A MODERATE DEFENCE OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE: Wherein the Author proveth the said Oath to be most lawful, notwithstanding the Pope's Breves prohibiting the same; and solveth the chiefest objections that are usually made against it; persuading the Catholics not to resist sovereign Authority in refusing it.  
Together with the Oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistory at Rome, upon the murder of Henry 3. the French King by a Friar.  
Whereunto also is annexed strange Reports or news from Rome.  
By WILLIAM WARMINGTON Catholic Priest, and Oblate of the holy congregation of S. Ambrose.  jerem. 4. 
jurabis, Vivit Dominus, in veritate, in judicio, & in justitia. Thou shalt swear, Our Lord liveth, in truth, in judgement, and in justice.  
Permissu Superiorum. An. Dom. 1612.   

An Admonition to the Reader.  
THe purpose of the Author in this Treatise is to manifest unto such as embrace the Roman faith, that they may take the Oath of allegiance unto his Majesty without any prejudice unto the same. And therefore if in this his ensuing discourse he hath inserted any peculiar doctrines of the Church of Rome, those that are of an adverse persuasion ought not to take offence, but rather make true use thereof; and have just cause to acknowledge the clement and moderate proceeding of the State herein.   

THE PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR TO THE READER.  
WHEN by the providence of Almighty God, (courteous Reader) who sweetly disposeth all things, I was by two Pursuivants apprehended the 24. of March 1607. after our English account, and committed to the Clinke by the Lord Bishop of London on the 26. of the same month, 1608; I entered somewhat more deeply into the consideration of the controversy of the Oath of allegiance, than before, whilst I was at liberty, I had done. And presently consulting with some of my brethren whom I found there prisoners before my coming, I thought it very expedient to inform the Pope's Holiness of the lamentable estate of our country, what miseries and imminent dangers such Catholics, as should refuse the Oath of allegiance, were like to fall into by reason of his Breves prohibiting them to take it; what division among Catholics, what perturbation they were undoubtedly to breed in the Church of England, (our dread Sovereign being thereby not without just cause exasperated) hoping by such means to procure a remedy before the malady grew too desperate. But they more prudent, and better experienced in such like Roman informations than myself, thought it better in their judgements, and more expedient, with patience to expect future events from Rome, and not so to proceed, as being to small or no purpose at all.  
Hereupon I rested satisfied, though sorry in mind to consider the manifold evils that were like to ensue, as long as these two principal powers, Ecclesiastical and civil, the Pope and our King, were at variance; and did not intend to set pen to paper of this matter; for that I knew myself the meanest among the rest of my brethren that had taken the Oath, and because I had (as I thought) in discharge of my particular duty, made sufficient proof of my loyalty towards his Majesty, by accepting the Oath when it was required at my hands. In the end, advised by a friend one of my brethren, to premeditate and provide reasons for our taking it, to be sent to Rome; for it was to him more than probable he said, that in short space after we should receive a commandment from his Holiness so to do: and desirous withal to yield some satisfaction to the State, for the great scandal certain of our brethren had given, by their perfidious inconstancy in taking the Oath, & anon after (being freed from troubles) relented and impugned (as hath been reported) that which they seemed by their act to have judged lawful: I resolved upon mature consideration, to reduce into some method for help of my memory, and satisfaction of a friend, certain notes which in scattered papers I had collected concerning this matter: not intending yet to publish them for fear first of offending some Catholics, who pretending the Oath to be unlawful (though they know not well wherein, are ready with rash censures to judge and condemn, before sentence of condemnation from the chief judge be given: but especially I feared lest I should offend the Pope's Holiness, who in his Breves hath either admonished or prohibited all Catholics to take it, or to teach the lawfulness thereof. At length knowing my intention to be, not to offend any one, nor to contemn his Holiness commandment; but to advance, what in me lieth, the glory of God, by setting down sincerely what in my judgement is truth, and persuading every Catholic subject to render to Caesar those things which are Caesar's, to perform his duty to his Majesty in taking the Oath of allegiance, & to seek thereby to remove the imputation of treachery and treason: I held it my duty both to God and man, to break silence, to cast away this human fear, and to put on the mantle of charity, quae foras mittit timorem. 
1. joh. 4  Howbeit (gentle reader) whilst I meditated to go forward in these my labours, for the benefit of my brethren in Christ the Catholics of England, suddenly that question of our B. Saviour, as it were to deter me from them, came into my mind: Quis ex vobis volens turrim aedificare: Which of you minding to build a tower, doth not first sit down and reckon the charges that are necessary, whether he have to finish it: lest, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that see it, begin to mock him, saying, That this man began to build, and he could not finish it? I forthwith stayed, and cast my accounts, that is, I weighed the small means I had to relieve me taking pains, my infirm and feeble body, slender furniture of books, and many interrupted distractions which my poverty in prison ministered unto me, and considered whether I might be able to bring this short treatise to an end, & so avoid that illusion: This man began to build, and he could not finish it. Then though my means and ability every way I knew to be small, yet trusting in the assistance of almighty God, whose glory hereby I principally seek, and is the chiefest reason of this my process, I was by and by encouraged to attempt the defending of this Oath, (which I judged far beyond my talon) calling to remembrance that of the Prophet: In Deo meo transgrediar murum: 
Psal. 17.  In my God I will pass over a wall. 
Philip 4.  And the saying of S. Paul: Omnia possum in eo qui me confortat. I can do all things in him (that is, through his help) that strengtheneth me: nothing doubting also but, 
Phil. 2. v. 13.  Qui operatus est in me velle, operaretur & perficere pro bona voluntate. He that wrought in me to will, would likewise work to accomplish according to his good will. Upon this confidence then of God's assistance, and for the instruction of certain Catholics, who simply believe the inconsiderate assertions of some of their teachers; that such as take the Oath, do, and must renounce the Pope's spiritual authority of excommunication; and abjure or condemn for heresy a disputable position, to wit, that the Pope may depose for heresy or apostasy; which is most untrue, as will easily appear to him that without passion and with judgement shall read the Oath, or this my book. These and such like I exhort not to be too credulous in a matter of so great moment as this is, giving ear to every one that will say, it may not be taken, and can show them no true reason why, nor in what point it is unlawful. If any list wilfully to reject this my wholesome counsel, and will rather still give ear to such as work their overthrow, what else can they in reason expect but loss of lands and goods, perpetual imprisonment by the law, final destruction to them and theirs, and haply get no merit to benefit their souls, if his Majesty (in clemency excelling) be much exasperated? which with careful regard ought to be looked unto, because, Qui nimium emungit, elicet sanguinem: He that straineth too much, draweth blood. And may not his Princely Majesty be well said to excel in mercy and clemency, who first with speed upon the discovery of the Gunpowder treason, set forth his Proclamation worthy never to be forgotten, thereby to stay the fury of the people, ready doubtless at that time to have murdered all that should bear the name of Catholic, without respecting who were innocent or who were nocent? & after, himself, 
Suetonius in Augusto.  as Augustus Caesar in person pleaded for the life of a soldier, by his pen interpreting the Oath of allegiance, pleaded as it were (to give satisfaction of his Royal meaning & intent of the law) for such as he needed not so far to condescend unto? This rare & worthy example of our most learned & most prudent Prince, I must needs say, was to me, (the least among many others) a very urgent motive to adventure this spiritual combat of defending according to my power the Oath of allegiance. 
Cic. lib. 1. Offic.  Studiosè (saith Cicero) plerique facta Principum imitantur. Many follow diligently the facts (or examples) of Princes. And if you read the book of the judges, you shall see what encouragement the example of Gedeon then judge of the Israelites gave unto his small army consisting but of 300 soldiers, against the Madianites their enemies in number almost infinite. 
judic. 7.  Quod me videritis facere (said this great Captain) hoc facite: ingrediar partem castrorum, & quod fecero sectamini. What you shall see me do, do you the same: I will enter into a part of the army, and what I shall do, that do you follow: which they did, and obtained a happy victory. To whom can I better liken our mighty Monarch king james then to that worthy Gedeon? To me he seemeth likewise in effect to say unto his subjects, What you see me do, do ye the same, as I have begun to write, so follow my example, endeavouring by pen to defend my right, which is all I require by the Oath. Who admireth not the profound wisdom and great piety of his Majesty, that he foreseeing the fatal and wilful fall of divers of his beloved subjects, by reason of the Pope's Breves prohibiting the Oath of allegiance, would be pleased for them & their good, to retire himself from his princely recreations, to painful labour both with mind and body, and to be the first that with his pen writ a learned Apology for the Oath? Wherein for satisfaction of the perplexed consciences of some of his subjects, his Highness imitating our Blessed Saviour, 
1. Tim. 4.  qui vult omnes saluos fieri, & neminem vult perire, who is willing all should be safe, & will have none to perish, interpreted his meaning to be, not to derogate from the Pope's spiritual authority, but to require his subjects to perform their loyalty & natural obedience only in temporals, which is due by the law of God & nature; thereby to draw all to his love and their own safety. Vouchsafe then, beloved reader, to spend some idle and vacant time to peruse this short Treatise, written by thy well-willer for thy behoof, to confirm thee if thou take the Oath, or to persuade thee if thou fearest it to be unlawful; the time thou spendest herein may countervail thy pains. Doubt nothing; if thou be Catholic, he is a Catholic priest that writeth, and teacheth thee herein Catholic doctrine: if thou be none, yet give this book the reading, assuring thyself this Author to be likewise a good & loyal subject, and as such he purposeth to live and die. Fear God, honour the King, and in charity pray for me thy hearty well-willer.  
Thine ever in Christ jesus WILLIAM WARMINGTON Priest.   

A Table of the principal points contained in this Treatise.  

THe most barbarous conspiracy of certain Catholics, cause of the Oath of Allegiance. Pag. 1.  
No wisdom to provoke a clement Prince to wrath. Pag. 2.  
Many miseries fall, yea on innocent persons, when a Prince exasperated punisheth in ire. Pag. 3.  
Our King peerless for clemency in the Gunpowder treason. Pag. 5.  
The end why the Oath was made. Pag. 7.  
Great reason for naming the Pope in the Oath. Ibid.  
Samuel at God's appointment anointed Saul King, but did not, nor could depose him. Pag. 9  
The objection of joiada the high priests deposing Queen Athalia, answered. Pag. 13.  
Whether the Church or the Pope may justly depose Kings. Ibid. & Pag. 87.  
Pope's have their temporal states, not by Christ, but by the grants of secular Princes. Pag. 15.  
The Canonists opinion of the Pope's deposing Princes. Pag. 17.  
The opinion of certain Divines touching the same point. Pag. 18.  
To depose Princes, is no matter of faith. Pag. 21. & 22.  
Not defined in the Council of Lateran, that the Pope hath power to depose Princes. Pag. 22.  
The decree of that Council. Pag. 24.  
Cardinal Bellarmine's assertion of this Counsels definition refelled. Pag. 26.  
Heretics are to be punished temporally by the civil magistrate, not by the Ecclesiastical. Pag. 32.  
The Constitution of Frederick the Emperor. Pag. 34.  
frederic law for the punishment of heretics, toucheth not Kings. Pag. 35.  
The Chapter of the Council of Lateran, supposed a decree, yet is not the fide. Pag. 36.  
How you may know a decree to be de fide. Ibid.  
The Breves of Pope Paul 5. are no definitions ex cathedra. Pag. 37.  
Whether the Pope alone may define matters of faith. Pag. 38.  
No sin not to obey the Pope's private assertion or opinion in matters undetermined by the Church. Pag. 39  
That the Pope not only in matters of fact, but also in faith, he alone without a Council may err, as some affirm. Pag. 42.  
Whether Priests or Laics are bound to obey the Pope's prohibition of this Oath of allegiance. Pag. 44.  
A boy under age hanged in Rome. Pag. 46.  
A nephew of old Navarre the Canonist, by the Pope's commandment hanged in haste. Ibid.  
Card. Mendoza deprived of his Deanery of Toledo by force. Pag. 47.  
A Gentleman of Card. Farnesius put to death by Pope Clement Pag. 8. 48.  
The opinion of some overmuch devoted to the obedience of the Pope. Pag. 50.  
Obedience due to all superiors, yet is their power contained within certain limits. Pag. 51.  
Ecclesiastical and civil power both immediate from God, both distinct and independent of each other. Pag. 53.  
A superior, yea the Pope in divers cases may be disobeyed without sin. Pag. 57  
The Breves of Paulus 5. prohibiting the Oath of allegiance, may be not obeyed without sin. Pag. 59  
Many evils ensue upon obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath. Pag. 60.  
A commandment upon error of wrong information bindeth not. Pag. 62.  
The Pope's bare precept not always sufficient to cause men to hazard their temporal states. Ibid.  
Cases not doubtful but manifest, as is this of the Oath, need no solution from the Pope. Pag. 63.  
Subjects bound to obey all just laws of their temporal Princes. Pag. 64.  
The law of the Oath of allegiance just. Pag. 65.  
The King's Majesty in setting forth this Oath, hath not exceeded his limits. Pag. 66.  
All lawful Kings, be they heathens or heretics, are to be obeyed by their subjects in temporals. Pag. 68  
That the Pope or Church do permit evil Princes to reign, a strange phrase. Pag. 70.  
The place of S. Paul, Omnis anima, to be understood principally of subjection to secular power. Pag. 72.  
The material sword forbidden to be used by Ecclesiastical persons. Pag. 74  
Not without a mystery that Peter should strike none but Malchus. Pag. 78.  
The Apostles and their successors subject to Emperors and Kings de iure. Pag. 79.  
Gregory 7. the first that challenged temporal power to depose Princes. Pag. 84  
The doctrine and practice of deposing, when it began, according to Cardinal Bellarmine. Pag. 85.  
Whether the Pope by his spiritual power, wherein he is successor to Peter, may depose Princes. Pag. 87. & 91.  
Excommunication what it is, the nature and effects thereof. Pag. 95.  
No denial of the Pope's power of binding, to say that Princes, notwithstanding excommunication, aught to be obeyed of their subjects. Pag. 100  
The Pope's spiritual power of excommunicating Kings not denied, as Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth. Pag. 104.  
Whether I may renounce all pardons & dispensations which shall be against this Oath of Alleg. without denying the Pope's power. Pag. 108.  
No denial of the Pope's power of absolving, to say, that he cannot absolve me of this Oath. Pag. 112.  
Whether the Pope may remit lawful oaths compelled by fear. Pag. 114.  
How a matter only of opinion may be truly sworn. Pag. 116.  
The doctrine that teacheth, That Princes excommunicated by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, may be abjured as impious and heretical. Pag. 119.  
To teach it lawful to murder, yea a tyrant, is heretical. Pag. 123.  
The Oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistory, of the murder of the King of France. Pag. 128.  
The Pope as a temporal Prince may wage war, but not invade any King's dominions as he is Christ's Vicar. Pag. 149.  
Priests and reconciled persons, as such only, no traitors by the intention of the Oath. Pag. 150.  
How an Oath is to be interpreted. Pag. 152.  
In what sort a man is to swear before a lawful magistrate. Pag. 153.  
Not such as take, but the refusers of the Oath give cause of scandal. Pag. 154.  
The Author's exhortation to Catholics. Pag. 156.  
Strange Reports, or News from Rome. Pag. 159.    

TO THE CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND.  
Beloved brethren in Christ jesus: Whereas the Kings most excellent Majesty, being the true, lawful, and right inheritor to the Crown and Realm of England, by the providence of almighty God entered and possessed the same with tranquillity and peace, and the great applause of all his subjects, as well Catholics as Protestants, or others of different sects and opinions: his Highness, as it were to requite their dutiful affection, forthwith gave great hope of a most happy and prosperous regiment; and out of his bounty and clemency extended many his most royal favours indifferently upon all, till such time as some of the one sort (to wit, a few giddy headed, desperate, and disloyal Catholics associated with certain of the Society) provoked his wrath and indignation against them, yea and all the professors of the same religion for their fact. Who was not moved (as all men will confess) without just cause, for that they (viz. Catholics) only either concealed, or most barbarously attempted in that hellish-like manner of gunpowder fire (the memory whereof must needs remain for ever most grievous to all true hearted Catholic subjects) the cruel murder of so many worthy Commons, and Noble personages, in Parliament assembled; yea of the most towardly and innocent young Prince, the Queen, and King himself: and then soon after also had followed undoubtedly the desolation, ruin, and destruction of the whole realm of England.  
Hereupon by the general consent of all three estates and the King's Majesty, it was thought necessary, an Oath of allegiance in such form should be framed and enacted, as Catholics (for whom chief it was made) should have no cause scrupulously to refuse to take the same; and the King's Highness with his whole estate might be better secured, and freed from all fears and dangers: imitating herein other Kings and Princes as occasions shall be offered them.  
If ever the Kings of France or Spain, or other Princes whatsoever had cause to exact an Oath of fealty of their subjects for safety of their persons or state; then certes no man that hath but common sense will deny but our King hath more than just, upon so horrible and monstrous cause given, as the like haply was never heard of from the beginning of the world.  
Can any man have thought it strange, or held it cruelty, if, being in such wise, and by such persons provoked, he had in his wrath and indignation rigorously proceeded against all others of the Roman religion, as suspecting them to bear no better mind towards him? though many thousands doubtless no way consented, nor were ever privy to that horrible fact.  
And if he had, what ruin of Catholic families, what havoc of Christian blood, with the destruction of souls, and other infinite miseries should we have seen? But the omnipotent God (whose name be blessed for ever) who hath the rule and government of the hearts of Kings, inclined his royal heart to mercy and compassion of his subjects, knowing right well the faith and loyalty of many of the same religion, as his Majesty most benignly expressed in his Proclamation; and that he should have punished the innocent with the nocent, as well his friends as his foes. Oh what folly were it for a man to wake a sleeping Lion, or stir a nest of wasps or hornets, whereby he might endanger himself to be bitten or stung most grievously? Then how much greater is the folly of such, as fear not to irritate or incense a King, who naturally desireth nothing more than peace and quietness to himself and his people? We learn in holy writ how dreadful 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 provocat eum, peccat in animam suam. As the roaring of a Lion, so is the terror of a King: he that provoketh him offendeth against his own life.  
Example we have of King David, who was stirred to wrath by Hannon King of Ammonites upon ingratitude for his love and kindness. For, David hearing of his father's death, sent some of his servants to comfort him: Hannon following evil counsel, forsooth, that David did not send to condole with him and comfort him, but to espy the City and overthrow it. Whereupon most ungratefully he evil entreated the ambassadors, shaving half their beards, and ignominiously cutting their garments unto the buttocks. King David herewith moved to anger, provided an army to revenge this injury; overthrew of the Syrians that assisted the Ammonites seven thousand chariots, and slew forty thousand footmen, made havoc of the Ammonites blood, and wasted the cities of King Hannon, destroying the people in most rueful manner: as you may read in the second book of the Kings and Paralipomenon. 
2. Reg. 10. 1. Paralip. 19.20.  Consider the imprudence and wickedness of this king; imprudence, in not foreseeing what dangers he might cast himself into, by making his friend his foe, and stirring him to ire that sought to live in peace. Wickedness, in rendering evil for good, and procuring wars (the event whereof is various) which was cause that many innocent persons, who were not consenting to Hanons, fact, nor ever haply wished David hurt, were in that fury slain.  
We read likewise how this holy king David, 
1. Reg. 25.  being in the desert persecuted by Saul, purposed and prepared to revenge himself on malicious Nabal, for contemning him and his servants (whom in his distress he had sent in peaceable and friendly sort for victuals and relief) saying, Who is David? and what is the son of Isai? There are servants multiplied now a days, which fly from their masters. Shall I then take my breads, and my waters, and the flesh of my cattle which I have killed for my shearers, and give it to men whom I know not whence they are? Hereupon David in wrath set forward to be revenged, and purposed not to have left nor Nabal, nor any belonging to him, to piss against a wall, had not his wife Abigail by her wisdom prevented the shedding of innocent blood, meeting with David and pacifying him with gifts, prudent speeches, and discreet behaviour.  
In the Ecclesiastical history is likewise noted, 
Theod. lib. 5. cap. 17.  how that renowned Emperor Theodosius upon rage caused many innocents in Thessalonica to be put to death, for the murder of one Noble man of his court. Many more examples both sacred and profane might be here alleged to this purpose, but these may suffice to give us a taste of the miseries that fall on many, yea on such as never offended, when a Prince is injured and provoked 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 David or Theodosius might pretend just cause to revenge their wrongs in such sort by severe punishment not only of the offenders, but also of the guiltless: then surely none can deny but king james our dread Sovereign had much more against the conspirators in the notorious gunpowder-treason, and many others of the same religion, whom he might well suspect to be of the same confederation. In this, there was not a contempt only of his servants, nor a shaving of beards, or paring their garments to the buttocks, nor yet the murdering of one of his Nobles: but (out alas) here was intended a most pitiful slaughter of the Kings own person, the Queen his wife, the young Prince his son, the Nobility, and people in great numbers: and then eftsoons had followed a final destruction of infinite souls and bodies, and of this whole flourishing kingdom; as every one that is but meanly wise must needs know. In that his Highness then proceeded no further in fury and indignation against Catholics, (being by them so incensed) but stayed his hands by the execution only of a few principals in that action, must needs be imputed, first to the providence of Almighty God, (who guideth the hearts of kings) and next to his rare and singular clemency, 
See his majesties proclamation.  who seemed ready to pardon, loath to punish by blood so many as in that conspiracy offended, or to use such severity as the crime deserved. In punishing some, he practised justice; in pardoning others he extended his mercy: which two virtues make a Prince renowned, and by which, especially mercy or clemency, a king is most strongly fortified and preserved, according to that of Solomon: Misericordia & veritas custodiunt regem, 
Prou. 20.  & roboratur clementia thronus eius. Mercy and Truth keep the king, and with Clemency his throne is strengthened.  
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 fury, as sometime it happeneth when the clemency of a Prince is not regarded, or abused: that no Nabal were to be found so presumptuous hardy as to contemn, not the King's servants, but himself, in withstanding his will by undiscreet, if not obstinate, refusing to take the Oath of allegiance so just and reasonable, made only for the safety of the King and kingdom, and exacted as a note to distinguish friends from foes, good subjects from evil affected; and to take from Catholics the heavy imputation of treason and treachery, which hath lain 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 scholar in the school dread the rod when the master in rage correcteth one of his fellows. The Lion roareth in the desert, and all fear that here the noise. Leo rugiet, quis non timebit? How much more than is a king to be feared, 
Amos. 3.  who under God hath power of life and death, as Pilate said to our Saviour: Nescis quia potestatem habeo crucifigere te, & potestatem habeo dimittere? Dost thou not know that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to let thee go? 
a Aug. Trac, 116. parum à medio Tom. 9  Which power was given him from above, as is plain. Consider in what case rich Nabal was, when he heard his wife Abigail recount unto him (who by her prudence had appeased and pacified David coming in fury and rage to revenge) what David had intended against him; he feared and trembled in such wise, as with the news he became even senseless: 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 days after, stricken by God, gave up the ghost. Had Nabal cause to fear David, not then accepted of the people for king, Saul being yet alive: and have not we just cause to fear how we offend and stir to ire our dread Sovereign, so mighty a Monarch? Was the occasion that Nabal gave, in comparison of that of our Catholics alike? Confer the crime of the one and the other, and you shall find great inequality, as great, as between a word and a blow; yea such a blow, as posterity will hardly believe could be offered, when they shall read it in Chronicles. Mean while, we that by God's goodness are yet living, and be eye witnesses thereof, have cause to lament and testify with Habacuc the Prophet, Quia opus factum est in diebus nostris, 
Habac. 1.  quod nemo credet cum narrabitur. That a work hath been done in our days, which no man will believe when it shall be told: and to wish that some discreet Abigail may be found to step forth and meet with our liege Lord coming in great ire to revenge, and with prudence to pacify and persuade him to surcease, for the loyalty and true affection of many other his innocent Catholic subjects, who lie prostrate at his royal feet lamenting their brethren's folly, and humbly beseeching pardon, with offer for, and in his defence of both life and limb.  
But (woe is me) whilst some endeavour 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. Whilst his Majesty meditateth mercy, and requireth that which justly he may, and we in conscience are bound to perform; Nabal, yea many Nabals arise, and do add matter to kindle his wrath, in resisting his will, and denying his just demand: which is, only to discharge their duties, in rendering to Caesar that is Caesar's, to swear fealty and true obedience unto him in temporals, according to the tenure of the Oath, framed and enacted the third year of his reign, without derogation to any spiritual authority of the Pope, or infringement of any point of the Catholic faith. The cause then wherefore this Oath of allegiance was made, no man can doubt but the most barbarous Gunpowder conspiracy was the only urgent motive, it never 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 between true and faithful, and hollowhearted Catholic subjects: 
Regis Praemo, pag. 12.  and his Majesty might be more fully assured of their constancy and fidelity in time of need, upon any cause to be offered whatsoever; or by Prince, people, Pope, or whosoever.  
And can any man marvel, that the Pope is therein named? Doth this scandalise any? Consider but what they were that inserted it; the time, and place, and pretence of reason they had or might have to imagine (being so adverse or opposite to him in religion, and the Treason so fresh in memory) that his Holiness might give leave or encouragement, or at least be privy, and so to wink at such an attempt; presuming that no Catholic durst enterprise such a fact, without connivence at least of supreme authority. And had they not cause to fear or doubt him more than any other, none being therein culpable but only jesuits and Catholics; of whom, some haply think themselves bound to obey him whatsoever he command, for that in their opinion he cannot err in commanding? Howbeit we that are by God's grace Catholics also, agreeing in all points with Christ his Vicar the Pope of Rome, in unity of faith, do no way suspect that ever he was consenting, much less gave way to authorize such enormous and wicked designments: though withal we descent from them that think he cannot err, 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 proceed with Princes about their deprivations or depositions for divers crimes, when he hath hope to prevail, but especially for heresy or apostasy. They knew right well likewise, that if his Highness should be by his Holiness denounced and declared an heretic, what dangers might soon after ensue: therefore was it thought wisdom to prevent a mischief ere it happen, in exacting an Oath of allegiance at Catholics hands, in that manner and form as it is set down, thereby more firmly to bind them to the performance of their duty, 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 fear of God's judgements, will not become perfidious, nor rashly or unjustly break that oath, which discreetly and justly he consented to take. jurabit proximo suo, 
Psal. 14.  & non decipiet: He will swear to his neighbour, and will not deceive him. By this now I trust (dear Catholic brethren) you are satisfied, that an Oath of allegiance may be justly exacted at our hands, and that we are bound to swear fealty to our Prince, when it shall be required of us. But you make doubt, lest more be contained in this Oath, than fealty or civil obedience to his Majesty; viz. some points against the spiritual authority of the Pope, which you being Catholics may not gainsay, but are bound in conscience to maintain. If you could satisfy us (say you) that nothing is therein contained against any article of faith; and that we may disobey his Holiness (who prohibiteth the taking thereof) without danger of mortal sin, you shall do us a singular pleasure: therefore I pray you resolve us herein that are much perplexed about it, by reason of the great corporal troubles we are like to fall into, if by disobeying the King we refuse it; or for the hazard of our souls (as we think) if in disobeying the Pope, and scandalising our brethren the Catholics, we take it.  
Beloved brethren, I trust you expect not at my hands that I should fully and exactly discuss every point of the Oath, and answer every scrupulous difficulty that some use to make (albeit it might be easy to effect:) for it would require a better library than mine is at this present, more labour than I can well afford, by reason of my feeble body, and a larger treatise than I mean to make. Your desire is (as I presume) only to know whether the principal points thereof, as deposing the King's Majesty, discharging his subjects of their obedience, dispensing and absolving in this Oath, and such like, be matter of faith, which bind every Christian man steadfastly to believe the same, under pain of damnation; or else but matter of opinion. And secondly, what you ought to do concerning the Pope's Breves, whether you may lawfully disobey them or no. These points indeed are the chiefest, whereon the rest have their dependence, which with God's assistance I shall endeavour so to handle, as you shall not need to doubt of the lawfulness of the Oath, nor hazard all your estates for refusing the same; yet so, as whatsoever shall be here in this my treatise written, I humbly submit to the censure of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Errare quidem possum, homo enim sum, haereticus esse nolo: Well I may err, for a man I am, but heretic will I never be.  
In the days of Samuel the Prophet, after the people of Israel had been four hundred years ruled and governed by certain rulers called judges, upon occasion of samuel's sons misdemeanour in their government, 
1. Reg. 8.  all the elders of Israel came to Samuel in Ramatha, and they said unto him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; appoint us a King, like as all nations have. Whereupon, though this word highly displeased Samuel, God commanded him to hear them; howbeit he should witness and foretell them the authority or right of a King: which he did, saying, This will be the right of a King that is to govern over you, etc. All which things in the text of Scripture expressed by Samuel, 
Gloss. ordin. in hunc locum.  are a King's right (as faith the Gloss) in time of need, for the good of the weal public; though it were to be wished that many of them were moderately used, 
Tho. 1. 2. q. 105. at. 1. ad 5  especially all those things which seem to make the people that is subject, to be servile or slavish; and which respect not the common good, but rather the will of the man exalted in the kingdom. These or such like did Samuel foretell them, to withdraw them from ask a king, because it was not expedient for them: and because, that government for the greatness or excellency of power, is easily converted into tyranny.  
After this, God sent Saul, and then revealed unto Samuel, that he was the king that should govern his people-Israel, and commanded to anoint him. Which he did, saying: Ecce unxit te Dominus super haereditatem suam in Principem, 
1. Reg. 10.  & liberabis populum suum de manibus inimicorum eius qui in circuitu eius sunt. Behold our Lord hath anointed thee to be Prince over his inheritance, and thou shalt deliver his people from the hands of their enemies which are round about them. Not long after, king Saul for disobeying the precept of God given him by Samuel, was by God deprived of his kingdom, as the Scripture saith, and not by Samuel, as some would have it. 
1. Reg. 15.  Quia proiecisti sermonem Domini, & proiecit te Dominus ne sis Rex super Israel. Because thou hast rejected the word of our Lord, our Lord also hath rejected thee, that thou mayest not be king over Israel.  
By this example some gather (as they think) a strong argument, viz. à fortiori, that the Church of God, and the Pope, Christ's vicar in earth, may justly deprive or dispossess kings of their sceptres and dominions upon cause given, as for heresy or apostasy, etc. when as the Synagogue and Samuel had this authority, who de facto deposed Saul for disobedience only.  
If this were true, then indeed were the argument of some force; for it cannot be denied, but that the spiritual power of the Church of Christ, is much greater than was that of the Synagogue of the jews, and the Pope hath more ample * ordinary authority than Samuel had: yet it followeth not hereof, that either the Pope, or Church, by any power received from Christ jesus, can deprive, depose, or dispossess any lawful Prince or private man, that is not a vassal, feudatary or subject unto him, of his goods temporal, state, crown, or dignity: because neither the Synagogue, nor Samuel were ever endued with this power. It is not any where to be found in all the old Testament that the Synagogue of the jews (the figure of Christ's Church) or high Priest or Bishop for the time being, could, or de facto ever did depose any lawful king of Israel or juda from their Empire, were he never so wicked, never so perverse or cruel, and in his place did substitute an other. Whereby then is evident, that no good argument can be gathered by this example, to prove such power to be in the new law, and in the Church or governors thereof.  
That Samuel deposed not king Saul by any authority in him existing, but Almighty God himself, may easily be proved thus: for either he must depose him by temporal authority as he was a judge, which could not be, he being deprived thereof when Saul was made king, and was no more a governor but a subject; or else by some ordinary power of spiritual jurisdiction over him, which he had not, for that he was nor Bishop nor Priest (though a great Prophet) but only a Levite, as Genebrard, Saint Hierome, 
Geneb. in Ps. 98. Hierom. lib. 1. in lovin Bellar. in Psal. 98. Pintus in Ezech. c. 45. p. 549.  Cardinal Bellarmine, Hector Pintus and others affirm; to whom such jurisdiction did no way appertain. Therefore Samuel deposed him not, but only as an extraordinary Ambassador executed the will and judgement of God in his deposition, who had given him a special warrant or commandment as touching the same, which will appear 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 unto you what our Lord hath spoken to me in the night. And then forthwith delivered his message, that which God had revealed unto him, to wit, that our Lord had so rejected him and his progeny, as (albeit he were in person to enjoy the kingdom to his lives end, as he did forty years) that none of his stock or seed should successively reign after him, and be of that line of whom Christ the Messiah was to be incarnate.  
If then neither the Synagogue nor Samuel did, or could by any ordinary power depose Saul, elected by God, I do not see how by this example any good argument can be drawn in consequence for the Churches, or the Pope's ordinary power of deposing Princes. Had such authority been granted to the Synagogue or high Priests in the old law, why I pray you had it not been practised on the persons of Achaz, Manasses, Amon, joachaz, and other kings of juda, who were much more wicked than Saul was? and on impious jeroboam that led with him all Israel to Idolatry? Achab, Ochozias, joachaz, and the rest of the kings of Israel, who exceeded in all kind of impiety? in whose days flourished Ahias, Semeias, Elias, Eliseus, Isaias, jeremy, and other great Prophets, endued with marvelous courage, zeal, authority, and sanctity of life; yet none went about to depose or take the crown from the head of any Prince lawfully invested, though he were never so wicked: knowing right well, that whatsoever they wrought with Princes about the overthrow of some, or setting up of others, or foretold what was to happen unto them; it was not by any ordinary power that they had, but extraordinary, by special commandment and revelation from Almighty God. Now by this fact of Samuel it may well be deduced, that whensoever the Pope, governor of God's house, shall have special revelation from above, as Samuel had, that such a particular king is to be deposed, and another placed in his room; than it cannot be denied but he may do as Samuel did, that is, as I have said, he may and aught to declare the will of God revealed unto him without any concurrence to the execution thereof, only denouncing God's sentence of dejection or deposition of such a Prince, when he knoweth certainly, that so is the will and pleasure of our Lord, whose will none may contradict. Voluntati eius quis resistit? Who is able to resist his will? nor is any to expostulate why he doth so. And if such a thing should ever happen, than were the argument good and sound, otherwise, weak, and of no force.  
If any man after this, object unto me, that Athalia was deposed, and slain by the commandment of joiada the high Priest, when she had reigned seven years: therefore it seemeth he had authority from God so to do; and if he had, why should not the Pope have the like over exorbitant Princes?  
For solution hereof, I refer him to the place of holy Scripture, where he may see with half an eye, 
4. Reg. 11.  that Athalia was no lawful Queen, but an usurping tyrant; who had murdered all the kingly race, and so intruded herself most unjustly. Whereupon joiada, high Priest, brought forth, and presented to the people joas, son to Ochozias, who was strangely preserved, by means of his Aunt josaba, when he was but an infant, from that tyrannous slaughter made by his Grandmother Athalia; and together with their full consents, performing the duty of a good subject, restored the true heir to the right of his kingdom; which could hardly have been 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 joiada proveth nothing, but that it is lawful for a state or commonwealth to depose an usurper, and restore the true heir to his right; and not that he had any authority to depose any lawful Prince, were he otherwise never so exorbitant in life, manners and belief, or cruel in his government.  
Well Sir, though this be granted, that neither the Synagogue of the jews, nor Samuel the Prophet, nor joiada the high Priest, had authority to depose Princes and dispose of their temporals; yet can we not be persuaded 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 over all Christians, as well Princes as people, throughout the world) may justly depose kings and dispose of their kingdoms, when he shall judge it expedient to the glory of God, and utility of the Church. And the rather because this hath been practised by diverse precedent Popes upon certain Princes in these latter ages, for crimes adjudged by them to deserve the same: which we suppose they would never have enterprised, had they not sufficient warrant out of holy Scriptures, or examples of the Apostles and ancient Bishops of God's Church, or else authority from the holy Ghost by a definitive sentence in some general Council. We pray you touch this point so as you may resolve us thoroughly, whether they have all, or some of these proofs for that authority: if they have not, then is it clear in our opinions not to be de fide; and if it be not a point of faith, binding all to believe that his Holiness hath such authority, we see no reason why (upon his bare commandment) we should so deeply plunge ourselves into a sea of calamities, as of necessity we must, by losing all lands and goods whatsoever we have, to the utter undoing of ourselves, wives and children, and hazarding our lives by perpetual imprisonment, for refusing to perform our duty to our Sovereign, by taking the Oath of allegiance, wherein we swear fealty and civil obedience, which is due by the law of God and nature. Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae Dei Deo. Render (saith our Saviour) to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is Gods. Besides, if we refuse it, we shall not take away, but greatly increase the heavy imputation of treason and treachery, which our adversaries have this long time laid on Catholics, and confirm them in this their wrong opinion, that to be a true Catholic of the Roman Church, and a good subject, cannot stand and agree together.  
