IT had byn to small purpose (Noble Gentlemen) to ho­nour the dignity of those that make profession to minister Iustice; It had byn to litle purpose that which Aristotle taught vs, by saying, that Iustice is beautifull, and admirable like to the starre Lucifer; and it had byn to as litle purpose to haue taught vs, that in iustice all vertues are summarily conteyned; And the answere of Agesdaus King of Sparta had byn vnto as litle purpose, which he gaue vnto the King of Persia (who tooke to himself the title of the great King) that he could not be greater then himselfe, valesse he could proue he were [Page 4]more iust. And that fable of the Poets had byn to as litle purpose, faigning Minos the Patron of iust Princes, to haue byn the sonne of Iupiter: and that Themis and Dicas were placed on either side of Iupiter; if the Scripture did not teach vs that by iustice Kings do raigne; if the Sonne of God had not chosen him who was to be his figure, & called him Melchisedech, that is to say King of iustice; and that the same Melchisedech whose name doth signify, King of Iustice, had not been also King of Salem, that is, King of peace, to shew that of iustice dependeth peace, which is the mother of all good in heauen and earth. And seeing the oracles of diuine scrip­ture agree in cōmendation of this vertue with the testimony of prophane authors, it seemes in giuing her the first place of honour and di­gnity amongst humane vertues, is to put in execution the will both of God and men.

Now (Gentlemen) if euer there were any Nation in which this vertue hath shined and beene flourishing; it is this in which we liue. I will not speake of the glory of the Druides, or ancient Sacrificers, in whose handes the Gauls had put the execution of iustice, with intent to make it sacred and venerable to the people by the quality of the persons that should exer­cise it; I omit the care and zeale our Kinges did beare to the practise of Iustice, themselues becomming ministers and distributers, not only in their first and second race, but like­wise [Page 5]in the third: To say nothing of the splen­dour of our Courtes of Parlament, and in par­ticuler of this great, and high Parlament of Paris, wherof the reputation hath beene such a­mongst forraine Princes, that they themselues often made choyce of it for their iudge and arbitrator in causes of greatest importance. It shall suffice me to affirme of our Nation, that it hath euer beene so famous, and florished in the exercise of this vertue, that the very womē amongst the Gauls were hertofore esteemed bet­ter able to administer Iustice, then the men of al other Prouinces. For when Hannibal receaued and incorporated the Gauls in his Army (in his passage to the Conqest of Italy) it was agreed on, that if at any tyme there should arise any dif­ference betweene the two Nations, if the Car­thaginians were plaintifs, the verdict should be­long to the Tribunall of the Carthaginians, resi­dent in Spaine: and if the Gauls found themselus agrieued, the decision was referred to the Dames of France. And therefore (Gentlemen) our Kinges hauing assigned the keeping and dispo­sing of this precious treasure in the hands and custody of your Order, it is not without cause that we honour and respect you, not only as ministers and interpreters of Themis, but as such her interpreters in the chiefest Tribunall she hath vpon earth.

And now (Gentlemen) this Themis, this Dicas, this [...]lustice it selfe, which teacheth you to [Page 6]render to euery one his due, inspired you like­wise from the first meeting of the States, to render aboue al other thinges what you owe to God, to his Religion, and to his Ministers; making you therby to imitate the example of those great Law-giuers and Sages the Romans your Predecessours, who carried so great res­pect to Diuine thinges, that although the Re­ligion was false, yet notwithstanding because in this false Religion they pretended, as S. Au­gustine sayth, to honour the true Deity, it plea­sed the same God to recompence their zeale with temporall graces and benedictions, wher­by they raysed their Empire aboue the cloudes. For then you gaue vs testimony by di [...]ers Em­bassages, that you held vs for your parents, as the Pastours; and Directours of your soules, and such as liued in continuall watchfulnes to render accompt of them to Almighty God: For the which we haue of tentimes giuen you ma­ny and harty thankes. But that which did most assure vs, that you practised effectually what you gaue testimony of by wordes, was the last occasion which presented it selfe. For vpon the newes which was sent vnto vs, of a certain article, touching the security of Kinges, intituled, a Fund a mentall Law proposed & re­solued amongst your selues, where there was matter of Religion mixt with interest of state, you were contented to be perswaded by the learned, and eloquent informations deliuered [Page 7]you in our names by the Archbishop of Aix, and the Lord Bishop of Mumpelier, to communicate the matter with vs, and ioyntly to receaue our opinion therof.

