritis Adinuicem. In this all men shal know that you are my disciples, if you haue loue one to another. Which badge were to be wished more visible then it is, in some that pretend to be true followers of Christ.

Now to the authoritie of S. Paul may be answered, that an hereticke so taken, condemned, and denounced by the [Page 102]Church, is to be auoided in his heresie, to be taken heed of that he be not seduced by him; haeresis enim serpit vt cancer, for heresie creepeth as a canker: and in humane conuersa­tion also, when there is hope to reduce him thereby to a better mind: Vt spiritus saluus sit. But as no Catholike is by the lawes of this realme to be accompted a Recusant till he be conuicted: so is none by the lawes of the Church to be reputed an hereticke to be auoided, till he be by her admo­nished, condemned and denounced for such; which is ne­uer without pertinacie in heresie. And what maketh this for them that say we denie the Popes authoritie? God for­bid that I (by his grace) a Catholicke priest, should euer denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate any, Prince or people, that were once incorporated into the bo­dy mysticall of Christ by Baptisme: but as I haue denied ex­communication of her owne nature to extend to deposi­tion and taking away of temporals; so I may not grant that euery excommunicate person is to be abandoned of all, and debarred of all humane society and conuersation. Though humane communication, esteemed one of the common goods, is found also among the faithfull, as to eate together, to salute, to talke? negotiate, and such like; yet this sort of communication belongeth not to them properly as they are Christians and members of the Church, but as they are citizens & parts of the body politick. And as they are such, they are bound to adhere vnto the head of this body their Prince, not to forsake, but obey him in all iust ciuill causes, notwithstanding any sentence of excommunicatiō, as hath bene proued before out of Syluester, Panormitan, & others; which is not to deny the Popes power.

No? if you reade Tortus and beleeue him, I know you wil change your opinion; for vpon those words: That the Pope neither of himselfe, nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, hath any power or authority to de­pose the king, &c. or to discharge any of his subiects of their allegiance and obedience to his Maiestie, &c. He writeth thus. Tor [...]us par. 3. Here it is manifestly seene, that this Oath doth not [Page 103]containe onely ciuill obedience in things meerely tempo­rall, as the Authour of the Apologie (our Soueraigne) so oft hath repeated; but it containeth also a denyall of the Popes power, which is not a thing meerely temporall, but a holy thing and giuen from aboue, which no mortall man can take away or diminish.

It is strange that his Maiesties oft repetition of a truth, nothing to be contained in the Oath, or required, but ciuil obedience, seemeth irkesome to the Cardinal, it being very necessary whē men will not vnderstand, but his Grace goeth not about to disproue it. And who I pray you is a better in­terpreter of a law when doubts or difficulties arise, then he that made the law? If it containes a deniall of the Popes po­wer, his Grace should haue done well to haue proued it, and shewed wherein. Though the Cardinall for many respects ought of me (somtime not vnknown vnto him) highly to be reuerenced, and his writings credited; yet in this matter to me most cleare, I must craue pardon if I differ from him in opinion, and write otherwise: not being able, after study and diligent search of this matter, to see it so manifest as his Grace wold make his reader beleeue. It is most manifest the ancient Fathers neuer taught so, viz. to be in the Popes po­wer to depose Kings, nor discharge subiects of their loyaltie and dutifull obedience; the Church neuer yet defined it so: can I then be so credulous to beleeue his bare word with­out better proofe? His ipse dixit in this will not be sufficient. The other florish to leade away a simple and inconsiderate reader; forsooth, that the Popes power is spirituall, a holy thing, from heauen, &c. is somewhat vainely and to no pur­pose inserted: for no Catholicke denieth it, and we that haue taken the Oath of allegiance are readie with Gods grace if need were, to shed our bloud in defence therof and euerie point of Catholicke faith, albeit we suffer disgraces, and neuer receiued temporall benefite, nor euer tooke oath, vs (que) ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiuè, so to do, as the most illustrous and most reuerend purple Fathers are accustomed to take, when in publicke consistory they receiue their hats.

The Cardinall in Tortus goeth on further, to prooue by subsequent words in the Oath, that the Popes spirituall po­wer is denied; Parag. 4. which were enough to terrifie Christian sub­iects, if it were true. The words are these: Also I do sweare from my heart, that notwithstanding any declaration, or sentence of excommunication or depriuation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope, or his successors, or by any authoritie de­riued or pretended to be deriued from him, or his Sea against the said King, his heires or successours, or any absolution of the said subiects from their obedience; I will beare faith and true allegiance to his Maiestie, his heires and successors.

Here saith the Card. is openly denyed that the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings, though they be heretikes. Note his proofe. For how (saith he) can a Catholicke law­fully and iustly sweare, that he will not obey the Pope ex­cōmunicating an hereticall king, vnlesse he beleeue that an hereticall king cannot be excōmunicated by the Pope? Nay here in our Oath (with due respect to his Grace be it said) is neither openly, no nor couertly denied that the Pope hath power to exōmmunicate Kings, though they be here­tikes, as the Cardinall beareth his reader in hand: I maruaile he wold in such wise adde vnto, & thrust into the text of the Oath that which no man, no nor himselfe can find therein. For let it be well viewed and considered, it will presently appeare that there is no mention at al of the Popes excōmu­nicating Kings, though they be heretiks, or heretical Kings; but onely, if he should excommunicate our King, and ab­solue his subiects from their obedience, yet I will beare true faith and allegiance to his Maiestie. What sincere dealing is this? Such glosses or wilfull additions are but manifest cor­ruptions of the text, which ought not to be vsed by any that professe sincerity & truth. So this makes nothing against vs, but rather against himself. Then he cometh with his needles minor, which no Catholick denieth: But power to excōmu­nicate is intrinsecall to the Apostolicke primacie, and vnse­parable from it, when as our Lord said to Peter as to the first spirituall Primate: Math. 16. Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde vpon [Page 105]earth, shall be bound also in heauen. What is this to the purpose? What Catholicke that hath taken the Oath will denie it? It is not vnlike to one that frameth an aduersarie in the aire to fight withall.

If French Catholickes be demanded, what they will do in this case, if the Pope should excommunicate their King, and discharge his subiects of their obedience? they will forthwith answer, that notwithstanding any monitions, ex­cōmunications, or interdicts, they will not forsake, but obey their King in temporals, from which obedience they can­not be absolued or dispenced withall by the Pope; as is in de­cretis Ecclesiae Gallicanae, lib. 2. cap. 1. Nay they will bring cer­taine priuiledges for them and their King against the Popes censure of excommunication: yet these like good Catho­lickes will beleeue that he hath power to excommunicate an hereticall King.