Beloved brethren, lest any man be scandalised at this my writing, judging it not to savour of a true Catholic heart, nor of an obedient child of the Apostolic Church, but rather to proceed from an evil affected mind fraught with passion; accept for a premonition, and I wish I may not be mistaken; * that sincerely and without spleen or passion, I intent, to set down nothing, but what I shall think in my opinion to be truth; and that I honour and reverence with heart and mind the holy Catholic Church of Rome, acknowledging and steadfastly believing with the holy Fathers, that to be the mother of Churches, the Sea of Peter, the rock against which hell gates shall not prevail; the house of God, out of which who eateth the Lamb, is profane, and out of which no salvation is to be hoped for, as the great D. S. Augustine and others do teach us; 
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 chief Bishop and Pastor thereof, Christ's Vicar in earth, and successor to S. Peter prince of the Apostles, who by his spiritual power given by Christ our Lord, hath jurisdiction over all Christian Princes and monarches as well as poor men, so far as is requisite to the conversion and feeding of souls.  
But I cannot easily be induced to believe, that this power given him by Christ in S. Peter, extendeth itself to the deprivation or deposition of secular Princes of their dominions; or to the deposing of any lay-man's temporal goods and patrimony, for any cause whatsoever, yea for heresy itself, who is not temporally a vassal and subject to his Holiness. And if his spiritual authority given him by our Saviour, can work no such effect, much less his temporal, which was never granted by Christ (by whom he ought to have whatsoever he hath for the good government of his Church) but by holy secular Princes, whereof Cardinal Allen writeth thus: The chief Bishops of Christ's Church, 
In his answer to the Eng. just. pag. 144.  our supreme Pastors in earth, by God's providence, and by the grants of our first most Christian Emperors and Kings, and by the humble and zealous devotion of the faithful Princes and people afterwards, have their temporal states, dominions and patrimonies, whereby they most justly hold and possess the same, and are thereby lawful Princes temporal, and may most rightfully by their sovereignty make wars in their own and other men's just quarrel, as occasion shall urge them thereunto. This he. The like in effect writeth the most excellent lawyer D. Barclai, 
Lib. de potestate Papae, ● 15.  that the Pope himself is no otherwise excluded from temporal subjection to secular Princes, then that by the benefit or liberality of Kings he was made a King, forsooth a political Prince, acknowledging none for his superior in temporals. And the same doth the most earnest maintainer of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction confess, whom many think to be Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Sub nomine Francisci Romuli pag. 114.  in his answer to the principal chapters of an Apology, etc. Generalis (inquit) & verissima est illa sententia, debere omnes omnino superiori potestati obtemperare. Sed quia, etc. It is a general and most true sentence, that all aught to obey higher power: but because power is of two sorts, spiritual and temporal, ecclesiastical and political, whereof the one belongeth to Bishops, the other to Kings; Bishops ought to be subject to Kings in temporal things, and Kings unto 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 chief Ecclesiastical Prince, to whom all Christians by the law of God are subject, but is also in his own Provinces a temporal Prince; neither doth he acknowledge any superior in temporals, as nor other absolute and sovereign Princes do in their kingdoms and dominions, thence it proceedeth that he hath no power above him in earth. Not then because he is chief Bishop, and spiritual father of all Christians, therefore he is delivered from temporal subjection, but because he enjoyeth a temporal principality subject to none. In those things therefore which appertain to the good of the commonwealth, and civil society, and are not repugnant to the divine ordinance, Clerks are no less bound to obey the sovereign temporal Prince, than other citizens or subjects; as Cardinal Bellarmine himself very notably showeth: Quia clerici, 
In lib. de Clericis, c. 28.  praeterquam quod clerici sunt, sunt etiam cives, & parts quaedam Reipub. politicae. Non sunt exempti clerici ullo modo, inquit, ab obligatione legum civilium, quae non repugnant sacris canonibus vel officio clericali: That clergy men, besides that they are clergy men, are also citizens and certain parts of the political commonwealth. Clerks (saith he) are not exempted by any means from the bond of the civil laws, which are not repugnant to the sacred canons, or their clerical office. By this you may see, that the Pope hath his temporalities and temporal power, not from Christ, but from Constantine and other Christian Princes and people, and was ever subject to civil government of Emperors, till such time as by their grants he was made a King and temporal Prince, and so had no superior; and that Clerks (as parts of the political commonwealth) are bound to obey all just laws of the same commonwealth no less than the Laity: but more of this in another place, as occasion shall serve. Now to come somewhat nearer the question that I promised, and you desire to be resolved on, as touching the Pope's authority to depose Princes of their temporal 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 Divines. The Canonists hold it for true doctrine to be maintained, 
Tho. Bozius. Carerius. D. Marta. and others.  that all power whatsoever is in this world, either temporal and civil, or spiritual and ecclesiastical, was given directly by Christ to Peter and his successors; and what power any Kings or Princes in the whole world, either Christians or Infidels have, it all dependeth of the Pope, and is derived from him to them, as touching the temporal execution: so that as Lord of the world, he may depose Princes, take away their kingdoms and principalities, and give or dispose them to whom he list, though no man know the cause why he doth so; if he shall judge there is sufficient cause to do it. If this were true doctrine, than woe to all Princes that should at any time yea but break amity and friendship with him that sitteth in Peter's seat: what security could they have of their estates? Then might they expect, of Princes and rulers to be made private men and subjects; then may it be granted that our Sovereign were not unlike to be deprived of his temporals, his subjects to be discharged of their obedience, and his territories given in prey to his enemies. But this opinion is held to be most false by many Divines, because it cannot be proved either by authority of Scripture, or by tradition of the Apostles, or practise of the ancient Church, or by the doctrine and testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Howbeit Bozius a late writer most stoutly defendeth the same, 
Lib. 2. cap. 11  and greatly blameth many excellent Divines (among whom is renowned Cardinal Bellarmine) and calleth them new divines, saying moreover, that they teach most manifestly false doctrine, 
Lib. 5. cap. vlt.  and repugnant to all truth, because they say that Christ as man, was never a temporal king, nor had any temporal dominion on earth, nor did exercise or practise any regal power, (for by these assertions, the principal foundations of Bozius frivolous arguments are overthrown) which as most true they confirm by the testimony of our Saviour himself. 
Math. 8. Luc. 9  Foxes (saith he) have holes, and the fowls of the air nests, but the Son of man hath not where to put his head. If Christ jesus as he was the son of man had not so much in this world as a cottage to rest himself in: where I pray you is his kingdom? where is his temporal dominion? who can conceive that one can be king and Lord, who hath no kingdom or Lordship in the universal world? We know well that as he is the Son of God, he is the King of glory, King of kings, Lord of heaven and earth, and of all things, 
Psal. 23.  (Domini enim est terra & plenitudo eius) and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for ever: but what is this to a temporal kingdom? what is this to the imperial dignity of secular majesty? Therefore I mean not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists, which hath been most learnedly confuted by Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. & 3  but to let it pass as most absurd, that cannot be proved by any sound reason, nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures, Fathers, or Counsels; but maintained by captious fallacies, unapt similitudes, and corrupt interpretations.  
An other opinion there is of Divines, who dislike, and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positions, but yet so as they uphold and labour to maintain the Pope's temporal power, though in other sort then the former, that is▪ 
De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6.  indirectly, or casually and by consequence. This than they writ, and namely Cardinal Bellarmine: Asserimus, Pontificem, ut Pontificem, et si non habeat ullam merè temporalem potestatem, tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum. We affirm that the Pope, as Pope, although he hath not any merely temporal power, yet in order to the spiritual good, he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tempotall goods of all Christians. And again in the same chapter: Quantum ad personas, non potest Papa, ut Papa, ordinariè temporales Principes deponere, etiam justa decausa, eo modo quo deponit Episcopos, id est, tanquam ordinarius judex, etc. As touching the persons, the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporal Princes, yea for a just cause, after that sort as he deposeth Bishops, that is, as an ordinary judge: yet he may change kingdoms, and take from one, and give to an other as the chief spiritual Prince, if that be necessary to the health or saving of souls. And in the same book the first chapter, where he putteth down the Catholic opinion (as he saith) he altereth it somewhat in this manner. Pontificem ut Pontificem, etc. That the Pope as Pope, 
Lib. 5. cap. 1.  hath not directly and immediately any temporal power, but only spiritual; yet by reason of the spiritual, he hath at least indirectly a certain power, & that chief or highest in temporals.  
You have here set down by Cardinal Bellarmine, the opinion of Divines, that the Pope as Pope, or chief Bishop as chief Bishop, hath not directly and immediately any temporal power to depose Christian Princes, but that indirectly, I wots not how, he may depose them, and dispose of their temporals: and so in effect, and after a sort, agreeth 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 improving the Canonists assertion of direct power over all the world, driveth them to Scriptures, or tradition of the Apostles; so likewise we may require that he prove his indirect power by one of these two ways. If he cannot, as most certainly he cannot, then why should men give more credit to him then to the other, they being as Catholic, and haply no less learned than he? Why should his opinion be thought more true than the former? To disprove the Canonists thus he writeth: Ex Scripture is nihil habemus, 
Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3.  nisi datas Pontifici claves regni coelorum, declavibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit. Traditionem Apostolicam nullam adversary proferunt. Out of Scriptures we have nothing, but that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to the Pope, of the keys of the kingdom of the earth no mention is made at all. Apostolical tradition our adversaries produce none. Hereby it seemeth the Cardinal goeth about to prove against his adversaries, that because the keys of the kingdom of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be given to Peter and his sucsessors, therefore the Pope hath not any direct authority to depose the Princes of the world, nor dispose of their temporals: insinuating that the keys of the kingdom of heaven promised and granted to Peter (or to the Church in the person of Peter) can work no such effect, nor were granted to deprive Christian Princes or others of their sceptres and regal dignities; but only by censures and spiritual authority to exclude unworthy sinners from eternal felicity, and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdom of heaven. If this argument be good against the Canonists, then why is it not also good against Cardinal Bellarmine himself, when as he can no more produce Apostolical tradition to confirm his indirect authority, than the other their direct? And of the keys of the kingdom 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 casual authority.  
Consider beside I pray you (for it is worth the noting) how obscurely and ambiguously, he writeth of the Pope's power to depose, thereby haply intending to seek some starting hole of equivocation if occasion serve; and mean while leave his reader doubtful, and still to seek of his meaning, which in my simple Judgement is such as the judicious wit can hardly conceive, nor tell what he would say. As for example, that the chief Bishop as chief Bishop hath not any power merely temporal, etc. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter: The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily (note) depose, etc. no not for a just cause: marry as he is the chief spiritual Prince he may depose and dispose, etc. Help me good Reader to understand this riddle, how these two differ in some essential point, Pope, and chief spiritual Prince. I must confess that I understand not how he is the chief spiritual Prince, but as he is Pope, that is, the Father of Fathers, or chief Pastor of souls in the Church of God. It is well known that this title Pope, or Papa in Latin, hath been attributed to many ancient Patriarches 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 Ecclesiastical Princes of the Church: and for that cause only, & not for being a temporal Prince, Peter's successor, hath his denomination. Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth, saying: 
D. kellison's 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 temporal jurisdiction, his power, as he is Pope, being only spiritual. If then it be so, that the Pope as Pope hath no temporal power over Princes, nor can depose them, etiam justa de causa, as the Cardinal saith, surely I cannot with crystal spectacles see how he can depose as a spiritual Prince, there being no perceptible difference between them.  
If I should stand to note unto you the rest of his obscurities and ambiguities, I fear I should be too tedious, therefore I purpose to surcease, and leave them to your prudent consideration: as, The Pope hath not any power merely temporal; he cannot as Pope ordinarily depose temporal Princes, as an ordinary judge; he hath at least indirectly a certain power, and that chiefest or highest in temporals: and such like, which seem no less fearfully then obscurely written and taught.  
This doubtful doctrine of most learned Cardinal Bellarmine, and the variety or contrariety of opinions between him and other very learned Clerks in God's church about this matter of deposition, is to me a most strong argument, that it is not the fide: for if it were, than would there be an uniform content and perfect agreement among them, not only of the thing controverted, but also of the manner, and causes thereof, no less than is of Purgatory, prayer to Saints, of the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the B. Sacrament, of the virginity of our B. Lady, incarnation of Christ, seven Sacraments, and so of all other points of faith. Then would a matter of such moment have been found in the writings of some ancient Father, as well as other of less importance; but for well near a thousand years continuance, till the time of Gregory the 7. it was never challenged, mentioned or defended by any writer: or else it would have been defined in some general Council, whose authority bindeth all Christians to believe whatsoever is there decreed, to be de fide, without controversy; which to this day never was, no not in the third Council of Lateran under Innocentius 3. as some ignorantly think, and build them strong castles in the air; and others inconsiderately aver, howbeit not simply and plainly, but somewhat timorously, which they need not do if it were so, but should confidently avouch it so to be. 
Prou. 10.  Qui ambulat simplicitter, ambulat confidenter. He that goeth simply and plainly to work, goeth confidently. A matter of faith is to be taught sincerely and perspicuously, not doubtfully or guilefully, as it were to deceive his readers, or thereby to hold them in suspense in such wise, as they shall ever remain perplexed and to seek of the one meaning of what is written.  
O sir, if you read that Council of Lateran, cap. 3. you shall find it plainly decreed, that Princes which be negligent in purging out of their territories the filth of heresy, are to be deposed.  
This indeed were somewhat to the purpose, if it were true as you say; but if you believe so, you are in an error: for who readeth that chapter, shall well perceive it was not there decreed or defined, but treated of the manner how certain secular powers or temporal Lords (without specifying Kings) might be proceeded withal; and nothing decreed the fide concerning deposition of Princes: if it had been defined matter of faith, it must of necessity have bound all Catholics, as well Princes as people, to believe it, and accept thereof. Moreover, such a decree must always have continued immutable, and could not be abrogated, as Cardinal Bellarmine writeth: Decreta de fide immutabilia sunt, 
Bellar. Lib. 2. Conc c. 17.  nec possunt ullo modo abrogari postquam semel statuta sunt. The decrees of faith are immutable, neither can they be abrogated by any means after they are once decreed. And if it be no decree of faith (as it is not) but only of reformation, who I pray you will say it doth bind, till it be accepted and received? Famous Cardinal Tolet faith no; and for his assertion citeth the Canon law Can. In istis, dist. 4. 
Tolet. de 7. pec. Mor. c. 18.   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 received of those to whom the law is given; for if a law (to wit Ecclesiastic) be promulgated, but not received, it bindeth not. Do we not see that the wholesome laws or decrees of the Council of Trent touching reformation, bind not where they are not yet received, as in France and other places? And is any man so unwise to think, that Princes will ever receive such decrees as may bereave them of their sceptres and temporal states, and turn to their utter ruin? Never was it hitherto seen, nor ever will it be by all likelihood in Great Britain, or any other kingdom.  
Furthermore, in that chapter is no mention made of excommunicating Emperor or Kings, nor deposing them, nor absolving their subjects from their natural obedience, but of excommunicating heresy, giving over such as are condemned for that crimce, to the secular magistrate to be punished; and ordering withal, that certain other secular powers or principal Lords inferior to Kings, as may be Potestates, Consuls, Rectors, or such like (which by the constitution of Frederick 2. 
pag. 66  Emperor is evident) should be compelled (if need were) to take an oath to do their endeavour for the extirpation of heretics out of such places as should be under their government; when of necessity both Emperor and kings ought to have been specified, if the Council had meant to have 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 utendum, & pia interpretatione. In penals we are to use both a restriction, and a pious interpretation. Likewise, Poenae non extendendae ultra 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 Council? Therefore this chapter maketh nothing for the Pope's authority to deprive kings of their crowns and dignities: and so consequently is of no validity against the Oath of Allegiance made anno tertio jacobi Regis serenissimi.  
But for better clearing this point, it shall not be amiss to set down the decree of the Council as it is, leaving it to the considerations of the learned, 〈◊〉 judge whether it be of faith or no, which beginneth thus:  
Excommunicamus & anathematizamus omnem haeresim, 
Conc. Later. 3 c. 3.  etc. We excommunicate and anathematize all heresy that exalteth itself against this holy, orthodox, Catholic faith, 
Note that the punishment of heretics is to be commutted by sentence of this Council to secular powers.  which above we have declared, etc. And let such as are condemned, be left unto secular powers if they be present, or unto their Bailiffs (or Precedents) to be punished with due punishment, clerk being first degraded from their orders. And such as shall be found noted with suspicion only, unless according to the consideration of the suspicion and the quality of the person, they show their own innocency by a meet purging, let them be excommunicated, and the quality of the person, they show their own innocency by a meet purging, let them be excommunicated, and avoided of all, till they have made condign fatisfaction so that if for the space of a year they stand excommunicate, from that time forward let them be condemned as heretics. All which seemeth not to serve the Cardinals turn to prove the Pope to have power to depose, and therefore in his answer to D. Barclai page 30. he omitted it saving the first sentence Excommunicamus. It followeth in the Council:  
Moneantur autem & inducantur, etc. And let the secular powers, yea of what office soever, be admonished and induced, and if need be, compelled; as they desire to be reputed and accounted faithful, so for the defence of faith, let them take publicly an Oath, that they will endeavour bona fide, to their power, to root out of the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics marked out by the Church, so that henceforward, whensoever any shall be assumed into either spiritual or temporal potestacie, he be bound to confirm this chapter. This part also the Cardinal left our, as not being any thing for his purpose, and taketh hold of this clause ensuing.  
Sivero Dominus temporalis. And if the temporal Lord being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his land from this heretical filth, let him be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and comprovincial Bishops. And if he shall contemn to make satisfaction within a year, let this be signified to the Pope, that he may from that time denounce his vassals absolved from his fealty, and may expose his land to be occupied by Catholics, who having rooted out the heretics, may possess it without any contradiction, and conserve it in the purity of faith, the right of the principal Lord reserved, so that to this he be no hindrance, nor oppose any impediment, the same law notwithstanding being kept about those who have not principal Lords.  
How greatly might it have been wished, that the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine, either in Tortus, 
See Tortus p. 73. Colon.  or in his answer to D. Barclai, or in some other of his learned works, had so clearly explicated this latter part of the Council, esteemed of him the greatest and most famous (howbeit the Council of Chalcedon for number of Bishops was much greater) that all might have rested satisfied of the irrefragable decree of the Pope's power to depose Princes? May it not be said unto him; Quousque animam nostram tollis? if this be of faith, dic nobis palam. But this, his Gr. (with his good leave be it spoken) hath not yet performed, no not in his last against 
Bellar. in Barc p. 31. Colon.  D. Barclai; howsoever he laboutech to beat down a simple reader with words full of terror, to wit: That it is the voice of the Catholic Church, and he that contemneth to hear her as (he saith) Barclai hath done, is no way to be accounted a Christian, but as a Heathen and Publican. And, if the Pope hath not power in earth, to dispose of temporals, even to the deposition of those Princes, who are either themselves heretics, or in any sort do favour heretics; why at the edition of this Canon, did none of so great a number, reclaim against it? Why durst not, no not one, among so many Ambassadors of Emperors and kings, once mutter at it?  
This lo, is all the Cardinal bringeth for proof of the supposed decree of faith, in the third Council of Lateran, (which is little to the purpose, and not so dreadful as the words import, if it be well considered) saying: It is the voice of the Catholic Church. What? that it is a point of faith there concluded, binding all Christians to believe, that the Pope hath power to depose kings, and dispose of temporals? Was there Anathema thundered against any that should not believe it? Nothing less, as you may see if ye note the words. And therefore Barclai hath not contemned the Church (nor others that agree with him in opinion) who did always highly reverence whatsoever she decreed, tanquam de fide, in any general Council; whose soul 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 reclaimed against this Canon, nor any Ambassador once muttered at it? This why, in my judgement, may be answered with a, Wherefore have Metropolitans and Bishops all this time, being almost 400. years agone, been so negligent in performing their duty, 
The 3 Council of Lateran held an. ●alutis 1215.  by admonishing and excommunicating their Princes, if this decree did bind them? And wherefore have not Bishops that were remiss and negligent in purging heresy out of their Dioceses, been deposed according to the Counsels order, as appeareth in the end of this Canon? The words are, Volumus igitur & mandamus, & in virtute obedientiae districte praecipimus, etc. We will therefore and command, & in the virtue of obedience do straightly charge, that for the effectual execution of these things, Bishops watch diligently over they Dioceses, as they will avoid the Canonical revenge. For if any Bishop shall be negligent or remiss in purging out of his diocese the leaven of heretical deformity, when that shall appear by evident signs, let him be deposed from Episcopal office, and into his room let another that is fit be substituted, who will, and is able to confound heretical pravity. This out of the Council. Are these to be reputed as Heathens and publicans for not obeying the voice of the Church in this point? I know the Cardinal will not be so severe a judge, in such wise to censure them, albeit they obey not the strait commandment of this great and famous 
Conc. Trid. Sess 25. c. 22. & de reform. cap. 20.  Council, whose decrees of reformation, as also of all other general Counsels, they are more bound to accept and put in execution, than kings and secular potentates.  
And is it not more then probable that some there reclaimed, some muttered, though the Cardinal haply find it not registered, when according to the order of the Council, and by virtue of this decree it was never executed? Then, Nun frustra est illa potentia quae nunquam redigitur in actum? Yes saith Cardinal Bellarmine, speaking in a like case, of Christ's regal power in earth, upon those words of our Saviour: 
joan. 18.  Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Christ never exercised regal power in this world: for he came to minister, not to be ministered unto. Therefore in vain (saith he) had he received regal authority; frustra est enim potentia quae, nunquam redigitur in actum.  
But supposing with the Cardinal there were not then any reclamation nor any muttering against it, yet may such a constitution being never received, 
Panormitan. 10. Andr.  or upon disuse of so long time, be justly said to be abrogated, as many Canons and Decrees of this, and other Counsels have been. And namely, that in this Council which forbiddeth new religions to arise, Can. 13. since which time, notwithstanding, 
Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. c. 16.  have risen the Minims of S. Francis de Paula, the religion of the jesuits, and others. That Metropolitans should celebrate provincial Counsels every year, was appointed ca 6. which is not observed. 
Can. 3.  And in the Council of Lateran under Leo 10. was decreed, that Monasteries after the decease of the Abbots should not be given away to any in commenda, or commended to any who were not religious: but how this likewise is observed, 
Constantino. Conc. can. 50 & 59  the Monks and religious of Italy, France, and other countries can testify. In the sixth general Council, clergy men were forbidden to play at dice; and it was ordered that Baptism should be administered only in Churches: which are not kept. Many more instances out of other Counsels might be to this purpose produced, but to avoid tediousness these few may suffice.  
Now for a further answer, I wish you to note, that this Council indeed (as by the words in the chapter is clear) did first excommunicate all heresy that lifted up itself 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 heretics, should be left unto the secular powers to be condignly punished. Secondly, this holy Synod decreed, that such as were only suspected of heresy should clear themselves of that note within a year after admonition; otherwise they were to be excommunicated and avoided till they had made condign satisfaction. Which was but the right practice and true proceeding of the Church, to inflict spiritual censures, that the souls of the offenders might be saved in the day of our Lord, leaving them to the secular Magistrates to be further punished temporally.  
Thirdly, it was set down in this Synod, as meet and convenient, that secular powers should be admonished, and if need were, compelled to take a public oath for defence of faith, and to do their best endeavours to root out of their territories, all such heretics as should be denounced by the Church: & none to be assumed into office which should not by oath confirm this chapter. By secular powers and such as shall be assumed into potestacie or office, either spiritual or temporal, was not nor could be meant Emperor or King, but rather Precedents or Governors of Provinces subject unto Kings, and absolute Princes; who being Catholics, may by their excelling power assisting the Church, compel them to confirm this chapter by taking such an Oath: but themselves cannot be compelled by any, having no superior on earth in temporals to force them thereunto. Neither may it be said properly, that a King, coming to his crown by lawful succession and inheritance, or election, is assumed into office by any, his subjects or others; for than it would follow, that he were not supremus Dominus, a Sovereign, but in some sort inferior to those that do assume him; because he that is assumed or taken into office, receiveth authority from him that assumeth. As, the Pope creating a Cardinal, and saying, Assumimus te insanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem, We assume thee to be a Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, giveth him by his supreme authority that spiritual office and dignity of assisting him in the government of the Church, and his temporal state, and to have vocem activam & passivam in the election of the Pope, etc. But his Holiness, though elected by the Cardinals, cannot properly be said to be assumed by them to the Popedom, because he receiveth no power or authority from them, but immediately from God.  
Finally, to the latter part, Si vero dominus temporalis: on which Cardinal Bellarmine fortifieth his assertion of the Pope's authority 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 have spoken it plainly, to put all out of doubt. By temporal Lords in this place, ought not to be understood Kings, but rather such as are explicated in the emperors constitution, to wit, Potestates, Consuls, Rectors, is hereafter followeth pag. 34. or such feudatary Princes as have principal Lords over them, like to certain in Italy, where this Council was held: which is manifest by this Canon, that reserveth the right of the principal 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 have not principal Lords: which ought to be understood of absolute Princes. Lord, being a general word, signifying sometime Kings. May it not be admired, that out of this obscurity of the law, men will enforce Kings to be understood, and to be subject to temporal punishments, who acknowledge no superior 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 have said before pag. 51.) a restriction is to be used, not an ampliation; and Kings are no less to be named or specified by the orderly proceeding of the Church, than Cardinals, 
Conc. Trid. sess. 24. de reform. cap. 1.  who are always named in poenis, or else not included, though the Pope command sub poena excommunicationis all Patriarches, Archbishops or Bishops, of what dignity soever. If yet any will enforce, that By those who have not principal Lords, Kings are or may be understood, it helpeth them nothing at all, for that such a law, first never received, and again per desuetudinem, being never by the Church put in practice, is abrogated and of no validity.  
Neither was it defined in this Council (as all men of mean judgement may see) that the Pope hath authority to absolve subjects from their loyalty or natural obedience due to their Princes; but only signified, that he might denounce the vassals of certain temporal Lords, absolved (as it were by virtue of some former law, to wit, that of Gregory 7, Nos sanctorum, 
15. q. 6. ca: Nos sanctorum  or some other) from their fealty, who being admonished and excommunicated by the Metropolitan, shall contemn to make satisfaction within a year: which is not to absolve them by any authority given by this Council, and so it maketh nothing against the Oath of allegiance: That the Pope cannot absolve me from this Oath.  
Then lastly it followeth: And may expose his land to be occupied by Catholics. Is not this (trow ye) the groundwork of the Cardinal's bulwark for the Apostolical authority of deposing Princes, and disposing of their temporals? It seemeth yes, in his answer to D. Barclai; howbeit his Grace bringeth nothing to prove such power to be in the Pope, 
Supra pag. 54  but only saith that, you wot not what, is the voice of the Catholic Church, and he that contemneth to hear 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 Council, as you may see, useth none of these words to make a decree de fide, ordinamus, statuimus, definimus, we ordain, decree, define the Pope to have authority to depose, nor anathema qui hoc non credit, anathema to him that believeth not this, nor yet, Haec est fides Catholica, This is the Catholic faith: but only saith, That if the temporal Lord admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his country from heresy, he is to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan; and if he contemn to make satisfaction within a year, it is to be signified to the Pope, that he may expose his land (which is not to depose authoritatiuè) to be occupied by Catholics, crucem praedicando, that is, to give indulgences or pardons to such as shall voluntarily take arms, and adventure their lives to fight against heretics; and as he is accustomed in like sort to grant to all Christians that shall arm themselves and labour to expel the Turks or Saracens out of the countries they usurp upon, or the holy land: as will appear plainly to him that readeth this Canon of the Council. For, it followeth immediately: Catholici vero, qui crucis assumpto charactere ad haereticorum exterminium se accinxerint, illa gaudeant indulgentia, illoque privilegio sint muniti, quod accedentibus in terrae sanctae subsidium conceditur. And let the Catholics, who having taken the sign of the cross, shall address themselves to the rooting out of heretics, enjoy the same indulgence, and be armed with the same privilege which is granted to such as prepare themselves to the recovery of the holy land. Hereby every man may see, that in this wise to expose a country by such privileges and pardons to Prince or people, who either upon zeal of dying Martyrs, as they think, or rather covetous desire to enlarge their dominions, and to enrich themselves with others spoils, are ready to take such an occasion, and to run before they be sent; is nothing to this purpose, for deposing a lawful Prince by any authority given the Pope by our Saviour Christ in S. Peter, or by the holy Ghost in a general Council. You will say unto me, Are not heretics being obstinate, upon contempt of the Church's sword of excommunication, to be punished temporally by deprivation and confiscation of their goods, yea and by death too? Yes. But by whom? Not by any decree of Pope or Council, but by the wholesome laws of Emperors and Kings: for the Church, that is, the Pastors thereof, after excommunication, 
Tho. 2.2. q. 11. ar. 3.  quia non habet ultra quod agate, because she can proceed no further, is accustomed to deliver over obstinate heretics 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 Council of Constance, in the punishment of Hierome of prague and john hus, who being declared to be heretics, excommunicated and condemned, were forthwith delivered over to the secular power to be punished by death. Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudo (saith Costerus loco citato) in puniendis haereticis talis est, etc. The custom of the Church of Rome in punishing heretics, is after this manner: After they are apprehended by the civil or ecclesiastical magistrate, first they are examined by learned & ecclesiastical men whether they be indeed heretics: which being found, they are instructed in the right faith, etc. Then (saith he) if they remain obstinate, ab Ecclesiae gremio ut putrida membra excommunicationis gladio resecantur: qui secundùm legum Regumque 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 delivered to the civil magistrate to be punished, who according to the decrees of laws and Kings may punish them, as reason is. For it is not meet for any Ecclesiastical person either to shed blood, or to condemn any to death.  
In the general Council of Constance was pronounced a definitive sentence against john Husse, wherein for his pertinacy in heresy, as that Council took it, 
Molanus de fide haeret. ser. l. 2. c. 2.  his degradation was committed to six Bishops, as writeth Molanus out of Cochlaeus, and his execution to the secular power. Haec sancta Synodus joannem Husse, attento quòd Ecclesia Dei non habeat ultra quod agere valeat, judicio saeculari relinquere, 
Can. corripiantur. 24. q. 3.  & ipsum curiae saeculari relinquendum fore decernit. This holy Synod decreeth, considering that the Church of God can proceed no further, (to wit, then to excommunicate, and other spiritual punishments) to leave john hus to secular judgement, and that he ought to be left to the secular Court. Hence (saith Molanus) it is evident, with what small consideration some writ, that john hus was burnt upon the sentence of the Council of Constance, when as it was left to secular judgement. Taken out of Cochlaeus lib. 2. ex Hussita. Now let it be demanded why heretics, noble or ignoble, have not been, and yet are to be deprived of their temporals, and punished by death, by virtue of that decree of Pope Innocentitus in the Council of Lateran, but rather by the decree of Frederick the second, Emperor, which he made (being solicited thereto by the Pope) anon after that Council at Padua 22. Februarij, indict. 12. against certain heretics called Patareni, if that of the Pope or Council were to bind and be of force? If the first were obligatory, what needed the second of like form to be made? The Emperor might well have spared his labour, if that former had been deemed sufficient. And this is certain, and a sufficient proof of the insufficiency thereof, that the subsequent Popes, 
Direct. inquisit. lit. Apost. p. 13. 17. 51.  Innocentius 4. Alexander 4. and Clement's 4. would have their judges to punish and proceed against heretics, by virtue of that constitution of Frederick, and not by the chapter of Lateran: which they would never have done by Caesar's law, and not their own, had they not known that Caesar's law in that behalf was of greater force, and much more moment than their own.  
And lest you should, having perchance never seen this imperial Decree, doubt thereof, I have thought good to set it down at large, which is this. Statuimus etiam hoc edicto in perpetuum valituro, 
Constit. Fred. Imper. count Patarenos.  ut Potestates & consuls, seu Rectores, quibuscunque fungantur officijs, defension fidei praestent publicum juramentum quòd de terris suae ditioni subiectis universos haereticos ab Ecclesia denotatos bona fide pro viribus exterminare studebunt, ita quod amodo quandocunque quis fuerit in perpetuam potestatem, vel temporalem assumptus, hoc teneatur capitulum juramento firmare, alioquin neque pro Potestatibus, neque pro Consulibus, seu consimilibus habeantur: eorumque sententias ex tunc decernimus inutiles & inanes. Si vero Dominus temporalis requisitus & monitus ab Ecclesia terram suam purgare neglexerit ab haeretica pravitate, post annum à tempore monitionis elapsum, terrans ipsius exponimus Catholicis occupandum: qui eam exterminatis haereticis abque ulla contradictione possideant, & in fidei puritate conseruent: saluo iure Domini temporalis: dummodo super hoc nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum apponat: eadem nihilominus lege seruata contra eos qui non habent Dominos temporales etc. Datum Paduae. 22. Februarij, indictione 12.  
In English thus: We decree also by this edict, for ever to be of force, that Potestates, and Consuls, or Rectors, what offices soever they bear, for defence of faith, take a public oath, that they shall seriously endeavour what in them lieth, to root out all heretics noted by the Church, out of the country's subject to their government, so that from henceforth, whensoever any shall be assumpted to a Potestacie for ever, or for a time, let him be bound to confirm 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 unprofitable and of no force. And if the temporal Lord, required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his country from heretical pravity, after a year expired from the time of the admonition, we expose his country to be occupied by Catholics: who, when the heretics are rooted out, may possess it without any contradiction, and maintain it in the purity of faith: the right of the principal Lord being reserved: so that upon this he bring no obstacle, nor procure any impediment: the same law notwithstanding being observed against them that have not principal Lords, etc. Given at Padua 22. of February, indiction 12.  
Now can any man perceive by this imperial law (procured, and used by the Church in the punishment of heretics) that kings are bound to take the oath therein specified? or that it is meant, their countries should be given from them, if after the Church's admonition they yet remain negligent in extirpating heretics? Nothing less. First, because kings are not named or mentioned, which is requisite; but Potestates (as are in Italy) Consuls, and Rectors, or Governors of provinces, such as are inferiors, or subject to the Emperor 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 have no dependence of the Emperor) for that they are not bound to the keeping of the law being penal. 
L. Princeps D de legibus.  Princeps enim solutus est legibus. For the Prince is freed from laws. That is, as the Grecians understand, from the penalty of laws.  
Thirdly, the Emperor being no superior to absolute kings, cannot constrain them by any law civil, nor punish them. 
L. non magistratus D. de recep. Qui arbi.  For, Par in parem non habet imperium, multo minus inferior in superiorem. A peer or equal hath not dominion over his equal, much less an inferior over his superior; as subjects over their lawful Prince. Now if the Emperor, or any other Peer, may by virtue of that law, deprive an absolute king of his kingdom, and confiscate whatsoever he hath (which are grievous punishments) then is he subject to penal laws, and to be corrected not only by his peers but also by inferiors, and his own subjects: which is absurd, 
Tert. ad Scapulan Praesid. Carthag. Amb. in li. Qui inscrib. Apol. David.  and against the authorities abovesaid, and judgement of ancient Fathers, Tertullian, Ambrose, Gregorius Turonensis, and others; who writ, that a king is inferior but to God alone, that is, in temporals: that they are not to be punished by penal laws, being defended with the power of their empire: &, 
Greg. l. 5 hist. c 7.  if thou (speaking of a king) dost offend, who shall correct thee, who shall condemn thee, but he that hath pronounced himself to be justice? This being so, then cannot that law of the Emperor take hold on kings, nor punish them temporally.  