For this cause (Gentlemen) the Ecclesiasticall assembly hath chosen & sent me vnto you: First to giue you thankes for the honour you pleased to do them heerin: then to let you vnderstand their opinion concerning as wel the substance, as circumstāces of your Article. And they haue especially giuen me in charge aboue all other thinges to render you infinite thankes, and prayse your zeale, in prouiding so carefully for the security of the life, and person of our Kinges; withall protesting, that they all con­spire together with you in this thought, and ex­traordinary feeling of yours, and that from the bottome of their hartes and soules. For they lament, and shall neuer cease mourning with teares of bloud, the tragicall, and detestable As­sassinats, which haue wronged and defiled the memory of this age, with two so horrible par­ricides; and do find in themselues so much greater obligation to haue their hartes pierced with this grief, by how much more they must acknowledge themselues tyed with strayter bandes, then any other Orders, to mayntayne and stand affected to the Sacred Person of our Kinges. I meane not to enlarge my selfe for the present in telling you, how God hath put into their handes the light of his word, to lighten [Page 8]other orders, and how the Clergie must march formost and direct others, by doctrine and ex­ample in seruing well and faithfully those, whome God hath placed ouer his people: Only thus much out of meere humane considerati­ons; There is no profession so straitly bound, in all fidelity and loyalty to our Princes, as the state Ecclesiasticall. For other states come to offices, honours, and dignities of the realme, some of them, as the Gentelmen & Nobility, at the dearest rate of all other, with losse of their bloud, and perill of their liues; others; besides their merit, by contribution of some part of their goodes, and commodities. But as for vs, we atteyne them by the only grace and fauour of our Kinges, without hazard or imployment of ought, either of life, goods, or honours. Nei­ther by any other meanes (beeing as we are naked and vnarmed) can we enioy our quiet or commodities, but vnder the shaddow of the peaceable and prosperous affaires of the King, being otherwise exposed as a prey to all sortes of wronges and outrages. And therefore, what man of sound iudgment can liue in doubt, but that we haue more interest, then any other in his conseruation, in whose life, as within some fatall brand, all our liues and fortunes are comprized?

Wee therefore alike ioyne issue with you in this your zeale and feruency of passion, and do alike condemne, nay more if possible [Page 9]may be, the perfidious butchery of those mon­sters, which dare aduenture on Sacred perso­nages of Kinges. But with all desiring you to enter into consideration, that as the only lawes sufficient to restaine those who set at naught their liues, are the Ecclesiasticall which curbe those spirits, that contemne death with the ap­prehension of those paynes after death: So must we carefully take heed, not to insert any thing into those lawes, but that which is held for certaine, and vndoubted by the whole Church, for feare of disabling the authority of that which is certaine & infallible, by mixture of that which is doubtfull and in contention. For experience hath taught vs too well, that humane lawes only, and apprehension of tem­porall punishment can neuer serue for sufficient remedy to such euills, as proceed from a per­uerse and corrupted imagination of Religion. We must haue therefore lawes of conscience such as work on our soules, and keep them in feare of eternall tormentes. Those who vnder­take these detestable parricides vnder a false per suasion of Religion, are not kept back with any feare of corporall punishment; they bath them­selues in tormentes with delight, they expect triumphes and Crownes of Martyrdome, they flatter themselues with false application of that sētence of our Sauiour, do not feare them that can kill the body, Matt. 10. but rather feare him that can send both soule and body into hell. So that to restrayne and [Page 10]terrify this kinde of people, we must lay before them, not such lawes as are executed in this life, which they care not for, and thereby de­priue other men of theirs: but of such lawes, whose rigour and seuerity are exacted after death, that is of lawes Ecclesiasticall and spiri­tuall. The Milesian Virgins were possessed of so furious and prodigious hatred of their liues, that they ran voluntarily with great content­ment to their deathes, they strangled, threw themselues downe headlong, and cut their owne throtes, the prayers and teares of their parentes not being able to hinder them. The Magistrates of the Iland oftentimes consulted, and made many decrees to stop the publick mourning, but none of their designementes tooke effect. For they despising and hating life, entred likewise into contempt of what­soeuer was ended with life, vntill in the end seeing all other meanes to fayle them, agreed to publish a law, whereby all those which volun­tarily made away themselues, should be drawne openly through the streets, & that stark naked after their death: Then the frenzie, which all these remedies applied during life could not cure, the apprehension of shameful punishment after death did remedy. The like is to be held of this fury, this rage, this madnes; there is no­thing but the feare of paynes to be imposed af­ter death; nothing but the apprehension of the paynes of hell; nothing but the horrour of e­ternall [Page 11]torments, which are sufficient to cure their distemper, who thinke to immolate and sacrifice their liues to God, when they loose them, by putting in execution this horrible and abhominable enterprises.

