testantism a condemned heresy, and those that profess it be also heretics "."

Р

By this time we see too plainly that the state of protestant princes is full of danger, where these men have to do. They may be deposed and expelled from the government of their kingdoms, they must be deposed by the catholics, under peril of their souls, it may be done any way that is most convenient; they may be rebelled against, fought with, slain. For all this, it were some ease, if here we might fix a non ultra.' For, perhaps, these princes might put in a plea for themselves, and go near to prove themselves to be no heretics. All is one, for though they do, yet unless they can persuade his holiness not to judge them so, or declare them heretics, all is to no purpose, for to him they must stand or fall. "Nam judicare an rex pertrahat ad hæresim necne, pertinet ad pontificem." So Bellarmine. So Bellarmine. They need not stay till his heresy be of itself manifest, he is then to be used like a heretic, "when by the pope of Rome he shall be judged heretical."

q

But what matter is it if the pope be judge, for if they may be deposed, as good he as any else? What grievance then can this be to the state of princes more than the former ? Yes, very much. 1. Because the pope, by his order to spirituals, may take away kingdoms upon more pretences than actual heresy. It is a large title, and may do any thing. Bellarmine expresses it handsomely, and it is the doctrine of their great Aquinas ". "The pope," saith he, "by his spiritual power may dispose of the temporalities of all the Christians in the world, when it is requisite to the end of the spiritual power."-The words are plain that he may do it for his own ends (for his is the spiritual power), that is, for the advancement of the see apostolic; and thus (to be sure) he did actually with Frederick Barbarossa, John of Navarre, the earl of Thoulouse, and our own king John. 2. The pope pretends to a power, that to avoid the probable danger of the increase of heresy, he may take away a territory from the right owner, as is reported by the cardinal D'Ossat; and this is soon pretended, for who is there that cannot make proba

P Cap. 11. p. 149. Douay, 1616.

De Regim. Princip.

a Ubi supra.

but it is plain also that they must have been employed, if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the pope's ordinary discretion. Things then remaining in this condition, what security could the queen or state have, without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischief?

Thirdly, there was great reason those men might be banished, who might from their own principles plead immunity from all laws, and subordination to the Prince. But that so these priests might, I only bring two witnesses, leading men of their own side. Thus Bellarmine": "The pope hath exempted all clerks from subjection to princes." The same is taught by Emanuel Sà in his aphorisms,' verbo "clericus." I must not dissemble that this aphorism, however it passed the press at first, yet in the edition of Paris it was left out. The cause is known to every man: for that it was merely to serve their ends is apparent; for their French freedom was there taken from them, they durst not parler tout' so near the parliament; but the aphorism is to this day retained in the editions of Antwerp and Cologne.

If this be their doctrine, as it is plain it is taught by these leading authors, I mean Sà and Bellarmine, I know no reason but it may be very just, and most convenient to deny those men the country from whose laws they plead exemption.

Secondly: It was but reasonable, in case they obeyed not the proscription, their disobedience should be made capital. For if they did not obey, then either they sinned against their conscience, in disobeying their lawful prince, and so are avтоnaтánρITо, and inexcusable from the law's penalty, which may be extended at the pleasure of the law giver, where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion; or if they did not sin against their conscience, then of necessity must they think her to be no lawful prince, or not their lawful prince, nor they her subjects, and so ipso facto' are guilty of high treason, and their execution was for treason, not religion;' and so the principle is evicted which I shall beg leave to express in St. Cyprian's language, "Non erat illa fidei corona, sed pœna perfidiæ; nec religiosæ virtutis exitus gloriosus, sed desperationis interitus °."

n Lib. i. c. 28. De Clericis.

6

De Simplic. Prælat.

For

For if Valentius banish Eusebius from Samosata, and Eusebius obey not the edict, if Valentius puts him to death, it is not for his being a Christian that he suffers death; but for staying at Samosata, against the command of Valentius P. Such was the case of the priests, whom for just cause, as I have proved, and too apparent proof of seditious practices, the queen banished. Now if the queen was their lawful sovereign, then were they bound to obey her decree of exile, though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius; or if they did not obey, not to think the laws unjust for punishing their disobedience. I say again, their disobedience, not their religion for that it was not their religion that was struck at by the justice of these laws, but the security of the queen and state only aimed at,-besides what I have already said, is apparent to the evidence of sense. when Hart and Bosgrave, Jesuits both, came into England against the law, they were apprehended and imprisoned: for the laws without just execution were of no force for the queen's safety; but when these men had acknowledged the queen's legitimate power, and put in their security for their due obedience, they obtained their pardon and their liberty. The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton, all which I hope were not apostates from their order or religion, but so they must have been, or not have escaped death, in case that their religion had been made capital. Lastly, this statute extended only to such priests who were made priests, since Primo of Elizabeth,' and were born in England. It was not treason for a French priest to be in England, but yet so it must have been, if religion had been the thing they aimed at. But it is so foul a calumny, I am ashamed to stand longer to refute it. The proceedings of the church and state of England were just, honourable, and religious, full of mercy and discretion, and unless it were that as C. Fimbria complained of Q. Scævola, we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger, there is no cause imaginable, I mean on our parts, to move them to so damned a conspiracy, or indeed to any just complaint.