But supposing that chapter of the Council, whereof we spoke before, or rather of Innocentius in the Council, were a decree, what then? doth it follow infallibly that it is. de fide? No. The most reverend Cardinal Bellarmine will tell you, 
Bella l. 2. Concap. 12.  that in Counsels the greatest part of the acts appertain not to faith, as disputations, reasons, explications, etc. Sed tantum ipsa nuda decreta, & ea non omnia, sed tantùm quae proponuntur tanquam de fide. That is, But only the very bare decrees, and not all those neither, but only such as are proposed as of faith. For sometime (saith he) Counsels do define somewhat, not as certain, but as probable, as the Council of Vienna, which decreed to be holden as the more probable, that grace and virtues are infused to infants in Baptism, as is, Clement. unica de summa Trinit. & fide Cath.  
Why then Sir, how shall I know when a decree is of faith, and when it is not? Cardinal Bellarmine in the place above 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 contrarium sentiunt, etc. When a decree is proposed as of faith, it is easily known by the words of the Council; for they are always accustomed to say, that they explicate the Catholic faith, or, they are to be held for heretics that think the contrary; or which is most usual, they say Anathema, and exclude out of the Church, those that are of contrary opinion. And when they have none of these, it is not certain that the matter is of faith. This he. By which you learn, & may secure your conscience, that the doctrine of deposition of Princes, either directly or indirectly, ordinarily, or extraordinarily, casually or by consequence, was never in such sort decreed in the Council of Lateran, or any other Council to this day: nor ever defined by any Pope ex cathedra (as some take it) in Consistory tanquam res fidei formaliter, as a matter of faith formally.  
If yet further you desire to know what Authors writ, that the Pope's authority in things temporal (as deposing Princes, and disposing kingdoms you take to be) was never defined; you may read Cardinal Allen against the English justice, c. 4. f. 326. who saith, 
Alanus.  that it is a mere matter of Divinity disputable in school, and no certainty as yet defined by the Church, touching the Pope's authority in things temporal. The same affirm Couarruuias, 
Couarruuias. Navarrus. Bensfildius.  p. 2. pag. 504. Navarrus, as is there noted by Covar. & in cap. Novit de judicio notab. Bensfildius de iure & damno dato, c. 7. and others.  
Here it may be you will object unto me, and say, that Paulus 5. in prohibiting by his Breves the Oath of allegiance, seemeth there to define ex cathedra the Popes authority in temporals, as some of our Pastors since this controversy teach us; I pray you let me know your opinion, whether they be definitive sentences or no.  
Beloved brethren, assure yourselves they deceive you, that so ignorantly instruct you; and while they lead you into an error, they hazard your overthrow. Those Breves are no definitions, but rather admonitions or advertisements, as the first, dated 10. Kalendas Octobris, 1606. which hath: Propterea admonemus vos, ut ab hoc at que similibus iuramentis praestandis omnino caveatis, etc. Therefore we admonish you to beware of taking this and the like Oaths; affirming it withal to be unlawful. Or else precepts, (though not obligatory 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 well be presumed, that his Holiness never had any such intention to set forth such a decree. To know when a decree is de fide, you may learn by that I told you a little before out of Cardinal Bellarmine, whose rule is well to be considered. If these Breves were definitions de fide ex cathedra (as some most fond and ignorantly stick not to avouch) some of those clauses and interminations mentioned by Cardinal Bellarmine had been inserted; they must have been general, and aught to bind all Christian people as well as English Catholics: for what is faith in one country, aught to be such through the world, and to be agreed upon among learned men without controversy. 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 private exhortatory letters, no precepts, as a late writer affirmeth them to be: 
Andraeas Eudaemon societatis Ies. in praefat. ad Torture Torti.  Privatis literis Catholicos monuit Pontifex (saith Eudaemon) juramentum id suscipi per divinam legem non licere, proinde quiduis potius paterentur. The Pope admonished Catholics in his private letters (saith Eudaemon a jesuite) 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 means, as by surreption, wrong information, and so forth, as with great reason it may be presumed these were, by a person more turbulent than was fitting for one of his function and vocation, whose merit haply might have been greater by devout saying one pair of beads, than was by his labours and travails with his Holiness to kindle quenched coals, as most probably he did in playing the solicitor, and procuring those Breves; whereby he hath brought all in brandlement, set no small contention and division among brethren and friends, and raised a tempestuous sea of calamities and troubles, where a happy calm of peace and quietness was not unlike to be: for which God pardon his soul.  
Moreover, some good Authors not only doubt whether the Pope alone may determine or define matters of faith, but plainly seem to say, such a determination doth not bind; and so he cannot without a general Council. Determinatio solius Papae (saith Gerson) in his quae sunt fidei, 
Io. Gerson. tract. de ex. aminatione doctrinarum, consid. 2.  non obligat, ut precise est talis ad credendum. The determination of the Pope alone, in matters of faith, as it is precisely such, bindeth not to believe. And Petrus de Alliaco sometime Cardinal of Cambray, in his treatise of the reformation of the Church of Rome, offered to the Council of Constance begun an. 1414. writeth in this sort, as appeareth in M. Blackwel's large examination. 
Petrus de Alliaco.  In hoc non debet Papa aut eius Curia, etc. Herein (as touching the reformation of the body of the whole Church of Rome) the Pope or his Consistory ought not to reject the deliberation of a general Council, because, as the Gloss, 19 dist. super cap. Anastasius, 
19 dist. super cap. Anastas.  saith, The Pope is bound to require a Council of Bishops, when any point of faith is to be handled: which I do not understand of the articles of faith, but of difficult matters, that touch the universal state of the faithful Church: which Archidiaconus noteth, 
15. dist. c Sicur  where approving the said Gloss, 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 have recourse to the deliberation of a Council. Now let your learned instructors peruse and consider well the foresaid Authors (Catholic) and the Gloss, with the approbation thereof, also Catholic; and then I persuade myself, they will with more advisement give you better instructions, and confess that those Breves are far from definitive 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 foveam cadent.  
Well, grant they are no definitions, yet it cannot be denied, but that therein his Holiness hath declared, many things to be contained in the Oath against faith, and the health of souls, and thereupon prohibited all Catholics to take the same; whose commandment (if any other) is to be obeyed, by S. Paul's doctrine: Obedite Praepositis vestris, & subiacete eye: 
Heb. 13.  ipsi enim pervigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris redd●●uri. Obey your Prelates, and be subject unto them; for they watch, as to render account for your souls. How can this be answered? or how can they free themselves from mortal sin, that by taking the Oath, seem to contemn sovereign authority? Very well. If indeed there were contempt as some either carried away with passion, or through ignorance and small consideration bear you in hand) than a heinous sin would it be to transgress the precept of the supreme Prelate Christ's Vicar; for, contempt of any superior, though in re levissima, is always a mortal sin. But it is not so in this our case, it is not all one we know, nolle obedire, and non obedire: conscience settled on good grounds, is the only motive to such as take it, not to obey, believing it to be most lawful.  
That his Holiness hath affirmed in genere, as his opinion, many things to be contained in the Oath repugnant to faith and health of souls, is manifest in the Breves; yet because he hath not Specified any one particular clause (which was much desired) nor Father Parsons in his Catholic letter, nor Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus, or other book of his, have explicated or cleared the Pope's meaning, what they be, nor any other writers that have handled this matter, and written in defence of them (as doubtless they would have done, if they could tell which were against faith) his Holiness (in my judgement) cannot justly condemn such of a contempt, as with reason and upon good grounds hold the contrary: who are not bound to alter their opinions upon any such assertion of any private Doctor, unless their understanding be first convinced, either by good reason, or authorities of Scriptures, Fathers, or some general Council. If any man be scandalised, and please to carp hereat as at strange doctrine, let him read the famous and learned S. Tho. More in his Epistle to D. Wilson, 
Tho. More in his epist. to D. Wills. p. 1445.  where he shall see the very same taught in this manner. Many things (every man learned woteth well) there are, in which every man is at liberty, without peril of damnation, to think which way he list, till the one part be determined for necessary to be believed by a general Council. And in another place of his works, 
In epist. ad filiam, pa. 1439.  thus he writeth: If it so hap, that in any particular part of Christendom, there be a law made, that be such, as for some part thereof some men think that the law of God cannot bear it, and some other think yes; the thing being in such manner in question, that through divers parts of Christendom, some that are good men and cunning, both of our own days and before our days, think some one way; and some other of like learning and goodness, think the contrary. In this case he that thinketh against the law, neither may swear that law lawfully was made, standing his own conscience to the contrary; nor is bound upon God's displcasure to change his own conscience therein, for any particular law made any where, other than by the general Council, and by a general faith grown by the working of God universally through all Christian nations: nor other authority than one of these twain (except special revelation, and express commandment of God:) sith the contrary opinions of good men and well learned, as I put you the case, made the understanding of the Scriptures doubtful, I can see none that lawfully may command and compel any man to change his own opinion, & translate his own 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 plain and evident (as appearing by the common faith of Christendom) yet if he see but himself with far the fewer part think the one way, against far the more part of as learned and as good as those are that affirm the thing that he thinketh, thinking and affirming the contrary, and that of such folk as he hath no reasonable cause, wherefore he should not in that matter suppose, that those which say they think against his mind, affirm 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 move him, and yet not to compel him to conform his mind and conscience unto theirs. By this doctrine of Sir Thomas More it is clear, that the Pope's opinion of the Oath, though it may seem to some, to be a very good occasion to move men not to take it, yet it is not sufficient to compel them to conform their mind and conscience unto his; when as they that have taken it, and also many others both virtuous and learned, are of contrary opinion, nothing to be contained in that Oath against or repugnant to faith; nor never hath this point in controversy been 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 affirm that therein he hath erred, for the reverence and honour I bear to the Sea Apostolic, nor take upon me to be judge over him, Qui parem super terram non habet, to use Saint Bernard's 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 servum? and, Tu autem quid iudicas fratrem tuum? aut tu quare speruis fratrem tuum? Who art thou that judgest another's servant? and why dost thou judge thy brother? If I be taught and forbidden tp judge or despise my brother, my equal; then much more ought I not to judge or contemn him, qui à nemine judicatur, that is not to be judged by any man: absit hoc à me, let such temerity be far from me, the least in God's 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 temerity, or any sin at all, to say that he may err; yea and sometimes by false suggestions or wrong informations, he hath erred in Rome itself. And which is more, Counsels also in facts, or particular judgements may err, as Cardinal Bellarmine noteth. In Scriptura (saith he) nullus potest esse error, 
Li. 2. Concil. cap. 12.  sive agatur de fide, sive de moribus, etc. At Concilia in judicijs particularibus errare possent. Nec non in praeceptis morum, quae non toti Ecclesiae, sed uni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur. In the Scripture can be no error, whether it treat of faith, or of manners, etc. but Counsels in particular judgements may err. And also in precepts of manners, which are not proposed to the whole Church, but to one or other people only.  
It seemeth also not to be any heretical doctrine to hold, that not only in matters of fact, but likewise in faith the Pope alone without a Council may err, for that he is no God, but a man subject to errors; to whom as he is Peter's successor, Christ never so promised the assistance of the holy Ghost, that he in person should not err, but to Peter together with the Apostles, assembled at his sermon before his passion, who represented the whole body of the Church, as appeareth by the words of our Saviour in Saint john's Gospel: Paraclitus autem Spiritus sanctus, 
john. 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 unto 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. Cum autem venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, 
joh. 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 spoke always in the plural number, that the holy Ghost the Comforter, should remain and be in his Church, and should teach his Church all truth, and not any one of his Apostles successors in particular. This special privilege of not erring in matters of faith, was reserved for his dear spouse the Catholic Church alone, as appeareth evident likewise in Saint Matthewes Gospel: Tu es Petrus, 
Math. 16.  & super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, & portaeinferi non praevalebunt adversus eam. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. That is, the Church (as jansenius and others understand it) represented in a general Council, which Church is called by Saint Paul, 
1. Tim. 3.  Columna & firmamentum veritatis: The pillar and groundwork of truth. Not any one man in the house of God was ever such. And Alphonsus de Castro, a great learned man, and an earnest defender of this Church against heresies and heretics, blusheth not to write plainly that, Omnis homo errare potest in fide, 
Contr. haeres. l. 1. c. 4.  etsi Papa sit: Every man may err in faith, yea the Pope himself, without exception. Yet I never heard that he was condemned of heresy, or sin, for saying so. This then being so, no man of up right judgement, can with reason censure him of heresy, that shall affirm, The Pope may err in his opinion of the Oath; for, Haeresis est circa eaqnae sunt fidei, 
2.2. q. 11. ar. 2  sicut circa propriam materiam: 
2.2. 11. ar. 2.  as S. Thomas saith. Nor of mortal sin, if he refuse to obey his prohibition for taking thereof, the taker not intending to contemn his commandment, 
Tho. 22. q. 104.2.2. ad 1.  (ad inobedientiam enim requiritur quòd actualiter contemnat praeceptum) nor to transgress against the law of God; but only to render to Caesar that which is Caesar's, that is, civil obedience, due unto him both by the law of God and nature; without denying or derogating any authority spiritual of the Sea Apostolic, according to his majesties declaration and interpretation of his own meaning, set down at large in his Apology and Praemonition. The intention then being good, the end good and just, the act of such as take it cannot be but good and lawful, 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 ulira ipsorum voluntatem seu intentionem. And this much as touching the Pope's opinion or assertion in his Breves. Now it remaineth to resolve the difficulty of his precept, or prohibition of the Oath; whether Priests and Catholics in England be bound under pain of deadly sin to obey it, and so to disobey the King's Highness, who for his more security, upon so just a cause, requireth the same.  
The cause why the Pope prohibited Catholics to take the Oath of allegiance as it lieth, may seem to have been, for that in his opinion he was persuaded many things to be contained therein repugnant to faith. Which opinion supposed true, no man indeed can take it without peril of damnation; because every Christian is bound usque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusive, to profess and maintain all points of faith, when occasion of persecution shall be offered, against heretics, jews, Turks, or what infidels soever, according to the doctrine of our Saviour: 
Math. 10. Luk. 9  Qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo & ego eum coram Patre meo: And he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father. Likewise in another place; Qui non renunciat omnibus quae possidet, 
Luk. 14.  non potest meus esse discipulus. And then were it malum, non quia prohibitum, verùm ex se, to take such an oath. But till it appear more clear, and be more substantially proved then hitherto hath been by any, that some point therein contained, is manifestly against faith, & what that point is; I cannot see why any man should forthwith upon a bare commandment, though of the supreme Pastor, hazard his life in perpetual bonds, with loss of all that he hath, and utter ruin of his dearest wife and children. For his private will, subject to error, can be no infallible rule of man's actions, but the will of God, which is always right: and hereupon a man may in case be disobeyed, be he Prince or Prelate, but the most righteous God never. For that the commandment of God is always just, wherein can be no error, 
Gen. 22.  no not in willing Abraham to kill his son Isaac: 
Exod. 12. Ose. 1.  nor in commanding the jews to spoil the Egyptians of their goods: nor also in bidding the Prophet Osea to commit fornication. The reason hereof you may read 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 do sometimes command injust things, or may usurp dominion injustly: in which cases, subjects are not bound to obey them, 
22. q. 104. ar. 6.  nisi fortè per accidens (as S. Thomas noteth) propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum: unless haply accidentally, for avoiding scandal or danger. That some Kings and secular Princes have usurped domination, and commanded injustly, no man I think will doubt, and our domestic adversaries will easily grant: but to say that the Prince of Prelates, the Pope, Peter's successor should err in commanding, or command that which is injust (guarda la gamba, take heed) some nicely precise, pure and rigid, if not simple and foolish people, audito verbo hoc scandalizabuntur, no less than the Pharisees were scandalised at the doctrine of our blessed Saviour, as we read in S. Mathewes Gospel: 
Math. 15.  for that they think of like, the Pope so to be confirmed in grace, that he cannot once commit a mortal sin. If they will so easily be scandalised 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. Gregory: Si de veritate scandalum sumitur, utiliùs nasci permittitur scandalum, quàm quòd veritas relinquatur. If scandal be taken for speaking truth, it is better a scandal should be permitted to arise, than truth left untold. I will relate therefore certain true facts, but not censure them, which without this, or such like occasion offered, I ever purposed to have concealed; and refer to the reader's judgements whether they were errors in government, and sins, or no.  
When Sixtus Quintus, otherwise a prudent Prince and learned Pastor, commanded a boy of fourteen years of age to be hanged in Rome, for a fault which in many men's judgements deserved not death, but rather whipping, or some such punishment; and being in all humility told by the judge, that by the civil laws he was not to be executed till he came to the age of 16: he answered, Then I will give him two of my years. Whereupon the poor lad, contrary to law, ended his life in port hast in a halter. Whether this were a just sentence or injust, 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 all his fortunate rise to honour, and now warned him to prepare to die, for his time was come. Hereat Sixtus appalled, said: Didst thou not promise me that I should reign one lustre and half? (a lustre is the space of five years.) Yes; and now it is in manner expired (he had then reigned five years, four months, and three days); for if you remember, you gave a boy two years, to hang him. This I heard constantly reported by many in Rome presently upon his death. But who this was that appeared, S. Francis, or some other transfigured in his habit, it was not known, and I leave to the consideration of men to think what they list.  
Likewise it happened, that in his time a Clergy man, nephew unto old Martinus Navarrus the great Canonist, coming into S. Peter's Church (doubtless with intent to pray) found standing against a pillar by our Lady's altar a pilgrim's staff, wherewith he struck the judge of the Suitzers, being on his knees at his prayers before the crucifix altar, and broke his head so, as the blood ran about his ears, and fell on the pavement; whereby the Church being profaned, forthwith all Masses and other divine service ceased for a time, (I speak what I know, being then oculatus testis:) incontinently the party fled toward the new Church, but pursued by certain Suitzers attending on the said judge, was apprehended; and the Pope then sitting in Consistory, advertised of the fact, who commanded a ghostly father to be provided for him, (religiously and well done for safety of his soul) 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 blood. Would God he had well considered S. Ambrose his penance enjoined Theodosius the Emperor, and his humble acceptation thereof, viz. not to punish any malefactor to death for a months space after the crime committed; then haply his wrath and indignation might have been pacified, and the offender's life saved. Incontinently a gallows was set up before the Suitzers gate, and the Spanish gentleman brought to execution within three hours after the blow given, the Pope standing in a gallery of his palace (Consistory being ended) to see him coming, as was most certainly reported unto me then lying in the palace, by such as had reason to know it: and would not be pacified or entreated for his life, neither by the Spanish Ambassador, who posted to the Court to that end, though in vain, for audience would not be granted, nor by any other; howbeit his servant the Suitzer, in short space after recovered, and lived divers years after that to my knowledge. How 〈◊〉 these commandments were, I refer to the reader's judgement; and whether they savoured not more of a passionate secular Prince, then of a mild spiritual Pastor.  
Moreover, the said Pope having created Cardinal the Dean of Toledo, Mendoza by name, a very noble and worthy gentleman, a comely and courteous Prelate, and well beloved of many; dealt often with the said Cardinal to resign his deanery into his hands, by reason of the indignity he should be driven into, if at any time after, he were to reside in his deanery according to order, by taking inferior place in the Church to the Bishop of the Diocese, being no Cardinal; which was a thing he would not consent unto, saying, they were incompatibilia, Deane and Cardinal in one person. The Cardinal unwilling to lose so great revenues by making such a resignation, thought it no sin therein not to yield to his Holiness. Pope Sixtus notwithstanding out of his absolute authority volens nolens deprived him of his Deanery, & bestowed it on another Spaniard, who after Sixtus death, played lest in sight, for fear what might befall him by some of the Cardinal his friends for accepting or seeking it. And the Pope to make his donation valid, sent Monsignore Burghesius Auditor di camera, (who sitteth now in Peter's chair) with strait commandment unto Cardinal Mendoza, either forthwith to send the writings of his deanery, or else to go immediately with the said Prelate to the Castle. The Cardinal hereat sore perplexed and straightened on every side, making choice of the less evil, chose rather quietly, though much against his liking, to send his writings, and be deprived of his Ecclesiastical living, then bereaved of his temporal life in the castle of S. Angelo; whence is hard getting forth for any that shall enter therein. Many hereat muttered and murmured, judging the commandment to savour of great injustice.  
After this, Pope Clement in the beginning of his reign, with more haste than good speed, resembling likewise rather a passionate Prince than a meek Pastor, gave order or commandment that a certain gentleman of Cardinal Farnesius apprehended on Saturday before Palmsunday, should be executed the wednesday following, being the feast of the Annunciation of the blessed virgin Marie, and in the holy week, against all clement Christian customs and good order, which spare to execute any malefactor on such times: & would not hearken to any other information then that of the Governor, the gentlemans known adversary, no not of the Cardinal, who hearing thereof, with all speed posted from Grotta ferrata toward his Holiness at Rome, for his servants life: albeit in vain, for he was inexorable, and audience would not be granted him, till the poor gentleman had lost his head; whereupon the Cardinal being offended, departed, and refused to come to the Court for the space of a month after. Was this apprehension and execution for any heinous crime trow ye? Thus stood the case. Certain Sbirri or Sergeants, were sent from the Governor to the palace of Cardinal Farnesius (he being absent twelve miles off, at Grotta ferrata) to apprehend some other of his family of base condition, who finding the party in the open Court together with one of his fellows, they laid hands on him: the party and his fellow, and the two Sbirri striving and struggling each with other, an English mastiff dog, whereof the Cardinal made great reckoning, fell on the Catchpoles of himself, and the mean while they got out of their hands. The said gentleman seeing 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 privileged as a sanctuary) ought better to be respected of such as they were, and such like words. The Sbirri departed with complaint to the Governor, who hasteneth to the Pope, and informeth him in such sort, as the gentleman by his commandment was presently taken, and executed as is above said: and so should the dog been hanged too if he could have been found, but he was secretly conveyed away. And this lo was the crime for which he lost his life, as was bruited and known through all the city, and was beside told me by such of the family as had reason not to be ignorant of the business: at which fact many grudging said, The Pope might more fitly have been called Leo then Clement.  
Well, if for relating these truths any man be offended, let him blame certain silly souls whose fond importunity hath urged me thereto, for that they think, and will sometime say, that the Pope his actions are irreprehensible, he cannot commit a mortal sin, nor command unjustly; as if he were more than a mortal man, half a God, or so confirmed in grace that he could no way err, as was the Mother of God. But the more prudent sort will easily grant that he is a man, subject to human infirmities, and not so confirmed in grace as that he cannot err in his moral actions; that is a privilege they know rather proper to the Mother of God, then common to Christ's Vicars, which (if I be not deceived) was never yet granted to any of them. Marry some of these, prudentes apud semetipsos, dare boldly avouch, that if Peter's successor shall at any time excommunicate a Prince fallen into schism, heresy or apostasy, or other crime adjudged by him to deserve so to be censured, and thereupon depriveth him of his Regal sceptre, deposeth him of all temporal dominion, and disposeth of his territories to some other whom he shall judge better to deserve the same; or authorizeth subjects to raise tumults and take arms against such a one, and absolveth them of their fidelity and natural allegiance, or inciteth other neighbour Kings and Princes by mighty power, to invade his dominions, or finally whatsoever he command in this or the like sort, they are bound forthwith to obey him and his sentence, what peril soever may fall unto them for it; though by so doing they are to lose their lives who (as they imprudently think) hath in such a case so supreme authority over him as exceedeth all limits, & is so directed by the holy Ghost that he cannot command injustly: so omne nimium vertitur in vitium, this lo is the prudence of some imprudent Catholics, who headlongly without due consideration run on themselves, and animate others to run through over blind obedience to their utter destruction; but this point of obedience resteth now to be more largely discussed.  
It cannot be denied but that obedience is a moral virtue (whereas it is a part of justice, whose office is to render to every one that which is his:) the special object of which is the secret or express precept of the superior, to whom every inferior, both by the law and ordinance of God and nature, aught in all things lawful, not to be refractory, but subject & obedient. Yet it may so happen again, that for two respects a subject or inferior may not be bound always to obey his superior: the one is by reason of the precept of a higher power commanding contrary, as upon that of S. Paul, Qui potestati resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt: 
Rom. 13.  They that resist power, the same get to themselves damnation. The Gloss saith, Si quid iusserit Curator, etc. 
Ang. in ser. 6. de verbis Domini, to. 10.  If the Curator, or governor, command and thing against the Proconsul, art thou to do it? Again if the Proconsul command thee one thing, and the Emperor an other thing, is it to be doubted that contemning the one, thou art to serve and obey the other? Then if the Emperor one thing, and God command an other, thou art bound to obey God and not the Emperor. 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 superior commandeth any thing wherein the inferior is not subject unto him, exceeding the limits of his power: all power whatsoever under the cope of heaven being contained within certain limits, which no powerable person is to exceed.  
Here if any object S. Paul, teaching children and servants to obey their parents and masters in all they command: 
Coloss. 3.  filii obedite parentibus per omnia: and, servi obedite per omnia dominis carnalibus: children, obey your parents in all things; &, servants, obey in all things your carnal masters: therefore the Pope is to be obeyed in all things. I answer them, that it is to be understood, in all things that appertain to the right of parents & masters, and as far as they have power to command; as masters their servants in servile things, 
Tho. 2.2. q. 104. c. 5.  and parents their children in domestical affairs belonging to their paternal care: for neither can they command such as are under them to keep virginity, or to marry, or to enter into religion, to go in pilgrimage, or such like; if they should, the inferior is not bound to obey. No more can the Pope, albeit he hath plenit udinem potestatis in Ecclesia, justly command any thing wherein he hath no power, nor any persons which are not subject unto him: for that none is to be reputed a superior, 
Tho. 2.2. q. 67. ar. 1.  but in respect of them, over whom as over subjects he receiveth 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 whatsoever lawful things they command, (albeit in way of perfection they may) but only in such as appertain to their regular conversation, or according to their rule which they profess. 
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 superiors should by indiscretion or otherwise command any thing against the law of God, (yea were he the Pope himself) or against the profession of their rule, such obedience, I deem, nor they nor any will doubt to be unlawful; and they were not bound to obey, as Innocentius & others affirm. So then we may distinguish obedience to be of three sorts: one sufficient to salvation, which obeyeth in all matters wherein he is bound: another perfect, which obeyeth in all things lawful: and the third indiscreet, which is ready to render obedience yea in unlawful or injust things.  
And this is the obedience wherewith may (alas) in these our angerous days seem so deeply possessed, (dangerous I say) for that within such obedience (latet anguis in herba) lieth hidden a mystery of mischief, and which is so highly by diverse recommended to their auditors who stick 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 sin; therefore it is best and securest always to obey whatsoever is by them commanded, alleging S. Paul: 
Hebr. vlt.  Obedite Praepositis vestris: Obey your Prelates, without distinction: not attending that the same holy Ghost who taught us this doctrine by the vessel of election, hath likewise taught us by the mouth of the Prince of Apostles, and cannot be contrary to himself, that we are no less bound to obey and be subject to kings and their officers, to wit: 
1. Pet. ●.  Subiecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum: sive Regi quasi praecellenti: sive ducibus tanquam ab eo missis, ad vindictam malefactorum, etc. Be ye subject to every human creature for God: whether to the King as to the precellent, or to his Captains as sent from him, for the punishment of malefactors, etc. For that the political or civil power, yea of heathen or persecuting Neros (as in the Apostles times were no other) is no less from God, and immediate from him, then is the Ecclesiastical or spiritual. 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 temporal, as of the spiritual? Chrysostome upon this place hath these words: Deus it a exigit, ut creatus ab eo Princeps vires suas habeat; God so requireth, that a Prince created have his power from him; than not from the people. If you read Solomon in the book of Wisdom, you shall find it most clear, that the power of Kings and Rulers is immediate, 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, etc. Give care you, that contain multitudes: (who are they but temporal Princes?) because power is given to you from our Lord, and virtue from the Highest, without any distinction of mediatè, etc. It followeth a little after who are meant: 
ver. 10.  Ad vos ergo Reges sunt high sermons mei, ut discatis sapiontiam, etc. To you therefore o kings are these my words, that you may learn wisdom, etc. These two powers then, ecclesiastical and civil, as they are both from God, so are they both distinct and separate from other, and independent of each other, as after shall be proved.  
And even as God hath ordained and concluded the waters and main sea within certain limits, which the may not pass, but must break their raging waves 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 pass their bounds: and in job: Et Dixi, 
job. 38.  usque huc venies, & none proceeds amplius, & hic confringes tumentes fluctus tuos. And I said (saith God) hitherto thou shalt come, & thou shalt proceed no further, and here thou shalt break thy swelling sources. So likewise his omnipotent wisdom, haply to avoid all confusion and other mischiefs, which might arise by intermeddling with each others power, hath appointed them their several and distinct ends, their limits & bounds, which they may not pass, not invade each others empire: 
Lib. 1. de consid. cap. 5.  as mellifluous S. Bernard writing to Pope Eugenius 3. doth more than insinuate. Habent haec insima & terrena judices suos, Reges & Principes terrae. Quid fines alienos invaditis? quid falcem vestram in alienam messem extenditis? These base and terrene things have their judges, Kings and Princes of the earth. Why do you invade other men's bounds? why do you thrust your sith into others harvest? By which is evident that Popes may, and do sometimes exceed their limits, to wit, spiritual authority, when by usurpation they intermeddle in terrene things or temporal authority, being the proper bounds of Kings and secular Princes, which ought not to be invaded by Ecclesiastical persons. And to this effect writeth most excellently amongst latter Divines joannes Driedo, affirming this distinction to be de iure divino. 
Lib. 2. de liber. Eccle. c. 2.  Christus (saith he) utriusque potestatis officia discrevit, ut una divinis & spiritualibus rebus atque porsonis, altera profanis ac mundanis praesideret. Christ hath so parted the offices of both powers, as the one might govern over divine and spiritual things and persons, the other over profane and mundane. And a little after: The distinction therefore of Ecclesiastical Papal power from the secular and Imperial power is made by the law of God. And in the same chapter; Whereupon the Pope and the Emperor are in the Church not as two chief governors divided among themselves, (neither of which do acknowledge or honour the other as superior) because a kingdom divided against itself will be desolate. Neither are they as two judges subordinate, so as the one receiveth his jurisdiction from the other: but they are as two governors, which are the Ministers of one God, deputed to divers offices, in such wise as the Emperor is to rule over secular causes & persons, for the peaceable living together in this world: and the Pope may rule over spirituals to the gain of Christian faith and charity. This Driedo. That these two dignities are distinct, having no dependence of each other, Cardinal Bellarmine himself proveth, comparing them to the two great lights or planets, the Sun and Moon. Nota (saith he) quemadmodum non est idem sydus Sol & luna, & sicut lunam non instituit Sol, sed Deus: 
Bellar. l. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3.  it a quoque non esse idem Pontificatum & Imperium, nec unum ab alio absolute pendere. Note that even as the Sun and Moon are not one and the same planet, and as the Sun did not institute or appoint the Moon, but God: so likewise the Papacy and Empery are not one and the same, nor the one do absolutely depend of the other. By these two great lights Sun and Moon, 
Cap. Solitae de maiorit. & obedien.  Pope Inocentius interpreteth to be meant two dignities, which are Pontifical authority, and Regal power.  
Moreover this distinction of these two great powers, that ancient and renowned Hosius Bishop of Corduba writing to Constantius the Arrian Emperor most manifestly showeth: 
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: & quemadmodum, etc. To you God hath committed the Empire, to us he hath delivered those things which belong to the Church: and even 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 guilty of a great crime. Give, it is written, 
Math. 22. Mar. 12.  to Caesar those things which are Caesar's, and to God those which belong to God. Therefore neither is it lawful for us in earth to hold the Empire; nor you o Emperor, have power over incense and sacred things. Thus this learned Bishop, and renowned in the first Council of Nice. 
In cap. Inquisitioni de sen. excom.  Hereupon Innocentius the third, and Panormitan conclude, that laics are not bound to obey the Pope in those things that are not spiritual, or which concern not the soul, as they speak: but only in those places which are subject to his temporal jurisdiction. That these two powers are independent of each other, and the temporal not subordinate to the spiritual, but, since the coming of Christ, separate, and so distinguished by their proper acts, offices and dignities, that the one may not usurp the right and power of the other without injury to each other, Pope Nicolas the first, plainly witnesseth in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor; as appeareth also in the Canon law; 
Can cum ad verum. ventum est, dist. 96. Barcl. de potest. Pap. c. 13. L. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 3.  which you may read in D. Barclai of worthy memory, in case you can get it. Which place I may not pretermit to note unto you as it is set down in Cardinal Bellarmine: Idem mediator Dei & hominum, homo Christus jesus, sic actibus proprijs, & dignitatibus distinctis officia potestatis utriusque discrevit, etc. The same Mediator of God and men, the man Christ jesus, hath so severed the offices of both powers, by proper acts and distinct dignities, that both Christian Emperors for eternal life, should have need of the chief Bishops, and the chief Bishops for the course of temporal things only, should use Imperial laws. Here (saith the Cardinal) the Pope speaketh not of the only execution, but of power and dignity, etc. For whatsoever Emperors have, Pope Nicholas saith, they have it from Kings and Emperors this execution, as being himself chief King and Emperor, or else he cannot? If he can, then is he greater than Christ: if he cannot, then hath he not in deed Regal power. This he: Who in the same chapter bringeth Pope Gelasius to this purpose. Duo sunt (inquit) Imperator august, 
Gelas. ep. ad Anast. Imp. Decret. dist. 96. Can. Duo sunt.  quibus principaliter mundus hicregitur, Authoritas sacra Pontificum, & Regalis potestas, etc. There are two things O noble Emperor, whereby principally this world is governed, the sacred authority of Bishops, and Regal power, etc. Where it is to be noted (saith Bellarmine) that Gelasius speaketh not only of the execution, but of the very power and authority, lest our adversaries say (as they are accustomed) that the Pope hath indeed both powers, but committeth the execution to others. That the ends likewise of these two powers are different, the Cardinal confesseth, saying, that the political hath for her end temporal peace, and the Ecclesiastical eternal salvation. And hereto agreeth Navarre in Relect. cap. Novit do iudic. nu. 90. 
Navar.  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 superior, it is a general rule (as Cardinal Tolet noteth) that such a one is not of duty to be obeyed: 
Tolet. de 7. peccatis mort. c. 15.  unicuique superiori (saith he) obediendum est ex obligatione, in his tantum in quibus est superior. And the inferior dischargeth well his duty, if he promptly obey in those things wherein he is inferior; as a servant in seruilibus, such as appertain to a servant: and for this citeth Pope Innocentius cap. Inquisitioni de sent. excom. Whereupon, if the Pope should (in virtute obedientiae) command any man to give away his vineyard or house, or sell his patrimony (as Bellocchio cupbearer to Sixtus 5. would have had the Pope by his Breve to command a subject of his to do, because the poor man's land lay commodiously for him, and pleased him (Naboths' case:) which his Holiness refused to do, answering, he could not, he might do no man wrong,) or a clergy man to resign his benefice with cure to some unworthy person, which is against a divine precept, he is not to be obeyed, as the same author affirmeth in the chapter aforesaid. And allegeth Panorm. in cap. Inquisitioni de sent. excom. and Io. Andr. c. Cum à Deo de rescript. Much less is any 
n =" a" Cap. litteras de rest. spoliat  superior, yea the Pope himself to be obeyed (according to 
n =" b" Cap. Inquisit. etc.  Panormitan) commanding any sin, though but 
n =" c" 11. q. 3. can. Quid ergo.  venial. And 
n =" d" Verbo obedientia, nu. 5.  Sylvester: Intellige etiam si Papa credit mandatum justum, & tamen subdito constat illud in se continere peccatum: Understand, although the Pope believeth his mandateto be just, but yet the subject knoweth it contains a sin. de restit. spol. lit. Here may be noted, that the Pope may hold one opinion, and an inferior may hold the contrary, and more true, without sin. Yea and a Bishop, in case the Pope should command him to be absent from his residence without some necessity, he is not bound to obey; because (saith Tolet) cum absque 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 than is due. And the same Cardinal 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 understanding and will. Who explicateth himself; If a superior say unto his inferior, Love thine enemy, 
See. S. Tho. More epist. ad filiam.  or this man in particular; or else, believe this or that opinion, the inferior is not bound to believe it, nor to obey: because (saith he) the soul is subject only to God. And for proof allegeth 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 appertain to the inward motion of the will, a man is not bound to obey another man, but only God. And this he affirmeth to be the common doctrine. Out of these cases you may gather, and secure your conscience, that a superior, yea Christ's Vicar the Pope's Holiness, may be disobeyed without scruple of sin, (modo absit contemptus) notwithstanding his commandment prohibiting the Oath of allegiance: because no man can force any to believe that which is matter only of opinion, not of faith formally, unless his understanding be first convinced, that it is an infallible truth which is commanded. And this of the Oath being an inward act of the understanding, is not subject in that case to the commandment of any man, according to the doctrine of the Author's aforesaid. And furthermore, by obeying his Holinesses Breves, and disobeying his highness law in a matter as yet undetermined; great damage to many is more than likely to ensue, and infinite scandals, to the loss of souls, to arise in the Church; which every Christian man and good subject is bound to avoid. Qui amat periculum, peribit in illo. He that loveth danger shall perish in it. And, Qui causam damus dat, damnum dedisse viderur. It seemeth he doth the hurt, that giveth cause thereof. If this satisfy you not, lend me a patiented and diligent ear, and you shall hear more.  