So in our case a man of any iudgement may clearely see, it is neither openly nor couertly, explicitè nor implicitè denied, but plainely granted of such as take the Oath, that the Pope may excommunicate, albeit vpon iust cause adhering to his Prince he obey not the sentence. I aske, if his Holinesse in Rome should determine to create some Priest or Prelate, Cardinall or Bishop; and he of humilitie or for some other cause best knowne to himselfe, notwithstanding the Popes determination, refuse to accept of the dignity, ( Quis est hic, & laudabimus eum? Who is he, and we will commend him?) doth it follow that therefore he denieth the Pope to haue power to conferre those dignities on them? Or if a King be pleased to extend his mercie toward an offender condem­ned to die, granting him a pardon; can it be said, though he list not to accept thereof, notwithstanding the Kings grant, for that he hath a shrewd wife that maketh him wearie of his life, or for some other cause, that he denieth the King to haue power to pardon his offence? It may be admired that one so excellently learned will argue so weakely. None would haue thought but the booke bearing the name of Mattheus Tortus, had bene in deed his Chaplains, not the [Page 106]Cardinals, had not his Grace discouered himselfe in his an­swer to our Kings Apologie. Whosoeuer saieth or sweareth, that notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication, yet he will beare true faith and allegiance to his Prince, no way denieth it, but supposeth such a sentence to be, or to haue bin. When the Pope in his writings putteth this clause: Non obstantibus constitutionibus Apostolicis contrarijs quibuscun­que. Notwithstanding any contrary Apostolicall constitu­tions whatsoeuer, &c. as in the Briefe of Paulus the fifth to maister George Birket, dated 1. Febr. 1608. or in others, Non obstantibus priuilegijs quibuscunque, &c. Notwithstanding whatsoeuer priuiledges: Is it not manifest that such priui­ledges, or Apostolicall Constitutions are supposed to be, or might haue bene before granted? So in our case none de­nieth the Popes excōmunication, but chuseth vpō iust cause to adhere to his Prince, notwithstanding the sentence of ex­communication against him, which he presupposeth to be, or else may be granted. If any will say, There can be no iust cause to adhere and obey his Prince if he be excommunica­ted, it were ridiculous, and false, as all writers affirme, some cases being excepted, whether he be excommunicated à iu­re vel ab homine. Vict. de ex­com. nu. 10. Cum omnibus excommunicatis (saith Ʋictoria among the rest) quocunque modo sint excommunicati, &c. With all excommunicate persons, in what sort soeuer they are ex­communicated, it is lawfull to participate in these things which are contained in this verse: Vtile, lex, humile, res ig­norata, Tolet. l. 1. inst. sacer. c. 11. n. 7 Nauar. Ench. c. 27. n. 26. Tho. 4. dist. 18. ar. 4. necesse. Nauarre likewise: Regulariter participans, &c. Ordinarily he that communicateth with one that is ex­communicated with the greater excommunication, incur­reth the lesser: yet it faileth in these, Ʋtile, lex, &c. The de­claration of which words he that vnderstandeth Latin may see in the same place of Nauarre, in Caietans Summe, Ema­nuel Sa, and other Authors.

Now who is so simple as to thinke that a wife is bound to abandon her husband, and not to participate with him; children to forsake their fathers, seruants their maisters, and not communicate with them in domesticall affaires, if they should be excommunicated?

If it be lawfull for such, (as it is by lex and humile) why not also for subiects to communicate in all ciuill causes with their Prince, there being absolute necessitie, besides vtile and humile to warrant them so to do, according to the rule as it is in Nauarre, Quod non est licitum in lege, necessitas facit licitum? What is not lawfull in the law, Nau. Ench. c. 27. nu. 35. necessitie maketh lawfull.

It is not vnknowne that Henrie the fourth, the late French King, obtaining the Crowne of France when he was yet an hereticke, relapsed, and de facto excommunicated by the Pope, required an Oath of fealtie of the Clergie of Paris, for the better securitie in his dominions, as by their records do appeare: whereupon the chiefe of all the learned Do­ctors and faculties, both of the secular and religious Clergie of that citie, willingly without delay performed their dutie, taking a corporall oath of fealtie and true allegiance to his Highnesse notwithstanding the Popes excommunication, with promise to assist him to their power against all leaguers whatsoeuer (among which his Holinesse at that time was one) that should machinate or attempt any thing against his person, hinder his peace and quietnesse, or raise armes to the disturbance of him or his people, &c. This they so ver­tuous and learned did with their Prince without resistance, as knowing it to be their dutie so to do; and his case to be farre different from that of our Soueraigne (who was neuer excommunicated, nor relapsed, or indeede hereticke, as I haue alreadie said, and could more largely proue if need were;) yet they did not then, nor euer will denie the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate. And may not the King of great Brittaine require the like of his subiects, both Cler­gie and people, and they performe the same as well as the French, without preiudicating the Apostolicall power? When Monsignore Fontana Bishop of Ferrara, knowing well the now Duke of Modina (then vsurping the title and do­minion of Ferrara) to be excommunicated by name in most parts of Italie, did notwithstanding of necessitie communi­cate with him, as a subiect with his Prince, and did refuse to [Page 108]publish it in his owne Church without the Dukes consent, notwithstanding the Popes order and commandement vnto him. Will any man say, that this good Bishop denied the Popes spirituall power to excommunicate? That were ridi­culous: or offended in disobedience? No; necessitie (if nought else) excused. So enough of this matter.

There is another knot to be vntied, which seemeth inso­luble, to wit, that I do beleeue, that neither the Pope nor a­ny person whatsoeuer, hath power to absolue me of this Oath, or any part thereof, &c. And that I doe renounce all pardons & dispensations to the contrary. Is not this a plaine denying of the Popes spirituall authoritie? Cardinall Bel­larmine in Tortus plainly teacheth me, Tortus §. 5. that he who a little before by swearing denieth the Popes power to bind, the same doth now denie his power to loose. For of those words of our Lord, Quodcunque solueris super terram, erit solutum & in coelis, all Catholicke men gather, that power belongeth to the chiefe Bishop to absolue, not onely from sins, but also from punishments, censures, lawes, vowes and oathes, when it may be expedient to the glorie of God, and health of soules.

This knot to him that vieweth it well, will not be found to haue more difficultie to vnknit, then the former of bin­ding. For as it is an vndoubted veritie, that no Bishop, no nor the Pope can by vertue of excommunication (lesse by any temporall power out of his owne territories) thrust a­ny priuate Christian man out of his possessions, who before had right thereto, and bereaue him thereof, as hath bene proued: so it is as certaine, that they can no more absolue a subiect of his dutie and naturall allegiance to his Prince, and of his oath of fealtie made vnto him, discharging him of all subiection and obedience, then they can a wife of her dutie to her husband, of childrens honoring their parents, or ser­uants their maisters, being warranted for the performance thereof by the law of God, Honour thy father and thy mother, &c. against which no power in earth can dispence nor ab­solue them, that is, release them of such dutie.

At this word Absolue, some silly soules, yea and others that would be accounted wise, are as it were scandalized, beleeuing that taking the Oath, they shall denie the Popes spirituall power of absoluing a sinner of his sinnes in foro con­scientiae, which euery Priest hauing iurisdiction may do: little considering that they are not like to confesse their sinnes to him this yeare, or euer in their life; and out of confession, his authoritie stretcheth not to remit or absolue one from deadly sinne. These in a sort resemble some good creatures that I haue noted in Italie, when they heare the Preacher in his sermon vtter this word Confiteor, will by and by knocke their breasts, thinking he is talking of confession; when as the word signifieth sometime to giue thankes. And like peo­ple of small vnderstanding, beleeue, that by renouncing all pardons and dispensations to the contrary, they must denie the Popes power of granting indulgences or pardons (as the practise is) to beades, graines, crosses, &c. and of dispensing in any case whatsoeuer, it being spirituall, as cannot be de­nied.

Here I stand ambiguous, Prou. 26. whether I should follow Salo­mons counsell or no, Responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam, ne sibi sapiens esse videatur: Answer a foole according to his fol­ly, lest he thinke himselfe wise. It shall not be haply amisse for their more satisfaction to condescend somewhat vnto such, letting them to vnderstand, that to men of any iudge­ment, it must needs be ridiculous, who know it cannot, nor ought so to be vnderstood, but onely of pardoning and dis­pencing, or releasing subiects of a lawfull Oath of fealtie and dutifull obedience to their Soueraigne. This is not spirituall power which belongeth to the Church; and therefore when such pardons and dispensations shall be offered by his Holi­nes, (as is neuer like to be) euery good subiect is bound to renounce them, as being contrary to the ordinance of al­mightie God. I aske these what they thinke, whether the Pope or any power in earth can command, absolue in this sence as we take it, or dispence against the law of God and nature? They must needs say as truth is, he cannot: and ac­cording [Page 110]to S. Thomas doctrine: In his quaesunt de lege naturae, 2.2. q. 88. ar. 10. & in praeceptis diuinis, non potest per hominem dispensari. In such things as are of the law of nature, and in diuine precepts, it cannot be dispensed withall by man. Then I inferre, and it is Barclaies argument, not solued by Cardinall Bellarmine: But subiection and obedience due to Princes and superiors, is de iure naturali & diuino: this cannot be denied, being euident in Scriptures. Therefore neither the Pope, nor any power in earth can command any thing, absolue, or dispense against it; and consequently cannot command subiects not to per­forme obedience to their Prince or superior, in that wherein he is superior: if he should, it is lawfull for them not to obey him, not to accept of such a dispensation.

