from the Old Testament, which proves that the Levites were subject to laymen.64

The clergy ought indeed to be subject to the higher powers; but to their own, and to those which are suited to their state, that is, to the ecclesiastical powers."

65

The clergy should also be obedient to the laws of princes, which they enact with the assent and concurrence of the ecclesiastical magistrate.

66

All men who are under the jurisdiction of the king, should know that they will be punished by the king, if they commit a punishable offence. But the clergy do not belong to the king's jurisdiction. Therefore the exhortation of the synod has no reference to them.67

What the Apostle says of the payment of tribute relates to those who are subject to the secular power, not to those who are not subject

...

64 66 Negamus ullum exemplum ex veteri testamento produci posse, quod evincat Levitas laïcis fuisse subjectos."Lib. ii. Consid. 3. p. 467, D.

65" Revera etiam clerici debent esse subjecti potestatibus sublimioribus; sed suis, et statui suo convenientibus, hoc est, ecclesiasticis."—Ibid. H.

66" Item clerici obedire debent legibus principum, quas ferunt, annuente et consentiente ecclesiastico magistratu”. Ibid. p. 468, C. & D.

...

67 "Omnes qui ad jurisdictionem regis pertinent, scire debent, se à rege punitum iri, si culparn castigabilem admittant. At clerici non pertinent ad regis jurisdictionem. Nihil igitur ad illos hæc synodi exhortatio."-Ibid. p. 468, E.

to it... Thus the clergy ought not to pay it, because they are not subject to the civil magistrate... Let him, therefore, pay tribute from whom tribute is due... If nothing is due, he is not obliged to pay.

68

It will not be found in any Catholic author that a pope can be deposed by an emperor; but that emperors may be deposed by the pope, will be found in many!"

69

JAMES GRETSER.

Opera Omnia. Tom. XI. Defensio Societatis Jesu. Ratisbonæ, 1738.

...

It is a question in the schools, Whether it is lawful to kill an innocent person? Whether, &c. What harm, I pray you, is there in these questions? Or what do they contain contrary to the public peace and tranquillity? Certainly if the question, "Is it lawful to kill a tyrant?" be seditious, the question, Is it lawful to kill an innocent person? will be much more seditious. A

68 "Quæ de tributis Apostolus memorat, pertinent ad illos qui potestati sæculari subjiciuntur, non ad non subjectos ... Sic et clerici pendere non debent; quia non sunt civili magistratui subjecti... Ergo qui tributum debet, is reddat tributum ... Si nihil debet, nihil ergo tenetur reddere.”—Ibid. p. 477, D. & E.

69❝In nullo enim auctore Catholico invenietur, papam ab imperatore deponi posse: benè autem imperatores à papâ.”Ibid. p. 484, B.

question is neither an affirmative nor a negative, but simply an enquiry. And to put a question has nothing to do with sedition"...

The preacher adds--that the Jesuits, in this question, incline to the affirmative rather than to the negative, their writings sufficiently shew. We do not only incline, but most willingly adhere to the part which has been chosen by St. Thomas and others, who reply to this question by a distinction. In conformity with their doctrine, a Jesuit of great celebrity" has thus written..." (A prince) is either a tyrant, not because he has unjustly usurped his power, but because he makes a bad use of his otherwise legitimate authority in the administration of his government; or else he is a tyrant through the power which he has forcibly usurped... If he were a tyrant of the latter kind, any man might kill him."... Thus far this writer. You may perceive from his words, what has been condemned by the Council of Constance."2

70 "Quæritur in scholis, utrùm liceat occidere innocentem? utrùm, &c. ... Quid, oro, criminis in his quæstionibus? Quid seditionis? Quid publicæ quieti et paci adversum? Certè si quæstio, utrùm liceat occidere tyrannum, seditiosa est, multò magis seditiosa erit illa quæstio, utrùm liceat occidere innocentem... Quæstio nec affirmat, nec negat, sed quærit. Quærere non pertinet ad seditiones."... Tom. XI. Append. ad Apol. p. 315, H. p. 316, A.

71 Gregory of Valentia, Tom. III. Disp. 5. Qu. 8.

72 "Addit prædicans, Jesuitas in hâc quæstione, potius ad partem affirmantem, quàm ad negantem inclinare, satis indicant

A king is not a tyrant, especially if we use the appellation of tyrant in the latter sense, and a tyrant is not a king... Lest you should be anxious about the death of John Guignard, know that it must be ascribed to the times, and not to his guilt. You will never be hanged if you continue as innocent as he was.---(Tom. XI. Append. ad Apol. p. 317, A.)

But if the pontiff were to expel a prince from the kingdom, lest he should pervert his subjects with his heresy, then I freely confess that we unite our judgment to that of the pope, and we conceive it better that the Catholic religion should be preserved sound and entire, than that it should be destroyed... And it was for this reason, and no other, that our society, and a vast number of persons of every rank and condition in France, opposed themselves to Henri IV., when as yet he had not become reconciled to the church by renouncing his heresy.73

illorum scripta. Non modò inclinamus ad illam partem, sed illam partem libentissimè amplectimur, quàm amplectitur S. Thoma... et alii, qui ad hanc quæstionem respondent cum distinctione. Ex quorum doctrinâ hunc in modum scribit quidam magni nominis Jesuita; Vel est tyrannus, non per arrogatam sibi injustè potestatem, sed solùm per pravum legitimæ alioquin autoritatis usum in gubernando; vel est tyrannus per arrogatam potestatem, quam vi obtineat... Si autem esset tyrannus secundo modo, quilibet posset eum occidere. Hæc ille. Ex cujus etiam verbis habes, quidnam Concilium Constant. damnaverit."-Ibid. p. 316, D. E. F.

73 "At si pontifex aliquem ob hæresim à regno arceat, ne

... We are not so timid and faint-hearted, that we fear to affirm openly that the Roman pontiff can, if occasion require, absolve Catholic subjects from their oath of allegiance, if the prince should use them tyrannically and destroy the true religion; and we add moreover, that if it be done discreetly and circumspectly by the pontiff, it is a meritorious work.74

Mariana (De Regis Institutione, Lib. i. cap. 6), argues concerning tyrants, of whom there are two kinds; the former, consisting of those who forcibly seize and retain the territories of others, against all law and justice ... the latter, of those who indeed are lawful princes, but who afterwards convert their legitimate power into tyranny... Of the tyrant of the former kind there is no difficulty in speaking. It is chiefly concerning the tyrant of the latter that there is much discussion ... Say then, scribbler, Is every prince who refuses to

subditos in hæresim inducat, tum liberè fateor, nos nostrum judicium ad pontificis judicium aggregare, satiùsque reputare, ut Catholica religio sarta tecta præstetur, quàm ut evertatur ... Et hoc respectu, non ullo alio, opposuerunt se nostri, et infiniti alii omnis dignitatis et conditionis in Galliâ HenricoIV. cùm adhuc cum ecclesià in gratiam non rediisset, relictâ hæresi."-Ibid. Defens. Apol. Gallic. p. 329, A. B.

74" Tam timidi et trepidi non sumus, ut asserere palàm vereamur Romanum pontificem posse, si necessitas exigat, subditos Catholicos solvere juramento fidelitatis, si princeps tyrannicè illos tractet, veramque religionem extirpet; et addimus, si hoc à pontifice prudenter et circumspectè fiat, esse opus meritorium."-Vespertilio Hæreticus, p. 882.