If I show you by the authority of the Sea Apostolic, that his Holiness, who sitteth now at the stern, Paulus Quintus, forbidding all Catholics to take the Oath of allegiance, is not therein to be obeyed, I trust you will require no other testimony; but believe it to be lawful, and resolve not to hazard your estates for refusing it hereafter. Mark 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 praecavere. 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 evils are like to ensue. And in obeying, a man should sin, when as he ought to prevent future evils.  
Now tell me, I pray you, or let our domestic adversaries, or such as are inwardly persuaded, that the Pope cannot, by any authority derived from Christ, dethrone Kings directly or indirectly (howbeit forsooth in policy refuse to take the Oath, and discharge their duty to Caesar, for fear of losing friends and commodities) nor dispossess any private man of his temporals, who is not his subject (of which sort there are many:) let them I say, or any one of them tell me, whether by disobeying the King's highness, and obeying the Pope in this case of the Oath, the Catholic Church in England is not like to be greatly afflicted, the memory of the Gunpowder treason revived, the Catholics miseries aggravated, the heat of persecution continued and increased, whole families utterly ruined, propagation of faith hindered, many souls lost, and a thousand evils like to follow, with many scandals to the State and all the Realm, by reason of obeying his Holiness Breves, if our most clement Prince with rigour upon this their indiscreet obedience, prosecute his law, made for the security of him and his posterity? The authority aforesaid being of a Pope (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 prevent such future evils or dangers. Then ought not all Catholics and good subjects do what in them lieth to prevent the manifold evils that hang over 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 been yet proved by any that have written of this subject, since the coming of the Breves four yea five years agone and more, to be contained in the Oath against faith?  
Sylvester likewise alleging Panormitane, agreeable to the former authoritic, 
sylvest v●rb. obedieti●. ●u. ●.  saith, that the Pope is not to be obeyed, not only when his precept is injust or savoureth 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 scandal is to ensue, yea although he should command under pain 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.  notat idem in cap. Si quando. & in cap. 
Panormit. See ●elin. in cap. Si quando. nu. 4. & in c. Accepimus.  Cum à Deo de rescrip. And goeth forward, Ex quo ipse in dicto, cap. Si quando infert, Quod si, etc. Whereupon he inferreth, that if he (the Pope) command any thing under pain of excommunication ipso facto, by execution whereof it is presumed there will be a scandal in the city of souls or bodies, he is not to be obeyed, etc. It followeth: Imo ex cap. Officij de poenis & remis. habetur, etc. Yea it is evident, that the positive law interpreteth, that restitution, which is de iure divino, sometime is not to be made, by reason of danger, when it may happen to souls or bodies. than it may be well 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 Cardinal Tolet, citing these authors: Nulli superiori praecipienti aliquid, etc. No superior commanding any thing whereby scandal or any notable detriment of others do follow, is to be obeyed in such a precept. So say Panorm. and Sylvester ver. obed.. §. 5. where they say, that in this case we are not to obey, although the superior command under pain of excommunication: for it bindeth not quando malè imponitur, when it is injustly imposed. Emmanuel Sa likewise: Obediendum non est cum creditur inde malum oriturum: 
Aphoris. Sa ver. obedien.  When it is thought evil may come by obeying, we are not to obey. Again, He is not bound to obey, that thinketh the superior commandeth upon error (as being misinformed,) and that if he knew the truth, he would not command: and also, that superiors by their general edicts intent not to bind with great detriment. This Sa. And had not Catholics I pray you, before the Pope's second Brief, just cause to be persuaded, that the Breves were procuted by sinister suggestions and wrong informations of some overhasty and busy person? and that if his Holiness had had true and particular notice by some other true hearted subject, how things stand with them have in England, what perturbations they might breed in the Church, and what loss and detriment was undoubtedly to fall on such as should obey them, and thereby refuse the Oath, that he would never have granted forth the said Breves in manner and form as he did; nor when he had granted them, intended to bind Catholics to obey to their so great detriment and damage? For that were addere afflictionem afflictis; which kind of cruelty is not to be thought can proceed from that holy Sea. And this may suffice for answer to the point, so much stood upon by many inconsiderately precise, of obeying or disobeying the Pope's Breves prohibiting the just Oath of allegiance. Howbeit a word or two more may not be omitted, ut obstruatur os loquentium iniqua, to flop the mouth of standerous tongues; and to answer a fond, or rather strong argument, as some think and say, that in dubijs (as is the Pope's power of deposing Princes, in their opinions) we are to have recourse to the Sea of. Peter for solution, and there to learn what is truth to be embraced, what is error to be avoided. Yea, what is there decided, the Church is bound to believe, though it be that virtue is evil, 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 spoke of doubtful acts of virtues or vices. For if in the old law, the decision of difficult and doubtful questions and ambiguities inter sanguinem & sanguinem, causam & causam, 
Deut. 17.  lepram & lepram, were granted to the Priests of the Levitical stock, and to the judge that should be for the time: much more to the Priests of the new law, and to Christ's Vicar, the chief judge and interpreter in all Ecclesiastical controversies. Therefore in this case of the Oath now controverted, Catholics are to require no more but his bare precept; and whosoever disobeyeth it, taking the oath, sinneth deadly. This, some wise in their own conceits, and learned in the estimation of others, have said and taught, howsoever otherwise very inconstant in their opinions & judgements; but how prudently, charitably, or learnedly, let the discreet reader judge. These have forgotten who it is that saith, Nolite judicare, & 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 judge any of sin, till it be proved. Indeed if the Pope's precept were such as S. john Evangelist 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 love ye one another; then (as he said) upon their tediousness of hearing it so oft repeated, Praeceptum Domini est, & si solum fiat, sufficit: It is our Lord's precept, and if it only be done, it sufficeth; then I say, we should not need to dive 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 between the commanders and the commandments, we must crave 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 needs confess that in obscurities, and doubtful questions, and difficulties in the Law of Christ, all Christians are to repair to him that sitteth in Peter's chair 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 julius Popes of Rome. S. john Chrysostome to Innocentius, 
cost rus in Enchir. de sum. Pont.  Calendion of Antioch to Pope Foelix: and other ancient Fathers in their distresses and difficult causes were wont always to seek for succour and redress of the Pope of Rome then being: but in cases perspicuous, wherein are no ambiguities or doubts to be made, against which nothing was ever formally decreed in any general Council, nor by any ancient Father taught, but is most plain and evident in holy Scriptures, and as clear as the Sun in the firmament: that needeth not. And such is the duty of inferiors to superiors, of subjects to their lawful Princes, of children to parents, of rendering to Caesar that is Caesar's, and so forth: for which there is an express commandment from the Highest, wherein no power created can dispense or justly command the contrary. Which if any should attempt to do (as his Holiness seemeth to have done in prohibiting the Oath of allegiance) it may well be by a Catholic English subject in all humility and reverence to the Sea Apostolic, 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 than men. To conclude, in such a case not to do as the Pope commandeth in this Breves, so there be no contempt (as I have said) of his precept, is no mortal sin: ex fine enine morales actus speciem habent. 
See Caiet. 5. Precepti transgressio. Tho. 2.2. q. 105. ●. 1. ad. 1.  For moral acts have their formality of the end: and such disobedience being materialis tantum, maketh not a deadly sin, & cosequently no sin at al. And this much as touching obedience to the Popes H. Breves. It followeth now that we treat briefly of a subjects duty 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 just determinative sentences and decrees that proceed from the Sea Apostolic, being the highest spiritual tribunal in God's Church; why must it not likewise be granted that subjects, as well Clerks as laics, are by the same law no less bound in foro conscientiae to be obedient to the King and his just laws, the chiefest tribunal in the common wealth? This (I think) no Christian will deny, as being most clear and evident in holy Scriptures, taught, and practised by all ancient Fathers and holy Saints.  
I confess (you will say) that human just laws have their efficacy of binding all subjects to obey in the Court of conscience, 
Tho. 1.2. q. 96. ar. 4.  from the eternal law of God, of which they are derived, according to that of Solomon: Per me Reges regnant, 
Prou. 8  & legum conditores justa decernunt. By me (saith God) Kings do reign, and Lawmakers decree just things. But whether this law of the Oath (which you aim at) be such, some make doubt; for that Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus, and father Parsons in his Catholic letter affirm, many things to be contained therein against the spiritual primacy of the chief Pastor, and his authority of binding and losing: and concerning the limitation (to use father Parsons own words) of his Holiness authority, to wit, what he cannot do towards his Majesty, or his successors in any case whatsoever. Moreover, besides promise of civil and temporal obedience in the Oath, other things are interlaced and mixed therewith, which do detract from the spiritual authority of the highest Pastor, at least wise indierectly, saith he. Therefore this law is injust, as being prejudicial 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 Catholic letter; who being ashamed (as may be thought) of the slender and insufficient clearing the important matter of the Oath, by four several and distinct ways according to his promise, deny that ever he wrote the same. But will they nill they, it is so well known to be his, and was to the Inquisition in Rome (if I have not been misinformed, and by a very credible person, that heard it from a gentleman, present in the city in his life time, and at his death) that he could not deny it; and upon the acknowledgement thereof (whether with sorrow and grief for some points unadvisedly or erroneously written, and brought in question in his old age; or somewhat else in some other book of his against Doctor Morton, touching the lawfulness of the Oath of Supremacy in some case, I cannot say) soon after fell sick, and died within eight days. But to return to our matter. Then laws are said to be just, 
Tho. 1.2. q. 96.24.  first when they are made for the common good: secondly when they exceed not his power that maketh them: and thirdly when they have their due form, to wit, when the burdens (or penalties) are imposed on the subjects with a certain equality of proportion, in order to the common good or utility of the weal public, as S. Thomas noteth.  
Such is this law of the Oath of allegiance, made by full authority in Parliament, for the conservation of his Majesty and whole commonwealth in tranquillity and peace, 
Tho. 22. q. 67.2.4. Innoc. 3. cap. Per venerabilem: Extra. Qui filii sint legitimi.  which is both private and common good. When I say full authority, I mean, in temporals; for so the Prince hath, and only in temporals in the common wealth: no less than the Pope in spirituals in the patrimony of the Church. Which law was generally enacted for all English subjects, though principally intended as a distinctive sign to detect, not Catholics from Protestants, nor such as deny the King's spiritual supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical, from the Pope's spiritual primacy, as Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth; but turbulent spirited Catholics (and these to repress) from mild and dutifully affected subjects of the same religion: such as disliking haply in words that most horrible conspiracy of Gunpowder King-slaying, would in heart have applauded the event, from those who in affliction for their conscience, with patiented perseverance to the end, how long soever God permit it to continue for our sins, will in word and deed love their enemies, bear wrongs without murmuring, and sincerely pray for the conversion of their persecutors, if they have any, following the example and doctrine of our blessed Saviour and his holy Apostles.  
That our dread Sovereign in setting forth this Oath by Act of Parliament, hath not exceeded the limits of his power, is manifest, in that it was framed only for this end, that his majesties subjects should thereby make clear profession of their resolution, 
Praefat monit. Apolog. Reg.  (to use his majesties own words) faithfully to persist in his majesties obedience according to their natural allegiance. And so far was his intent by the same Oath to detract from the Primacy or spiritual authority of the Pope, of binding or losing by Ecclesiastical censures or sacraments (as the Cardinal and father Parsons affirm,) that his Majesty as it were by a most prudent prevention, 
Praefat. monit.  to take away all scruples that might arise in Catholic subjects consciences, took special care that that clause inserted by the lower House into the Oath, which detracted from the Pope's spiritual authority of excommunicating his Majesty, should be forthwith put out. And withal declared, that the virtue or force of this Oath was no other, then that the Pope's excommunication might not minister a just and lawful cause unto his subjects to attempt any thing by open or privy conspiracies against his Majesty or state. What more I pray you could he have done for clearing this controversy, and satisfying his subjects?  
If then it be so that nothing is contained in this Oath, but what appertaineth to natural allegiance, nor more by his Majesty required then profession of civil and temporal obedience, which nature prescribeth to all born subjects (as his Majesty the interpreter of his own law hath most sufficiently in his Premonition and Apology made known to all by his pen) nor that he intended by interlacing or mingling any thing, to detract from the spiritual authority of the Pope, no not indirectly, nor against the law of God, as is likewise manifest, none can justly say he hath exceeded his limits, or that the law is unjust.  
And whereas the Catholic letter hath: That there are some things (but specifying none of those some) concerning the limitation of his Holiness authority (if he mean spiritual, it is untrue) to wit, what he cannot do towards his Majesty or his successors in any case whatsoever▪ That is a gloss of his own invention beside the text, a notorious untruth; for there are no such words to be found in the Oath, as, In any case whatsoever. Neither is the Pope's spiritual authority limited or once touched therein, as by his majesties intention sufficiently made known unto us, doth manifestly appear. And Caietan teacheth that in such like case, if the intention of the man that commandeth may be known, 
Caietan ver. praecepti trangressio.  it is enough; 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 fraud of that Catholic letter writer: for, to have set down in plain terms, that his Holiness may depose his Majesty, dispose his kingdoms to whom he list, licence subjects to raise tumults, take arms against him, or murder him, and such like, he knew would sound to good subjects most odious: therefore he thought it to be a point of policy not to deal plainly, but leave the Reader perplexed with this obscurity: What his Holiness cannot do towards his Majesty, in any case whatsoever. Whose bare assertion without proof, or truth, can in reason convince none but such as want their common sense.  
Now that it hath been proved, nothing to be contained in the Oath against the law of God, nor decrees of any general Council; and that his Majesty in making this law, and requiting of his subjects the performance thereof according to his intention (which is but just 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 Caesar's? to be obedient to higher powers, as well the civil in temporals, as the Ecclesiastical power in spirituals? Saint Peter prince of the Apostles taught this doctrine to the Christians of the primitive Church, that they should submit themselves and be obedient to secular Princes and Magistrates, though they were heathens. 
1. Pet. 2.  Subiecti igitur estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum: sive Regiquasi praecellenti, sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis, etc. Be subject therefore to every human creature, for God: whether it be to the King, as excelling, or to rulers as sent by him to the revenge of malefactors, but to the praise of the good; for so is the will of God, that doing well you may make the ignorance of unwise men to be dumb. And a little after, exhorting them to fear God, his next lesson is, to honour the King: Deum timete: Regem honorificate. How I pray you is a King honoured, when his just precept is neglected or contemned? Some haply without consideration, both ignorantly & unwisely will grant that Catholic kings are to be honoured and obeyed, but doubt may be made of such as by the Church are reputed, or rather condemned heretics, and adversaries to the Catholic faith.  
I ask these (if there be any so simple) whether Emperors, Kings, and Princes, to whom the Apostles preached this subjection and obedience, were not adversaries, yea and persecutors of the Catholic faith, and continued such the space of more than three hundred years? howbeit the Christians of those days, instructed both by the doctrine and example of the Apostles, in all dutiful humility, did not give freely, but rendered to Caesar his due, how perverse soever their Governors were. Which lesson Saint Peter their chief Pastor, immediately after in the same chapter had taught them: servi subditi estote in omni timore dominis, non tantum bonis & modestis, sedetiam dyscolis. Servants be subject in all fear to your masters, not only to the good and modest, but also to the wayward. 
Ephes. 6. Colos. 3.  This dutiful subjection likewise teacheth Saint Paul: servi obedite Dominis carnalibus cum timore & tremore, in simplicitate cordis vestri, sicut Christo. Servants, be obedient to your Lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ, not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with a good will serving as to our Lord, and not to men.  
If servants then commanded by the Apostle, were bound to serve and obey their temporal Lords and masters with such care and diligence, were they never so froward and wicked Pagans (for such no doubt many Christians did serve) 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 lawful Kings and Princes, be they never so wicked in manners, or opposite to faith and Christian religion, as heretics 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 subject to Princes and Potestates, to obey at a word. 
S. Ambrose.  Upon which place Saint Ambrose: Admonish; as if he should say, Although thou hast spiritual government over spiritual matters, yet admonish them to whom thou preachest, to be subject to Kings and Princes, because Christian religion depriveth none of his right. The same holy Father and also Saint Augustine write of the prompt obedience of Christians to julian the Apostata (which may be a very good example for Catholics of these latter times to show like obedience if they light on like Princes) saying: julianus extitit infidelis Imperator, 
Aug. in Psal. 124. Super illud, Non relinquet Domi nus virgam. Habetur 11. q. 3. c. julian.  nun extitit Apostata, iniquus, idololatra, etc. julian was an infidel Emperor, was he not an Apostata, wicked, an idolater? Christian soldiers served an infidel Emperor. When they came to the cause of Christ, they acknowledged not but him that was in heaven. When he willed them to worship Idols, to sacrifice, they preferred God before him. But when he said, Bring forth your army, go against that people, they obeyed incontinently. The distinguished the eternal Lord from a temporal Lord: and yet for the eternal Lord, they were subject also to the temporal Lord. Hereby is evident that julian had right to command Christian soldiers in temporals, and they showed all prompt obedience, knowing that their religion taught no injustice; that notwithstanding his Apostasy, he being lawfully called to the Empire, they were not, nor could be absolved of their loyalty and civil obedience towards him.  
Was so notorious an Apostata to be of duty obeyed, and not a king, who cannot be judged an heretic, 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 proved not to be ancient, catholic, and Apostolic?  
Here Cardinal Bellarmine will answer, That the Church in her novity or beginning, wanted forces (forsooth after three, yea four hundred years from her beginning) to depose julian, Constantius, Valens, and other heretical Princes, and therefore permitted Christians to obey them in temporals.  
Saint Cyprian saith, that in his time the number of Christians were very great. 
Cypr. in Demetrianum. Tertul. in Apologet.  And Tertullian writeth thus: Were we disposed, not to practise secret revenge, but to profess open hostility, should we want number of men, or force of arms? Are the Moors or the Parthians, or any one nation whatsoever, more in number than we, that are spread over all the world? We are not of you, and yet we have filled all the places and rooms which you have. Your Cities, islands, Castles, Towns, Assemblies, your Tents, Tribes, and Wards; yea the Imperial Palace, Senate, and seat of judgement, 
Euseb. l. 3. de rita Constan. Niceph. l. 5. c. 25.  etc. Eusebius likewise, and Nicephorus report, That the whole world, as it were, under Constantius was Christian, and the greater part Catholic. How then is it true that the Church in her novity wanted forces?  
And therefore she permitted Christians to obey their Princes in temporals, saith the Cardinal. Even so permitted, as father Parsons in his letter to the Catholics of England against the Oath of allegiance affirmeth, that Pope Clement by a Breve had permitted civil obedience to our King; and recommended to all Catholics soon after his highness entrance unto the Crown. As if civil obedience had not been otherwise due but by his Holiness permission. Who would have thought such an imprudent and strange kind of phrase could have so escaped his pen? But it seemeth he had learned the same out of Cardinal Bellarmine's writings, and so presumed it would pass as current without controlment. And may not the world marvel (be it spoken with due reverence to his great dignity, which I have ever, and in heart still do honour) that a man so excellently learned will teach, that Christian subjects, unless they be permitted by the Church, are not bound to render obedience to their lawful Kings and Princes, if they become heretics, or adversaries to true religion, and persecutors? Prince's infidels lose no right, but are the true and supreme Princes of their kingdoms, as he himself 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 authority to meddle with them. Marry if these become Christians, and after fall to heresy, what then? In that case, saith he, Potest regna mutare, & uni auferre, 
Cap. 6.  & alteri confer: He may change kingdoms, and take from one, and give to another, saith he. Then is their condition worse as touching temporal possessions, than it was when they were infidels, & worse than the condition of the basest of their subjects. But Christian religion depriveth no man of his right: who had right in infidelity, cannot lose the same by receiving the grace and faith of Christ; which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Cardinal, howsoever he seemeth sometime to teach contrary to himself. 
Bellar. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3.  Christ did not (saith he) nor doth take kingdoms from them to whom they belong: for Christ came not to destroy those things which were well settled, but to establish them. And therefore when a King becometh a Christian, he doth not lose his earthly kingdom which by right he held, but purchaseth a new interest to an everlasting kingdom: otherwise the benefits received by Christ, should be hurtful to Kings, and grace should destroy nature. If Christian Kings lawfully attaining to their dominions, by right of nature enjoy the same, as cannot be denied, and so are to be obeyed; why not also if they happen to fall back into heresy or infidelity, their right not being founded in grace or in faith? To say that such Princes or magistrates are not to be obeyed, cometh near the heresy charged upon Wickliff, and condemned in the Council 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, under whom they were subject in all civil causes; & only in defence of faith and God's truth, made choice rather to shed their blood, then by obeying Caesar to disobey God. And where such a permission was ever granted (as to obey julian or other heretical Emperor) cannot be found in any general Council, or ancient Father's writings before the days of S. Thomas of Aquine, 
2.2. q. 12.2.2.  of whom the Cardinal learned his doctrine of permission, to obey till such time as they had forces to deprive them of their Empire.  
Consider I pray you, that S. Paul having received his doctrine immediately from heaven, writing to the Christians in Rome, permitted not for a time, but strictly commanded them ever to obey higher powers: 
Rom. 13. Sap. 6.  Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: Let every soul be subject to higher powers. Was this meant, trow ye, for only higher powers Christians, or heathen only 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 virtue of obedience, diligently exhorting and commanding as well subjects to be obedient to their Princes, as servants to their masters, and all inferiors to their superiors. And were not these masters 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. john Chrysostome will put you out of doubt, that such subjection is commanded to all sorts, Priests, Monks, 
Chrysost. in cap. 13. Rom. hom. 23. August. in lib. expositionis quorundam propos. ex epist. ad Rom.  and secular men, as the Apostle himself declareth in the very beginning: Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, etiam si Apostolus sis, si evangelista, si Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris: neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subiectio. Let every soul be subject to higher powers, yea if thou art an Apostle, if an Evangelist, if a Prophet, or finally whosoever thou art. Mark well. For this subjection subverteth not piety, 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 quovis Principum sermo mihi nunc est, sed de ipsa re. What sayst thou, O Paul: is then every Prince constituted of God? This (saith he) I say not. For neither of every Prince do I now speak, but of the thing itself: 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.  contrary to the love of God, in not obeying his commandment: and contrary to the love of his neighbour, withdrawing from his superior obedience due unto him. And they that do resist, what get they? They purchase to themselves damnation: having committed a deadly sin in resisting. Which kind of purchase, I wish many in this our country to note diligently, and in time to take heed of.  
But I know some will infer that this place of S. Paul may well and aught to be understood of Prelates, and the chief Prelate Christ's Vicar, who are also higher powers: and therefore toucheth such as by obeying the King in the Oath of allegiance, disobey their spiritual Pastor the Pope. These deceive themselves, not considering the drift of the Apostle: for if they mark well, they will easily see that S. Paul in this chapter understandeth not the spiritual directly, but the secular power, as must needs appear manifestly to him that readeth the text. Nam Principes (saith he) non sunt timor● boni operis, sed mali, etc. For Princes are no fear to the good work, but to the evil. But wilt thou not fear the power? do good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is God's minister unto thee for good. But if thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword without cause: for he is God's minister: a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evil. By whom can all this be meant, but by the secular power? To whom is tribute due to be rendered, not given gratis, because it is an act or work of justice, but to the secular power? Who carrieth 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 never belonged to Peter nor his successors by Christ's 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 spiritual power which he hath over the whole Church, Sutcliffe suppose, that either we give him, or that he challengeth to himself any temporal power over Christian Kings and kingdoms, he is foully deceived; for we confess, and so doth he, that Christ gave him no such sword nor sovereignty, etc. We acknowledge indeed two swords in the Church of Christ, the one spiritual, the other temporal, but we give them not both to the Pope. For the supreme spiritual power is the only sword which he handleth; the supreme temporal power out of Italy pertaineth to the Emperor, Kings and Princes.  
For as there are in the Church of God two bodies, 
Idem. fo. 14.  the one political and civil, the other Ecclesiastical or mystical; the one called the commonwealth, the other the Church: so are there two powers to direct and govern these bodies, and the one is called civil or temporal, the other Ecclesiastical: and that ruleth the bodies, this the souls; that the kingdom, this the Church; that makes temporal, this spiritual laws; that decideth civil causes, this determineth and composeth controversies in religion; that punisheth bodies by the temporal sword, this chastiseth souls with the spiritual glaives and bonds of excommunication, suspension, interdicts and such like: and the end of that, is temporal peace, the scope and butt of this, eternal felicity; and so that being inferior, this superior, that must yield to this, when there is any opposition. And so we give to the Pope one sword only over the Church, and not swords, as Sutcliffe saith. They are secular Princes likewise who may exact customs, and to whom tribute ought of duty to be paid by all subjects, thereby to sustain and maintain their dignity, govern their kingdom in peace and justice, and protect them from all enemies: such excepted as by their privileges for the honour of Christ are exempted. Tributum Caesaris est, 
Ex. de trad. Basil. & ep. ad Valentin.  non negetur. saith S. Ambrose. This was never due to the Apostles the spiritual Princes of the Church, nor consequently to Bishop's wno, as they are bishops only: either did they exercise such a sword, or ever acknowledge to be permitted them by the institution of our B. Saviour, of whom they received their commission & all power they could practise for government of his Church till the world's end. 
cost. c. 14.  Costerus a reverend and learned jesuite in fidei Demonst. pag. 95. commendeth Erasmus for writing thus: 
Erasm. ep. ad Vulturium Neocomum.  Nihil vi gerebant (Apostoli scil.) tantùm utebantur gladio Spiritus, neminem agebant in exilium, nullius invadebant facultates, etc. Haec Erasmus non minus disertè quàm verè. They (that is the Apostles) did nothing by violence, they used only the sword of the Spirit, they drove none into exile, they invaded no man's possessions, etc. This Erasmus, (saith Costerus) no less wisely then truly. And a little before in the same book cap. 12. he teacheth, 
Cost. propos. 3. cap. 12.  that the material sword belongeth not to any Ecclesiastical person: Nulli enim competit Ecclesiastico vel sanguinem fundere, vel capitis quenquam condemnare. For it appertaineth not to any Ecclesiastical person either to shed blood, or to condemn any man to death. Than not to the Pope as he is an Ecclesiastical person, and successor to Peter, doth it belong to use such a sword. Hereto agreeth Sir Thomas More in his treatise upon 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, etc. Put up (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 have I chosen thee unto, that I will not have thee fight with this kind of sword, but with the sword of God's word. Let this material sword therefore be put up into his place, that is to wit, into the hands of temporal Princes, as into his scabbard again, to punish malefactors withal. Adding, that the Apostles have to fight with a sword much more terrible than this, that is, the spiritual sword of excommunication, the use whereof pertaineth to Ecclesiastical persons alone: as the other to secular justices. This he, most learned in his time, and no less zealous in Catholic religion. 
Morus in passione Domi.  He goeth on pag. 1393. saying, that Christ after this told Peter, that he had done very evil, to strike with the sword: and that he declared also by the example of the civil laws, 
Matth. 26.  who saith: Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt, etc. For by the civil laws of the Romans', under which the jews at the same time lived, whosoever without sufficient authority were spied so much as to have a sword about him to murder any man with, was in a manner in as evil a case, as he that had murdered one indeed. If Peter, exercising a material sword in defence of Christ, and at such time as the use thereof might seem to him very necessary, was sharply reprehended, for that he had no lawful authority in such wise to fight for him: is it not a sufficient document for his successors not to use violence on secular Princes by exercising the material sword, no not in ordine ad spiritualia, in defence of Christ's spouse the Church, for that she hath no warrant so to do? Our Saviour a little before his passion, seeing his Apostles to contend about superiority, teaching them their duties, and in them all their successors, and the different government between them and secular Princes said: 
Luc. 22.  Reges gentium dominantur eorum; & qui potestatem habent super eos, benefici vocantur, vos autem non sic, etc. The Kings of the Gentiles overrule them: and they that have power upon them, are called beneficials. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger etc. Upon which place Origen, S. Hierome, Chrysostome and Basil with one assent understand, that secular Princes are not content only to have subjects, but also by overruling they use them: but you not so, to wit, you my Apostles and successors after me: for it is your part to serve, to minister, and to feed by word and example, etc. And in Saint Matthewes Gospel, 
Math. 20.  our Saviour said unto two of his disciples james and john: You know that the Princes of the Gentiles overrule them: and they that are the greater, exercise power against them. It shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be the greater among you, let him be your minister, etc.  
Is it not plain tnat our Lord jesus, though he teach not parity with Puritans, nor forbiddeth superiority among Christians neither Ecclesiastical nor temporal, yet he will not that his Apostles nor their successors, Bishops and Priests (being called to the state of a celestial kingdom, that differeth from the condition of a temporal kingdom) should rule like unto Kings and secular Princes, who carry a material sword ad vindictam malefactorum, for revenge of malefactors? and some now and then imperiously govern their subjects with pride, tyranny, contempt of inferiors, and for their own lucre more than the utility of their subjects. Which kind of government is forbidden both by the doctrine and example of our Saviour, 
1. Pet. 5. Presbyteros Compresbyter. so readeth and expoundeth. S. Hierome ep. 85. So translate Erasmus and Beza.  and humility commended to all the Clergy, yea to Peter himself; who conformably to this, likewise instructed such as at any time to the world's end should bear rule in God's Church (saying; Seniores igitur qui sunt inter vos obsecro, ego consenior. etc. The seniors therefore that are among you, I beseech, myself a consenior with them: etc., (or Priests; myself a fellow Priests) feed the flock of God which is among you, providing not by constraint, but willingly according to God: neither for filthy lucre sake, but voluntarily: neque ut dominantes: neither as overruling the Clergy, but made examples of the flock from the heart. Whereby appeareth that all violence, coaction, and compulsion by exercising the temporal sword (which is the sword of Kings) is wholly forbidden all Ecclesiastical persons.  
To me it seemeth not without a mystery, that only Peter among the rest of the Apostles should not strike any in all that hellish troop, coming in fury to lay violent hands on their Lord, no not the traitor judas that with a kiss betrayed him, the ringleader of the rest, and so better deserved to have had his head cut off: but only him whose name is so precisely recorded by the Evangelist to be Malchus: and that he should be checked and reproved by our Saviour, 
johan. c. 18.  of whom haply he expected to be commended for his zeal. But though Peter might pretend just cause to be moved to strike as he did, yet was his fact reprehensible in two respects. First, for that ask Christ the question whether he and his fellow (for no more of the eleven had swords about them) should strike or no, stroke without his grant, yea against his will. Secondly, because his fact had rather a show of revenge then of defence. For what might he think to do with 2. swords against so many, what possibility to prevail? And as may appear likewise by Christ's words unto him: 
Math. 26.  Return thy sword into his place; for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. And in S. john's Gospel: 
johan. 18.  Put up thy sword into the scabbard: the chalice which my Father hath given me, shall not I drink it? By all which is clear that Peter was justly reprehended for striking without commission the high Priests servant Malchus, which name in Hebrew, or Malcuth, signifieth Rex or Regnum: doubtless in my judgement not without a great mystery, & the admirable providence of God, thereby haply instructing posterity, that no less reprehensible is it in Peter's successors, as they are Peter's successors, to dethrone Kings and deprive them of their kingdoms, (which cannot be done without drawing forth and striking with the material sword) than it was in Peter himself for cutting off Malchus ear. And that they ought not to use such kind of violence on the persons of Kings, no nor inferiors to Kings, having no commission from Christ to punish corporally, no more than Peter had against Malchus, but only spiritually.  
Now to return to the authority or power meant by S. Paul Rom. 13. Omnis anima. It is most plain that the Apostle in that chapter recommended to Christians their dutiful obedience to secular Potestates: because having preached obedience to spiritual Pastors, some newly converted thought themselves, being Christians, 
See S. Chrysost. in c. 13. ho. 23. Ro.  to be freed by Christ from all former subjection, & now not bound to obey either Emperor, King, or any temporal Lord, for that they were heathens and persecutors of the Apostles and Christ's religion. For which cause, and for that the Apostles generally were slandered, and said to be seditious, and untruly charged of their adversaries, that they withdrew men from order, and obedience to civil laws and officers: Saint Paul here (as S. Peter doth in his first Epistles) to stop the mouth of such flanderous tongues, cleareth himself, and expressly chargeth every man and woman to be subject to their temporal 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 temporal Governors, though Pagans and cruel persecutors: yea and their successors many hundred years after to their lawful Princes, were they never so wicked heathens or heretics. When Saint Paul being accused of many crimes by the jews, appealed to Caesar, saying: 
Act. 25.  Ad tribunal Caesaris sto, ibi me oportet judicari: At Caesar's judgement seat do I stand, there I ought to be judged: (because this is the place of judgement, saith Gloss. interlin;) is it to be thought that he would have said, he ought there to be judged, if de iure he had not been subject to that tribunal? or that he did it for fear of death, who was ready before, not only to be bound and suffer imprisonment, but also to die in jerusalem for the name of jesus?  
And who will judge this holy Apostle to be so ready to commit such a crime for saving his life, as by his doctrine and example to teach and do that which was unlawful to be taught or practised; to subject against equity, all Priesthood to the jurisdiction of a secular Prince? specially because he was not compelled to go to jerusalem, to make a lie so prejudicial to all the Clergy ever after. But well he knew that he was then, de iure, subject to Caesar's tribunal, being therein become an imitator of our Saviour Christ; who in judgement submitted himself to Pilate, Caesar's Lieutenant; and said, that his power to judge him was not only permitted, 
joan. 19  but given from above. And our B. Saviour (whose actions are our instructions) in paying tribute for himself and Peter as due to the Emperor, whose subject he acknowledged to be as he was a mortal man, 
Math. 17.  taught us by his example that the adopted sons of God, (Peter not excepted) are not by the divine law freed from subjection to secular authority in tributes, customs, and such like, when himself the natural Son of his heavenly Father, King of kings, by yielding it, showed it to be Caesar's due, and that it ought to be paid by all that after should believe in him: (such excepted as by good Prince's grants and privileges should be exempted) howbeit himself was not otherwise bound thereto then for avoiding scandal, for that he was the natural Son and only begotten of the King of heaven (which they knew not who exacted tribute) and therefore free.  
To which purpose Saint Augustine writeth thus: Quod dixit, Ergo liberi sunt filii, etc. That he said, Therefore the children are free, is to be understood, that the children of a kingdom are in every kingdom free, 
Aug. l. 1. qu. evan. q. 23.  that is, are not tributaries. Which S. Augustine must needs mean of a kings natural children; and not of the sons and children of God by adoption: for so all virtuous and good Christians should be freed from paying tribute; which is absurd, and contrary to the doctrine of Saint Paul, Omnis anima, etc. every soul. To this agreeth Saint Thomas: 
Tho. 2.2 q. 104. a. 6. ad 1.  That such as are made the sons of God by grace, are free from the spiritual servitude of sin; but not from corporal servitude, by which they remain bound to their temporal Lords. And such subjection Saint Gregory the Great acknowledged, both by his example and doctrine, to be due to the Emperor, 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 unworthy servant of your piety. And a little after: For to this end power was given from above to the piety of my Lords over all men. If over all men, then over himself, though Pope, and the adopted son of God by grace. But some will say, that Saint Gregory submitted himself of humility, not of duty. Which is a great injury and derogation to this great Doctor and blessed Saint, who was vir simplex, & rectus, ac timens Deum, 
job. 1.  Real and simple without any duplicity, fearing more God than the Emperor, without all fiction or lying; knowing well what a sin it would be to him, by such a pernicious fiction to prejudice greatly all Pontifical dignity ever after. Old Eleazarus in the Macchabees, he knew, 
2. Macch. ●.  had taught him not so by feigning to leave an evil example to posterity, but rather to suffer martyrdom as he did. And Saint Augustine saith: 
Aug. ser. 29. de ver. Apost.  That when a man maketh a lie for humility sake, if he were not a sinner before, by lying he is made a sinner. Albeit Saint Gregory were an Italian and a most noble Roman, yet are we not to imagine that his Worthiness would once use to any, much less to the Emperor, such ceremonial compliments of courtesy, as many in those parts now adays do, and not of the menest sort: to wit, Tun seruitore, anzisono schiano divostra signoria. I am your servant, yea, I am a base servant or slave of your Mastership or Worship, and other such like; when they mean nothing less: or do an unlawful act, for fear of the Emperor? displeasure. Saint Gregory undoubtedly ex animo obeyed the Emperor commanding him to send a law which he had made, into divers parts of the world to be promulgated: which he refused not to do, albeit the law in Saint Gregory's judgement contained many things against the Ecclesiastical liberty. 