We grant with the Cardinall, that it appertaineth to the Popes spirituall power to absoblue from sins, also from paines and censures; lawes, vowes and oathes; verumt amen non quid­quid libet licet, it is not meant in all lawes, all vowes, nor all oathes. No man I thinke will say, that he can absolue from the iust ciuill lawes of secular Princes; for that were in alie­nam messem falcem mittere, and to be a monarchicall superior in temporals, which is not to be admitted: but onely in his owne lawes, and the Canons, Decrees, or positiue lawes of the Church, wherein I confesse he hath plenitudinem potesta­tis: as likewise Princes haue in the commonwealth (and thereby may dispense in their owne lawes) as S. Thomas tea­cheth 2.2. q. 6.7. ar. 4. Princeps habet plenariam potestatem in re­publica. 1.2. q. 96. a. 5. ad 3. Who (according to the same in another place) is said to be 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. [Page 111]Quod quis (que) 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 [Page 112]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 [Page 113]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 is not deli­uered vs by man, but is proclaimed from God, admitteth no humane dispensation at all, neither is it lawfull for any man in any sort to absolue from these; that is, Ioan. De Tur­recrē. in can. Lector, dist 34. diuine precepts.

Such I take our Oath of allegiance to be, published and proclaimed by God, commanding subiects and all inferiors to render vnto Caesar and all superiours their due: against which no dispensation, no absolution can be of force. And herein I say not, that his Holinesse cannot dispence or ab­solue from any Oath, but from this particular Oath, where­in is nothing promised which is not manifestly law full, and [Page 114]profitable and due to him to whom it is made: and in such an Oath, S. Thomas saith, 2.2. q. 89. ar. 9. ad 3. dispensation seemeth to haue no place; because besides the obligation to Almightie God, there riseth a new to his Maiestie, which cannot be relea­sed by Pope, subiects, or any other then by himselfe to whom it is made. Neither doth the Popes power extend to the taking away of the right of a third person in matters which are not Ecclesiasticall, as Caietan affirmeth. And therefore cannot absolue a subiect from an Oath of allegi­ance to his Prince, for that it would be preiudiciall vnto him. Caiet. In 2 2. q. 89. ar. 9. Praelatus Ecclesiasticus, etiam Papa, &c. An Ecclesia­sticall Prelate, (saith he) yea the Pope, hath not in such ma­ner power ouer Oathes as ouer vowes. Because it is not in the Popes power to take away the right of a third man in matters not Ecclesiasticall, as it is in his power to change (to wit vowes) into something more acceptable to God; for that he is Gods Vicar, and is not the Vicar of that man: neither is he so ouer him as he may depriue him of his goods at his pleasure. Tolet. instr, sacer. li. 4. c. 23. nu. 3. Whereto agreeth Card. Tolet: Quan­do iuramentum, &c. When an Oath is to the vtilitie of some third person, it cannot be dispenced withall, no not by the Pope, without the consent of the third person; as also the Pope cannot take away an other mans goods. Whereto tendeth our Oath, but to the vtilitie or good of his Maiesty; and to his great preiudice would it not be, if his subiects should accept of any absolution from the same? Speculator likewise denieth that the Pope may absolue any man from a lawfull Oath, Tit. de legato §. nunc osten­dendum, n. 24. because the bond of keeping an Oath and performing it to God, is of the law of nature and diuine. By this appeareth that iust and lawfull Oathes, being such as may be preiudiciall to a third person, cannot be dispenced withall.

But the Church vseth to remit an Oath extorted by force or feare. It may be answered, that if such an Oath extorted be manifestly vniust, and would be against the law of God to be taken without force or feare; no violence or feare of losing goods or life can make it lawfull. Which doctrine is [Page 115]taught in the Canon-law, lib. 1. Decretal. de his quae vi metusue cap. 2. in glossa. and 15. c.q. 6. in glossa. & Extra. de iureiurando; that for no feare it is lawfull to incurr e a mortall sin, C. super co de vsuris. Which in another place is taught also of a veniall sinne. Therfore an Oath extorted of a thing vnlawfull, the Church vseth not to remit or release, when as no man will thinke that vnlawfull Oaths are to be kept, as hath bene said before. What say you then to lawfull Oathes, yet compelled by feare of lo­sing goods, libertie, &c?

If it be iust and lawfull which thou art required to do, why doest thou refuse to do it? and why expectest thou compulsion to make thee to performe that which in dutie thou art bound? I know thou wilt grant that a father may shake his rod, threaten to correct his child, and beate him, if of stubburnnesse will not aske blessing, or will not do his dutie by obeying him. So may the Magistrate, who carrieth the sword ad vindictam malefactorum, not onely threaten, but really punish and force thee to performance of that which is lawfull and thou oughtest otherwise to do. And God himself the patterne of good gouernment threat­neth hell fire, and punisheth seuerely the transgressors of his law with many corporall afflictions, and therby forceth many to obserue and keepe his commandements, which of loue, without any such compulsion, they ought in dutie to do. Will any hereof inferre, that the Pope or any power on earth can absolue these from performing their duty to God or man, for that it is extorted by feare? Then I conclude, that lawfull Oathes, such as are made by subiects to Princes of their fidelitie, bind in conscience, although they be forced on them by feare of punishments, and cannot be dispenced withall. To this purpose Caietan saith; that Oathes of him that promiseth, whether they be coacted or voluntarie, Caiet. in 2.2 si habent materiam bonam moraliter, do binde in the court of conscience.

Whereas some will say, that Popes haue practised this au­thorie of absoluing subiects from lawfull Oaths: it may be answered with Ioan. de Turrecrecremata, Syluester, Soto and o­thers, [Page 116]That the facts of Popes make not an article of faith. And it is one thing to do somewhat de facto, and another to determine that so it ought to be done de iure. Turrecremata speaking of vnlawfull dispensations, saith: And if it were so done at any time, by some Pope, either ignorant in diuine learning, or blinded with couetousnesse of mony, which for such exorbitant dispensatiōs is accustomed to be offered, or else to please men: it followeth not that he could do it iustly: (that was, Clement 3. dispencing with Constantia a professed Nunne, to marrie with Henrie 6. Emperor, son to Fredericke 2.) The Church is gouerned, or ought to be gouerned, by rights & lawes, not by such facts or examples. Thus you see that it is no denying his Holinesse spirituall power to say, that he cannot dispence in all lawes, all vowes, or all oathes, nor consequently absolue me of this Oath of allegiance.

How I pray you can I sweare truly (as I must if I do well) that which neuer was determined or defined by the Church, but is matter of opiniō, diuersly held of diuers learned men?