Now the spiritual and Ecclesiastical lawes, are those only which can imprint in mens hartes the terrour of excommunication, and liuely apprehension of euerlasting torments. For to cause this effect, they must proceed frō Ecclesiasticall Authority; that is certaine, ab­solute, & infallible, that is to say vniuersall, and such as conteineth nothing wherein the whole Church doth not agree. For if they proceed from doubtfull and different authority, & con­teyne such thinges whereof one part of the Church houldes one opinion, the head and o­ther partes thereof teach another; those, in whose bearts they desire these thinges should make impression, insteed of houlding them for certaine and infallible, and therby to be terri­fied and swayed by their threats, fall to laugh­ing at them, and hould them in extreme de­rision. And therefore we must take great heed, I say once againe we must take extraor­dinary great heed to mixe that which is in no sort to be doubted of in this Article, and that which the whole Church agrees on (that is to say, that none without putting himselfe in dan­ger of the diuell, and eternall death, may ad­uenture vpon the life of Kinges) with any [Page 12]point in controuersy, for feare of weakning that which is vndoubtedly true, by ioyning it with some other thing which other partes of the Church do debate, and hould in dispute.

Three points there are in the substance of your Fundamentall Law, besides certain ac­cessary pointes and circumstances. The first cō ­cerneth the security of Kinges persons, and in this we all agree, offering to seale it, not with inke, but with our bloud; that is to say, that it is not lawful for any cause whatsoeuer to mur­ther Kinges: and not only with Dauid, do de­ [...]est the Amalecite, who vaunted to haue laid his handes on Saul, 1. Reg. 11. although reiected and deposed by God by the mouth of Samuel, but moreouer cry out aloud with the Sacred Coun­cel of Constāce, Concil. Constant. sess. 5. against the murtherers of Kings, euen such as might be pret̄eded to be Tyrants, Anathema, to such as murther Kinges; eter­nall malediction to the assassinats of Kinges, e­ternall damnatiō on al such as murther Kinges. The second point is of the temporall dignity, and soueraignty of the Kinges of Frances, and in this likewise we agree. For we beleeue our Kinges are absolute in euery fort of temporall Soueraignty in their Realme, and that they are neither feudataries to the Pope (as some others who haue either receaued, or obliged their Crownes with this condition) nor to any o­ther Prince; but that in the pure administratiō of temporall thinges they depend immediatly [Page 13]of God, and acknowledge no other power ouer them but his. These two pointes then wee hould for certaine, and vndoubted but in diffe­rent manner of certainty: for the certainty of the first is diuine and theologicall; the certain­ty of the second humane and historicall. For that which Pope Innocent III. Cap. per Venerab. Tit. Qui filij sint legitimi. affirmes, that the King of France acknowledgeth no superi­our in temporalities, is spoken by him in forme of historical testimony: and that certaine other Realmes (whereof he seemes to wright Cap. causam tit. eodem. the same) haue since changed, and bound them­selues to some certain kind of temporall depen­dence vpon the Sea Apostolike; and that France remaynes in her prime estate, it is histo­ry, and not faith that tells vs so.

There remaynes the third point, which is this: Whether if Princes hauing made an oath to God, and their people, either themselues or their predecessors, to liue and dye in the Chri­stian Catholick faith, and do afterwardes vio­late their oath, rebell against Christ, bidding him open warre, that is to say, fall not only to open profession of heresy, or Apostacy from Christian Religion, but withall passe to force their su [...]iectes consciences, and goe about to plant Arianisme, or Mahometisme, or any such like infidelity within their states, and thereby destroy and roote out Christianity; whether, I say, in this case, their subiects on the other side may not be declared absolued [Page 14]from their oath of Loyaltie and Fidelity: And this comming to passe to whome it appertey­nes to pronounce this absolution.