In fine epist. 61. l. 2.  Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti f●ci, etc. I being subject to your commandment, have caused the law to be sent through divers parts of the world. In the end: Vtrobique ergo quae debui exolui, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi minime tacui. On both sides therefore have I performed my duty, (or done what I ought, which is to be noted) who have both obeyed the Emperor, and also for God have not been silent what I thought. This obedience Cardinal Bellarmine against Barclai saith was coacted, and de facto, but not the iure. By which answer, who seethe not what an imputation of frailty & weakness is laid on him that ought to be and was murus aeneus, & petrafortitudinis, against any power whatsoever that commandeth unjustly? A weak defence for so strong a rock; who both in doctrine and example left a perfect pattern of a most humble Pastor, and glorious Saint burning with the fire of charity, ready, no doubt, to have exposed himself to martyrdom, rather than for saving his life to consent to a venial sin. A mirror may he be to his successors and all Bishops; would God he had many followers in his profound humility, which is the virtue that most exalteth Prelate, Prince, or people to glory. And this much of subjects duties to their Princes in temporals, wherein they ought by the law and ordinance of God to be no less obedient, then to their Pastors and Prelates in spirituals.  
It followeth now to know what authority it is the Pope pretendeth to have, whether Ecclesiastical or civil, to depose lawful Kings, and dispose of their temporals, and absolve subjects of their bounden duty and natural allegiance. Which question, who so desireth to see it more at large, he may read 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 have briefly touched it, whereto I add in this place a word or two more for your better satisfaction.  
Among such Catholics as refuse to take the Oath of allegiance, are many who think indeed the Pope to have no power to depose Kings or dispose of their kingdoms, howbeit either upon pretended scruple of conscience, or other human respects, are against the taking and takers of the Oath, as if they were little better than Heathens or Publicans. And some so simple and ignorant, as believe that no Pope ever challenged or attempted such authority on any Kings or Emperors; and that no jesuit or other learned man allowed or ever taught such doctrine; so odious it seemeth unto them. But the wiser sort and more learned know how it hath been challenged and practised by Popes on the persons of Henry, Otho, Frederick, Emperors, john King of Navarre, for neither heresy or apostasy; and since on Henry 8. and Queen Elizabeth, as by censures do appear. And that it is the modern doctrine of many both Canonists and Divines in these latter ages, which at the first teaching thereof (being so far dissonant from the writings and practice of all antiquity) was generally adjudged to be nova haeresis, as Sigebert reporteth. S. john Chrysostome that great Doctor, upon that place of S. Paul, 2. Cor. 1. Non dominamur fidei vestrae: We overrule not your faith; 
Sigebertus in Chro. ad an. 1088. Chrysost. lib. 2 de dig. sacerd. c. 3.  attributeth such power as forcibly restrains offenders from their wickedness of life, unto secular judges under whose dominion they are, not unto the Church: because (saith he) neither is such power given unto us by the laws, with authority to restrain men from offences; nor if such power were given us, could we have wherewith we might exercise such power, etc. So in his time, and long after, such power of compelling offenders by temporal punishments to convert to better life, was unheard of to be in Bishops of the Church.  
Cardinal Bellarmine in the catalogue of his ancient writers, which he produceth against Barclai for the Pope's temporal authority over Princes, beginneth with one who was judge in his own cause, Gregory the seventh, that began his reign in the year of our Lord 1073. not able of like to prove it out of any more ancient Father or general Council. That this Pope was the first that challenged or attempted to practise such authority, 
Otho in chro. l. 6. c. 35.  witnesseth Otho Frisengen. a most learned and holy Bishop, and highly commended by the Cardinal himself, lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 13. Lego (saith he) & relego Romanorum Regum & Imperatorum gesta, & nusquam invenio quenquam eorum ante hunc à Rom. Pontifice excommunicatum, vel regno privatum, etc. I read and read over again the acts of the Kings and Emperors of Rome, and in no place can I find any of them before this (to wit, Henry the fourth) to be excommunicated or deprived of his kingdom by the Bishop of Rome; unless 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 public penitents: and Theodosius sequestered by S. Ambrose from entrance into the Church, for cruel murder. Whereby we may note, that this learned man could not find no not one example in all precedent ages of depriving kings of their regal sceptres; though of excommunication he proposeth only these two, which may have some show of truth for mere 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 wars, destruction of souls and bodies, setting up of Pope against Pope, schisms, and other manifold lamentable miseries that ensued upon that fact of Pope Gregory against Henry the 4▪ who commanded the Bishops of Ments and Colen to constitute Rodolph Duke of Burgundy Emperor, 
Spec. hist l. 27.  and to put down Henry: whereupon followed a most grievous war, wherein Rodolphus was overcome; who dying repentant said: The Apostolical commandment, and the entreaty of Princes have made me a trangressor of my oath; behold therefore my hand cut off (or wounded) wherewith I swore to my Lord Henry, not treacherously to practise any thing against his life, nor his glory. Who being overcome, the Bishop of Ments by the Pope's commandment, and with help of Saxons, raised an other adversary against the Emperor, one Hermannus Knoflock: whereupon followed likewise bloody wars. After this, Henry gathering his army together, driveth the Pope into France, and setteth up the Bishop of Ravenna against him, whom he named Clement, and so caused a schism. This sparsim out of the history. Such like calamities are more than probable to fall on people and the Church, when Emperors or Kings are so violently proceeded withal; assured destruction of many, and no hope of the correction of any by such means, is like to ensue. Was such power, trow ye, given 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 works, 
Li. 1. de gestis Frederici, c. 1.  writing of the Pope's excommunicating the Emperor, showeth that Henry 4. thought it to be such a novity, as he had never known the like sentence to be denounced against any Roman Emperor before. He lived an. 1150.  
And Sigebert in Chronico 1088. affirmeth the doctrine of Priests, 
By evil kings he meaneth such as are deposed. Cont. Barcl. cap. 5.  teaching that no subjection is to be yielded to evil Kings, and though they swear fidelity, are not bound to perform it, to be nova haeresis, a new heresy sprung up. Howbeit Cardinal Bellarmine will tell you, that such doctrine and practice began about the year of our Lord 700: for before that time there wanted (as he affirmeth) either necessity or opportunity to teach, or use such power. By reason, of like, there were no heretical Prince's impugners of the true faith before that time; or that the paucity of Christian Kings to assist the weak forces of the Church against her persecutors was such, as there could be no hope to prevail. As if true faith and religion (which is now, beside the Indies, restrained into a corner of Europe only) did not replenish before that time Europe, Africa and Asia. No, there wanted not necessity to practise such authority on Constantius, julian, Valens, Valentinian, and other like professed adversaries of Christ and his Church: nor opportunity, Christians being so many, so potent, replete with marvelous zeal and constant courage in defence of God's truth, to the loss of lands and life, if they had known such power of deposing to have been in the Church and chief Pastors thereof; and the Pastors knew well what their duty was in that behalf.  
But where (I pray you) lay this power hidden for the space of 700 hundred years after Christ by the Cardinal's confession (suppose I should grant so much unto him) of disposing of temporals in ordine ad finem spiritualem, no Scripture, no tradition, no ancient Father or general Council in all that time teaching it? If he say, there was; where or how doth it appear? His Grace hath not yet neither in Tortus, nor against our King's Apology, nor in his last against Barclai, produced any such clear testimony as may convince. Our Saviour Christ himself refused to intermeddle in dividing a temporal inheritance between two, saying: Quis me constituit judicem aut divisorem super vos? 
Luc. 12.  Who hath constituted me a judge or a divider over you? disdaining as it were (as jansenius noteth) that he should be troubled or drawn from the celestial business, 
jansen. conc.  for which only he was sent by his Father, to have care of carnal and base things; thereby also to teach such as are his, that they ought not to entangle themselves in profane business that govern the Apostolic office. According to this is that of S. Paul: Nemo militans Deo, 
2. Tim. 2.  implicat se negotijs secularibus: No man that is a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business. What more entangling, what more secular, then to intermeddle in dividing and disposing of temporals? Non est discipulus super magistrum: The disciple is not above his master. Therefore his Vicar ought not in such wise to be judge over Kings in things terrene, when they are taught by our saviours example not to be hindered from celestial affairs, which only do concern them: whose power is over sins of men, not over their possessions, In criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra. 
Bern. lib. 1. de consid. cap. 2.   
Again, S. Peter prince of the Apostles, having received of Christ all power necessary for the government of his Church, which was to be derived to his successors, had not that power which is temporal, but only spiritual; for in the Apostles times the Ecclesiastical and civil were distinct and separate, as the Cardinal confesseth, lib. 5. the sum. Pont. cap. 6. Which could not be, but were conjoined, if they had any such power, yea indirectly. If then Peter had no temporal power directly or indirectly given him by Christ's institution, who doubtless foresaw that it was necessary to be in him and his successors for the correction and direction of souls to their spiritual end; it were absurd to say, that succeeding Popes as they are Peter's successors, should have more ample power than he, or any of the Apostles had. 
De Ro. Pont. li. 5. c 4.  And the Cardinal's 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 lived on earth, received not, nor would have any temporal dominion: but the Pope is Christ's Vicar, and representeth Christ unto us, such as he was while he lived here among men; Therefore the Pope as Christ's Vicar, and so as Pope hath not any temporal dominion.  
How then cometh it that Popes in these latter ages practise on exorbitant Prince's deposition, and disposing of temporals, when they shall judge it necessary, or expedient to a spiritual end, having no commission, no warrant of our Saviour so to do? Is it by temporal only, or spiritual only, or by both? By their temporal power, which reacheth no further than the patrimony of the Church, it is evident they cannot; for so they are but equals, not superiors to absolute Princes: and Par in parem non habet imperium, No neither have they, which is more, being no Monarches, authority from Christ to put any man to death, to banish, or to deprive any private man of his goods, 
Cost. in Osiand propos. 7.  as Costeru● a learned jesuite, 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, etc. No Pope hath made laws of life and death: this is the office of Emperors, who have written down diverse puniments for heretics; whom they have commanded to be punished with loss of goods, infamy, exile, death, yea with fire, etc. He goeth on, The Pope at Rome putteth no man to death; he hath his secular judges, who minister justice by the laws of Caesar. To this agreeth jacobus Almain: De ratione potestatis laicae est poenam civilem posse infligere, 
Almain. de dom. nat. & civili. in vlt. edit. Gersonis.  ut sunt mors, exilium, bonorum privatio, etc. It belongeth to the secular power to inflict a civil punishment, as are death, banishment, depriving of temporal goods. But the Ecclesiastical power cannot by the institution of God inflict any such pain: no not imprison any, as many Doctors hold; but it reacheth only to spiritual punishment, that is, to excommunication: and the other punishments which he useth, ex iure purè positivo sunt, are only by a positive law. Who in another place hath thus: 
Alm. de pot. Eccles. & laic. c. 13. & q. 1. c. 9  Christus secundum humanitatem, etc. Christ according to his humanity had greater power than the Pope hath, as to institute the evangelical law: neither had he his power limited to sacraments, for he could pardon without application of sacraments: & his Vicar hath not such, but only that which is declared in his Vicarship; for he gave him power to remit sins, to preach, to give indulgences, &c: but it is no where found that he gave him power to institute and depose Kings: therefore by any power given him from Christ (note well) he hath not sovereign power of jurisdiction in temporals. This he. With these may be ranked joannes Maior: 
Mayor in 4. dist. 24. q. 3.  Maximus Pontifex no● habet dominium temporale super Reges, etc. The chief Bishop hath not temporal dominion over Kings. For the contrary being granted, (saith he) it followeth that Kings are his vassals, and that he may expel them de facto out of their kingdom, etc. but this is not to be granted. And in the same question: Si aliqui Reges, etc. If some Kings with the people have delivered over themselves to the Popes of Rome, as it is said of Englishmen, it is nothing to us. Yet do I not think that Englishmen by any means would permit the Pope to depose their King, and set up another: for they never yet suffered any of the Bishops of Rome to do it.  
But lest any man here take hold and say, that King john was brought to yield his crown to the Pope's Legate, and for redeeming it, granted an annual tribute to the Sea Apostolic; let him read S. Thomas More for his better satisfaction herein, who plainly denieth it thus: 
More supplic. of souls pag. 296.  If he (the Author of the Supplication of beggars) say, as indeed some writers say, (Platina and others) that King john made England & Ireland tributary to the Pope & the Sea Apostolic, by the grant of a thousand marks: we dare surely say again, that it is untrue; and that all Rome neither can show such a grant, nor never could: and if they could, it were nothing worth; for never could any King of England give away to the Pope, or make the land tributary though he would.  
To conclude this point of deposing Princes, I will note unto you only 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. galley. li. 2. tit. 16. c. 1.  Regnum Franciae eiusque pertinentias dare in praedam Papa non potest etc. The Pope cannot give away for a prey the kingdom of France and the appurtenances thereof, or dispose thereof in any other sort whatsoever. And notwithstanding whatsoever admonitions, excommunications, or interdicts, the subjects are bound to perform due obedience to their King in temporals; neither can they be dispensed or absolved 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 dispense, according to S. Thomas: In his quae sunt de lege naturae, etc. In such things as are of the law of nature, and in divine precepts, 
though 2.2. q. 88 ar. 10.  no man can dispense. O that Frenchmen (if that their doctrine be currant in France) would vouchsafe to teach their doctrine here in great Britain. In them it seemeth tolerable, and would be doubtless unpunishable. But certain English priests, no less Catholic then well affected subjects, for teaching the like in defence of their King and country, must be subject to the loss of faculties (the only means that many have of their relief) calumniation & obloquy of tongues, reputed as schismatics, little better than heretics; and esteemed of some unworthy of food to maintain life; diverse having been forbidden to visit such in prison or relieve them. This is too true: would God it were not so. O tempora, O mores. Well may we cry out with S. Paul, Miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus: 
1. Cor 15. Psal. 13.  we are more miserable than all men. But though the throat of some be an open sepulchre, and with their tongues they deal subtly, and the poison of asps be under their lips: yet we need not one eye look to his merciful and most wonderful care of Daniel, feeding him imprisoned in the midst of Lions: and with the other behold his daily relieving the beasts of the field, and fowls of the air, all made for man, as man for God. Then confortamini in Domino, & nolite tim●re, multis passeribus pluris estis vos. Comfort yourselves in our Lord, and fear ye not, you are much more worth than many sparrows: you I mean that intent not to derogate from the spiritual authority of Christ's Vicar, but to render no less unto him his due, then to Caesar his. But to return whence we have digressed, if it be true that a Council may not judge, punish, or depose the Pope, though he endeavour to destroy the Church of God, 
Li. 2▪ de Rom. Pont. c. 29.  as Cardinal Bellarmine writeth: which belongeth to none but to a superior; a Council not being above the Pope, as many hold: why are we not to believe the same of Kings, though they persecute the Church, 
Li. 3. c 19 Tert. ad Scapulam praesid. Carthag.  when as (witness the same Author) they acknowledge no superior, no judge on earth in temporals?  
Well, let such Doctors as teach deposition in schools, withdraw themselves from speculation to practise, from scholastical distinctions and disputations to Magistrates examinations, such as have potestatem crucifigendi vel dimittendi; haply they may change their subtle shifts into a simple proposition, that it is small wisdom to band with the supreme Magistrate in a matter so important as is Caesar's right, never any thing being yet determined by the Church of God to warrant them so to do.  
And it may be in my judgement admired, that catholic Princes permit such dangerous positions, not only to be disputed, but also taught for truth within their dominions, and to pass without controlment, knowing that a sparkle of fire lying smothering in combustible matter, if it be neglected and left unquenched, may cause in short space an unquenchable flame: so such a speculative doctrine little regarded, is not unlike in time to breed a woeful practical ruin of kingdoms and nations. And this of the Pope's temporal power.  
Is it then by spiritual authority alone, or by both, that Princes maybe deposed? for it seemeth by later Divines, that Popes may depose them directly or indirectly. The mirror of this age for divine literature, Cardinal Bellarmine, in his late book against Barclai, cap. 5. and elsewhere, writeth not so plainly as were to be wished, nor so, as he satisfieth his reader, whether it be spiritual only, or temporal only, but seemeth to incline more to the spiritual power, yet mixed with temporal. jam dixi (inquit) potestatem de qua loquimur, etc. I have already said, 
In Barcl. c. 5.  that the power whereof we speak, is to be found expressly in the Scriptures, but generally, not in particular; to wit, in the 16. of Saint Matthew: Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum. And john 21. Pasce oves meas: and by these same divine testimonies may be gathered, that accession and conjunction of power to dispose of temporals, in ordine ad spiritualia, as more than once is declared. And may it not I pray you be as well said (with due respect to his dignity) that by those divine testimonies no such gloss of accession or conjunction of power may be gathered: because those places were ever understood by all ancient Fathers of the sole spiritual authority of the Pope without accession or conjunction of temporal power, yea in ordine ad spiritualia?  
By the keys of the kingdom of heaven promised to Peter, (yet not for Peter alone, but for the 
n =" *" Origen. In hunc loc. ho. 1 Aug tract vlt. in joan. & l. 1. d● doct. Chr. c. 18. Coster. in O. siand. c. 4.  Church) signifying power to be given to bind and loose, to admit the worthy to the kingdom of heaven, and to exclude the unworthy; can any other power be understood then merely spiritual? most certainly there cannot. For ask when this promise of our Saviour was performed? No man I think will deny, but then Christ gave these keys, when after his resurrection he used this ceremony of breathing on his eleven Apostles, giving them all like power to forgive or retain sins, by these words: Quorum remiseritis peccata, etc. Whose sins you shall forgive, 
joan. 20.  they are forgiven them: and whose you shall retain, they are retained. By which words the Fathers often say, that the keys were given to all the Apostles. If any man so build on that which Christ said to Peter: Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, etc. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, 
Math. 16.  it shall be bound also in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth, it shall be loosed also in the heavens: that Peter and his successors have power to set up and pluck down Kings; then must it of necessity follow, 
See jansenius Concor. c. 72.  that the rest of the Apostles had the same, because he used the like phrase to them also; Quaecunque alligaveritis, etc. Whatsoever ye shall bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven, etc. And so consequently all Bishops (who are appointed governors likewise of the Church of God, 
Act. 20.  as Saint Paul saith, Attendite, etc. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood) may dethrone Kings if they judge it expedient; which is not to be granted.  
This former interpretation of ancient divines seems more agreeable to Christ's words as jansenius noteth, to understand by these keys power to bind and loose (because with these two powers as with two keys, the kingdom of heaven is opened to the truly penitent; & with the other it is shut against the unworthy & impenitent sinner) then is the interpretation of later Divines, who say that Christ meant of the keys of knowledge of discerning inter lepran & lepram, who is worthy to be absolved, who unworthy; and of power to bind & lose. Howsoever they are to be understood, yet thereby cannot be gathered power to depose or dispose of temporals. Theophylact upon this place, hath thus: Claves autem intelligas, quaeligant & soluunt, hoc est, delictorum vel indulgentias vel poenas, 
Theoph. in 16. Math.  etc. And understand keys, which bind and loose, that is, either pardons or punishments of sins. For they have power to remit and to bind, who have attained to the grace of Episcopacy as Peter hath. Which power he affirmeth was granted to all the Apostles. Quamuis autem soli Petro dictum sit, Dabo tibi, etc. And although (saith he) it be spoken to Peter alone, I will give thee; yet the keys are granted to all the Apostles. When? When he said, 
Cap. firmiter de summa Trinit. & fide Cath. & c▪ loquitur. 24. q. 1 Vict. de clavibus. nu. 4. Rabanus.  Whose sins 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 given to Peter, doth it not follow that the Apostles received them of Peter? But Victoria teacheth that they received them of Christ, not of Peter. Rabanus likewise: Albeit this power of binding and losing seem to be given only to Peter, yet it is also given to the rest of the Apostles, and is now likewise to all the Church in Bishops and Priests. But therefore Peter specially received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the principality of judiciary power, that all believers through the world may understand, that whosoever do separate themselves in any sort from the unity of his faith and society, that such can neither be absolved from the bonds of sins, nor enter into the gate of the kingdom of heaven. This he.  
But let it be granted, according to the sentence of many ancient Fathers, that Christ speaking specially to Peter, gave him more ample power than he gave to the rest of the Apostles, yet all was but spiritual, as the words import, and to a spiritual end; in aedificationem, non in destructionem, to edification not to destruction: not tending to deposition or deprivation of the temporal goods of any within his government: but to excommunication, or separation of certain obstinate offenders from the common goods of the Church militant, and so consequently from the joys of the Church triumphant. And let it be, that Peter received the keys of our Saviour when he said unto him, Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheep; all was but spiritual: 
joan. 21.  for the same power is required to feed the flock of Christ, that is to open or shut the kingdom of heaven. 
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 illustrious Card. confesseth that he received not power to overrule (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 evangelistae, & pastorum opus implesti. To evangelize, is to feed. Do the work of an Evangelist, and thou hast fulfilled the work of Pastors. But some are forced to say, that excommunication of the Pope necessarily worketh this temporal effect of deposition, for that they know not otherwise how his Holiness can attain to such power. If this were so, then what Bishop soever do excommunicate any within his diocese, doth also depose and deprive them of their temporals: for what the Pope is in the universal Church, such is a Bishop in the particular, 
L. 5. de sum. Pont. c. 3.  as Cardinal 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 universal, it is thus to be taken; that as the Pope is the true Pastor and Prince of the Church universal, so is a Bishop a true Pastor and Prince of a particular Church, not a Vicar or administrator for a certain time, etc. Which yet serveth well for our purpose in hand: for if a Bishop a spiritual Prince of a particular church, cannot by virtue of excommunication depose his subjects, neither can the Pope as spiritual Prince over all.  
And Victora plainly saith thus, That a Bishop de iure divino hath power to excommunicate his subjects 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 Bishopric, a few things excepted, as to create a Bishop. Who disagreeth not with the Cardinal in this, that a Bishop is a true Pastor in his particular Church, as the Pope is in the Catholic and universal: that he may as well excommunicate the subjects committed to his charge, as the Pope may all Princes and people that are sheep of Christ's fold, by the authority given to Peter in those word, Pasce oves meat. By which Christ indeed constituted him Pastor over his flock, marry a spiritual Pastor, not a temporal, giving him all authority necessary for that office, which was only spiritual, without conjunction of any other. By virtue then of this spiritual authority (the principal part for government in foro exteriori, is excommunication, being gravissima poenarum, than which none is more grievous) no Bishop can deprive any private man whatsoever within his Diocese of the least parcel of his lands or goods: (that being the office of the civil power) how then can the chief Bishop deprive Kings and Princes of their crowns 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.  etc. Excommunication is a separation from the communion of the Church, as touching the fruit and general suffrages. The fruit of the Church, cannot be understood of the fruit of temporal goods, because these are not taken away from excommunicate persons. This S. Thomas: plainly showing, that it is beyond the nature of this censure to work any such effect, as to take away temporal goods. And in the same qu. ar. 3. Sed quia excommunicatio est gravissma poenarum, etc. But becausce excommunication is the greatest of all punishments, therefore excommunication ought not to be inflicted, no not for a mortal sin, unless the offender be obstinate. Tunc enim postquam monitus fuerit, etc. For then after he shall be admonished, if he contemptuously disobey, he is reputed stubborn, and aught to be excommunicated by the judge, now not having any more to do against him. And the same Doctor disputing whether heretics are to be tolerated, 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 conversion (meaning no doubt such a one as having professed the Catholic faith, hath made shipwreck thereof, and fallen to heresy) provideth for the health of others, separating him from the Church by the sentence of excommunication; and further leaveth him to secular judgement to be put to death. Whereby you see that in case yea of heresy, 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 john Husse and Hierome of prague by the general Council of Constance, 
Mola. de fide haer. ser. l. 2. c. 2 & l. 3. c. 4.  who (as he saith) having excommunicated, anathematized and condemned them for heretics, and having no more to do with them, delivered them over to Imperial power, by which they were burnt. So that temporal punishment of heretics, whether it be by confiscation of goods and patrimony, or death, belongeth and is proper to the secular power, as the spiritual do to Ecclesiastical persons. Which we see manifest by practice of all Christian countries, yea and out own, that no man is to be put to death, nor lose his goods upon excommunication, but only by execution of the Prince's law. And Cardinal Bellarmine himself will confess, 
Bellarm. in Barcl. c. 23.  that extra casum haeresit, out of the case of heresy, by virtue of the sentence of excommunication there followeth not deprivation of temporal dominion, or of particular goods, or kingdoms and princedoms: though (saith he by and by) Kings and Princes may be for just causes deprived by the Pope of their kingdom or princedom. Variously and ambiguously insinuating, that there are other just causes besides heresy, but listeth not, or rather (as may be supposed) cannot set down what they are: for as yet never were any determinately made known, more than such as shall be deemed worthy of deprivation, ad arbitrium Pontificis.  
But as far as I can see, his Grace must maintain other causes as well as heresy; otherwise how can the deposition of Henry, Frederick, Otho, and other Princes, be defended to have been lawful, who were never condemned by the Church for heresy? And if there be other causes current to deprive Princes of temporals then there is for private men, surely the Christian princely state must needs be far worse than the plebeian, or then if they were Heathens or Publicans: which were absurd; when as God the giver of all power, for correction of men, is not acceptor personarum, but ministereth justice equally or indifferently to all; all, both Princes and people being populus eius, & oves pascuae eius, his people, and the sheep of his pasture. If there be any, as me thinketh I hear one say, that he is not yet satisfied as touching this point, but desireth to know the final cause, nature and effects of excommunication; let him note well what the most learned and grave Cardinal Tolet of famous memory, and others writ thereof.  
Est autem excommunicatio Ecclesiastica censura, 
Tolet. Lib. 1. instruc. sacerd. c. 4. nu. 1.  qua homo Christianus bonis fidelium communibus privatur. Excommunication is an Ecclesiastical censure, whereby a Christian man is deprived of the common goods of the faithful. Which goods, he faith are three: 1. external conversation, consisting in mutual talk and society. 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 controversy, is the good and utility of man, that he may repent, and convert himself to good, as he saith; 
Cap. Medicinalis de sent. excom. in 6. Decret. 2. par. 24. q. 3. cap. 36  when as excommunication is medicinal, not mortal; instructing, not plucking up by the root. Which agreeth with the Epistle of Pope Vban, set down in the Canon law: Liquido apparet aliud esse excommunicationem, aliud eradicatiovem, etc. It evidently 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 saved 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 spiritual censure, for deposing Kings, and disposing of temporals? Marry sir, that subjects are bound, obeying the chief Pastor's censure, to shun their Prince excommunicated, performing no duty unto him, nor in any sort to communicate with him; for an excommunicate person by name, aught of all to be avoided, 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 subjects do forsake him, and he left alone. Sed quando haec eru●●? Is a King more like to be forsaken then a paterfamilias, a private man? Almain saith indeed, 
Alm. de pot. Eccl. & laic●, q. 1. cap. 9  that the Pope may forbid the subjects of a Prince, under pain of excommunication, to perform any duty unto him; whereby in effect he loseth his kingdom, when no man doth regard him: yet cannot depose him, though he abuse his authority to the destruction of the Christian faith. But if a general defection of subjects follow not, if according to their duty they adhere faithfully unto him; without regard to his censure, how then? What his Holiness may do in this case of excommunication with absolute Princes, being sheep of Christ's fold, to be directed and corrected with that spiritual rod, when there is hope of amendment, as well as private 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. etc. 26.  and that such practice breedeth oft schisms, revolts, troubles, and tendeth rather to destruction of many, then to edification of any: when as S. Paul professeth power to be given to the Church to edify, not to destroy. And when this power is exercised in destructionem, it is not that power which cometh from God, but impotency 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 showeth how it should be used: 
Sand. de clau. David, c. 9  Gladius Ecclesiae in aedificationem datus est, etc. The sword of the Church is given to edification, not to destruction; to confer life, not to infer death: for defence of the flock, not for hurt of the sheep: to drive away the Wolf, not to devour the lamb. This sword being spiritual, and is to work upon souls, not bodies or goods of any, may be drawn forth I must confess by the supreme Pastor against exorbitant Princes (whose superior he ought to be acknowledged but only in spirituals) when there is hope to save, not to destroy: to do good, no harm: and rather to make a wolf a lamb, then cause a lamb to become a wolf ready to devour the flock, as sometimes such censures have done, which lamentable experience on the persons of many Princes can testify: whereupon they proceeded further haply in rigour with their subjects then otherwise they would have done: and not so much for excommunication only, as for the clauses of deprivation, deposition, and absolution of subjects from their dutiful obedience; which are far from the nature and substance of a spiritual censure, and exceedeth the limited of that power, as very learned Catholic Authors go about to prove. Excommunicatio (saith Ludovicus Richeom) non nisi excommunicatum facere potest, 
Richeom. in apolog.  eáque fulminatur in Principes, etc. Excommunication cannot cause one to be but excommunicated, and it is thundered out against Princes, not that they may become tyrants, nor removed from their possessions, nor to slacken the rains unto subjects, or that they may be freed from their sworn fidelity. To this agreeth Medina. Excommunicato non est privatio alicuius boni proprij, 
Medina. in 1.2. q. 96. are 4. citans Sotum.  quod transgressor legis prius possederat: sed est privatio bonorum communium, etc. Excommunication is not a taking away of any proper good, which the transgressor of the law before had possessed: but it is a depriving of the common goods which he was to receive of the Church, as spiritual communion, and receiving sacraments. By which doctrine is plain that none, poor or rich, subject or Prince, may by virtue of excommunication merely, be dispossessed of any temporal goods whatsoever. If they could, than woe to all Christians in this respect, that live in such times as Bishops and Popes are not saints. Any man excommunicated, upon repentance may return to grace, be received of the Church, and may recover those spiritual goods he had lost, as prayers, suffrages, and sacraments of the Church, etc. But if temporals, especially kingdoms, be once lost and confiscate; what hope of recovery? Will it not be too late to cry, Peccavi? So then, that punishment which God hath ordained for the good of souls, would be most like to turn to the destruction of bodies, souls, and goods for ever, if excommunication could work such effect, and were not (as it ought to be) medicinalis, but exitialis: which is not to be granted.  
Moreover if ye look back to ancient Canons of general Counsels, yea to the Canons of the Apostles, you shall see for the same, or like crimes, punishments to be inflicted on offenders; but deposition inflicted on Clerks, and on Laics excommunication, or depriving only of sacraments and communion; making this distinction, Si Clericus sit, deponitor; si Laicus, à communione eijcitor. Insinuating thereby (as may seem) that the Church hath superiority directly over Clerks to deposition or degradation of persons, not so over the persons of Laics further than to the censure of excommunication: and therefore not over kingdoms and Kings, who acknowledge no superior on earth in temporals.  
But I pray you, if the Pope's Holiness upon cause of heresy do excommunicate a Prince, or private man, and all that shall communicate with him or obey him, is he not then to be avoided and forsaken of his subjects and inferiors, or others whosoever? He that denieth this seemeth to deny the Pope's spiritual authority of binding; & that of S. Paul: Haereticum hominem post primam & secundam correptionem denita. 
Tit. 3.  A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition avoid.  
What is this to our Oath? Is there any such clause, for heresy, in it? Are we to add unto it by our idle inventions? or are we urged to take it otherwise then the words import simply as they lie, framed by act of Parliament? But these and such like fond verbal objections, are the cavilling shifts of such as know not how to give better answers to the substantial points of the Oath; and persuade some to the loss of their lives, and others of their lands and goods to their utter ruin, (if justice without mercy be executed) that it cannot be taken without denial of their faith: never showing them any particular point, which it is; for to say truth they cannot. So then their bare word must be believed as an oracle; or else in fine with a bat they will beat men down, The Pope's commandment; not having ought else to say, which may convince. It may be admired they make no more conscience in such an important business as this is, not having the Church's definition, nor ancient Father's approbations for their assertions. After all, some burst forth in most uncharitable railing & slanderous backbitings against such priests as in conscience have performed their duty in taking it, and persist in teaching the lawfulness thereof; withdrawing friends, and charitable alms from them, counseling some, and commanding others, not to resort unto them; as I have been credibly told by some that have themselves been 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 proceed neither of good subjects, nor of discreet guides of men's souls, or true disciples of Christ, who are made known to all by a notorious cognisance, commonly called love or charity, given by our Saviour Christ. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, 
joan. 13.  si dilectionem habueritis Adinuicem. In this all men shall know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another. Which badge were to be wished more visible than it is, in some that pretend to be true followers of Christ.  
Now to the authority of S. Paul may be answered, that an heretic so taken, condemned, and denounced by the Church, is to be avoided in his heresy, to be taken heed of that he be not seduced by him; haeresis enim serpit ut cancer, for heresy creepeth as a canker: and in human conversation also, when there is hope to reduce him thereby to a better mind:  spiritus saluus sit. But as no Catholic is by the laws of this realm to be accounted a Recusant till he be convicted: so is none by the laws of the Church to be reputed an heretic to be avoided, till he be by her admonished, condemned and denounced for such; which is never without pertinacy in heresy. And what maketh this for them that say we deny the Pope's authority? God forbidden that I (by his grace) a Catholic priest, should ever deny the Pope's spiritual power to excommunicate any, Prince or people, that were once incorporated into the body mystical of Christ by Baptism: but as I have denied excommunication of her own nature to extend to deposition and taking away of temporals; so I may not grant that every excommunicate person is to be abandoned of all, and debarred of all human society and conversation. Though human communication, esteemed one of the common goods, is found also among the faithful, as to eat together, to salute, to talk? 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 politic. And as they are such, they are bound to adhere unto the head of this body their Prince, not to forsake, but obey him in all just civil causes, notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication, as hath been proved before out of Sylvester, Panormitan, & others; which is not to deny the Pope's power.  
No? if you read Tortus and believe him, I know you will change your opinion; for upon those words: That the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, hath any power or authority to depose the king, etc. or to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, etc. He writeth thus. 
Tor●us par. 3.  Here it is manifestly seen, that this Oath doth not contain only civil obedience in things merely temporal, as the Author of the Apology (our Sovereign) so oft hath repeated; but it containeth also a denial of the Pope's power, which is not a thing merely temporal, but a holy thing and given from above, which no mortal man can take away or diminish.  
It is strange that his Majesties oft repetition of a truth, nothing to be contained in the Oath, or required, but civil obedience, seemeth irksome to the Cardinal, it being very necessary when men will not understand, but his Grace goeth not about to disprove it. And who I pray you is a better interpreter of a law when doubts or difficulties arise, than he that made the law? If it contains a denial of the Pope's power, his Grace should have done well to have proved it, and showed wherein. Though the Cardinal for many respects aught of me (sometime not unknown unto him) highly to be reverenced, and his writings credited; yet in this matter to me most clear, I must crave 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 would make his reader believe. It is most manifest the ancient Fathers never taught so, viz. to be in the Pope's power to depose Kings, nor discharge subjects of their loyalty and dutiful obedience; the Church never yet defined it so: can I then be so credulous to believe his bare word without better proof? His ipse dixit in this will not be sufficient. The other flourish to lead away a simple and inconsiderate reader; forsooth, that the Pope's power is spiritual, a holy thing, from heaven, etc. is somewhat vainly and to no purpose inserted: for no Catholic denieth it, and we that have taken the Oath of allegiance are ready with God's grace if need were, to shed our blood in defence thereof and every point of Catholic faith, albeit we suffer disgraces, and never received temporal benefit, nor ever took oath, usque ad effusionem sanguinis inclusiuè, so to do, as the most illustrious and most reverend purple Fathers are accustomed to take, when in public consistory they receive their hats.  