Verie well, and without sinne. And you may obserue what is commanded in holy Scripture to such as shall take an Oath; Ierem. 4. Iurabis Domino in veritate, in iudicio, & in iustitia. For then is a man said to sweare truly, that his doctrine of o­pinion, v. g. that the Pope cannot by any authoritie depose Princes, or such a thing is true; not onely when he certainly knoweth it to be so, but also when he is perswaded in his conscience vpon probable reason, Tolet. instru. sacer. l. 4. c. 21 nu. 4. Syl. verb. per­iurium & 22. q. 2. homines. and in heart thinketh it to be so as he speaketh. This Cardinall Tolet teacheth to be that sufficient truth which is required in euerie Oath. And which is more, both he, Syluester, and other hold, that to sweare a thing to be true in his opinion, which indeed is false, is no sinne at all, if he did his best endeuour and vsed due diligence to know the truth. As, if one say as he thin­keth, that Peter is dead, Greg. de Val. disp. 6. q. 7. de iuramento. and should sweare it: he neither speaketh, nor sweareth vntruly, because his words are con­formable to his interior mind. Which is sufficient accor­ding to Saint Thomas also, as Syluester noteth, to be accomp­ted truth, the principal point of an oath. The secōd is iudge­ment. [Page 117]For it is required that he who sweareth, sweare not lightly or vainely, but discreetly, vpon consideration of some necessarie or profitable cause. The third is Iustice, to wit, that it be not vniust or vnlawfull which is sworne. Which being so, how can any man be worthily reproued of sinne that taketh the Oath of allegiance, vpon a most neces­sarie & profitable cause as all know, of remouing therby an imputation of treacherie and treason, and pacifying what in him lieth his Maiesties heauie displeasure, worthily concei­ued for the most detestable Gunpowder practise: and fur­ther is perswaded, after great diligēce vsed, to be both true, at least in his iudgement, and also verie lawfull, as is a sub­iects loyaltie to his Prince? Hereupon I see no reason why this Oath may not be taken of all Catholickes without dan­ger of sin, and ought of euery good subiect being required thereto: in the wilfull refusers whereof his Maiestie hath iust cause to suspect a hidden mischiefe to lie, if euer o­portunite should serue. By this is cleare, that what a man ex animo thinketh to be true, he may truly say, yea and sweare too; it being a most certaine principle, well in reason as in diuinitie, and noted by father Parsons in his Catholicke let­ter, that what a man may truly say, he may also truly sweare: but he may truly say, that a probable opinion held & main­tained by sundry learned men Catholikes, is true, and con­tradicteth not another probable opinion taught by others as learned and as good. For example, That our blessed Lady the mother of God was free from being conceiued in ori­ginall sin: which opiniō was defined in the Councell of Basil Sess. 36. and stifly maintained by the Fransciscan family. The contrary was as earnestly defended by the Domihicans, fol­lowing the doctrine of Saint Bernard, and Saint Thomas. This controuersie grew to be so great, that they calumniated each other of motall sinne, yea of heresie, Extrau. Com. l. 3. dereliq. & vener. Sanct. c. 2. till such time as Sixtus the fourth put them to silence, as appeareth in the Canon law. Excommunicantur illi qui affirmant, &c. They are excommunicated that affirme them to sinne deadly, or to be heretikes, who defend the blessed mother of God to be [Page 118]conceiued without originall sin. In like maner they are ex­communicated, that affirme them to sin deadly, or to be he­reticks, Cost. In Osiād propofit. 2. pag. 103. Tolet instr. sac. l. 3. c. 36. nu. 12. An­tuor. 1603. who hold the contrary. The Pope knew (saith Co­sterus) that this question neuer appertained to the doctrine of faith. And Cardinall Tolet writeth thus: Neither part hath bene defined; De fide both may be holden without mortall sin, although it be much more certaine and truer, that she was conceiued without any spot, & ita nos credimus, and so we beleeue. Might not (trow ye) each of these without sin sweare their opinion was true? Yes vndoubtedly.

The like may be, that the Pope is aboue a generall Coun­cell, as was defined in the Councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth, taught and beleeued by the greater part of Di­uines at this day. Which definition of the Councell, Costerus maketh doubt, whether it were de fide, inclining to the ne­gatiue part, Cost. in Osiād pioposit; pag. 282. saying, Sed an vt negotium fidei, non parum dubi­tatur. Yet notwithstanding this definition and opinion of many learned men besides, such others as beleeue and teach a generall Councell to be aboue the Pope, are not to be re­puted heretickes, nor to sin mortally. For then are the ge­nerall Councels of Constance and Basill to be condemned, who defined it so; wherein were assembled many very lear­ned Bishops and other great Dolors: and likewise the most learned and renowmed Facultie of Paris, who art euer ready earnestly to defend it without heresie or sin. Excusan­tur ah haeresi qui aliter sentiunt, Coster. loeo citato. vt schola Parisiensis. They are excused from heresie (saith Costerus) that thinke otherwise, (to wit, then the Councell of Lateran) as the schoole of Pa­ris. And dare not these sweare (trow ye) if need were, their opinion to be true? Tho. More. Sir Thomas More likewise in his letter to Cromwell, saith: Neuer thought I the Pope aboue the ge­nerall Councell. No doubt but this holy and leaned man would haue sworne, if occasion had bene offered, that his o­pinion was true, because it was such as he thought. So may any in this our case of the Oath of allegiance, sweare no lesse truly then they, hauing good Authors, and all antiqui­tie for their opinion. Many like instances might be here [Page 119]produced of the diuersitie of doctrine betweene S. Thomas and Scotus, and their schollers, who peremptorily will de­fend their doctrine against each others, yet all agreeing in vnitate fidei: but these shall suffice.

After all this followeth another point, no lesse difficult then any of the rest of the Oath, that is: And I do further sweare, that I do from my heart abhorre, detest and abiure, as impious and hereticall, this damnable doctrine and po­fition, that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope, may be deposed or murthered by their sub­iects, or any other whatsoeuer.

Some peraduenture not duly considering what they heare or reade concerning this point of the Oath, finding the words (Pope) and (excommunicated,) perswade themselues assuredly, that to take this clause, is absolutely to renounce the Pope, and denie his power to excommunicate. Others of better vnderstanding conceiue rightly, that such autho­ritie is rather presupposed and granted to be in him, then denied: but to abiure (which in this place signifieth to de­nie with an oath) a doctrine as hereticall, that is, to sweare it is heresie, which hath not bene determined or defined by the Church, seemeth very hard and vnlawfull to be sworne. For answer, you shall first vnderstand, that a man may ab­horre, or detest a doctrine, as he would detest yea heresie it selfe, yet not affirme the doctrine which he so detesteth to be heresie. Ʋ.g. If any should detest the doctrine of S. Tho­mas and of the Dominicans, Tho. 3. p.q. 27. ar. 2. which deny the conception of our B. Lady to be free from originall sin; or that of the Sor­bons in Paris, holding peremptorily(as I haue said) a Coun­cell to be aboue the Pope; will any man of iudgement say, that the position is her esie, and they hereticks? Costerus and other learned men do cleare them from such a note, and they are still ready to defend themselues against any that shall accuse them thereof. Likewise if any abhorre drun­kennesse, detraction, sowing discord betweene brethren and friends, as he abhorreth heresie; can it be said that drun­kennesse, detraction, or sowing discord (though they be [Page 120]great sins, and abound in too too many) is heresie? it were too fond and childish. This As, signifieth here a similitude, not an equalitie. and all know, that nullum simile est idem; which may serue for one answer.