This then is the point in controuersy betweene vs: For your article conteyneth the negariue; that is to say, that in no case what­soeuer the subiectes may be absolued from the Oath of Allegiance made to their Princes. As on the contrary side, all other partes of the Catholike Church, togeather with this of France, since the institution of Schooles of Di­uinity, vntill the comming of Catuin, held the affirmatiue propositiō, which is, that when the Prince breakes the Oath he hath made to God and his subiectes to liue and dye in Ca­tholique Religion, and doth not only become an Arian, or a Mahometan, but manifestly wars against Iesus Christ, in compelling his subiects in matters of conscience, and con­strayning them to imbrace Arianisme or Maho­metisme, or any other detestable in fidelity: That then this Prince may be declared fallen from his right, as culpable of felony towardes him, to whome he hath made the oath of his Realme, that is to Christ: and his subiects may be absolued in cōscience, both at the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Tribunall, from the oath of allegiance they haue made vnto him. And that in this case, it belongs to the authority of the Church, resident either in her head the Pope, or in her body a Councell, to publish this [Page 15]declaration. And not only all the other partes of the Catholike Church, but likewise all the Doctors who liued in France from the first set­ting vp of schooles of Diuinity amongst them, haue held the affirmatiue opinion, that in the case of hereticall, or infidell Princes, and such as persecute Christianity, or Catholike Reli­gion, their subiects may be absolued from their oath of allegiance. By meanes wherof though the contrary doctrine were the truest, yet not­withstanding all the other partes of the Church being against it, you cannot hould it for more then problematical in matter of faith. I call that doctrine problematicall in matter of faith, which we are not bound to belieue, by necessity of faith, and the contradictory therof doth not binde them that belieue it with ex­communication, and disunion or separation from the community. Otherwise you must ac­knowledge, that the communion which you exercise with the other partes of the Church, houlding the contrary doctrine, yea euen that communion which you conserue with the me­mory of your predecessours, was vnlawfull, de­filed with heresy and excommunication.

And indeed those who take vpon them to defend the doctrine of the English Oath which is the patterne of yours, VVidring. disput. de Iuram. fi­del. cap. 3. sect. 19. defend it for no other then problematicall, Our intention (say they) is not to affirme the other opinion, as repugnant to faith, or saluation, it being defended and mayntei­ned [Page 16]by so many & so great Deuines, whome God forbid we should go about to condemne of so great a cryme.

And therefore to include this clause vnder the same obligation of faith, vnder that very degree of excommunication, vnder the which we comprehend the condemnation of those which attempt the liues of Princes, is to fall into foure manifest Inconueniences, which our Chamber hath giuen me in charge to lay be­fore your eies. The first, is to force mens soules, and intangle their consciences, in bidding them to belieue, and sweare vnder payne of excommunication, as doctrine of faith, and conformable to the word of God, a point of doctrine, the contrary wherof is held by all the other partes of the Catholike Church, and hath byn euer hitherunto, by their owne pre­decessours. The second inconuenience, is vtter­ly to ouerthrow the authority of the Church, and to open the gate to all sortes of heresies, to giue scope to lay men, without direction, or warrant either of generall Councell, or Eccle­siasticall sentence, to vndertake the decision of matters of faith, to determine pointes of Controuersy, and to pronounce openly what is conformable to the Scripture, what is im­pious and detestable. This then we say is to vsurpe the office of Priesthood; this is to stretch our hand to the Arke; this is to take the Censar for Sacrifice. In briefe, this is to commit the selfe same outrages, for which Gods male­dictions [Page 17]haue iustly fallen long since on the vsurpers, as wel priuate persons as Kings them­selues. The third Inconuenience, is to throw vs head long into euident and ineuitable schisme. For all other Catholike nations houlding this doctrine, we cannot declare it to be con­trary to holy Writ, nor hould it for wicked and detestable, but therewithal we must renounce the cōmuniō both of the head, and other partes of the Church: and therby confesse, that the Church for so many ages hath not beene the Church of God, but the Synagogue of Sathan: not the spouse of Christ, but the Diuells strum­pet. The fourth Inconuenience, is not only to make frustrate the remedy, which men seeke in this peril of Princes, in weakning that which is held for certaine and vndoubted, by ioyning it to a thing contradicted; but withall insteed of assuring the life and estate of Princes, to put in great daunger both the one and the o­ther, by meanes of wars and other mischances and disasters, which ordinarily schisme dra­wes after it.