The Cardinal in Tortus goeth on further, to prove by subsequent words in the Oath, that the Pope's spiritual power is denied; 
Parag. 4.  which were enough to terrify Christian subjects, if it were true. The words are these: Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding any declaration, or sentence of excommunication or deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope, or his successors, or by any authority derived or pretended to be derived from him, or his Sea against the said King, his heirs or successors, or any absolution of the said subjects from their obedience; I will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his heirs and successors.  
Here saith the Card. is openly denied that the Pope hath power to excommunicate Kings, though they be heretics. Note his proof. For how (saith he) can a Catholic lawfully and justly swear, that he will not obey the Pope excommunicating an heretical king, unless he believe that an heretical king cannot be excommunicated by the Pope? Nay here in our Oath (with due respect to his Grace be it said) is neither openly, no nor covertly denied that the Pope hath power to exommmunicate Kings, though they be heretics, as the Cardinal beareth his reader in hand: I marvel he would in such wise add unto, & thrust into the text of the Oath that which no man, no nor himself can find therein. For let it be well viewed and considered, it will presently appear that there is no mention at all of the Pope's excommunicating Kings, though they be heretics, or heretical Kings; but only, if he should excommunicate our King, and absolve his subjects from their obedience, yet I will bear true faith and allegiance to his Majesty. What sincere dealing is this? Such glosses or wilful additions are but manifest corruptions of the text, which ought not to be used by any that profess sincerity & truth. So this makes nothing against us, but rather against himself. Then he cometh with his needles minor, which no Catholic denieth: But power to excommunicate is intrinsical to the Apostolic primacy, and unseparable from it, when as our Lord said to Peter as to the first spiritual Primate: 
Math. 16.  Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven. What is this to the purpose? What Catholic that hath taken the Oath will deny it? It is not unlike to one that frameth an adversary in the air to fight withal.  
If French Catholics be demanded, what they will do in this case, if the Pope should excommunicate their King, and discharge his subjects of their obedience? they will forthwith answer, that notwithstanding any monitions, excommunications, or interdicts, they will not forsake, but obey their King in temporals, from which obedience they cannot be absolved or dispensed withal by the Pope; as is in decretis Ecclesiae Gallicanae, lib. 2. cap. 1. Nay they will bring certain privileges for them and their King against the Pope's censure of excommunication: yet these like good Catholics will believe that he hath power to excommunicate an heretical King.  
So in our case a man of any judgement may clearly see, it is neither openly nor covertly, explicitè nor implicitè denied, but plainly granted of such as take the Oath, that the Pope may excommunicate, albeit upon just cause adhering to his Prince he obey not the sentence. I ask, if his Holiness in Rome should determine to create some Priest or Prelate, Cardinal or Bishop; and he of humility or for some other cause best known to himself, notwithstanding the Pope's 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 have power to confer those dignities on them? Or if a King be pleased to extend his mercy 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 weary of his life, or for some other cause, that he denieth the King to have power to pardon his offence? It may be admired that one so excellently learned will argue so weakly. None would have thought but the book bearing the name of Mattheus Tortus, had been in deed his Chaplains, not the Cardinals, had not his Grace discovered himself in his answer to our King's Apology. Whosoever saith or sweareth, that notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication, yet he will bear true faith and allegiance to his Prince, no way denieth it, but supposeth such a sentence to be, or to have been. When the Pope in his writings putteth this clause: Non obstantibus constitutionibus Apostolicis contrarijs quibuscunque. Notwithstanding any contrary Apostolical constitutions whatsoever, etc. as in the Brief of Paulus the fifth to master George Birket, dated 1. Febr. 1608. or in others, Non obstantibus privilegijs quibuscunque, etc. Notwithstanding whatsoever privileges: Is it not manifest that such privileges, or Apostolical Constitutions are supposed to be, or might have been before granted? So in our case none denieth the Pope's excommunication, but chooseth upon just 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 just cause to adhere and obey his Prince if he be excommunicated, it were ridiculous, and false, as all writers affirm, some cases being excepted, whether he be excommunicated à iure vel ab homine. 
Vict. de excom. nu. 10.  Cum omnibus excommunicatis (saith Victoria among the rest) quocunque modo sint excommunicati, etc. With all excommunicate persons, in what sort soever they are excommunicated, it is lawful to participate in these things which are contained in this verse: utile, lex, humile, res ignorata, 
Tolet. l. 1. inst. sacer. c. 11. n. 7 Navar. Ench. c. 27. n. 26. Tho. 4. dist. 18. ar. 4.  necesse. Navarre likewise: Regulariter participans, etc. Ordinarily he that communicateth with one that is excommunicated with the greater excommunication, incurreth the lesser: yet it faileth in these, utile, lex, etc. The declaration of which words he that understandeth Latin may see in the same place of Navarre, in Cajetan's Sum, Emanuel Sa, and other Authors.  
Now who is so simple as to think that a wife is bound to abandon her husband, and not to participate with him; children to forsake their fathers, servants their masters, and not communicate with them in domestical affairs, if they should be excommunicated?  
If it be lawful for such, (as it is by lex and humile) why not also for subjects to communicate in all civil causes with their Prince, there being absolute necessity, besides utile and humile to warrant them so to do, according to the rule as it is in Navarre, Quod non est licitum in lege, necessitas facit licitum? What is not lawful in the law, 
Nau. Ench. c. 27. nu. 35.  necessity maketh lawful.  
It is not unknown that Henry the fourth, the late French King, obtaining the Crown of France when he was yet an heretic, relapsed, and de facto excommunicated by the Pope, required an Oath of fealty of the Clergy of Paris, for the better security in his dominions, as by their records do appear: whereupon the chief of all the learned Doctors and faculties, both of the secular and religious Clergy of that city, willingly without delay performed their duty, taking a corporal oath of fealty and true allegiance to his Highness notwithstanding the Pope's excommunication, with promise to assist him to their power against all leaguers whatsoever (among which his Holiness at that time was one) that should machinate or attempt any thing against his person, hinder his peace and quietness, or raise arms to the disturbance of him or his people, etc. This they so virtuous and learned did with their Prince without resistance, as knowing it to be their duty so to do; and his case to be far different from that of our Sovereign (who was never excommunicated, nor relapsed, or indeed heretic, as I have already said, and could more largely prove if need were;) yet they did not then, nor ever will deny the Pope's spiritual power to excommunicate. And may not the King of great Britain require the like of his subjects, both Clergy and people, and they perform the same as well as the French, without prejudicating the Apostolical power? When Monsignore Fontana Bishop of Ferrara, knowing well the now Duke of Modina (then usurping the title and dominion of Ferrara) to be excommunicated by name in most parts of Italy, did notwithstanding of necessity communicate with him, as a subject with his Prince, and did refuse to publish it in his own Church without the Duke's consent, notwithstanding the Pope's order and commandment unto him. Will any man say, that this good Bishop denied the Pope's spiritual power to excommunicate? That were ridiculous: or offended in disobedience? No; necessity (if nought else) excused. So enough of this matter.  
There is another knot to be untied, which seemeth insoluble, to wit, that I do believe, that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof, etc. And that I do renounce all pardons & dispensations to the contrary. Is not this a plain denying of the Pope's spiritual authority? Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus plainly teacheth me, 
Tortus §. 5.  that he who a little before by swearing denieth the Pope's power to bind, the same doth now deny his power to lose. For of those words of our Lord, Quodcunque solueris super terram, erit solutum & in coelis, all Catholic men gather, that power belongeth to the chief Bishop to absolve, not only from sins, but also from punishments, censures, laws, vows and oaths, when it may be expedient to the glory of God, and health of souls.  
This knot to him that vieweth it well, will not be found to have more difficulty to unknit, than the former of binding. For as it is an undoubted verity, that no Bishop, no nor the Pope can by virtue of excommunication (less by any temporal power out of his own territories) thrust any private Christian man out of his possessions, who before had right thereto, and bereave him thereof, as hath been proved: so it is as certain, that they can no more absolve a subject of his duty and natural allegiance to his Prince, and of his oath of fealty made unto him, discharging him of all subjection and obedience, than they can a wife of her duty to her husband, of children's honouring their parents, or servants their masters, being warranted for the performance thereof by the law of God, Honour thy father and thy mother, etc. against which no power in earth can dispense nor absolve them, that is, release them of such duty.  
At this word Absolve, some silly souls, yea and others that would be accounted wise, are as it were scandalised, believing that taking the Oath, they shall deny the Pope's spiritual power of absolving a sinner of his sins in foro conscientiae, which every Priest having jurisdiction may do: little considering that they are not like to confess their sins to him this year, or ever in their life; and out of confession, his authority stretcheth not to remit or absolve one from deadly sin. These in a sort resemble some good creatures that I have noted in Italy, when they hear the Preacher in his sermon utter this word Confiteor, will by and by knock their breasts, thinking he is talking of confession; when as the word signifieth sometime to give thanks. And like people of small understanding, believe, that by renouncing all pardons and dispensations to the contrary, they must deny the Pope's power of granting indulgences or pardons (as the practice is) to beads, grains, crosses, etc. and of dispensing in any case whatsoever, it being spiritual, as cannot be denied.  
Here I stand ambiguous, 
Prou. 26.  whether I should follow salomon's counsel or no, Respond stulto juxta stultitiam suam, ne sibi sapiens esse videatur: Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he think himself wise. It shall not be haply amiss for their more satisfaction to condescend somewhat unto such, letting them to understand, that to men of any judgement, it must needs be ridiculous, who know it cannot, nor ought so to be understood, but only of pardoning and dispensing, or releasing subjects of a lawful Oath of fealty and dutiful obedience to their Sovereign. This is not spiritual power which belongeth to the Church; and therefore when such pardons and dispensations shall be offered by his Holiness, (as is never like to be) every good subject is bound to renounce them, as being contrary to the ordinance of almighty God. I ask these what they think, whether the Pope or any power in earth can command, absolve in this sense as we take it, or dispense against the law of God and nature? They must needs say as truth is, he cannot: and according to S. Thomas doctrine: In his quaesunt de lege naturae, 
2.2. q. 88 ar. 10.  & in praeceptis divinis, non potest per hominem dispensari. In such things as are of the law of nature, and in divine precepts, it cannot be dispensed withal by man. Then I infer, and it is Barclaies argument, not solved by Cardinal Bellarmine: But subjection and obedience due to Princes and superiors, is de iure naturali & divino: this cannot be denied, being evident in Scriptures. Therefore neither the Pope, nor any power in earth can command any thing, absolve, or dispense against it; and consequently cannot command subjects not to perform obedience to their Prince or superior, in that wherein he is superior: if he should, it is lawful for them not to obey him, not to accept of such a dispensation.  
We grant with the Cardinal, that it appertaineth to the Pope's spiritual power to absoblue from sins, also from pains and censures; laws, vows and oaths; verumt amen non quidquid libet licet, it is not meant in all laws, all vows, nor all oaths. No man I think will say, that he can absolve from the just civil laws of secular Princes; for that were in alienam messem falcem mittere, and to be a monarchical superior in temporals, which is not to be admitted: but only in his own laws, and the Canons, Decrees, or positive laws of the Church, wherein I confess he hath plenitudinem potestatis: as likewise Princes have in the commonwealth (and thereby may dispense in their own laws) 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 compulsive force of the law, because no man may give judgement of condemnation against him if he do against the law: (if none, than not the people, nobles or commons assembled) whereupon on that of the Psalm, 
Psal. 50.  Tibisolipeccavi, To thee only (O God) I have sinned, the Gloss 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 directive power of the law, the Prince is subject to the law by his own will: as it is said Extra. de constitut. cap. Cum omnes. Quod quisque juris, etc. What law any do decree for another, he ought to use the same law himself. According to that: Patere legem quam ipse tuleris. What if a Prince will not do what he ought to do, what then? who may compel him? None but God, to whom only he is inferior, 
Tert. Ad Scapulam, & in Apologet. Greg. Nazian. orat. in julian. Amb. orat. ad pop. inter ep. 32.33.  Tertullian and other Fathers affirm, who ruleth the hearts of Kings at his pleasure, being his Vicegerents in earth: and other remedy than prayers, tears and patience subjects have none at all.  
I will not deny the Pope's Holiness to have power to dispense in vows, yet if I should affirm that in solemn vows of religion he cannot, I should not disagree from S. Thomas and other Divines. Papa non potest facere, etc. 
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 chastity, poverty and obedience vowed. Abdicatio proprietatis, etc. The renouncing of propriety, as also the keeping of chastity, is so essentially annexed to the monastical rule (or the state of a Monk) that against it the Pope himself cannot dispense. This is the opinion of S. Thomas, as Caieta● affirmeth, as much as it dependeth of the Decretal, Extra. de statu Monach. in fine illius cum ad monasterium. And he concludeth; And therefore in a solemn vow of religion it cannot be dispensed withal by the Church. Who will say that this holy Doctor denieth the Pope's spiritual power, though he differ from Cardinal 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 scandalised: for they cannot endure to hear any man talk a word of the limitation of the Pope's power, what he cannot do forsooth, as if he were omnipotent. But these are for the most part the ignorant sort, that believing him to be Christ's Vicar, believe also that he is endued with Christ's power of excellency, and can do all that he could do as man, when he was here on earth. Let these learn that his Holiness neither challengeth Christ's power of excellency, as to institute sacraments, to remit sins without out the ministry of a sacrament, to make an article of faith, and such like; but only that which it pleased our Lord to communicate unto him: nor the most learned Divines yield him all authority without limitation. For beside that which S. Thomas writeth of dispensation in vows, 
Victoria de sacram. ord.  Franciscus à Victoria, disputing whether the Pope may delegate power unto a Priest who is not a Bishop, to give orders? concludeth that S. Thomas, Paludanus, and all say, he cannot. And against his dispensing in matrimony before consummation: 
Idem tract. De matrim. cland. nu. 282.  Teneamus cum tota caterua Theologorum, quòd Papa non potest dispensare in matrimonio rato. Let us hold with the whole troop of Divines, that the Pope cannot dispense in matrimony called ratum, that is, before it be consummate. And Cardinal Bellarmine admitteth a limitation: Dicimus Papam habere, etc. 
Bellarm. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. cap. 4.  We say that the Pope hath that office which Christ had when he lived here on earth: but we cannot give him those offices which Christ had as he was God, or as a man immortal and glorious, but only those which he had as a mortal man. Whereby you see that the Pope's power is not without some limitation; howbeit he exceedeth in yielding him all that Christ had as he was a mortal man, as is said before. Now remains to be discussed, whether his Holiness may absolve from all oaths, and so from this Oath of allegiance. Which question serveth most for our purpose in hand.  
It is to be noted that every oath is either assertory, that is, of things present or past; or else promissory, of things to come: and either of good and lawful matters, or of evil and unlawful. An unlawful thing, and that which cannot be performed without sin, is not matter of an oath, and therefore requireth no dispensation or absolution from it, as is manifest: for whosoever should swear to commit adultery, which is promissory, or never to pray, never to fast, and such like, will any man say that he must seek to be absolved from that oath; and not rather that he is bound ex naturarei not to perform it, 
2.2. q. 89. ar. 9 ad 3.  being evil in itself? S. Thomas saith: Sometime it happeneth that that which falleth under a promissory Oath, is repugnant to justice; either becausce it is a sin, and so is bound not to keep it; or else for that it is a hinderer of a greater good (as not to live a virgin, not to enter into religion) and such an Oath needeth no dispensation, but is lawful for him that sweareth to keep it, or not to keep it. And sometime (he saith somewhat is promised, of which there is doubt whether it be lawful or unlawful, profitable or hurtful, absolutely or in some case: and in this every Bishop may dispense. But in an assertory Oath Sylvester verbo juramentum 5. n 2. S. Thomas in the place above said ad 1. and all Dolours, hold there can no dispensation or absolution be granted by any Bishop or Pope. The reasons such as understand may see in S. Thomas.  
When in an Oath is any thing sworn or promised to Prince or private man, which is manifestly just, according to the law of God, and accompanied with these three associates, Verity, judgement and justice, that ought duly to be performed of him that so sweareth: 
Exod. 20. Matth. 5.  Reddes Domino iuramenta tua; and cannot be dispensed withal, when as the observation of an Oath falleth under a divine precept, which is indispensible, as S. Thomas writeth in the place above noted ad primum. And in every 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, etc. That which is not delivered us by man, but is proclaimed from God, admitteth no human dispensation at all, neither is it lawful for any man in any sort to absolve from these; that is, 
joan. De Turrecren. in can. Lector, dist 34.  divine precepts.  
Such I take our Oath of allegiance to be, published and proclaimed by God, commanding subjects and all inferiors to render unto Caesar and all superiors their due: against which no dispensation, no absolution can be of force. And herein I say not, that his Holiness cannot dispense or absolve from any Oath, but from this particular Oath, wherein is nothing promised which is not manifestly law full, and 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 have no place; because besides the obligation to Almighty God, there riseth a new to his Majesty, which cannot be released by Pope, subjects, or any other then by himself to whom it is made. Neither doth the Pope's power extend to the taking away of the right of a third person in matters which are not Ecclesiastical, as Caietan affirmeth. And therefore cannot absolve a subject from an Oath of allegiance to his Prince, for that it would be prejudicial unto him. 
Caiet. In 2 2. q. 89. ar. 9  Praelatus Ecclesiasticus, etiam Papa, etc. An Ecclesiastical Prelate, (saith he) yea the Pope, hath not in such manner power over Oaths as over vows. Because it is not in the Pope's power to take away the right of a third man in matters not Ecclesiastical, as it is in his power to change (to wit vows) into something more acceptable to God; for that he is God's Vicar, and is not the Vicar of that man: neither is he so over him as he may deprive him of his goods at his pleasure. 
Tolet. instr, sacer. li. 4. c. 23. nu. 3.  Whereto agreeth Card. Tolet: Quando juramentum, etc. When an Oath is to the utility of some third person, it cannot be dispensed withal, no not by the Pope, without the consent of the third person; as also the Pope cannot take away an other man's goods. Whereto tendeth our Oath, but to the utility or good of his Majesty; and to his great prejudice would it not be, if his subjects should accept of any absolution from the same? Speculator likewise denieth that the Pope may absolve any man from a lawful 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 divine. By this appeareth that just and lawful Oaths, being such as may be prejudicial to a third person, cannot be dispensed withal.  
But the Church useth to remit an Oath extorted by force or fear. It may be answered, that if such an Oath extorted be manifestly unjust, and would be against the law of God to be taken without force or fear; no violence or fear of losing goods or life can make it lawful. Which doctrine is 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 jure iurando; that for no fear it is lawful to incur e a mortal sin, 
C. super co de usuris.  Which in another place is taught also of a venial sin. Therefore an Oath extorted of a thing unlawful, the Church useth not to remit or release, when as no man will think that unlawful Oaths are to be kept, as hath been said before. What say you then to lawful Oaths, yet compelled by fear of losing goods, liberty, & c?  
If it be just and lawful which thou art required to do, why dost thou refuse to do it? and why expectest thou compulsion to make thee to perform that which in duty thou art bound? I know thou wilt grant that a father may shake his rod, threaten to correct his child, and beat him, if of stubbornness will not ask blessing, or will not do his duty by obeying him. So may the Magistrate, who carrieth the sword ad vindictam malefactorum, not only threaten, but really punish and force thee to performance of that which is lawful and thou oughtest otherwise to do. And God himself the pattern of good government threateneth hell fire, and punisheth severely the transgressors of his law with many corporal afflictions, and thereby forceth many to observe and keep his commandments, which of love, without any such compulsion, they ought in duty to do. Will any hereof infer, that the Pope or any power on earth can absolve these from performing their duty to God or man, for that it is extorted by fear? Then I conclude, that lawful Oaths, such as are made by subjects to Princes of their fidelity, bind in conscience, although they be forced on them by fear of punishments, and cannot be dispensed withal. To this purpose Caietan saith; that Oaths of him that promiseth, whether they be coacted or voluntary, 
Caiet. in 2.2  si habent materiam bonam moraliter, do bind in the court of conscience.  
Whereas some will say, that Popes have practised this authority of absolving subjects from lawful Oaths: it may be answered with joan. de Turrecrecremata, Sylvester, Soto and others, 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 unlawful dispensations, saith: And if it were so done at any time, by some Pope, either ignorant in divine learning, or blinded with covetousness of money, which for such exorbitant dispensations is accustomed to be offered, or else to please men: it followeth not that he could do it justly: (that was, Clement 3. dispensing with Constantia a professed Nun, to marry with Henry 6. Emperor, son to Frederick 2.) The Church is governed, or aught to be governed, by rights & laws, not by such facts or examples. Thus you see that it is no denying his Holiness spiritual power to say, that he cannot dispense in all laws, all vows, or all oaths, nor consequently absolve me of this Oath of allegiance.  
How I pray you can I swear truly (as I must if I do well) that which never was determined or defined by the Church, but is matter of opinion, diversly held of divers learned men?  
Very well, and without sin. And you may observe what is commanded in holy Scripture to such as shall take an Oath; 
jerem. 4.  jurabis Domino in veritate, in judicio, & in justitia. For than is a man said to swear truly, that his doctrine of opinion, v. g. that the Pope cannot by any authority depose Princes, or such a thing is true; not only when he certainly knoweth it to be so, but also when he is persuaded in his conscience upon 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 Cardinal Tolet teacheth to be that sufficient truth which is required in every Oath. And which is more, both he, Sylvester, and other hold, that to swear a thing to be true in his opinion, which indeed is false, is no sin at all, if he did his best endeavour and used 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 juramento.  and should swear it: he neither speaketh, nor sweareth untruly, because his words are conformable to his interior mind. Which is sufficient according to Saint Thomas also, as Sylvester noteth, to be accounted truth, the principal point of an oath. The second is judgement. For it is required that he who sweareth, swear not lightly or vainly, but discreetly, upon consideration of some necessary or profitable cause. The third is justice, to wit, that it be not unjust or unlawful which is sworn. Which being so, how can any man be worthily reproved of sin that taketh the Oath of allegiance, upon a most necessary & profitable cause as all know, of removing thereby an imputation of treachery and treason, and pacifying what in him lieth his majesties heavy displeasure, worthily conceived for the most detestable Gunpowder practise: and further is persuaded, after great diligence used, to be both true, at least in his judgement, and also very lawful, as is a subjects loyalty to his Prince? Hereupon I see no reason why this Oath may not be taken of all Catholics without danger of sin, and aught of every good subject being required thereto: in the wilful refusers whereof his Majesty hath just cause to suspect a hidden mischief to lie, if ever opportunity should serve. By this is clear, that what a man ex animo thinketh to be true, he may truly say, yea and swear too; it being a most certain principle, well in reason as in divinity, and noted by father Parsons in his Catholic letter, that what a man may truly say, he may also truly swear: but he may truly say, that a probable opinion held & maintained by sundry learned men Catholics, 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 conceived in original sin: which opinion was defined in the Council of Basil Sess. 36. and stiffly maintained by the Fransciscan family. The contrary was as earnestly defended by the Domihicans, following the doctrine of Saint Bernard, and Saint Thomas. This controversy grew to be so great, that they calumniated each other of motall sin, yea of heresy, 
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, etc. They are excommunicated that affirm them to sin deadly, or to be heretics, who defend the blessed mother of God to be conceived without original sin. In like manner they are excommunicated, that affirm them to sin deadly, or to be heretics, 
Cost. In Osiand 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 never appertained to the doctrine of faith. And Cardinal Tolet writeth thus: Neither part hath been defined; De fide both may be holden without mortal sin, although it be much more certain and truer, that she was conceived without any spot, & ita nos credimus, and so we believe. Might not (trow ye) each of these without sin swear their opinion was true? Yes undoubtedly.  
The like may be, that the Pope is above a general Council, as was defined in the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth, taught and believed by the greater part of Divines at this day. Which definition of the Council, Costerus maketh doubt, whether it were de fide, inclining to the negative part, 
Cost. in Osiand pioposit; pag. 282.  saying, Sed an ut negotium fidei, non parum dubitatur. Yet notwithstanding this definition and opinion of many learned men beside, such others as believe and teach a general Council to be above the Pope, are not to be reputed heretics, nor to sin mortally. For then are the general Counsels of Constance and Basill to be condemned, who defined it so; wherein were assembled many very learned Bishops and other great Dolours: and likewise the most learned and renowned Faculty of Paris, who art ever ready earnestly to defend it without heresy or sin. Excusantur ah haeresi qui aliter sentiunt, 
Coster. loeo citato.  ut schola Parisiensis. They are excused from heresy (saith Costerus) that think otherwise, (to wit, than the Council of Lateran) as the school of Paris. And dare not these swear (trow ye) if need were, their opinion to be true? 
Tho. More.  Sir Thomas More likewise in his letter to Cromwell, saith: Never thought I the Pope above the general Council. No doubt but this holy and leaned man would have sworn, if occasion had been 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, swear no less truly than they, having good Authors, and all antiquity for their opinion. Many like instances might be here produced of the diversity of doctrine between S. Thomas and Scotus, and their scholars, who peremptorily will defend their doctrine against each others, yet all agreeing in unitate fidei: but these shall suffice.  
After all this followeth another point, no less difficult than any of the rest of the Oath, that is: And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable doctrine and pofition, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever.  
Some peradventure not duly considering what they hear or read concerning this point of the Oath, finding the words (Pope) and (excommunicated,) persuade themselves assuredly, that to take this clause, is absolutely to renounce the Pope, and deny his power to excommunicate. Others of better understanding conceive rightly, that such authority is rather presupposed and granted to be in him, then denied: but to abjure (which in this place signifieth to deny with an oath) a doctrine as heretical, that is, to swear it is heresy, which hath not been determined or defined by the Church, seemeth very hard and unlawful to be sworn. For answer, you shall first understand, that a man may abhor, or detest a doctrine, as he would detest yea heresy itself, yet not affirm the doctrine which he so detesteth to be heresy. V.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 original sin; or that of the Sorbons in Paris, holding peremptorily (as I have said) a Council to be above the Pope; will any man of judgement say, that the position is her esie, and they heretics? Costerus and other learned men do clear them from such a note, and they are still ready to defend themselves against any that shall accuse them thereof. Likewise if any abhor drunkenness, detraction, sowing discord between brethren and friends, as he abhorreth heresy; can it be said that drunkenness, detraction, or sowing discord (though they be great sins, and abound in too too many) is heresy? it were too fond and childish. This As, signifieth here a similitude, not an equality. and all know, that nullum simile est idem; which may serve for one answer.  
And for a second, let it be granted, that such as swear, think it indeed to be heretical doctrine (albeit the Church hath not defined it so,) that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, etc. what absurdity is like to follow? I have already (as I trust) sufficiently proved, that neither Bishops nor the Pope, by their spiritual censure, have authority to dispossess any private man or Prince, be he never so perverse an heretic, of his lands, goods, or temporal dominions; for that it is against the essence or nature of excommunication to work such an effect. It is likewise proved to be against the law of God, for children, servants and subjects to disobey their parents, masters and Princes, commanding justly: notwithstanding any excommunication denounced against them, which is the Church's period, beyond which she may not go; it being only a depriving of the common goods of the Church appertaining to Christians. Now what doctrine soever is repugnant to Scripture, every word thereof being de fide. may well be accounted heresy, and as such abhorred and abjured: for haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei, 
Tho. 2.2. q. 11. ar. 2.  heresy is about those things which belong unto, or are of faith. Such is the duty of subjects to their lawful Prince, and of all inferiors to their superiors. Then is it heresy directly to say, that it is lawful for subjects, or any other whatsoever, who is not his judge and superior in that kind, to murder him; it being expressly against a divine precept, Non occides, and this saying of our Saviour, 
Matth. 26.  Omnes qui acceperint gladium, gladio peribunt: All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. By which are understood all such as assume to themselves authority to use the material for revenge, 
jansen. in ●unc locum.  before it be granted them by the Prince, who only hath his authority by the divine ordinance, which ought not to be resisted by subjects or others. For, as Cunerus writeth: 
Cun. de office Princip. l. 4. c. 12.  Nulla pacta vel contractu● No covenants or contracts may prejudicate the divine ordinance, whereby a King hath his power, that the people at any time may take arms against their King.  
And in my judgement it may be admitted, that any Catholic will stick at this point, here being no mention of the Pope's deposing (that which many stand upon,) but of subjects, or any other whatsoever; unless they will rank him among these, whatsoever, which ought not so to be understood. But if they will under this general word understand also the Pope, yet may it be said, it is heresy, to wit, May be murdered; which cannot be understood but of killing unjustly, and without authority. If you say, that the other part, May be deposed, was never declared, nor adjudged heresy, and therefore the Oath cannot be taken, because bonum is ex integra causa, and malum ex singulis defectibus: than one part not being heretical. how can this clause be lawfully sworn, that Princes which be excommunicated, may be deposed, to be damnable and heretical doctrine?  
This indeed is such an objection, as in the judgement of divers cannot be answered, and whereupon many pretend to have great reason to stand: but let all passion be laid aside, lending me an indifferent care, & with God's assistance such a solution may be framed, as shall satisfy I trust and solve the difficulty.  
In our Oath, no man sweareth, nor is urged to swear, nor by the law ought to swear further than the express words of the Oath, which are after this sort; as is also noted before, pag. 119.  
And I do further swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical, What? Note well, this damnable doctrine and position, What position? Forsooth, that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, etc. This position is sworn, not per parts, by piecemeal, but conjunctively and wholly as it lieth: and so, it cannot be denied but it is impious and heretical doctrine; heresy here being affirmed, not on the parts of the position separated, but on the 〈◊〉 hole together.  
For in a sentence affirmative, disjunctive proposition, or book, if any part be defectuous, false, or heretical, albeit some part thereof be true, and sound doctrine; it may well be said, that the whole sentence, proposition or book is defectuous; false, 
Gress. l. 1. consider. Pag. 47.  or heretical, as Gretserus writeth. Then that, May be deposed; closed in one proposition with the other part; or murdered, which is heretical; the whole position as it lieth must needs be said, and may be sworn to be heretical. For example, The Inquisition useth to condemn as a scandalous or heretical book, if there be but one only Chapter or sentence of scandalous or heretical doctrine contained therein, though all the rest be found and Catholic. And may not any man lawfully swear, that book so condemned, to be scandalous or heretical, albeit all the whole is not such? or that man to be an heretic, which erreth against one only article of the Catholic faith?  
But if the two parts of the proposition you think are sworn divisim and by parts, not coniunctim or totally together; then let impious go with the first part may be deposed; and heretical with the latter or murdered; and I cannot see how you can deny, but so it may be sworne.  
If any will yet stand upon the word abjure; as I hear many do, saying, It signifieth not only simply to deny a thing with an oath, as all Dictionaries understand the word, but by oath to deny that which once he held before: then, he that never held the doctrine and position above named, cannot take this Oath, because he may not abjure that opinion which he never held.  
But this will manifestly appear, to him that hath any experience in the practice of the Church, to be false. For, let any be convented into the Inquisition for any one heresy whatsoever, as Anabaptisme; Brownisme, etc., if afterwards he repent and convert to the Catholic faith, he shall be required; and must of necessity abjure, not only that impious opinion or heresy of Anabaptisme or Brownisme, which he held before, but also all other heresies, as Pelagianisme, Arianisme, Nestorianisme, etc. which haply he had always before detested. This therefore is but a vain verbal shift of some who not knowing what to say against the main points of the Oath, are driven out of the profundity of their wits to seek a knot in a rush, to invent a difficulty where none is, thereby to entrap the souls of scrupulous consciences, and deter them from performing their duty to their Prince, making no conscience to overthrow them also in their temporals.  
If any insift saying, that they think indeed the doctrine, which teacheth it to be no sin to depose or murder a good and lawful King, such a one as governeth for the good of the common▪ wealth, to be heretical: but if he become a tyrant, such a one as hath more care of his own utility then of the weal public, and seeketh to subvert the State, persecuteth the professors of the true religion, and sets up idolatry in steed of Christian faith in the judgement of the people; it is not heresy to teach, that he may be deposed by the State assembled, or lawfully murdered by any man whatsoever.  
And is not this pernicious doctrine of many sectaries of this age heresy? It being directly repugnant to the doctrine and example of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, against the law given to Moses, Thou shalt not kill; as also against that saying of our Lord, Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit: Whosoever shall take the sword (to strike withal without authority) shall perish with the sword. This was that dangerous position worthily condemned as heretical in the Council of Constance: Quilibet tyrannus potest, & debet licitè & meritoriè occidi, etc. 
Conc. Constant. sell. 15. an. 1415.  Every tyrant may, and ought lawfully and meritoriously to be murdered, by any his vassal or subject wharsoever, either by close treachery, or by smooth practices and insinuations, notwithstanding any Oath taken or promise of allegiance made unto him; nay not so much as expecting the sentence or warrant of any judge whatsoever.  
Against which error this holy Synod endeavouring to arise, and utterly to extinguish the same, after mature deliberation doth declare, and define, that this doctrine erroneous in faith and manners, and doth reject and condemn it▪ as heretical and scandalous, opening a gap to fraud deceit, dissimulation, treason and perjury. It doth moreover declare, and define, that they who shall obstinately maintain this pernicious doctrine, are heretics, and as such to be punished, according to the canonical decrees. And that this is the intent and purpose of the Synod, 
Molanus de fide haeret. ser lib. 5. c. 6.  Molanus showeth thus: Patres indistinctè de quolibet tyranno loquuntur: & doctrina illa de utriusque ge●er is tyranno: est in fide & moribus erronea. The Fathers speak indistinctly of every sort of tyrant: and that doctrine of. (killing) a tyrant of either sort, is in faith & manners erroneous, land it giveth way to frauds; deceits, lyings, treasons, perjuries; for those things which concern the commonwealth are not to be handled or accomplished of private persons: among which is the occision of an invader. Thus far he. This doctrine or position was also long since, two years before the Council, condemned as impious, heretical and damnable by 141. Divines of the Faculty or school of Paris, anno 1413. December 13. and now lately again by the same faculty, anno 1610. since the bloody parricide of the French king Henry the fourth. The decree is this, 
The decree of the Doctors of Sorb.  as it is set down in Antimariana: Censet seditiosum, impium & haereticum esse. The sacred Faculty judgeth or decreeth, that it is seditious, impious; and heretical for any subject, vassal or stranger, upon what occasion, pretence, or devised colour soever, sacris Regumpersonis vina infer, to do any violence (note well) against the sacred persons of Kings. Whereunto accordeth S. Thomas, that yea a tyrant may not be slain by his subjects, otherwise he should be contrary to himself, for thus he writeth. 
Tho. de regim. prin. lib. 1. c. 6.  Essetmultitudini periculosum & eius rectoribus. It were dangerous to the people and their governors, 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 themselves into that danger. And the government of good Kings is as odious to bad men, as the rule of tyrants to good people. Wherefore the kingdom by this presumption would be rather in danger to forego a good Prince, than a wicked tyrant. So S. Thomas. By this Catholic censure of that famous Vniverfitie, and by the definitive sentence of the general Council, and the doctrine of S. Thomas, you see it to be condemned as heretical and damnable doctrine, that Princes (as in our Oath) which be excommunicated, (or tyrants by the Council) may be deposed (which cannot be effected without violence to their persons, and slaughter of many men) by their subjects (Nobles or commons) or any other whatsoever. Whereby you may secure your conscience, this part of the Oath to be lawful, and may be taken without fear or prejudicating the Pope's spiritual authority.  
Sir, what say you then to the Friars killing his liege Lord Henry the third of France, the mod Christian King, supposed to be a tyrant in government, and a favourer of heretics; applauded or allowed of (as seemeth to some) by Pope Sixtus 5. in his oration made in a secret Consistory before the Cardinals, anon after the certain news of the act, and the King's death?  