And for a second, let it be granted, that such as sweare, thinke it indeed to be heretical doctrine (albeit the Church hath not defined it so,) that Princes which be excommuni­cated or depriued by the Pope, may be deposed or murthe­red by their subiects, &c. what absurditie is like to follow? I haue already (as I trust) sufficiently proued, that neither Bishops nor the Pope, by their spirituall censure, haue au­thoritie to dispossesse any priuate man or Prince, be he ne­uer so peruerse an hereticke, of his lands, goods, or tempo­rall dominions; for that it is against the essence or nature of excommunication to worke such an effect. It is likewise proued to be against the law of God, for children, seruants and subiects to disobey their parents, maisters and Princes, commanding iustly: notwithstanding any excommunica­tion denounced against them, which is the Churches peri­od, beyond which she may not go; it being onely a depri­uing of the common goods of the Church appertaining to Christians. Now what doctrine soeuer is repugnant to Scripture, euery word thereof being de fide. may well be ac­counted heresie, and as such abhorred and abiured: for hae­resis est circa ea quae sunt fidei, Tho. 2.2. q. 11. ar.2. heresie is about those things which belong vnto, or are of faith. Such is the dutie of sub­iects to their lawfull Prince, and of all inferiors to their su­periors. Then is it heresie directly to say, that it is lawfull for subiects, or any other whatsoeuer, who is not his Iudge and superior in that kind, to murther him; it being expresly against a diuine precept, Non occides, and this saying of our Sauiour, Matth. 26. Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt: All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. By which are vnderstood all such as assume to themselues authoritie to vse the materiall for reuenge, Iansen. in [...]unc locum. before it be granted them by the Prince, who onely hath his authoritie by the diuine ordinance, which ought not to be resisted by subiects or [Page 121]others. For, as Cunerus writeth: Cun. de offic. Princip. l. 4. c. 12. Nulla pacta vel contractu [...] No couenants or contracts may preiudicate the diuine or­dinance, whereby a King hath his power, that the people at any time may take armes against their King.

And in my iudgement it may be admited, that any Ca­tholick wil stick at this point, here being no mention of the Popes deposing (that which many stand vpon,) but of sub­iects, or any other whatsoeuer; vnlesse they will ranke him among these, whatsoeuer, which ought not so to be vnder­stood. But if they will vnder this generall word vnderstand also the Pope, yet may it be said, it is heresie, to wit, May be murthered; which cannot be vnderstood but of killing vniustly, and without authoritie. If you say, that the other part, May be deposed, was neuer declared, nor adiudged he­resie, and therefore the Oath cannot be taken, because bo­num is ex integra causa, and malum ex singulis defectibus: then one part not being hereticall. how can this clause be law­fully sworne, that Princes which be excommunicated, may be deposed, to be damnable and hereticall doctrine?

This indeed is such an obiection, as in the iudgement of diuers cannot be answered, and whereupon many pretend to haue great reason to stand: but let all passion be layd a­side, lending me an indifferent care, & with Gods assistance such a solution may be framed, as shall satisfie I trust and solue the difficultie.

In our Oath, no man sweareth, nor is vrged to sweare, nor by the law ought to sweare further then the expresse words of the Oath, which are after this sort; as is also noted before, pag. 119.

And I do further sweare, that I do from my heart abhorre, de­test and abiure as impious and hereticall, What? Note wel, this damnable doctrine and position, What position? Forsooth, that Princes which be excommunicated or depriued by the Pope, may be deposed or murthered by their subiects, &c. This position is sworne, not per partes, by peecemeale, but coniunctiuely and wholly as it lieth: and so, it cannot be denied but it is impious and hereticall doctrine; heresie here being affir­med, [Page 122]not on the parts of the position separated, but on the [...] hole together.

For in a sentence affirmatiue, disiunctiue proposition, or booke, if any part be defectuous, false, or hereticall, albeit some part thereof be true, and sound doctrine; it may wel be said, that the whole sentence, proposition or booke is defe­ctuous; false, Gress. l. 1. con­sider. Pag. 47. or hereticall, as Gretserus writeth. Then that, May be deposed; closed in one proposition with the other part; or murthered, which is hereticall; the whole position as it lieth must needes ber said, and may be sworne to be here­ticall. For example, The Inquisition vseth to condemne as a scandalous or hereticall booke, if there be but one onely Chapter or sentence of scandalous or hereticall doctrine contained therein, though all the rest be found and Catho­licke. And may not any man lawfully sweare, that booke so condemned, to be scandalous or hereticall, albeit all the whole is not such? or that man to be an hereticke, which er­reth against one onely article of the Catholicke faith?

But if the two parts of the proposition you thinke are sworne diuisim and by parts, not coniunctim or totally to­gether; then let impious go with the first part may be depo­sed; and hereticall with the latter or murthered; and I cannot see how you can deny, but so it may besworne.

If any will yet stand vpon the word abiure; as I heare many do, saying, It signifieth not onely simply to deny a thing with an oath, as al Dictionaries vnderstand the word, but by oath to deny that which once he held before: then, he that neuer held the doctrine and position aboue named, cannot take this Oath, because he may not abiure that opinion which he neuer held.

But this will manifestly appeare, to him that hath any ex­perience in the practise of the Church, to be false. For, let any be conuented into the Inquisition for any one heresie whatsoeuer, as Anabaptisme; Brownisme, &c, if afterwards he repent and conuert to the Catholicke faith, he shall be required; and must of necessitie abiure, not onely that impi­ous opiniō or heresie of Anabaptisme or Brownisme, which [Page 123]he held before, but also all other heresies, as Pelagianisme, Arianisme, Nestorianisme, &c. which haply he had alwayes before detested. This therefore is but a vaine verball shift of some who not knowing what to say against the maine points of the Oath, are driuen out of the profundity of their wits to seeke a knot in a rush, to inuent a difficultie where none is, therby to intrap the soules of scrupulous conscien­ces, and deterre them from performing their dutie to their Prince, making no conscience to ouerthrow them also in their temporals.

If any insift saying, that they thinke indeed the doctrine, which teacheth it to be no sin to depose or murther a good and lawfull King, such a one as gouerneth for the good of the common▪wealth, to be hereticall: but if he become a tyrant, such a one as hath more care of his owne vtilitie then of the weale publicke, and seeketh to subuert the State, per­secuteth the professours of the true religion, and sets vp ido­latrie in steed of Christian faith in the iudgement of the peo­ple; it is not heresie to teach, that he may be deposed by the State assembled, or lawfully murthered by any man what­soeuer.

And is not this pernicious doctrine of many sectaries of this age heresie? It being directly repugnant to the doctrine and example of our Sauiour Christ and his Apostles, against the law giuen to Moses, Thou shalt not kill; as also against that saying of our Lord, Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit: Whosoeuer shall take the sword (to strike withall without authority) shal perish with the sword. This was that dange­rous positiō worthily condēned as heretical in the Councel of Constance: Quilibet tyrannus potest, & debet licitè & meri­toriè occidi, &c. Conc. Con­stant. sell. 15. an. 1415. Euery tyrant may, and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be murthered, by any his vassall or subiect wharsoeuer, either by close trechery, or by smooth practises and insinuations, notwithstanding any Oath taken or pro­mise of allegiance made vnto him; nay not so much as ex­pecting the sentence or warrant of any Iudge whatsoeuer.