These are (Gentlemen) the foure pointes our Company haue giuen me in charge to re­present vnto you, which I will do my best to dispatch with all possible cleernes and facility, if you please to heare me with the like patience you haue hitherto continued, which I easi­ly persuade my selfe you will, if you set before your eies the importance of the matter I am [Page 18]heare to treate with you, which is the greatest at this present in Christendome. And besides; consider that it is not my selfe, whome you heare speake in this Controuersy. For it is not I who speake in this cause, but the whole body of the Ecclesiasticall Order, and all that of the Nobility adioyned vnto it, and which haue deputed these twelue Noble men, taken from the twelue Gouernementes in the Realme, of purpose to giue authority to my wordes with their presence: and withall to giue testimony in this present occasion, of the selfe same deuo­tion their predecessours haue euer borne the Church, which they haue planted by their Armes, and watered with their bloud, in the furthest partes of the world. And therfore I will no more enlarge my selfe in begging of you, fauourable audience and attention; only let me intreate you, before I enter into the matter, to giue me leaue to make these two protestations, therby to preuent certaine ca­lumniations. The first, that when I say, those who hould the negatiue part, cannot hould it for other then Problematicall, I intend not to comprehend by the word Problematicall, that which concernes the condemnation of those parricides, who vndertake to kill Princes: for this I hould for a point of faith, and con­demne the contrary opinion for hereticall, and guilty of all sortes of excommunication and eternall punishment. The other, that it is con­trary [Page 19]to my disposition, and full sore against my will, that I come to treate of these que­stions in such a time, when our Country is newly come out of many differences, and diui­sions in State-matters, and is yet full of debates in matters of Religion; and haue refused this charge many times, euen with teares, know­ing well how I was to imbarke my selfe in a sea full of rockes and perills, and to how many harsh contradictions and calumniations I should expose my selfe. But the publishing of Copyes of your Article (the bruit wherof was spred farre and neere) hath hindered vs from keeping it any longer secret; and the wound once discouered, the discharge of our Office bound vs to seeke a remedy.

NOvv then Gentlemen (concerning the first Inconuenience) to lay the foundation of my discourse, not on pillars of gold, as Pinda­rus said, but on the firme pillars of History, and practise of the Church, the methode I will obserue, shalbe in prouing two things. The one, that not only all the other parts of the Church which are at this day in the world hould the affirmatiue opinion, that is to say, in the case of hereticall Apostataes, and perse­cuting Princes, the subiects may be absolued from their Oath of allegiance made to them or their predecessours: but also for these eleuen hundred yeares, there hath not been any one [Page 20]age, in which this doctrine hath not byn belie­ued and practised in diuers nations. The other, that it hath byn continually held in France, where our Kings, and particulerly those of the last race, haue defended it by their autho­rity and armes; where our Councells haue vp­held and mayntained it; where our Bishops, and Scholasticall Doctours, since the first in­stitution of schooles of Diuinity vntill our dayes, haue written, preached, and taught it; and where, to conclude, all our Magistrates, Officers and Lawyers haue followed and fa­ [...]oured it; yea often times for crymes in mat­ters of Religion, much more light then heresy or Apostacy. Wherewith notwithstanding I intend not to help my selfe, but where they serue to defend either the generall Theses, that is to say, Whether in some cases the subiects may be absolued from the Oath made by them to their Princes; or this particuler Hypothesis, that in the case of hereticall Apostataes, and persecuting Princes, their Subiects may be dis­pensed withall in obeying them. To the end therfore to free you from all obscurity, I will not oppugne your Article, but by those ma­ximes wherin our Doctours of France, who haue written in defence of Princes temporall authority, do all agree; conteyning my selfe notwithstanding in the simple playne way of fact, without passing to that of right, the decisiō wherof appertaines not to this tyme nor place.