My opinion is, that as the doctrine teaching to be no sin to kill a tyrant, is worthily condemned as impious and heretical: (which you have heard sufficiently proved 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 have been such a one as is above said; albeit the French know right well he was their true and rightful King, and beside lived and died a member of the Catholic Roman Church. And whosoever will go about to excuse this inexcusable fact, and to say, that he did it, either out of a great zeal to deliver the commonwealth from such a supposed wicked and tyrannical King: or else that he did it by divine inspiration, being ordained and appointed by God so to do; Saint Paul teacheth otherwise, to wit, Non faciamus mala, ut veniant bone. Let us not do evil, that there may come good. And David, a man according to Gods own heart elected to be King of the jews, both by his example proceeded, and in his doctrine taught otherwise. For when David, persecuted by Saul, yea who at that time sought his life, came even to saul's Tent whilst he was sleeping, and was counseled by his Chieftain Abisai to kill him: saying, Conclusit Deus inimicum tuum hody in manus tuas: nunc ergo perf●diam eum lancea in terra, semel, & secundò opus non erit. God hath this day delivered thine enemy into thine hands; I will now therefore pierce him with a jance in the earth, once, and the second time it shall not need. David 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 merciful unto me (saith David) that I may not stretch out my hand against the anointed of our Lord. In saying, who, or what is he; and teaching that himself, who best might, could not without offence lay violent hands on King Saul, gave us instruction that it could not be lawful for Friar Clement to extend his bloody hands as he did, 'gainst his true and lawful Prince the anointed of our Lord: and Christ himself after commanding, 
Nolite tangere christos meos.  not to touch his anointed. Such kind then of furious zeal of taking the sword, is to be detested in any, and to be repressed with great severity; lest way be given to evil disposed persons to perturb, yea ruin whole kingdoms and commonwealths, whilst under a preposterous zeal they embolden themselves to perpetrate any villainy.  
And no less dangerous & impious it is to say, that he did that horrible murder by divine inspiration; for than should be justified a most wicked Parricide, and likewise a gap opened to all miscreants to commit any outrageous cruelty, against any superior, Prince or King whatsoever. And so whilst they machinate their mischief, if this be granted, they may cloak it with the mantle of divine inspiration, thinking thereby to pass blameless before God and men. But who can enter into the secret judgements of almighty God to know this? according to the holy Scripture, Quis cognovit sensum Domint, aut quis consiliarius eius fuit? Who hath known the judgement of our Lord, or who hath been 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 less to be rejected then the former. For the righteous God of heaven, neither appointed, nor excited, but only permitted him to put in practise his devilish inward suggestions, against the sacred person of his dread Sovereign, for causes to man unknown, as he permitted Adam to fall, judas to betray his Lord and master.  
Now touching the Pope's oration, some make a doubt whether ever any such, specially of approving the Friar's act, were pronounced by his Holiness, & in Consistory, as hath been reported, and is extant in Anti-Sixtus, or no▪ and the rather for that Cardinal 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 private Consistory; nor was published by the Pope himself, or by his order and appointment, by any other.  
Whether the enemies of the Church have set forth the oration made by Pope Sixtus in the Consistory I know not; but this I know, that I have lately seen such a one both in Latin and in French, printed according to a copy set forth at Paris 1589. the year of the King's death, by Nicholas Nivelle, and Rollin Tierry; Sur la copy imprimée à Paris chez Nicholas Nivelle & Rollin Tierry soy disans Impromeur & Libraire de la saint Union, avee Printlege de la dite Vmen & apbrobation de la faculté de Theologis de Paris. And set forth with approbation of three Doctors of the faculty of Paris, as followeth.  
Nous soubsignez Doctors e● theology de la facultéde Paris, certifions avoir conferé Harangue pronontée par sa saintcteté avec l'exemplaire Latin enuoyé de Rome, & avoir trowé conform l'vn à l'autre.  
BOUCHER. DECREIL. ANCELIN.  
Which oration who so is desirous to see, may here read it according to the Latin copy printed as above: it followeth thus:  
Sixti Quinti Pont. Max. de Henrici Tertij Morte, Sermo.  
Romae in Consistorio Patrum habitus, 11. Septembris, 1589.  
A Nime meo saepe, ac seriò revoluens, mentisque aciem intendens in ea, quae nuper Dei voluntate acciderunt, videor mihi verè posse illud Prophetae Abacuch usurpare: 
Abac. 1.  Quia opus factum est in diebus vestris, quod nemo credet, cum narrabitur. Mortuus est Rex Franc●rum per manus Monachi. Nam ad istud potest rectè applicari: licet de alia re, nempe de incarnatione Domini, quae omnia mira, ac mirabilia superat; Propheta propriè locutus sit; sicut & Apostolus Paulus eadem verba Actorum 13. ad Christi resurrectionem verissimè resert. Quando Prophetae nominat opus, non vult innuere aliquid vulgar, vel ordinarium, sed rarum, ensign, ac memorabile facinus; quomodo de creatione mundi, Opera manuum tuarum sunt coeli. Item, Requievit die septimo ab omni opere quod patrarat. Cum berò factum ait, eo verbo tale aliquid in Scriptures exprimi, quod non temerè, casu, fortwa aut per accideus evenire dicitur; sed quod expressa Dei voluntate, pronidentia, dispositione, ac or dina●io●e obuenis.  cum dicit salvator, Opera quae ego facio, vos facietis, & maiora horum facietis: & similia in sacris litteris plurima. Quod autem loquatur in praeterito factum esse, id more aliorum Prophetarum facit, qui propter certitudinem eventus sosent saepe de futuris, ac si iam facta essent, praedicere. Dicunt enim Philosophi, res praeteritas esse de necessitate, praesentes de inesse, futuras de possibili tantùm: ita illi loquuntur. Propter quam certitudinem Isaias propheta longè antè vaticinatus de morte Christi, sic dixit, sicut in Act. Apostolorum cap. 8. etiam recitatur, Tanquam ovis ad accisionem ductus est, & sicut agnus coram tondente se non aperuit os suum etc. Atque hoc, de quo nunc verbafacimus, & quoth his diebus nostris evenit, verè ensign, menorabile, & penè incredibile opus est, nec sine Dei opt. Max. particulari providentia, & dispositione perpetratum. Occidit Monachus Regem, non pictum aut fictumin charta, aut pariete; sed Regem, Francorum in medio exercitus sui, milite & cuslodia undique septum, quod re vera tale est, & co modo effectum, ut nemo nunc credat, cum narrabitur, & fortasse apud posteritatem pro fabula reputabitur.  
Quod Rex sit mortuus, vel etiam peremptus, facilè creditur, sed eum sic sublatum, vix est credibile: sicut Christum natum ex foemina statim assentimur: sed si addas porro ex foemina Virgine ortum esse, tunc secundum hominem non assentior: ita etiam quod mortuus sit Christus facilè credimus, sed quod mortuus iam rasurrexerit ad vitam, quia ex privatione ad habitum non fit regressio, redditur secundum intellectum humanum impossibile, & propterea incredibile: quod homo ex somno, ex morbo, etiam ex syncope, vel extasi resuscitatur, quia id saepe secundum nature am fit, humanitus credimus; sed resurrexisse à mortuis, ita secundum carnem videbatur incredibile,  Paulo apud philosophos Athenienses de hac resurrectione disserenti, improperarent, quòd esset novorum daemoniorum annunciator: & alij, sicut D. Lucas narrat, irridebant, alij dicebant, Audiemus te de hoc iterum. De talibus igitur, quae secundum naturae leges, & ordinarium cursum fieri non solent, dicit Propheta: quòd nemo credet, cum narrabitur; sed huiusmodi tantùm fidem adhibemus ex consideratione omnipotentiae divinae, & per subiectionem intellectus nostri in obedientiam fidei, & obsequium Christi. Nam hoc modo quod erat incredibile naturaliter, fit credibile. Igitur qui secundum hominem non credo Christum de virgine natum, tamen quando additur hoc factum esse supra naturae terminos per operationem Spiritus sancti, tunc verè assentior, & credo. Ita quando dicitur Christum ex mortuis resurrexisse, humanitus non credo; sed cum id factum esse per divinam (quae in ipso erat) naturam affirmatur, tunc omnino credo. Eodem modo licet tantum Regem in medio exercitus, tot stipatum militibus, ab uno simplici, & imbelli Religioso occisum esse, secundum prudentiam carnis, & intellectum humanum sit incredibile, vel omnino improbabile; tamen considerando ex altera part gravissima Regis peccata, & specialem Dei omnipotentis in hac re providentiam, & quàm inusitato, & mirabili modo iustissimam voluntatem suam erga ipsum impleverit, omnino, & firmiter credo. Rem etenim tam istam grandem, & inusitatam aliò refer, quàm ad particularem Dei providentiam (sicut quosdam ad alias caussas ordinarias, veletiam ad fortunam, & casum, aut similes accidentarios eventus perperam referre intelligimus) prorsus non licet; sicut ij, qui totius facti seriem pressiùs observant, facilè videre possunt, ubi plurima interuenerunt, quae ab homine, nisi Dei speciali concurrente auxilio, expediri non quiverant. Et sanè Regum, ac Regnorum rationes, caeteráque tam rara, tantíque momenti negotia à Deo temerè administrari non est existimandum. Sunt in sacra historia nonnulla huius generis, nec eorum quidquam potest aliò, quàm ad Deum authorem referri: tamen nihil est, ubi magis claret superna operatio, quàm in isto, de quo nunc agimus. Lib. Maccha. 1. cap. 6. legimus, Eleazarum, ut Regem populi Dei persecutorem, ac hostem tolleret, seipsum certae morti obtulisse. Name in conflictu conspiciens Elephantem caeteris eminentiorem, in quo videbatur Rex esse, concito cursu in median hostium turmam se conijciens, hinc inde viam vi sternens, ad belluam venit, atque sub eam intravit, subiectóque gladio peremit, quae cadens oppressit Eleazarum & extinxit. Hic quoad zelum, & animi robur, reíque tentatae exitum, aliquid huius nostri simile cernimus, tamen in reliquis nihil est comparabile. Eleazarus erat miles, armis & pugna exercitatus, in ipso praelio constitutus, ardoréque animi, & furore (vi fit) accensus: iste Monachus praelijs ac pugnis non erat assuefactus, & à sanguine, vitae suae instituto ita abhorrens, ut nec ex venae incisione fusum cruorem forsan ferre potuerit. Ille noverat genus mortis, simúlque locum sepulturae suae, nempe quòd ruina belluae inclusus magis, quàm oppressus, suo sepeliretur triumpho: iste mortem, ac tormenta crudeliora, & incognita expectabat, sepulchróque se cariturum non dubitabat. Sed & alia multa dissimilia sunt. Nota quoque est insignis illa historia sanctae mulieris judith, quae & ipsa, ut obsessam civitatem suam, ac populum Dei liberaret, cepit consilium, Deo sine controversia suggestore, de interimendo Holopherne hostilis exercitus principe; quod & perfecit. In quo opere licet plurima, & apertissima supernae directionis indicia appareant, tamen longè maiora divinae providentiae argumenta, in istius Regis occisione, ac civitatis Parisiensis liberatione conspicere licebit, sicut certè quoad hominem, hoc suit illo magis difficile, vel impossibile. Nam illa sancta foemina intentionem suam aliquibus urbis presbyteris aperuit, portámque civitatis, & custodiam pertransiit illis praesentibus, ac approbantibus, ut proinde scrutationi, vel explorationi, quae obsidionts tempore solet esse tam exacta, ut ne musca fere sine examine egredi queat, non potuerit esse subiecta. Apud hostes vero, per quorum castra, & varias excubias transeundum erat, saepius explorata, & examinata cum foemina esset, nec quidquam haberet vel litterarum, vel armorum, unde suspicio oriri potuit, déque adventu in castra, & à suis, fugae probabiles reddens rationes, facile dimittebatur. Sicut tam propter easdem caussas, quàm propter sexum, & formae excellentiam ad Principem impudicum introduci, & in temulentum, facile, quod designavit, perficere valuit. Ita illa. Hic vero Religiosus aggressus est, & confecit rem longè maiorem, pluribúsque impedimentis, ac tantis difficultatibus, periculísque obsitam, ut nulla prudentia, aut astutia humana, nec alio modo, nisi aperta Dei ordinatione, ac succursu confici potuerit. Debebant obtineri litterae commendatitiae ab ijs, qui erant contrariae factionis, transeundum erat per eam urbis portam qua itur ad castra hostium, quae ita sine dubio in illis obsidionis angustiis custodiebatur, ut cuncta haberentur suspecta, nec cuiquam sine curiosissima exploratione de litteris, nunciis, negotiis, armis pateret exitus. Sed iste (res mira) vigiles pertransiit sine examine etiam cum litteris credentiae ad hosten, quae si fuissent interceptae à civibus, sine mora, ac sine ulteriori judicio de vita fuisset actum▪ atque apertum hoc divinae providentiae argumentum: sed maius miraculum est illud, quod idem mox sine omni exploratione transierit quoque castra hostium, varias militum excubias, ipsamque corporis Regis custodiam, ac totum denique exercitum, qui ferè erat conflatus ex haereticis, ipse Religiosus existens, & in habitu Ordinis sui, qui ita erat exosus talibus hominibus, ut in illis locis, quae paulo ante prope Parisios vi ceperant, Monachos quosque vel occiderint, vel pessimè tractaverint. judith erat foemina, miniméque odiosa; tamen examinata saepe, illa nihil secum tulit, unde sibi oriretur periculum: iste Monachus, & propterea odiosus, ac suspectissimus, etiam cum cultello ad hoc propositum preaparato, non in vagina condito (unde poterat esse probabilis excusatio) sed nudo, ac in manica abscondito, quem si invenissent, mox fuisset in crucem actus. Ista omnia clariora sunt particularis providentiae divinae argumenta, quàm ut negari queat: nec aliter fieri potuit, quàm ut à Deo occaecarentur oculi inimicorum ne agnoscerent illum. Name, ut antea diximus, licet quidam ista absurdè tribuant fortunae, aut casui, tamen nos hoc totum non aliò referendum censemus, quàm in divinam voluntatem. Nec profectò aliter factum crederem, nisi captivarem intellectum in obsequium Christi, qui hoc modo admirabili, & liberare civitatem Parisiensem (quam variis viis intelleximus fuisse in summo discrimine, maximisque angustiis constitutam) (& istius Regis gravissima peccata punire, eumque tam infausta, & infami morte è medio tollere statuit. Atque nos, dolentes sanè, aliquoties praediximus fore, ut quemadmodum erat familiae suae ultimus, ita aliquem insuetum, & dedecorosum vitae exitum esset habiturus. Quod me dixisse non solum Cardinals joiosa, Lenocortius, & Parisiensis, sed etiam, qui tunc apud nos residebat Orator, testes esse possunt. Neque enim hic mortuos, sed viventes in testimonium huiusmodi verborum nostrorum adhibemus, quorum isti omnes probè meminisse possunt. Quidquid tamen in hunc infoelicem Regem hoc tempore dicere cogimur, nullo modo volumus, ut pertineat ad nobilissimum illud Galliae Regnum, quod nos imposterum, sicut hactenus, semper omni paterno amore, ac honore prosequemur. De persona ergo Regis tantùm ista cum dolore diximus, cuius infaustus finis eximit quoque ipsum ab ijs officijs, quae solet haec sancta sedes (quae est pia Mater omnium fidelium, & maximè Christianorum principum) Imperatoribus & Regibus post mortem exhibere: quae pro isto libenter quoque fecissemus, nisi id fieri in hoc casu sacrae Scripturae vet arent. Est, inquit S. joannes, peccatum ad mortem, non pro illo dico ut roget quis: quod vel intelligi potest de peccato ipso, ac si diceret, pro illo peccato, vel pro remissione illius peccati nolo ut quisquam roget, quoniam non est remissibile: vel, quod in eundem sensum redit, pro illo homine, qui peccat peccatum ad mortem, non dico ut roget quis. De quo genere etiam salvator apud Matth. quòd illi, qui peccat in Spiritum sanctum, non remittetur, neque in hoc saeculo, neque in futuro. Vbi facit tria genera peccatorum, nimirum in Patrem, in Filium, & in Spiritum sanctum; atque priora duo esse minus gravia, & remissibilia, tertium verò irremissibile. quae tota differentia, sicut ex scripturis scholae tradunt, oritur ex distinctionne attributorum, quae singula singulis Personis sanctissimae Trinitatis appropriantur. Licet enim, sicut eadem est essentia, sic eadem quoque est potentia, sapientia, & bonitas omnium personarum (sicut ex Symbolo S. Athanasii didicimus, cum ait, Omnipotens Pater, omnipotent Filius, omnipotens Spiritus sanctus;) tamen per attributionem, Patri applicatur Potentia, Filio Sapientia, Spiritui sancto Amor. quorum singula eo modo, quo attributa dicuntur, ita sunt propria cuiusque personae, ut in aliam referri non queant. Ex quorum attributorum contrariis, & distinctionem, & gravitatem peccatorum dignoscimus. Contrarium Potentiae, quae attribuitur Patri, est infirmitas, ut proinde id quod ex infirmitate, seu naturae nostrae imbecillitate committimus, dicatur committi in Patrem. Oppositum Sapientiae est ignorantia, ex qua cum quis peccat, dicitur peccare in Filium, ita ut ea, qua vel ex humana infirmitate, vel ignoratione peccamus, facileùs nobis condonari soleant. Tertium autem attributum quod est Spiritus sanctus, nempe Amor, habet pro contrario ingratitudinem, vitium maximè odibile. unde venit, ut homo non agnoscat Dei erga ipsum dilectionem, aut beneficia, sed obliviscatur, contemnat, ac odio etiam habeat. Ex quo tandem fit, ut obstinatus reddatur, atque impoenitens. Atque his modis multo gravius & periculosius peccatur in Deum, quàm ex ignorantia, aut imbecillitate; proinde huiusmodi vocantur peccata in Spiritum sanctum: & quia rarius, ac difficilius, & non nisi abandantiori gratia condonantur, dicuntur irremissibilia quodammodo, cum tamen sola impoenitentia sit omnino, & simplicititer irremissibilis. Quidquid enim in vita committitur, licet contra Spiritum sanctum, potest per poenitentiam deleri ante mortem: sed qui perseverat usque ad mortem, nullum locum relinquit gratiae ac misericordiae Atque pro tali peccato, seu pro homine sic peccante, noluit Apostolus ut post mortem oraremus. jam ergo quia magno nostro dolore intelligimus, praedictum Regem ex hac vita sine poenitentia, seu impoenitentem excessisse, nimirum in consortio haereticorum; ex talibus enim hominibus confecerat exercitum suum: & quòd commendaverat moriens regnum in successione Navarrae declarato haeretico, & excommunicato; necnon in extremis, ac in ultimo ferè vitae spiritu ab eodem, & similibus circumstantibus petierit, ut vindictam sumerent de ijs, quos ipse iudicabat fuisse caussas mortis suae. Propter haec, & similia manifesta impoenitentiae indicia, decrevimus pro ipso non esse celebrandas exequias. non quod praesumamus quidquam ex hoc de occultis erga ipsum Dei judiciis, aut misericordiis, qui poterat secundum beneplacitum suum in ipso exitu animae suae convertere cor eius, & misericorditer cum illo agree; sed ista locuti sumus secundum ea, quae nobis exterius patent. Faxit benignissimus salvator noster, ut reliqui hoc horrendo justitiae supernae exemplo admoniti, in viam salutis redeant, & quod misericorditer hoc modo coepit, benignè prosequatur, ac perficiat, sicut eum facturum speramus: ut de erepta Ecclesia de tantis malis, & periculis, perennes illi gratias agamus.  
In quam sententiam cum dixisset Pontifex, dimisit Consistorium cum benedictione.  
LAUS DEO.  
An Oration of Pope Sixtus the fift upon the death of King Henry the third, in Rome, in the full assembly of the Cardinals.  
Considering oftentimes with myself, and applying my whole understanding unto these things, which now of late by a just judgement of God, are come to pass: I think I may with right use the words of the Prophet Abacuch, saying; I have wrought a work in your days, which no man will believe when it shall be told him. The French King is slain by the hands of a Friar, for unto this it may fitly be compared, although the Prophet spoke of another thing, namely of the incarnation of our Lord, which exceedeth and surmounteth all other wonders and miracles whatsoever: as also the Apostle S. Paul referreth the same words unto the resurrection of Christ. When the Prophet said a work, his mind was not to signify by it some common or ordinary thing, but a rare & notable matter, and a deed worthy ro be remembered, as that of the creation of the world, The heavens are the works of thine hands: And again, He rested the seventh day, of all the works which he had made. When he saith, I have wrought, with these words the holy Scripture is wont to express things not come to pass by casualty, fortune, or accident, but things befallen by the determined providence, will, and ordinance of God, as our Saviour said: The works which I do, ye shall do also, and yet greater; and many more such like wherewith the holy Scriptures are replenished. And that he saith that it is done in times past, herein he followeth the use and order of the other Prophets, who for the certainty of the event are wont to prophesy of things to come as if they were passed already. For the Philosophers say, that things past are of necessity; things present, of being: and things to come only of possibility. For which certainty the Prophet Isay long before prophesying of the death of Christ, hath thus spoken: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a dumb lamb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth, etc. And this whereof we speak at this present, and which is come to pass in these our days, is a famous, notable, and an uncredible thing, not done or achieved without the particular providence and disposition of the Almighty. A Friar hath killed a King, not a painted one, or drawn upon a piece of paper, or pictured upon a wall, but the King of France, in the midst of his army, compassed and environed round about with his Guard and Soldiers: which truly is such an act, and done in such a manner, that none will believe it, when it shall be told them, and perhaps our posterity and the age to come will account and esteem it but a fable.  
That the king is dead or else slain, it is easily to be believed; but that he is killed and taken away in this sort, is hardly to be credited: even as we presently agree unto this, that Christ is borne of a woman; but if we add unto it of a woman virgin, then following natural reason we can no in wise assent unto it. Even so we lightly believe that Christ died; but that he is risen up again from death to life, it falleth hard unto man's understanding, and therefore not lightly digested. That one is wakened again out of a sleep, ecstasy, or a sound, because it is not against nature, we naturally believe it; but to be risen again from death, it seemeth so uncredible unto the flesh, that S. Paul disputing in Athens of this point, was misliked greatly, and accused to be a setter forth of new Gods, so that many (as S. Luke witnesseth) did mock him, and many for the strangeness of the doctrine said, We will hear thee again of this thing. Of such things therefore which befall not according to the laws of nature, and the ordinary course thereof, speaketh the Prophet, That none shall believe it when it shall be told them. But we give credit unto it by consideration of the omnipotency of God, and by submission of our understanding under the obedience of faith, and service which we own unto our Saviour Christ. And by these means this that was incredible by nature, becometh credible by faith: therefore we that believe not after the flesh that Christ is borne of a virgin, yet when there is added unto it, that this was done supernaturally by operation of the holy Ghost; then truly we agree unto it, and faithfully believe it. So likewise when it is said that Christ is risen again from the dead, as we are flesh only we believe it not; but when it is affirmed that this was done by the power of the divine nature which in him was, then without any doubting we believe it. In the same manner when it shall be told us, that such a mighty King was killed by a poor, simple, and a weak Friar, even in the midst of his army, and environed with his Guard and Soldiers; to our natural reason and fleshly capacity it will seem uncredible; yet considering on the other side the great & grievous sins of this King, and the special providence of the Almighty herein, and by what accustomed & wonderful means he hath accomplished his most just will and judgement against him, then most firmly we will believe it. Therefore this great & miraculous work I may but only ascribe it unto the particular providence of God, not as those that refer all things amiss unto some ordinary causes, or unto fortune, or such like accidentary events: but as those who (more near observing and looking in the course of the whole matter) easily see that here in this befell many things, which could in no wise have been brought to pass and dispatched without the special help of God. And truly the state of Kings and kingdoms, and all other such rare and weighty affairs should not be thought to be governed of God rashly and unadvisedly. In the holy Scripture some are of this kind, and none of them can be referred unto any other thing, but unto God the only author thereof: yet there are none wherein the celestial operation more appeareth then in this whereof we speak at this present. We read in the first book of the Macchab. chap. 6. how Eleazar offered himself unto a certain death, to kill the king that was an enemy and persecutor of the people and children of God. For in the battle espying an Elephant more excellent than any of the other beasts, whereupon it was like that the king was, with a swift course casting himself in the midst of the troops of his enemies, here and there making a way perforce, came to the beast at last, and went under her, and thrust his sword in her belly and slew her, who falling, with the great weight of her body priest him to death, and killed him out of hand. Here in this we see some things not unlike unto ours, as much as toucheth the zeal, valiantness of mind, and the issue of the enterprise, yet in the rest there is no comparison to be made. Eleazarus was a Soldier, exercised in weapons, and trained up in wars, set in battle, emboldened with courage, and inflamed with rage and anger: this a Friar not enured to the fight, and so abhorring of blood by the order of his profession, that perhaps he could not abide the cutting of a vein. He knew the kind of his death, as also the place of his burial, namely that he should be entombed under the fall of the beast, and so buried in the midst of his triumph and victory. This man did look for death only, and expected nothing but unknown and most cruel torments, and did not doubt before, but that he should lack a grave to rest within. But in this are yet many other things that can suffer no comparison. The famous history of the holy woman judith is sufficiently known, who took counsel with herself, that she might deliver her City and the people of God (no doubt by the inspiration of the holy Ghost) to murder Holophernes chief Captain and Prince of the enemy's forces, which she also most valiantly accomplished. Wherein although appear many and most manifest tokens of heavenly direction, yet far greater arguments of God's providence, are to beseen in the kill of this King, and the delivering of the city of Paris, far more difficult and harder to be brought to pass, than was the enterprise of judith. For this holy woman disclosed part of her intention before unto the Governors of the City, and went not without great commendation of young and old, through the gates of Bethulia, & by the watch, in sight and presence of the Elders and Princes of that place: and by that means was not subject unto their examination and searching, which is always used so stricty in time of siege and war, that a fly can hardly without examining get by. She being come to the enemy, through whose camp and watches she was to go, and now oftentimes examined and searched, being a woman, carrying no letters nor weapons about her, from whence any suspicion might grow, and yielding probable reasons of her coming there, and abandoning of her country, was easily discharged. As also for the same causes, and for her sex and exquisite beauty being brought before this lewd Prince, whom lust, wine, and good cheer had rocked asleep, might lightly perform that which she had determined before. But this religious man had undertaken a matter of greater weight, and also performed it, which was compassed with so many impediments, difficulties, and dangers, that it by no earthly means could have been brought to pass without the manifest ordinance, and special aid of the Almighty. First letters of commendation were to be procured from the enemy; then was he constrained to go through that gate of the city, which directly went to the enemy's camp, the which without doubt was so narrowly kept & watched in the extremity of that siege, that every trifle bred suspicion, and none were suffered to go forth without curious searching before, touching their letters, business, and affairs they had. But he (a wonderful thing) went by the watch unexamined, yea with letters of commendation unto the enemy, which if they had been intercepted by the citizens, without delay and further sentence he should have been executed presently; and therefore this is a manifest argument of God's providence. But this is a far greater miracle, that he without searching went also through the enemy's camp, by diverse watches and sentinels, and, which more is, through the Guard of the King's body, and finally, through the whole army, which was compacted almost of none but Hugonots and Heretics, he being a religious man, and appareled after the order of his profession, which was so odious unto them, that they killed, or at least greatly misused all those Friars, whom they found in those places, which not long before they had taken perforce about Paris. judith was a woman, & nothing odious, yet examined oftentimes, she carried nothing about her that might have turned to her danger & destruction. This man, a Friar, & therefore hated, and most suspected, having also a knife prepared for that purpose, not put up in a sheath, (which might have made his excusation probable) but bare & hidden in his sleeve, which if it had been found about him, presently without any further judgement he should have been hanged. All these are such clear arguments of the particular providence of God, that they cannot be denied or disproved: and it could not be otherwise, but that God blinded the eyes of the enemies, so that they could not see nor know him. For as we have said before, although some absurdly ascribe this unto fortune, or unto some other such like accident, yet we think good to refer all this to none else, but unto the holy will and ordinance of God. And truly I could not believe this to have been done otherwise, unless I should captive & submit my understanding under the obedience of Christ his doctrine, who had determined by these miraculous means to unset and deliver the city of Paris, (which as we have heard hath been in great danger & extremity) and justly punish the heinous and notorious sins of that King, and take him away out of this world by such an unhappy and infamous death. And we truly (not without great inward grief) have oftentimes foretold, that as he was the last of his name and family, so was he like to have, and make some strange and shameful end of his life. Which, that I have oftentimes said it, not only the Cardinals joiosa, Lenocurtius, and he of Paris, but also the Orator at that time here resident, can sufficiently witness and testify. We will not seem to call here to affirm our words, for those that are already deceased, but the living, & some of them at this time present do yet well remember them: yet notwithstanding we will not unrip all that we are able and forced to speak against this unfortunate king, for the most noble realm of France it sake, which we shall prosecute and foster hereafter, as we have done always before with all fatherly love, honour and affection. This therefore which we with grief have spoken, toucheth only the king's person, whose unhappy and unlucky end depriveth and exempteth him also of those duties and honours, which this holy sea (the tender and gentle mother of all faithful, but chief of christian Princess) is wont to offer unto all Kings and Emperors, which we most willingly would likewise have bestowed upon him, if the holy Scriptures in this case had not altogether forbidden it. There is, saith S. john, a sin unto death; I say not that any should pray for it: which may be understood, both of the sin itself, as if he should say, for that sin, or for the remission or forgiveness thereof, I will that none should pray, because it is not pardonable. Or else in the same sense, for that man who committeth such a sin unto death, I say not that any should pray for. Whereof our Saviour himself hath spoken in S. Matthew, saying, that he that sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall not be pardoned, neither in this world nor in the world to come. Where he setteth down three sorts or kinds of sin, to wit, against the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost; and that the two first are less heinous, and pardonable, but that the third is altogether unpardonable, and not to be remitted. All which difference proceedeth from the distinction of the attributes, as the Divines teach us, which severally are appropriated unto every several person of the holy Trinity. And although as the essence of all the three persons is but one, so also is their power, wisdom, and goodness, as we have learned in the symbol of Athanasius, where he saith, almighty is the Father, almighty is the Son, and almighty is the holy Ghost: yet by attribution, power is ascribed unto the Father, wisdom unto the Son, and love unto the holy Ghost; whereof every several as they are termed attributes, so are they so proper unto every several person, that they can not be attributed and referred unto any other. By the contraries of which attributes, we come to discern the distinction and greatness of sin. The contrary to power, which is only attributed unto the Father, is weakness, and therefore that which we do amiss through infirmity of nature, is said to be committed against the Father. The opposite unto wisdom, is ignorance and blindness, through which when any man sinneth, he is said to sin against the Son: therefore that which we commit through natural infirmity, and ignorance, is more easier forgiven us. The third attribute, which is the holy Ghosts, is love, and hath for his contrary ingratitude and unthankfulness, a vice most detestable and odious, which causeth men not to acknowledge the love of God, & his benefits bestowed upon them, but to forget, despise, yea and to hate them. Whereout briefly, and finally proceedeth, that they become altogether obstinate and impenitent. And this way sin is committed against God with greater danger and peril, then if it were done through ignorance and weakness of the flesh, and therefore it is termed a sin against the holy Ghost. And because such sins are seldom and difficultly pardoned, and not without great abundance of grace, in some sort they are said to be unpardonable: whereas altogether through unrepentance only, they become simply unpardonable. For whatsoever is done amiss in this life: although it be against the holy Ghost, by repentance it may be wiped out and defaced before death; but they that persevere therein till death, are excluded from all grace and mercy hereafter. And therefore for such sinners and sins the Apostle hath forbidden to pray after their decease. Now therefore because we understand, not without our great grief, that the said king is departed out of this world, without repentance and impenitent, in the company, to wit, of heretics, (for all his army was made almost of none other but of such men) and that by his last will he hath commended and committed his crown and kingdom to the succession of Navarre, long since declared an heretic, and excommunicated; as also in his extremity, and now ready to yield up his ghost, desired of him, and such like as he was there standing by, that they would revenge his death upon those whom he judged to be the cause thereof. For these and such like most manifest tokens of unrepentance, we have decreed not to solemnize his death with funerals: not that we would seem to conjecture by these any thing concerning the secret judgements of God against him, or his mercies, who could according unto his good pleasure in the departing of his soul from the body convert and turn his heart, and deal with him mercifully: but this we have spoken, being thereunto moved by these exteraall signs and tokens. God grant therefore that all, being admonished and warned by this fearful example of heavenly justice, may repent and amend, and that it may further please him to continue and accomplish that which he hath mercifully begun in us, as we do put our trust in him, to the end we may give everlasting thanks to him, to have delivered his Church from such great and imminent dangers.  
Whereof when his Holiness had spoken, he broke up the Consistory, & having given his blessing, let them all departed.  
Whether that the Pope in this his Oration applauded or approved the Friars murtnering his Prince, I would rather the learned reader should be judge thereof then myself: his wisdom doubtless was too great to approve by any clear and direct sentence, so vile and detestable a fact. Howbeit this I can witness, that it was commonly spoken by many in Rome, that had the Friar been a Franciscan, as he was a Dominican, he might haply have been then declared a Saint. And this is most certain, which myself living in the court of Rome saw, that as it were to retain a pious memory of such a deed, the Friar's picture was drawn on paper together with the Kings, in one square or quadro in Italian, and publicly sold without controlment (to my knowledge,) which many admired to see.  
Besides, this likewise is true, that M. William Reynolds then being in the Low countries (to whom as to my special friend I sent a copy of the Oration) esteemed it (so did many others) as an approving of the Friars act. For, returning me an answer to my letter, he gave me hearty thanks for it, saying, that I could not have gratified him with any thing more, then by sending him the approbation of the Sea Apostolic, which came in very good season, he being at that time writing his Rossaeus Peregrinus, a book of such a like subject.  
If any desire to know how I should light on a copy thereof, when as it is most true, that neither the Cardinal, whose office it was to have noted the Pope's oration, was not provided of paper nor ink, as he should have been, had any such occasion of using it been thought of before; and therefore was not taken by any, as Cardinal Bellarmine saith well: let him understand, that the Oration and Consistory being ended, and the Pope departed toward his chamber, certain Cardinals, among which (if my memory fail me not) were Cardinal Gallo▪ and my most honourable patron Cardinal Borromeo Archbishop of Milan, who are yet living, with a greedy desire flocked about Cardinal Alan there in the chamber, entreating him that he would call to remembrance, and write what they had heard there spoken, to the end they might after at more leisure read and consider it better, and that so worthy a speech of his Holiness might not perish. Cardinal Alan craving pardon, besought them not to impose on him a matter of such difficulty, for that he acknowledged himself unable to effect it; yet at last won by their importunity (they being his friends) promised to do the best he could, hoping they would when they saw it, with their memories help to supply his defects. The same afternoon he began to set down in writing the Pope's speech in his own phrase and style, as near 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 gave him thanks, saying, that it was the very Oration which Sixtus had uttered in Consistory: and as I was informed, the Pope himself liking his doing therein, said, it was his speech indeed.  
By this means the Oration was set forth, and published among divers particular friends, and so I reserved to myself a copy, which I sent (as I have said) soon after to my beloved friend M. William Reynolds. And as far as my memory serveth me, this here printed according to the Parisian copy, doth well agree with the originals first written in Rome: for I do yet perfectly remember the beginning out of Abacuk to be the same, likewise the facts of Eleazar and of judith, with the circumstances to have been in that Oration; as also the circumstances of the Friars going to certain adversaries 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 heretics camp to his Majesty, with other like circumstances there specified. But whether the Pope in this his Oration approveth or alloweth of the Friars fact killing his King, for that he had caused the Cardinal of Guise Archbishop of Rheims to be put to death, & was esteemed of some a tyrant, and favourer of heretics; or only admired the providence of almighty God, as Cardinal Bellarmine in Tortus affirmeth, I do not presume to define, but leave it to the consideration of each prudent reader.  