Against which error this holy Synode endeuoring to a­rise, [Page 124]and vtterly to extinguish the same, after mature delibe­ration doth declare, and define, that this doctrine erro­neous in faith and manners, and doth reiect and condemne it▪ as hereticall and scandalous, opening a gap to fraude de­ceipt, dissimulation, treason and periury. It doth moreouer declare, and define, that they who shall obstinatly maintaine this pernicious doctrine, are heretikes, and as such to be pu­nished, according to the canonicall decrees. And that this is the intent and purpose of the Synode, Molanus de fide haeret. ser lib. 5. c. 6. Molanus sheweth thus: Patres indistinctè de quolibet tyranno loquuntur: & doctri­na illa de vtriusque ge [...]er is tyranno: est in fide & moribus erronea. The Fathers speake indistinctly of euery sort of tyrant: and that doctrine of.(killing) a tyrant of either sort, is in faith & manners erroneous, land it giueth way to fraudes; deceipts, lyings, treasons, periuries; for those things which concerne the commonwealth are not to be handled or accomplished of priuate persons: among which is the occision of an in­uader. Thus farre he. This doctrine or position was also long since, two yeares before the Councell, condemned as impi­ous, hereticall and damnable by 141. Diuines of the Faculty or schoole of Paris, anno 1413. December 13. and now late­ly againe by the same facultie, anno 1610. since the bloudie parricide of the French king Henry the fourth. The decree is this, The decree of the Do­ctors of Sorb. as it is set downe in Antimariana: Censet seditiosum, im­pium & haer eticum esse. The sacred Facultie iudgeth or decre­eth, that it is seditious, impious; and hereticall for any sub­iect, vassall or stranger, vpon what occasion, pretence, or di­uised colour soeuer, sacris Regumpersonis vina inferre, to do any violence (note wel) against the sacred persons of Kings. Whereunto accordeth S. Thomas, that yea a tyrant may not be slain by his subiects, otherwise he should be contra­ry to himselfe, for thus he writeth. Tho. de re­gim. prin. lib. 1. c. 6. Essetmultitudini periculo­sum & eius rectoribus. It were dangerous to the people and their gouernours, that any should attempt to take away the life of Princes, though they were tyrants: for commonly not the well disposed, but the ill affected men do thrust themselues into that danger. And the gouernement of good [Page 125]Kings is as odious to bad men, as the rule of tyrants to good people. Wherefore the kingdome by this presump­tion would be rather in danger to forgo a good Prince, then a wicked tyrant. So S. Thomas. By this Catholicke cen­sure of that famous Vniuerfitie, and by the definitiue sen­tence of the generall Councell, and the doctrine of S. Tho­mas, you see it to be condemned as hereticall and damnable doctrine, that Princes (as in our Oath) which be excommu­nicated, (or tyrants by the Councell) may be deposed (which cannot be effected without violence to their per­sons, and slaughter of many men) by their subiects (Nobles or commons) or any other whatsoeuer. Whereby you may secure your conscience, this part of the Oath to be lawfull, and may be taken without feare or preiudicating the Popes spirituall authoritie.

Sir, what say you then to the Friars killing his liege Lord Henrie the third of France, the mod Christian King, suppo­sed to be a tyrant in gouernement, and a fauourer of here­tikes; applauded or allowed of (as seemeth to some) by Pope Sixtus 5. in his oration made in a secret Consistorie before the Cardinals, anone after the certaine newes of the act, and the Kings death?

My opinion is, that as the doctrine teaching to be no sinne to kill a tyrant, is worthily condemned as impi­ous and hereticall: (which you haue heard sufficiently pro­ued in the precedent pages,) so such a fact, of such a one, in such sort, must needs be most impious and damnable: yea supposing we should grant, that King to haue bene such a one as is aboue said; albeit the French know right well he was their true and rightful King, and besides liued and died a member of the Catholicke Romane Church. And who­soeuer will go about to excuse this inexcusable fact, and to say, that he did it, either out of a great zeale to deliuer the commonwealth from such a supposed wicked and tyranni­cal King: or else that he did it by diuine inspiratiō, being or­dained and appointed by God so to do; Saint Paul teacheth otherwise, to wit, Non faciamus mala, vt veniant bone. Let vs [Page 126]not do euill, that there may come good. And Dauid, a man according to Gods owne heart elected to be King of the Iewes, both by his example proceeded, and in his doctrine taught otherwise. For when Dauid, persecuted by Saul, yea who at that time sought his life, came euen to Sauls Tent whilest he was sleeping, and was counselled by his Chiefe­taine Abisai to kill him: saying, Conclusit Deus inimicum tuum hodie in manus tuas: nunc ergo perf [...]diam eum lancea in terra, se­mel, & secundò opus non erit. God hath this day deliuered thine enemie into thine hands; I will now therefore pierce him with a Iance in the earth, once, and the second time it shall not need. Dauid made him answer in this sort, charging him not to lay hands on the King to hurt him: Ne interficias eum: quis enim extendet manum suam in christum Domini, & innocens erit? Kill him not: for who, or what is he that shall reach out his hand against the annotated of our Lord, and shall be innocent? It followeth a little after: Our Lord be mercifull vnto me (saith Dauid) that I may not stretch out my hand against the annointed of our Lord. In saying, who, or what is he; and teaching that himselfe, who best might, could not without offence lay violent hands on King Saul, gaue vs instruction that it could not be lawfull for Friar Clement to extend his bloudie hands as he did, gainst his true and lawfull Prince the annointed of our Lord: and Christ himselfe after commanding, Nolite tan­gere christos meos. not to touch his annoin­ted. Such kind then of furious zeale of taking the sword, is to be detested in any, and to be repressed with great se­ueritie; lest way be giuen to euill disposed persons to per­turbe, yea ruine whole kingdomes and commonwealthes, whilest vnder a preposterous zeale they embolden them­selues to perpetrate any villany.

And no lesse dangerous & impious it is to say, that he did that horrible murther by diuine inspiration; for then should be iustified a most wicked Parricide, and likewise a gap o­pened to all miscreants to commit any outragious crueltie, against any superiour, Prince or King whatsoeuer. And so whilest they machinate their mischiefe, if this be granted, [Page 127]they may cloake it with the mantle of diuine inspiration, thinking thereby to passe blamelesse before God and men. But who can enter into the secret iudgements of almightie God to know this? according to the holy Scripture, Quis cognouit sensum Domint, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Who hath knowne the iudgement of our Lord, or who hath bene his counsellor? This assertion of this truly ignominious and wretched Friars being inspired from God to do so sinful, and execrable an outrage, is no lesse to be reiected then the for­mer. For the righteous God of heauen, neither appointed, nor excited, but onely permitted him to put in practise his diuellish inward suggestions, against the sacred person of his dread Soueraigne, for causes to man vnknowne, as he per­mitted Adam to fall, Iudas to betray his Lord and maister.

Now touching the Popes oration, some make a doubt whether euer any such, specially of approuing the Friars act, were pronounced by his Holines, & in Consistorie, as hath bene reported, and is extant in Anti-Sixtus, or no▪ and the rather for that Cardinall Bellarmine in his answer to our clement and most gracious Kings learned Apology writeth, Tortus. p. 54. edit. Colon. that no such oration is extant but only among the enemies of the Church, who set forth Anti-Sixtus, and therefore is of no credit. Neither (saith he) did any take this oration made in priuate Consistory; nor was published by the Pope himselfe, or by his order and appointment, by any other.

Whether the enemies of the Church haue set forth the o­ration made by Pope Sixtus in the Consistorie I know not; but this I know, that I haue lately seene such a one both in Latin and in French, printed according to a copie set forth at Paris 1589. the yeare of the Kings death, by Nicholas Niuelle, and Rollin Tierry; Sur la Copie imprimée à Paris chez Nicholas Niuelle & Rollin Tierry soy disans Impromeur & Li­braire de la sainte Ʋnion, auee Printlege de la dite Ʋmen & ap­brobation de la faculté de Theologis de Paris. And set forth with approbation of three Doctors of the facultie of Paris, as followeth.

Which oration who so is desirous to see, may here reade it according to the Latine copie printed as aboue: it fol­loweth thus:

Whereof when his Holinesse had spoken, he brake vp the Consistorie, & hauing giuen his blessing, let them al depart.

Whether that the Pope in this his Oratiō applauded or ap­proued the Friars murtnering his Prince, I would rather the learned reader should be iudge thereof then my selfe: his wisdome doubtlesse was too great to approue by any cleare and direct sentence, so vile and detestable a fact. Howbeit this I can witnesse, that it was commonly spoken by many in Rome, that had the Friar bene a Franciscan, as he was a Do­minican, he might haply haue bene then declared a Saint. And this is most certaine, which my selfe liuing in the court of Rome saw, that as it were to retaine a pious memory of such a deed, the Friars picture was drawne on paper toge­ther with the Kings, in one square or quadro in Italian, and publikely sold without controlement (to my knowledge,) which many admired to see.