First then to begin with Anastasius who was made Emperour more then eleuen hun­dred yeares ago. When this Emperour Ana­stasius, an Eutichian heretike, tooke on him the Empire, Euph [...]mius Patriarch of Constantinople would neuer acknowledge him for Emperour, vntill he had signed and subscribed with his owne hand to the Creede of the Chalcedon Councell. Anastasius (as Victor Tunonensis Victor. Tunon. in Chron. à Scaligero edito. an Author of that age hath left written) vrged by the Bishop of Constantinople, was constreyned to promise vnder his hand, to attempt nothing that was sinister against the Apostolike Faith, and the Councell of Chalcedon. And Euagrius: Euagr. hist. Eccle. lib. 3. ca. 32. The Empresse Ariadne desirous to put the Imperiall ha­biton Anastasius, the Bishop Euphemius would neuer giue his consent, vntill he had giuen vp a pro­fession of his faith, written with his owne hand, with grieuous and seuere Oathes. And Theodorus A­nagnostes saith, that Theod. Anagnost. l. 2. collect. hist. Eccl. Anastasius being de­clared Emperour by the Empresse Ariadne, Euphe­mius the Bishop made resistance, [...]. calling him he­retike and vnworthy to haue commaund one Chri­stians. Notwithstanding the Empresse and the Se­nate, trayling Euphemius by force, did their vtter­most to compell him: But he would neuer consent to anything before he had drawne from him a profes­sion by writing to imbrace the doctrine of the Chalce­don Councell. And when the said. Anastasius fell back contrary to his Oath vnto the Eutichian heresy, and passed further to persecute the Ca­tholikes; [Page 23]Pope Symachus resisted him, & tooke vpon him the defence of the Church in these wordes: Sym. in Apologet It may be thou wilt say, it is written, We must be subiect to all power. It is true; We ac­knowledge humane power, according to the degree therof, yet so notwithstanding, that it be not erected against God. But for the rest, if all power come from God, with much more reason, that, which gouernes diuine things. Beare respect to God in vs; and we will reuerence God in thee. But if thou ho­nour not God, thou canst not clayme priuiledge by him whose lawes thou cōtemnest. And imediatly after: Thou sayst that the Senate cōspiring with me, I haue excōmunicated thee: that which I found lawfully done by my Predecessors, I haue without doubt followed. Thou sayest that the Senate of Rome doth treat thee ill; if we treat thee ill by inciting thee to leaue here­tikes, can it be thought thou dealest well with vs, which wouldest throwe vs headlong into the society of heretikes? And when he went about to distill the infection of his heresy into the Churches offices [...]d set his hand to the banishment of Bishop [...]; not only the people of Constantinople were in commotion against him, and deman­ded another Emperout but moreouer Vitalia­nus one of the chiefest Generalls of that age, ha­uing assembled a puissant army, went to pre­sent him battaile at the very gates of Constan­tinople, and would heuer agree to peace, but with this condition, That he should recall the Bishops whom he had banished from their seas, [Page 24]& should reunite all the Eastern Churches with the Romane. The Catholikes (sayes Marcellinus Comes) Marcel. Com. in chron. demanded Areobuidas for Emperour, and threw to ground the Images and statua's of A­nastasius. And Cedrenus: Cedr. in compend. hist. in A­nastas. Anastasius going a­bout to ioyne these words to the Hymne of the Church, who was crucified for vs, there was made a popular insurrection within Constantinople, the Citizens calling for another Emperour, wher­by the Emperour being affrighted, put of for a time his heresie. And Victor Tunonensis: Victor Tunon. in chron. Count Vitalianus the sonne of Patriciolus vnderstanding the subuersion of the Catholike faith, the condemna­tion of the Chalcedon Councell, the banishment of the Catholike Bishops, and the intrusion of here­tikes into their places; he assembled a great army re­volted from the Emperour Anastasius, and ioyning battaile which Patricius the Emperours Nephew & Constable of the Empire, he killed threescore and seauen thousand of the Romane souldiers, and tooke Patricius prisoner. And a little after: Vitalianus being incamped at the gates of Constantinople, not­withstanding many demaundes of peace made to him by the Emperour, he would neuer [...]earken to any but with this condition, that he should call back the defendours of the Chalcedon Councell, who had beene cast out from their seas, and should reunite all the Churches of the East, with the Romane.