What if the Pope upon wrongs done to himself, as a temporal Prince in Italy, should authorize some of his vassals or feudatary Princes to wage war against our King, and invade his dominions, is not this lawful for him by the law of nations? How then doth the Oath say, that the Pope neither of himself, nor by any authority of the Church or sea of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his majesties kingdoms or dominions, or to authorize any foreign Prince to invade or annoy him or his countries? That his Holiness as he is a temporal Prince in Italy, may upon just cause revenge injuries offered, by attempting the various events of war, and thereby seek to annoy his Majesty or his countries, no man I think will doubt: but can any man hereby infer, that so doing he hath more authority to depose our King, or dispose any of his majesties kingdoms, or invade his dominions, then hath the Emperor, French King, King of Spain, or any other secular Prince? And in case he should attempt in hostile manner (not as he is a spiritual Pastor, but a secular Prince) by himself, or by the help of any foreign Prince, to invade or annoy his Majesty or his countries; every good subject may lawfully, and in duty is bound to take arms in defence of his King and country against him, no less than he ought to do against any other secular Potentate whatsoever. But our Oath speaketh not of the secular power of the Bishop of Rome, which he hath only by the bounty and liberality of temporal Princes, or by prescription in the temporal dominions he possesseth: but of any authority whatsoever received from Christ or his Apostles, as he is Christ's Vicar, and Peter's successor; as the words of the Oath seem to import, viz. That the Pope, neither of himself, that is, as he is Pope, nor by any authority of the Church or sea of Rome. For thus his authority is only and merely spiritual, which was never ordained by God to produce such effects, as waging of war, invasion of kingdoms, deposing and dethroning of Princes, as hath been said before; but only to practise spiritual censures, to wit, excommunication, suspension, interdiction, and such like, which maketh nothing for such as refuse the taking of the Oath.  
Another objection some use to make for their justification against the Oath, viz: That he who sweareth, must do his best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, which he shall know or hear 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 kingdom. 
Anno 23.27. Elizab.  Therefore he is bound by this Oath to reveal Priests, and all reconciled persons; which no man can do without committing a most grievous and heinous crime.  
Are not these men narrowly driven to their shifts trow ye, when after labouring their wits to defend their refusal of the Oath, they can find no better arguments? The words of the Oath import, that such as take it must make known all treasons, and traitorous conspiracies, which he shall know to be against him. How I pray you can this be understood of any who is not disposed to cavil, to be meant of Priesthood, and confession of sins, or reconcilement to the favour of God, or unity of his Church; and not rather of such like treasons and traitorous conspiracies as were invented, and should have been practised by those late wicked sulphurean traitors? These indeed, and others of like nature and quality are directly against his Majesty, his hieres and successors; & for repressing and detecting such, this Oath was invented, and the Act framed; not for disclosing Priests or reconciled persons, who according to the intention of the Act, are no such traitors, as long as they enter not into any treasonable practice against his Majesty and the State: whereof God forbidden all Priests should be guilty.  
And I trust, both his Majesty most learned and wise, together with his grave and prudent Council, in their wisdoms know, that besides some few, who have already given good proof of their loyalty and dutiful affection (though to their great temporal detriment for the same) there are many more, who bear likewise a true English heart to their King and country, and would be ready to make also proof thereof if occasion were offered.  
Wherefore supposing it were true, that by the letter of the law, all Priests, Jesuits, etc. mentioned in the statute, are to be reputed traitors, and all reconciling treason; yet I dare avouch it was never his Majesties, nor the lawmakers intent, to bind any called to the Oath to reveal such kind of traitors or treasons: which is made further manifest, for that no Magistrate ministering the Oath doth ever interpret the law in that sense, or give charge to any for detecting such. So that these are but ridiculous, and the cavilling shifts of some, to withdraw men from performing their duty to his Majesty: whereby they cause a confusion and perturbation in the whole realm, bring many families to ruin, hinder the conversion of many souls, and minister just occasion unto the State to suspect little fidelity in their hearts, what fair show soever they make in words.  
Here, by reason of such an interpretation made of revealing and detecting Priests and reconciled persons, it shall not be amiss to know how an Oath is to be interpreted: and in what sort every one is to swear that taketh an oath before a Magistrate. Molanns writeth, that an oath stretcheth not to things unlawful: 
Mola. de fide haer. ser. lib. 2. c. 7.  Omne juramentum juris interpretatione ad licitatantum, non vero ad mala se extendit. Every oath by the interpretation of the law extendeth to lawful things only, and not to such as are evil. The case is most perspicuous and plain, that in the Oath of allegiance it cannot be drawn to be meant of revealing Priests as Priests, not otherwise traitors; because it should be extended to that which is to be reputed evil according to the known Catholic Roman faith, which his Majesty in his learned Apology professeth no way to prejudice by taking this Oath. 
Marc. 6.  When Herod Tetrarch of Galilee swore to give Herodias daughter what she would ask, though half his kingdom: who will say that it extended to the cutting off S. john Baptists head, it being manifestly evil in itself? Yea, but in this matter of our Oath, what if the case be doubtful? Emanuel Sa a jesuite teacheth you, 
Sa. Apho. verb Interpretatio.  that in poenis, in punishments a mild interpretation is to be made, and being doubtful, it is to be interpreted to the better part, and more benign, and more probable. Then what reason have these that will make the case doubtful, to interpret 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 lawful magistrate.  
Whosoever sweareth to an officer being required, either 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. sylvest verb. juramentum. 3.  is bound according to the intention of him that sweareth: he that sweareth with guile, aught to swear according to the sound understanding of him to whom the oath is made. And to this purpose saith Innocentius in Cap. 
Innocentius.  Veniens de jure iurando, That an oath given generally of performing obedience to commandments, is so interpreted as it may not be extended but to these things which were thought of, or indeed aught to be thought of. Which is to be meant of things lawful. Then it followeth a little after: And if he that requireth (the oath) be a judge 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 soever any swear, yet God who is witness of the conscience, so accepteth it, as he before whom the oath is made understandeth: and he that wittingly sweareth not according to the intention of him that requireth it, sinneth deadly, and is perjured: and is bound to perform it as he understood it. This is meant, as S. Thomas saith, of a guileful oath; and such a one is made guilty in two sorts, for that first he taketh the name of God in vain, and with subtlety deceiveth his neighbour. Hereupon I infer, that to swear to reveal all treasons and traitorous conspiracies, cannot be extended to be meant of Priests, Priesthood, or reconciling, because it was never thought of, nor aught to be thought of in the Oath. Neither is it his Majesties or his officers intent, as I assure myself, to draw any thereby further, then to make profession of their allegiance; and not to entangle any man's conscience in matters of faith and religion: which is sufficient for justification of his Majesty in requiring it, and for satisfaction of Catholics lawfully to take it.  
After all this that hath been said, there remaineth yet one stumbling stone more to be removed, and so I will end, which is commonly called Scandal. For that some there be that use to say, being pressed with stronger arguments than they can well answer, they could be content to take the Oath, (as either holding it lawful, or else not able by any important reasons to disprove it, unless they borrow some one, or all four of the Catholic letter deemed to be father Parsons, to little purpose) were it nor for offending many catholics, who are much scandalised at the taking and takers thereof.  
And is it not strange for Christian men professing charity, to take scandal where none is given? Are not also many other Catholics no less, but rather more justly scandalised at such as refuse it? yea and the whole state beside, both Nobles and commons together with his Majesty, cannot but rest much scandalised, not only at such persons, but also at their religion for their sakes.  
If they will say unto such as take the Oath, as Achab King of Samaria said unto Elias the Prophet: Tunè es ille, qui conturbas Israel: 
3. Reg. 18.  Art not thou he that troublest Israel? For so some, Quorum os maledictione & amaritudine plenum est: whose mouth is full of malediction and bitterness have said in effect, 
Psal. 13.  That such Priests as have performed their duty in taking the Oath of allegiance, and sought thereby to pacify the King's wrath worthily conceived against Catholics for the demerit of a few, have caused a trouble and great perturbation in the Church; which undoubtedly would never have been (say they) had all Catholics and Priests stood constantly against the Oath. But such loyal subjects, Priests or laics, may well retort upon them, as Elias did upon King Achab: Non ego tur bavi israel sed tu, & domus patris tui. It is not I that have troubled Israel, but thou and the house of thy father, who have forsaken the commandments of our Lord. It is not such as have taken the Oath, that cause trouble in the Church, nor forsake the commandments of our Lord; but such Priests and people as wilfully refuse it, and persuade others against it, to the hazard yea loss of some of their lives, and of the lands and goods of others: and also of the souls of such as loving more the glory of men than the glory of God, obstinately refuse to perform their duty in obeying that precept of our Saviour: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's: and that of S. Peter, Regem honorificate: and also the commandment given to Moses: Honour thy father and thy mother. These, assure you, are they who give cause of scandal indeed, whereby their persecution (if so they please to call it) is continued, the Church perturbed, Catholic religion little regarded, and many a soul lost. But Vaeilli, per quem scandalum venit. Woe to him, by whom scandal cometh. Time will make trial who it is, whether they or we.  
In the mean while we say, that the proper and true definition of scandal, as it is defined by S. Thomas and others, most aptly agreeth with the doctrine and example, or words and deeds, of such English subjects as withdraw men from performing their duty to their dread Sovereign: not on such as persuade it, and yet remain no less Catholic, than they do pretend in every point of faith. Scandal is a word or deed not right, 
Definition of scandal. Tho. 2.2. q. 43. ar. 1. & jeron. in comment. super Math. c. 15.  giving occasion of ruin; that is, of spiritual ruin or sin. Now what evil or show of evil or sin is there in those, who by their deeds 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 scandal or offence, or occasion of sin do they give, who persuade nothing against any one article or point of faith, but mere allegiance to their Prince? Doth this offend or scandalise any? If they will be scandalised for well doing, and take offence where none is given, do they not show how imperfect they are in the love of God? Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam; & non est illis scandalum. 
Psal. 118.  To such as love thy law (o God) there is great peace: and to them there is no scandal. May not these be well likened to the pharisees, that of envy and malice were offended or scandalised at the sayings and doings of our Blessed Saviour? who, being told by his disciples of their scandal taken, answered: Omnis plantatio quam non plantavit Pater meus coelestis, eradicabitur. 
Math. 15.  All planting which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 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 prayed for, not envied; 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 scandal do arise (as it doth in this our case) rather truth is to be chosen, than scandal sought to be avoided. The same affirmeth S. Gregory the Great, 
Ezech. pag. 2.  as before, pag. 45. And S. Thomas disputing whether spiritual goods are to be pretermitted for passive scandal, 
Tho. 2.2. q. 43. ar. 7.  saith: That such goods as are the necessitate salutis, ought not to be omitted for avoiding scandal: because they cannot be pretermitted without mortal sin: (as in our judgements we take allegiance in the Oath to be;) but it is manifest (saith he) that none ought to sin mortally, to save an other from sin: because according to the order of charity, a man ought to love more his own spiritual health than another man's. The same likewise hath joannes de Burgo: 
Pupil. oculi.  Opera necessaria ad salutem non sunt omittenda ad vitandum scandalum proximi, ex quacunqueradice procedat. Works necessary to salvation are not to be omitted for avoiding the scandal of our neighbour, out of whatsoever root it proceedeth. Herby, dear brethren in our Lord jesus, I trust you rest satisfied, that such as have taken the Oath of allegiance, wherein nothing hath been hitherto proved by any learned man to be contained against any one point of faith, have not given cause of scandal (as they have been slandered to have done) but by that their fact, performing their bounden duty to their dread Sovereign according to the law of God, have sought to take away that horrible scandal given indeed, by a few ungracious Catholics in the gunpowder treason; and which others daily give to his Majesty and the State in resisting the law made upon so great reason, and for the common good of the realm. Besides, I trust your wisdoms will consider, that to take the Oath being bonum spirituale, wherein no evil thing against religion is contained, they are not to pretermit it for the imperfections of some, who are ready to suffer or take scandal where none is given.  
Wherefore I exhort you all most dearly beloved Catholics in the bowels of our Saviour jesus Christ, (as the very Reverend and learned master George Blackwell sometime our Archpriest, did in his letter to his Assistants, and you all both Clergy and Laity) for abolishing and ending this controversy which hath scandalised the whole State, you would desist to impugn supreme authority in this case of the Oath most lawful and just, as hath been proved: and cease any longer to provoke to wrath his Majesty our most clement Prince: clement I say, for I dare boldly avouch, that neither the Pope, nor any King or Prince in Christendom, had he had the like cause offered by any his subjects, especially of a contrary religion, and finding others of the same religion to refuse to make profession of their loyalty by an Oath required at their hands, would show such mercy and clemency as his Majesty hath done, and doth. Confer the fact or enterprise of the Moors in Spain now two years agone, who went about (as report goeth) treacherously, to bring in Turks and foreigners to invade the country, with this Catesbeyan and Percian most barbarous treason: and I doubt not but you will judge them both worthy condign punishment. Compare again the two Princes, who by God's ordinance carry the sword ad vindictam malefactorum, to take revenge on malefactors; you shall find them both justly provoked to indignation against the delinquents: yet the one, viz. King Philip, with great severity chastiseth the innocent with the nocent, old & young, men, women and children, expelling all alike out of his dominions, to the number of nine hundred thousand, as appeareth by his edict, within the space of thirty. days, to the loss of all their immovables. Whereas the other, our dread Sovereign, of his pitiful inclination, did not punish in such sort the guiltless, nor all the offenders according to their deserts, but repressed by his edict the fury of his people, ready to have taken revenge yea on many innocent persons, for their sakes that had offended. Embrace then, dear brethren, the mercy and long sufferance of this our mild and clement Prince whilst time is granted you, lest through your default it be turned into fury; for oft times patientia laesa, specially of a King, vertiturin furorem. And resist no longer▪ but conform yourselves to his majesties just demand in this case of the Oath, that wherein they (that is) such as are of a different religion, misreport of you as of malefactors, by the good works considering you, 
1. Pet. 2.  they may glorify God in the day of visitation. Also with this blessed Apostle S. Peter I wish you to be subject to every human creature of God, whether it be to the King, as excelling: or to rulers as sent by him to the revenge of malefactors, but to the praise of the good: for so (note well) is the will of God, that doing well you may make the ignorance of unwise men dumb. I desire likewise with S. Paul, that obsecrations, prayers, 
●1. Tim. 2.  postulations, thanksgiving be made for all men; for Kings, & all that are in preëminence: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all piety and chastity. If Tertullian were living and those ancient Fathers of the primitive Church, 
Tertul. Apologet. c. 50. See master blackwel's letter.  they would questionless, following the doctrine and example of the Apostles, exhort you likewise to pray for the long life of our Sovereign, no less than they did the Christians of those days for their Emperors or Kings, howsoever they differed in religion.  
Finally as Baruch the Prophet wished such jews as were left in jerusalem after the captivity, 
Baruch 1.  to pray for the life of Nabuchodonozor King of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days might be as the days of heaven upon the earth: so do I desire all Catholics professing with me the Roman faith, hearty to pray for the long life and prosperous reign of King james of great Britain, together with his dear Spouse our most gracious Queen Anne, and the hopeful young Prince Henry his son, with the rest of his most royal issue, that in this world they may long continue to the glory of the eternal God; and afer this mortality ever to enjoy that felicity which never shall have end.  
Vui Trinòque Deo omnis honour & gloria.   

STRANGE REPORTS OR NEWS FROM ROME.  
THis my discourse of the Oath of Allegiance being fully complete & ended, written specially for satisfying and persuading such Catholics of our country as think it not lawful to be taken, at least by reason of the Pope's Breves prohibiting the same; behold, certain strange news diversly spread abode, from divers parts and persons, have ministered me occasion to continue on my labour by adding this brief Treatise following, for and in defence of myself and some others my brethren Priests, who for no crime committed in our judgements, but only for performing our duties to God and man, have been and are calumniated to be deprived of all faculties granted by any authority from the Sea of Rome; whereby we are utterly disabled to live, for not being any longer regarded; but forsaken and in affection abandoned by such as formerly used of charity to relieve us.  
Audite ergo coeli quae loquor: audiat terra verba oris mei. Hear therefore o ye heavens what I speak: let the earth hearken to the words of my mouth. For I am to utter that which to Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and to the blessed Apostles, and to all glorious Saints, will seem strange and wondrous tidings, and whereat all good Christians on earth that shall enter into consideration of the case, may stand amazed, and posterity will scarce believe when it shall be told them.  
Talking not long since with a friend that came newly from beyond the seas, I asked him what news in those parts, and what was said of us that had taken the Oath of allegiance: he told me▪ the report was there, that we had lost our faculties, but could not tell by what means or by whom. And here at home in our country the same is bruited abroad by many, and in many places, but in sundry manner, the reporters disagreeing so much in their tales, as no certain truth can be gathered by them. For some say, that five Priests only of the Clinke were by name deprived of their faculties, (one of which is lately deceased) and master Blackewell was not mentioned, because he was thought to be dead.  
Others have reported that he alone was named, but all other Priests likewise had lost them that did concur with him.  
Others again, that such were deprived of their faculties (that is, unabled to exercise certain privileges granted Priests at their mission into England) as having taken the Oath, do constantly persist or persevere in teaching or allowing the lawfulness thereof. Now which of these reports so much differing, is true (for all cannot be true) I greatly desire to know, but cannot learn any certainty.  
Then as touching the manner, how, and by what means they be taken away, little agreement do I find, but such variety in relation thereof, as wise men may well admire to see such proceed in a matter so important as this is: and, that some of our own profession and religion, should receive satisfaction and contentment in beholding our miseries, by being in such wise punished; who have (as it may seem) long expected, and Tantalus like hungered and thirsted after the same.  
First, some say that we have lost them, and had long since by virtue of the Archpriests Admonition directed, To all the secular Priests of England; which anon shall be set down verbatim, that all discreet persons may judge thereof.  
Another report is, that the Cardinals of the Inquisition have given their judgement, and censured our faculties to have dene lost by the Archpriests Admonition at the first.  
A third report is, that the Cardinals of that congregation have themselves taken them from all such Priests as either have taken, or shall hereafter take our Oath of allegiance.  
From these, the fourth sort disagree, saying, That the Viceprotector of his own authority that he hath over our nation, in his private letters writing to the Archpriest, signified his depriving such of their privileges, as had taken the said Oath, and do persist in defending it.  
Fifthly, that indeed he did it, but by order from the Pope's Holiness.  
And lastly, that the Pope himself hath sent to the Archpriest a Breve, wherein he commandeth him in virtute obedientiae, to deprive all those Priests of their faculties which do concur with master Blackwell, or else have taken, or shall teach it lawful to take the Oath of allegiance. Yea and in such severe sort, as the like was never seen ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae; viz. Omniexcusatione posthabita: etiam ipsis delinquentibus non admonitis: & nullo juris or dine seruato. That is, all excuse set aside: yea the delinquents not admonished; and no order of law observed in proceeding with us. That this is true, by mine own knowledge I can testify, and prove if need were.  
Which of all these reports deserve most credit and is truest, were greatly wished might be made known to the parties whom it concerneth; otherwise how can they tell what to do in this important business, and what is required at their hands, to retain still, or recover their faculties being once lost? How shall they obey, if they know not what is commanded them? 
1. Cor. 14.  Etenim si incertam vocem det tuba, (saith Saint Paul) quis parabit se ad bellum? For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself to battle?  
Therefore it is most requisite, that such as have been in possession of their faculties, granted them by authority of the Sea of Rome, some 20. some 30. years agone, and some more, should know how, and by whom they are taken from them, and for what cause; which ought to be for so the great fault, because the pain is most grievous: & should see moreover not only an authentical copy of the original letters, but also the originals themselves, if the Churches orderly proceed be observed; otherwise all may be thought idle reports not to be believed. 
Tho. 3. p. q. 19 ar. 6.  For Saint Thomas saith, That when the Church depriveth heretics and schismatics, and other such like, withdrawing subjects from them, either simpliciter, or quantum ad aliquid, simply, or touching some particular thing: they cannot put in practice or have use of the keys, touching that which they are deprived of. Then I say, it is very necessary that Priests, not heretics, nor schismatics, or such like, but most constant in every least article of the Roman faith, should know whether they be forbidden simply all, or else but some particular faculties received at their mission: whereby they may in all humility show themselves obedient to his Holiness, in surceasing from exercising what they shall perceive to be by him forbidden them.  
Now whereas the first report of the manner of taking away faculties, is, That Priests constantly persisting in teaching the lawfulness of the Oath, had lost their faculties & were disabled to absolve their penitents from deadly sin, by virtue of the Archpriests admonition: I wish the discreet reader not to give credit thereto, because doubt may well be made thereof, seeing diverse learned Priests, yea such as have not taken the Oath, have judged otherwise, viz: That they were not lost; and amongst the rest, an Assistant esteemed of many to be one of the gravest and best judgement in such cases. Which will also most perspicuously appear to him that shall with judgement read the Admonition, and duly consider the Archpriests act and proceeding therein, whether it be (as it ought to be) in every respect conformable to that of the Pope's Breves authorizing him, which was as followeth: 
Ex Brevi sum Pont.  Tibíque iniungimus & mandamus, ac specialem facultatem ad hoc tribuimus, ut authoritate nostr a omnes & singulos Sacerdotes Anglos, qui quoddam iuramentum (in quo multa continentur quae fidei atque saluti animarum apart adversantur) praestiterunt: vel ad loca ad quae haeretici ad eorum superstitiosa ministeria peragenda convenire solent, consultò accesserunt, aut qui talia licitè fieri posse docuerunt, & docent, admonere cures, ut ab huiusmodi erroribus resipiscant & abstineant: quod si intra tempus (extraiudicialiter tamen) arbitrio tuo illis praefigendum hoc facere distulerint, seu aliquis illorum distulerit, illos seu illum facult atibus & privilegys' omnihus ab Apostolica sede, seu illius authoritate à quocunque ●lio illis vel cuivis illorum concessis, eadem authoritate prives, ac privatos esse declares, etc. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo piscatoris die 1. February▪ 1608. Pontificatus nostri anno 3. And we enjoin and command you, and for this we give you special faculty, that by our authority you take care to admonish all and singular English Priests, who have taken a certain Oath (wherein many things are contained which are manifestly against faith and the health of souls, etc.) or have taught and do teach such things may lawfully be done, that they may repent and abstain from such errors: and if within the time (extraiudicialiter notwithstanding) by you to be prefixed unto them, they shall defer to do this, or any one shall defer, that you by the same authority deptive, and declare them or him to be deprived of all faculties and privileges granted them, or any of them, from the Sea Apostolic, or by her authority from any other whatsoever. Dated at Rome the first of Frebruary, 1608.  
This much out of the Pope's Breve to the reverend Archpriest M. Birket, touching his faculty or commission given him, first to admonish, then after the time prefixed was expired, no satisfaction being given of repenting or abstaining, to deprive such, and declare them deprived of their faculties. Whereupon the Archpriest indeed sent a letter of admonition to the Priests then of and in the Clinke, endorsed, To all the reverend Secular Priests of England. Which was as followeth:  
Most dearly beloved brethren, 
The Archpriests letter to the Priests of the Clinke.  whereas I have always desired to live without molesting or offending others, it cannot be but a wonderful corsive, sorrow and grief unto me, that against mine own inclination I am forced (as you have seen by the Breve itself) to prescribe a certain time for such as do find themselves to have been contrary to the points which are touched in the said Breve, concerning the Oath and going to Church; that they may thereby return and conform themselves to the doctrine declared by his Holiness, both in this and the other former Breves. And therefore now by this present do give notice unto you all, that the time which I prefix and prescribe for that purpose, is the space of two months next ensuing after the knowledge of this my admonition. Within which time, such as shall forbear to take, or allow any more the Oath, or going to Church, I shall most willingly accept their doing therein; yet signifying unto you withal, that such as do not within this time prescribed give this satisfaction, I must (though much against my will for fulfilling his Holiness commandment) deprive them, and denounce them to be deprived of all their faculties and privileges granted by the Sea Apostolic, or by any other, by authority thereof unto them, or to any of them, and so by this present do denounce; hoping that there is no man will be so wilful or disobedient to his Holiness order, but will conform himself as becometh an obedient child of the Catholic Church. And so most hearty wishing this conformity in us all, and that we may live and labour together unanimes in domo Domini, I pray God guy us the grace to effect that in our actions, whereunto we are by our order and profession obliged. This 2. of May, 1608.  
Your servant in Christ George Birket Archpriest of England, and Protonotary Apostolical.  
After which admonition, the Archpriest proceeded no further, nor ever afterwards did deprive, nor declare any one to be deprived of his faculties, as he should have done strictly, according to the order and commission granted him by his Holiness that now is Paulus 5: and not to denounce them lost during the time of the admonition, exceeding his bounds, as he did, saying, And by this present do denounce. Therefore most certain it is, that the Priests to whom knowledge of the admonition came, did not then lose their faculties by virtue thereof. Neither is it to be credited, that the Cardinals of the Inquisition, who are both wise and learned, can judge them lost by that act, as the second report affirmeth, if they were truly informed, and as well experienced in the case, as some here, their inferiors in every respect are. If they have been of that opinion, and judged so, yet is the contrary opinion of other learned men rather to be believed and followed, being much more probable than theirs. But suppose we should grant, which is not to be granted, that those Priests who received and took notice of the admonition, were justly deprived, and had lost their faculties; at least some others who have taken the Oath since that general letter, being never admonished, nor ever seeing that, or any other letter from the Archpriest to any such end, are free and have not lost them: the Archpriest being bound by his faculty admonere singulos, to admonish each one in particular, at least to give him knowledge thereof, that shall take the Oath, or teach it lawful; or to go to the Protestants Churches to their Service. Besides, why I pray you, should not that Priest be exempted from losing his faculties, albeit he saw and read the admonition, who wrote, and endeavoured what he could possibly to send to the Archpriest (as in his letter he required) to give him such satisfaction, as might have caused his Reverence to stay from censuring him when the time prefixed should have been expired, but could not find any means to convey letters unto him, which some (if need were) can testify? This all know, quod ad impossibile nemo tenetur, that none is bound to a thing impossible to be effected. So then consequently, neither did that Priest lose his faculties by the admonition. Howbeit all without exception, and without any excuse (for no excuse must be admitted) are deprived, all abandoned of Catholics, and as if they were the greatest offenders that ever were in God's Church, adjudged unworthy of the charitable alms and poor means which they had to sustain their painful and tedious life.  
And if the most illustrious and most reverend Cardinals of the congregation of the holy Office, have taken them away, (as it is in the third report) then is it requisite that the Priests whom this matter toucheth, should see and know with what authority they do it, whether by faculty from his Holiness, or of themselves by their own power; and also the form of their sentence: all which lieth hidden in the clouds, and cannot be seen.  
Whereas the fourth report hath, that the Viceprotector of his own authority by his letters written to the Archpriest, deprived such Priests as are above mentioned, of their faculties, is most vain, and worthy to be exploded as a forged fable. For it is not to be credited, that a sage Prince and pillar of the Church will ever attempt to do that which is not in his power, unless it be given by him whom we acknowledge to have plenitudinem potestatis in spiritualibus, specially in such a case as ours is.  
What if his Grace hath done it by order from his Holiness, as the fift report saith, is not his sentence then to be accepted and obeyed? Yes, I acknowledge as a child of the Church ought, that a sentence or censure proceeding mediate or immediately from the chief Pastor, is to be respected and feared, as S. Gregory teacheth me. Yet I think none will deny but it ought orderly to be made known to the parties whom it concerneth; and that until it come by orderly means to their knowledge, it bindeth not: nor then neither, if the censure be manifestly unjust, as procured by obreption, false information, or any sinister means which may vitiate the process. Whereto agreeth Petrus Gregorius in his books the Repub. 
Pet Greg de repub. l. 26. c. 5  saying, Sed neque rescripta omnia, aut impetrata, seu extorta à summo Pontifice per suggestionem falsam, vel obreptionem, aut in praeiudicium alterius, devent effectum vel consequentiam habere, quia haec Sedem Romanam (quae justitiae cultrix est) redderent ignominiosam, saepe praet●r intentionem Pontificum; quorum rescriptis perpetuò duae clausulae adijciuntur, vel omissae adiectae censentur: Si preces veritate nitantur, & sine praeiudicio tertij inauditi. 
L. 1. §. Si quid à principe nequid in loco publico p.  But neither all rescripts, or matters obtained, or rather wrested from the Pope by false suggestion or obreption, or to the prejudice of another, aught to have any consequence or take effect, because such like proceed would make the Sea of Rome (which is a lover of justice) ignominious, oftentimes be side the intention of Popes, to whose writings always two clauses are added, or being omitted, are adjudged to be added, (to wit) If the petitions are grounded on truth, and without prejudice of a third person that is unheard.  
Now that this censure of suspension from faculties (if there be any such extant) hath been obtained, or wrested out by some sinister means, to wit, by false suggestion or wrong information of one or other overhasty solicitor, that is greedy to see what will be the event and final issue of this our controversy, is very probable. The cause that maketh me suspect false information in this our case, is, that to my knowledge a certain prime Priest in a letter to his friend affirmed, he had sent information to Rome of as much as any of us that have taken the Oath, can say in defence thereof, yea and more. Which doubtless is a most false suggestion, if he hath so informed, and far beyond his talon to perform. What else (I pray you) is this, but by obreption to procure or extort that from either the Cardinal Viceprotector, or from the Pope, which would never have been granted (as may be presumed) against reverend Priests, ne-never herd what they can say for themselves, and to their great prejudice? Therefore if the solicitor and informer have so egregiously erred in deceiving his Holiness, the censure or sentence so procured is of no validity at all.  
The sixth and last report is, that the Pope in a Breve to the Archpriest commanded him to deprive all those Priests of their faculties, which do or shall concur with master Blackwell, without giving any admonition, admitting any excuse, or observing any order of law. So that the Archpriest may sit quietly in his chamber, and but say the word, that the Priests of the Clinke or else where, that shall concur with master Blackwell (they know not wherein) are deprived of their faculties, and so forthwith they are, and must be deprived. This report seemeth to me more improbable than any of the rest; because it raiseth an imputation and slander against the chief Pastor of the Sea of Rome, to wit, that he should give ear only to one adverse part, and not be content to lend also another ear, to hear what the other part accused can say in defence of their actions: to condemn them before they come to their answer, and before any crime to their knowledge be proved against them, which would be an act of injustice, and contrary to the laudable custom of the ancient Romans, yea heathens, as is in the Acts of the Apostles: Non est Romanis consuetudo damnare aliquem hominem, 
Act. 25.  priùs quàm is, qui accusatur, praesentes habeat accusatores, locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda crimina. It is not the Roman custom (said Festus Precedent of jury, to king Agrippa) to yield up (or condemn) any man, before that he which is accused have his accusers present, and take place to make his answer for to clear himself of the crimes. Is it not strange that any should be so bold, as to impute unto his Holiness, that he, who should be a lover of justice, and loving father of all his children, should inflict so grievous a punishment on Priests, as to bereave them of their life? their life I say, for that to take faculties from them, is to take all relief from some of them, and to take relief, is to drive them into extreme misery, sickness, famine, and death: yea and such Priests who for no hope of temporal emoluments, or spiritual benefices, but only, as we are persuaded, for gaining souls unto Christ their Redeemer; and after have laboured some 20. some 25. some 30. yea and more years to that end; during which time, without expectation of preferment in this world, they have suffered many sharp showers of tribulation, some by imprisonment, in sundry prisons many years, and some many years banishment from their parents and friends and and native country too. That these should be thus censured and deprived by the common Father and chief Pastor of the Church, as if they had committed a crime so heinous & so notorious, in taking the Oath, as needed no admonition, might admit no excuse, nor deserved any orderly proceeding in law, I cannot be persuaded, nor will believe it is so, till I see more evident signs thereof then hitherto I have seen.  
The material cause of suspension (saith Cardinal Tolet) is sin, for which it is inflicted: 
Materialis causa proxima. Tolet. instr. sacerd. l. 1. c. 44. Caietan. verb. sulpensio. Navar. in sum. c. 27. nu. 159.  for none may be suspended without sin. His words are: Non enim absque peccato quis suspendi potest. Cap. Satis perversum. d. 58. And this sin (saith he) most commonly is mortal. Potest autem pro veniali aliqua suspensio imponi, ut dicit Caietanus. Dummodo tamen sit lenis suspensio, sicut & culpa. Yet for a venial sin some suspension may be imposed, so for all that the suspension be light, as the fault is light. Argum. text▪ in l. respiciendum. in prim. ff. de poen.  
If none ought to be suspended grievously but for some grievous sin, than I trust it is untruly given forth, that his Holiness hath inflicted so severe a punishment on such Priests as have taken the Oath, because it hath not yet been proved by any to have been a deadly, yea or venial sin in them. And then Ecclesia non debet praesumere de aliquo peccatum donee probetur: as Saint Thomas saith. Neither can they after due search and examination of their own consciences, accuse themselves to have committed any sin at all in so doing, but rather discharged their duties, as good subjects & good Catholics ought: and have not denied by taking it any one point or jota of faith at all: nor disobeyed his Holiness Breves of contempt, which maketh a sin; but upon well grounded reasons, and authorities of good writers, have refused (as lawfully they might) to obey them.  
Beside, When as the end for which the pain of suspension or loss of faculties is inflicted, is the utility of souls, as Cardinal Tolet affirmeth: Finis suspensionis est idem, 
Tolet. instr. sac. l. 1. c. 44. in fine.  qui & excommunicationis; Ecclesia enim animarum utilitatem intendit, quando corrigit & castigat. The end of suspension (saith he) is the same as is of excommunication; for the Church intendeth the utility of souls, when she correcteth and chastiseth: I cannot be induced to believe that his Sanctity, (who in all weighty affairs, as this is, useth the assent of his Senate of Cardinals) will so rigorously proceed with Priests, that have always lived, and do desire nothing more in this world, then to continue and end their days in that faith they have hitherto professed, and in the fear of God. Who knoweth not that oft times necessity driveth men to do that which they never thought? Durum telum necessitas. And now lately some Priests, upon these reports given forth of having no faculties, have in such sort felt the alienation of Catholics, and the withdrawing their charity from them, (for on the eight of this month, for an addition to our afflictions, it was written unto us by him that hath had the distribution of the common alms many years, that from henceforth you may seek to be relieved elsewhere, for, for my part I find I shall not be able to help you any more hereafter) as if necessity could have shaken them, they might have, 
Psa. 72.  not only said with David, Penè moti sunt pedes mei, My feet were almost moved, but had been moved indeed.  
Great reason we might think there was for us to expect that his Holiness would, considering this poverty of Catholics of England to relieve, and the multitude of prisoners to be relieved, knowing we are such Priests as were made ex indulto Apostolico, without title of benefice, or patrimony, rather have taken some order according to the Council of Trent, to have been succoured and relieved in prisons, then to expose such to famine, by taking from them the only means some of them had to uphold & maintain their unpleasant life. Yet if it be true that is reported, and that it is the Pope's pleasure we must suffer more, & sharper showers of calamities, and that orderly courses are not in this our case to be kept with us, let us with patience comfort ourselves in our Lord, and say with Saint Paul: Benedictus Deus & Pater Domini nostri jesu Christi, Deus totius consolationis, qui consolatur nos in omni tribulatione nostra. God be blessed and the Father of our Lord jesus Christ; who comforteth us in all our tribulation. And do wish that these our afflictions may be cautions to all our countrymen to consider well the sequel of things and times, before they make themselves Priests beyond the seas, lest the like fall to them as to us.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped.  
Preface A 2. line 8 read overmuch. page 24. line 4. read, Emanuel. p. 30. 1.12. read pa. 24. Pa. 34. l. 5. pro defension. Ibidem l. 15. occupandam. p. 42. l. 26. possunt. p. 56. l. 11. read can not get it. p. 70. l. 10. wanteth in the margin. Praefat. mon. Regis seren. p. 62. Lat. p. 71. l. 27. saith he, is superfluous. p. 73. l. 26. adding, read, doing. p. 81. l. 35. son seruitore. ibid., schiavo. p. 86. l. 13. hundred, is superfluous. p. 65. l. 26. put out, only in temporals. Ibidem. l. 27. read, in spirituals in the Church, and in the patrimony of the Church only in tempotals. p. 116. l. 22. of, read or opinion. p. 125. l. 14. or, read of prejudicating. p. 126. l. 25. and Christ himself, read, and the same Prophet prefiguring Christ himself, after commanded. p. 136. l. 27. read, a work hath been wrought. p. 137. l. 12. of, read from all. Ibid. hath been wrought. Ibid. l. 17. read, as when our. p. 138. l. 31. shall, read, will p. 168. l. 11. Roman, read, Romans.