Besides, this likewise is true, that M. William Reynolds then being in the Low countries (to whō as to my speciall friend I sent a copie of the Oration) esteemed it (so did many o­thers) as an approuing of the Friars act. For, returning me an answer to my letter, he gaue me heartie thankes for it, saying, that I could not haue gratified him with any thing more, then by sending him the approbation of the Sea A­postolicke, which came in very good season, he being at that time writing his Rossaeus Peregrinus, a booke of such a like subiect.

If any desire to know how I should light on a copie there­of, [Page 148]when as it is most true, that neither the Cardinall, whose office it was to haue noted the Popes oration, was not pro­uided of paper nor inke, as he should haue bene, had any such occasion of vsing it bene thought of before; and there­fore was not taken by any, as Cardinall Bellarmine saith well: let him vnderstand, that the Oration and Consistory being ended, and the Pope departed toward his chamber, certaine Cardinals, among which (if my memory faile me not) were Cardinall Gallo▪ and my most honorable patron Cardinall Borromeo Archbishop of Millan, who are yet liuing, with a greedie desire flocked about Cardinall Alan there in the chamber, intreating him that he would cal to remembrance, and write what they had heard there spoken, to the end they might after at more leisure reade and consider it better, and that so worthy a speech of his Holinesse might not perish. Cardinall Alan crauing pardon, besought them not to im­pose on him a matter of such difficultie, for 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 [Page 149]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 [Page 150]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 [Page 151]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 further manifest, for that no Magistrate ministring the Oath doth euer in­terprete the law in that sence, or giue charge to any for de­tecting such. So that these are but ridiculous, and the cauelling shifts of some, to withdraw men from perfor­ming their dutie to his Maiestie: whereby they cause a con­fusion and perturbation in the whole realme, bring ma­ny families to ruine, hinder the conuersion of many soules, and minister iust occasion vnto the State to suspect little fi­delitie in their hearts, what faire shew soeuer they make in words.

Here, by reason of such an interpretation made of reuea­ling and detecting Priests and reconciled persons, it shall [Page 152]not be amisse to know how an Oath is to be interpreted: and in what sort euery one is to sweare that taketh an oath before a Magistrate. Molanns writeth, that an oath stret­cheth not to things vnlawfull: Mola. de fide haer. ser. lib. 2. c. 7. Omne iuramentum iuris inter­pretatione ad licitatantum, non vero ad mala se extendit. Euery oath by the interpretation of the law extendeth to lawfull things onely, and not to such as are euill. The case is most perspicuous and plaine, that in the Oath of allegiance it cānot be drawn to be meant of reuealing Priests as Priests, not otherwise traitours; because it should be extended to that which is to be reputed euill according to the knowne Catholicke Romaine faith, which his Maiestie in his learned Apologie professeth no way to prejudice by taking this Oath. Marc. 6. When Herod Tetrarch of Galilee sware to giue Herodias daughter what she would aske, though halfe his kingdome: who will say that it extended to the cutting off S. Iohn Baptists head, it being manifestly euill in it self? Yea, but in this matter of our Oath, what if the case be doubt­full? Emanuel Sa a Iesuite teacheth you, Sa. Apho. verb Interpretatio. that in poenis, in pu­nishments a milde interpretation is to be made, and being doubtfull, it is to be interpreted to the better part, and more benigne, and more probable. Then what reason haue these that wil make the case doubtfull, to interprete this clause of the Oath not to the better, but to the worse, and more improbable? Now a word or two how an oath is to to be taken before a lawfull magistrate.

Whosoeuer sweareth to an officer being required, ei­there sweareth guilefully, or without guile, which is not to be denied: Then, saith S. Thomas, He who sweareth sin­cerely without guile, Tho. 2.2. q. 89. ar. 7. ad. 4. Syluest. verb. Iuramentū. 3. is bound according to the intention of him that sweareth: he that sweareth with guile, ought to sweare according to the sound vnderstanding of him to whom the oath is made. And to this purpose saith Innocen­tius in Cap. Innocentius. Veniens de iureiurando, That an oath giuen gene­rally of performing obedience to commandements, is so in­terpreted as it may not be extended but to these things which were thought of, or indeed ought to be thought of. [Page 153]Which is to be meant of things lawfull. Then it followeth a little after: And if he that requireth (the oath) be a Iudge in bona fide, requiring it in a lawful case, according to the or­der of law; then that taketh place 22. q. 5. to wit, Isido li. 2. de sum. bo. c. 31. Quacun­que arte verborum quis iuret, Deus tamen qui conscientiae testis est, it a hoc accipit, sicut ille cui iuratur intelligit. With what cunning sort of words soeuer any sweare, yet God who is witnesse of the conscience, so accepteth it, as he before whom the oath is made vnderstandeth: and he that witting­ly sweareth not according to the intention of him that re­quireth it, sinneth deadly, and is periured: and is bound to performe it as he vnderstood it. This is meant, as S. Thomas saith, of a guilefull oath; and such a one is made guiltie in two sorts, for that first he taketh the name of God in vaine, and with subtiltie deceiueth his neighbour. Hereupon I inferre, that to sweare to reueale all treasons and traiterous conspiracies, cannot be extended to be meant of Priests, Priesthood, or reconciling, because it was neuer thought of, nor ought to be thought of in the Oath. Neither is it his Maiesties or his officers intent, as I assure my selfe, to draw any thereby further, then to make profession of their alle­giance; and not to entangle any mans conscience in matters of faith and religion: which is sufficient for iustification of his Maiestie in requiring it, and for satisfaction of Catho­lickes lawfully to take it.

After all this that hath bene said, there remaineth yet one stumbling stone more to be remoued, and so I will end, which is commonly called Scandall. For that some there be that vse to say, being pressed with stronger argumēts then they can well answere, they could be content to take the Oath, (as either holding it lawfull, or else not able by any important reasons to disproue it, vnlesse they borrow some one, or all foure of the Catholicke letter deemed to be fa­ther Parsons, to little purpose) were it nor for offending many Chatholicks, who are much scandalized at the taking and takers thereof.

And is it not strange for Christian men professing chari­tie, [Page 154]to take scandall where none is giuen? Are not also many other Catholikes no lesse, but rather more iustly scandali­zed at such as refuse it? yea and the whole state beside, both Nobles and commons together with his Maiestie, cannot but rest much scandalized, not onely at such persons, but also at their religion for their sakes.

If they will say vnto such as take the Oath, as Achab King of Samaria said vnto Elias the Prophet: Tunè es ille, qui con­turbas Israël: 3. Reg. 18. Art not thou he that troublest Israël? For so some, Quorum os maledictione & amaritudine plenum est: whose mouth is full of malediction and bitternesse haue said in effect, Psal. 13. That such Priests as haue performed their du­tie in taking the Oath of allegiance, and sought thereby to pacifie the Kings wrath worthily conceiued against Catho­lickes for the demerite of a few, haue caused a trouble and great perturbation in the Church; which vndoubtedly would neuer haue bene (say they) had all Catholickes and Priests stood constantly against the Oath. But such loyall subiects, Priests or Laickes, may well retort vpon them, as Elias did vpon King Achab: Non ego tur baui Israël sed tu, & domus patris tui. It is not I that haue troubled Israël, but thou and the house of thy father, who haue forsaken the com­mandements of our Lord. It is not such as haue taken the Oath, that cause trouble in the Church, nor forsake the commandements of our Lord; but such Priests and people as wilfully refuse it, and perswade others against it, to the hazard yea losse of some of their liues, and of the lands and goods of others: and also of the soules of such as louing more the glorie of men then the glorie of God, obstinately refuse to performe their dutie in obeying that precept of our Sauiour: Render vnto Caesar that which is Caesars: and that of S. Peter, Regem honorificate: and also the commandement giuen to Moyses: Honour thy father and thy mother. These, assure you, are they who giue cause of scandal indeed, wher­by their persecution (if so they please to cal it) is continued, the Church perturbed, Catholicke religion little regarded, and many a soule lost. But Vaeilli, per quem scandalum venit. [Page 155]Woe to him, by whom scandall cometh. Time will make triall who it is, whether they or we.