:

Secondly If these were not the causes (as they would fain abuse the world into a persuasion that they were), what

P Theodoret, lib. iv. c. 14.

was? I shall tell you, if you will give me leave ävwbev Tv

πηγὴν διορύττειν,

YAY SIOPÚTTEIV, to derive it from its very head,' and then I will leave it to you to judge, whether or no my augury fails me.

First, I guess that the traitors were encouraged and primarily moved to this treason, from the prevailing opinion which is most generally received, on that side, of the lawfulness of deposing princes that are heretical. I say, generally received, and I shall make my words good, or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me, when they declare their own minds. I instance, first, in the fathers of the society 9. Bellarmine teacheth that kings "have no wrong done them, if they be deprived of their kingdoms, when they prove heretics."-Creswell, in his Philopater' goes further, saying, "that if his heresy be manifest, he is deposed without any explicit judicial sentence of the 'pope, the law itself hath passed the sentence of deposition"." And therefore,

Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald, the French king's advocate, for affirming that religion could be no just cause to depose a lawful prince; if he had been brought up in their schools, he might have learnt another lesson; "papa potest mutare regna, et uni auferre, atque alteri conferre, tanquam summus princeps spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem,” saith Bellarminet. He gives his reason tool "Quia alioqui possent mali principes impunè fovere hæreticos ";" which is a thing not to be suffered by his holiness.

This doctrine is not the private opinion of these doctors, but "est certa, definita, atque indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia," saith F. Creswell, I suppose he means in his own order; and yet I must take heed what I say, for Eudæmon Johannes is very angry with Sir Edward Cooke, for saying it is the doctrine of the Jesuits. Do they then deny it? No surely, but "Non est Jesuitarum propria," it is not theirs alone," sed, ut Garnettus respondit, totius Ecclesiæ,

9 Nec ulla eis injuria fiet, si deponantur. Lib. v. de Rom. Pontif. c. 7. r Ex ipsa vi juris et ante omnem sententiam supremi pastoris ac judicis contra ipsum prolatam. Lugduni impres. 1593, p. 106. n. 157. Amphith. Honor. p. 117.

• Sed heus, Arnalde, à cujus institutione hausisti nullam posse intercidere causam, quæ regem cogat abire regno? Non religionis ?

t Bellar. de Pont. R. lib. v. c. 6. * Ubi supra, p. 107.

" Cap. 7.

▾ Apol. pro Garnet. c. 3.

et quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta doctrina nostra est ;" and there he reckons up seven-and-twenty famous authors of the same opinion. Creswell, in his Philopater, says as much, if not more: "Hinc etiam infert universa theologorum et jurisconsultorum ecclesiasticorum schola, et est certum, et de fide, quemcunque principem Christianum, si a religione catholicâ manifestè deflexerit, et alios avocare voluerit, excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate, ex ipsâ vi juris, tum humani, tum Divini." You see how easily they swallow this great camel. Add to this, that Bellarmine himself proves, that the pope's temporal power, or of disposing of princes' kingdoms, is a catholic doctrine; for he reckons up of this opinion, one-and-twenty Italians, fourteen French, nine Germans, seven English and Scotch, nineteen Spaniards, and these notè face plebis,' but è primoribus,' all very famous and very leading authors.

a

You see it is good divinity amongst them, and I have made it good, that it is a general opinion, received by all their side, if you will believe themselves; and now let us see if it will for good law, as well as good divinity.

6

pass

It is not for nothing that the church of France protests against some of their received canons; if they did not, I know not what would become of their princes. Their lilies' may be to-day, and to-morrow be cast into the oven, if the pope either call their Prince Huguenot,' as he did Henry IV.; or tyrant,' as Henry III.; or unprofitable for the church or kingdom,' as he did king Childeric, whom pope Zachary, de facto' did depose for the same cause, and inserted his act into the body of the law as a precedent for the future," Quod etiam ex autoritate frequenti agit sancta ecclesia;” it is impaled in a parenthesis in the body of the canon", lest deposition of princes should be taken for news. The law is clear for matter of fact; the lawfulness follows.

"Hæreticis licitum est auferri quæ habent ;" and this not only from a private man, but even from princes, "Nam qui in majore dignitate est, plus punitur;" or take it, if you please, in more proper terms. "Dominus papa principem secularem deponere potest propter hæresim ";" and so another

z Num. 157.

a Contra Barclaium in princip. fere. b Can. Alius. Caus. 15. q. 6. c Cl. 1. in Summa 23. q. 7. d Gl. cap. Excommunicamus, tit. de hæreticis, lib. v.