In the meane while we say, that the proper and true de­finition of scandall, as it is defined by S. Thomas and o­thers, most aptly agreeth with the doctrine and example, or words and deedes, of such English subiects as withdraw men from performing their dutie to their dread Soue­raigne: not on such as perswade it, and yet remaine no lesse Catholicke, then they do pretend in euery point of faith. Scandall is a word or deed not right, Definition of scandall. Tho. 2.2. q. 43. ar. 1. & Ieron. in comment. su­per Math. c. 15. giuing occasion of ruine; that is, of spirituall ruine or sinne. Now what euill or shew of euill or sin is there in those, who by their deedes and words, example and doctrine, teach and labour to in­duce all to do that which is right and due by the law of God? What scandall or offence, or occasion of sinne do they giue, who perswade nothing against any one article or point of faith, but meere allegiance to their Prince? Doth this offend or scandalize any? If they will be scandalized for well doing, and take offence where none is giuen, do they not shew how imperfect they are in the loue of God? Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam; & non est illis scandalum. Psal. 118. To such as loue thy law (ô God) there is great peace: and to them there is no scandall. May not these be well likened to the Pharisies, that of enuie and malice were offended or scandalized at the sayings and doings of our Blessed Saui­our? who, being told by his disciples of their scandall taken, answered: Omnis plantatio quam non plantauit Pater meus coelestis, eradicabitur. Math. 15. All planting which my heauenly Fa­ther hath not planted, shall be rooted vp. Let them alone; blind they are, guides of the blind. And if the blind be guide to the blind, both fall into the ditch. Such are to be pitied and praied for, not enuied; whom we may answer in the same sort, and with Haimo: Haimo in Math c. 18. Greg ho. 7. in Sipro veritate scandalum oriatur, magis veritas eligenda est, quàm scandalum vitandum. If for truth scandall do arise (as it doth in this our case) rather truth is to be chosen, then scandall sought to be a­uoided. The same affirmeth S. Gregorie the Great, Ezech. pag. 2. as before, [Page 156]pag. 45. And S. Thomas disputing whether spirituall goods are to be pretermitted for passiue scandall, Tho. 2.2. q. 43. ar. 7. saith: That such goods as are de necessitate salutis, ought not to be omitted for auoiding scandall: because they cannot be pretermitted without mortall sinne: (as in our iudgements we take alle­giance in the Oath to be;) but it is manifest (saith he) that none ought to sinne mortally, to saue an other from sinne: because according to the order of charitie, a man ought to loue more his owne spirituall health then another mans. The same likewise hath Ioannes de Burgo: Pupil. oculi. Opera necessaria ad salutem non sunt omittenda ad vitandum scandalum proximi, ex quacunqueradice procedat. Workes necessarie to saluati­on are not to be omitted for auoiding the scandall of our neighbour, out of whatsoeuer roote it proceedeth. Herby, deare brethren in our Lord Iesus, I trust you rest satisfied, that such as haue taken the Oath of allegiance, wherein no­thing hath bene hitherto proued by any learned man to be contained against any one point of faith, haue not giuen cause of scandall (as they haue bin slandered to haue done) but by that their fact, performing their bounden dutie to their dread Soueraigne according to the law of God, haue sought to take away that horrible scandall giuen indeed, by a few vngracious Catholikes in the gunpowder treason; and which others daily giue to his Maiestie and the State in resisting the law made vpon so great reason, and for the commō good of the realme. Besides, I trust your wisdomes will consider, that to take the Oath being bonum spirituale, wherein no euill thing against religion is contained, they are not to pretermit it for the imperfections of some, who are readie to suffer or take scandall where none is giuen.

Wherefore I exhort you all most dearely beloued Ca­tholikes in the bowels of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, (as the very Reuerend and learned maister George Blackwell some­time our Archpriest, did in his letter to his Assistants, and you all both Clergie and Laitie) for abolishing and ending this controuersie which hath scandalized the whole State, you wold desist to impugne supreme authoritie in this case [Page 157]of the Oath most lawfull and iust, as hath bene proued: and ceasse any longer to prouoke to wrath his Maiesty our most clement Prince: clement I say, for I dare boldly auouch, that neither the Pope, nor any King or Prince in Christendome, had he had the like cause offered by any his subiects, e­specially of a contrarie religion, and finding others of the same religion to refuse to make profession of their loyalty by an Oath required at their hands, would shew such mercy and clemencie as his Maiestie hath done, and doth. Con­ferre the fact or enterprise of the Moores in Spaine now two years agone, who wēt about (as report goeth) treache­rously, to bring in Turkes and forreiners to inuade the coun­trey, with this Catesbeyan and Percian most barbarous trea­son: and I doubt not but you will iudge them both worthy condigne punishment. Compare againe the two Princes, who by Gods ordinance carie the sword ad vindictam male­factorum, to take reuenge on malefactours; you shall find them both iustly prouoked to indignation against the de­linquents: yet the one, viz. King Philip, with great seue­ritie chastiseth the innocent with the nocent, old & yong, men, women and children, expelling all alike out of his do­miniōs, to the number of nine hundred thousand, as appea­reth by his edict, within the space of xxx. dayes, to the losse of all their immoueables. Whereas the other, our dread Soueraigne, of his pitifull inclination, did not punish in such sort the guiltles, nor all the offendours according to their deserts, but repressed by his edict the furie of his peo­ple, readie to haue taken reuenge yea on many innocent persons, for their sakes that had offended. Embrace then, deare brethren, the mercie and long sufferance of this our milde and clement Prince whilest time is granted you, lest through your default it be turned into surie; for oft times patientia laesa, specially of a King, vertiturin furorē. And resist no longer▪ but cōforme your selues to his Maiesties iust de­mand in this case of the Oath, that wherein they (that is) such as are of a different religion, misreport of you as of ma­lefactours, by the good workes considering you, 1. Pet. 2. they may [Page 158]glorifie God in the day of visitation. Also with this blessed Apostle S. Peter I wish you to be subiect to euery humane creature of God, whether it be to the King, as excelling: or to rulers as sent by him to the reuenge of malefactours, but to the praise of the good: for so (note well) is the will of God, that doing well you may make the ignorāce of vnwise men dumbe. I desire likewise with S. Paul, that obsecrations, prayers, [...]1. Tim. 2. postulations, thankesgiuing be made for all men; for Kings, & all that are in preëminence: that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life in all pietie and chastitie. If Ter­tullian were liuing and those ancient Fathers of the primitiue Church, Tertul. Apo­loget. c. 50. See master Blackwels letter. they would questionlesse, following the doctrine and example of the Apostles, exhort you likewise to pray for the long life of our Soueraigne, no lesse then they did the Christians of those dayes for their Emperours or Kings, howsoeuer they differed in religion.

Finally as Baruch the Prophet wished such Iewes as were left in Ierusalem after the captiuitie, Baruch 1. to pray for the life of Nabuchodonozor King of Babylon, and for the life of Baltha­sar his sonne, that their dayes might be as the dayes of hea­uen vpon the earth: so do I desire all Catholickes professing with me the Romane faith, heartily to pray for the long life and prosperous reigne of King Iames of great Brittaine, together with his deare Spouse our most gracious Queene Anne, and the hopefull yong Prince Henrie his sonne, with the rest of his most roiall issue, that in this world they may long continue to the glorie of the eternall God; and afer this mortality euer to en­ioy that felicitie which neuer shall haue end.

Vui Trinòque Deo omnis honor & gloria.