And when Clotharius the first of that name King of France, that liued in the same age with the Emperour Iustinian, had slayne within the [Page 24]Church of Soisson, on good Friday in the time of the adoring the Crosse, Gautier. Walter Lord of Yuetot in Normandie; Pope Agapetus whome the Greekes call Concil. Const. sub Men. the Beloued of God and men, did threaten him with his censures, if he did not make amendes for the outrage he had committed against Christian Religion. In sa­tisfaction wherof, the King did erect the terri­tory of Yuetot, with En tiltre & condi­tion de Ro­y [...]ume. the title and freedome of a Kingdome Wherof besides the possession without interruption continued, and the per­petuall tradition of the Prouince, there were writinges made that very houre, the date, accordinge to the account of the yeare of our Lord, falling to be the same with the yeare 536. Which I alleadge not, as I haue before made protestation, therehence to inferre any particuler consequence from fact, to right, but to shew in generall how great reuerence our first kinges did beare to the censures of ancient Popes. The Pope, sayes du Haillā Du Haillan en Phist. de France l. 1. incensed with this cruell acte, sent word to the King, that he should make amendes for this fact, otherwise that his realme should be interdicted. Then Clotharius fee­ling remorse of conscience for his crime, did ordeine for amendes thereof, that from that time forward the Lords of Yuetot, and their heires should be quit from all homage, seruice, and obedience due to the King for the territory of Yuetot &c. And thereupon were the euidences drawne and sealed by the foresaid Clotharius. And Gaguin: Gagui­nus hist. [...]ranc. l. 2. I find as an infallible [Page 25]truth, that this was done the yeare of our Lord 536. For the English hauing long time after dominion in Normandy, there fell out a suite, betweene Iohn of Holland Englishman, and the Lord of Yuetot, as if his territory had beene tributary to the King of En­gland; The Lieuetenant of The word which the translator of Gaguin vseth, is Caletz, which si­gnifieth as well the towne as the coast of Callis, the people wherof in old time were cal'd Caletes, and wher­of one part is e­uen to this day called le Pais de Caults. Callis, after he had throughly in the yeare of our Lord 1428. informed himself of the case by order of iustice, did determine that he had found iust, as I haue noted before.

And when Queene Brune childe, and King Theodorike desirours to haue a confirmation of the priuiledges of the hospitall of Autun, which the said Queene had founded, and to haue the insuing Kinges bound by the authority of the Sea Apostolike, to conserue them inuio­lable, without the least tuch of any sacriledge; the Pope S. Gregory the great, at their instance wrote these wordes in an Epistle to Senator, which is the tenth, in the eleauenth booke of his Epistles: An ab­surd Au­thor hath as fondly made an­swere, that this decree is not found in S Gregory: as it was absurdly answered that the Excommunication of the Emperour Theodosius by S. Ambrose, was not to be found in the Ecclesiasticall History. We grant and confirme, ordey­ning that no Kings, Prelates, nor any other of what degree soeuer, may in part diminish, or take away any thing bestowed on the said hospital, by the fore­said most excellent Kings our sonnes. And a litle after. And if any one of the Kings, Prelates, Iudges, or other secular persons, after information giuen of this our constitution, do go about to contradict it, let him be depriued of his power and dignity. For I wil not serue my self of those Buls of the Abbey [Page 26]of Soisson, for that they were not inserted with­in the Register of S. Gregories Epistles, but were taken out of the Coffers of the Monkes of S. Medard, and put after the work at the end of the Register, as appeares both by ancient im­pressions of the same Register, and by the cita­tion of Pope Gregory VII. Gregor. 7. lib. 8. ep. 21. (who liued more then 500. yeares since) made of the Epistle to Senator, without speaking of that of Soisson.

And when the Emperour Iustinian the 2. sent his Constable to take Pope Sergius, and transport him from Rome to Constantinople, for that he would not approue the Councel falsely called the Sixt; the Imperiall souldiers of I­taly opposed themselues, droue back the Em­perours Cōstable with iniuries & reproaches. Iustinian the 2. (sayes Beda Bed. de sex aetat. mundi. an Author of the same age) being offended, for that Sergius of happy memory Bishop of the Church of Rome, would not signe and fauour the erroneous Synod, which he caused to be held at Constantinople, sent his Con­stable Zachary, commaunding him to take the Pope, and bring him to Constantinople: But the Souldiers of Rauenna, with the Prouinces adioyning, did resist the impious commaundement of the Prince, and re­pelled the said Zachary with contumelies, & reproa­ches from the Citty of Rome. It is true indeed, that afterwardes the same Iustinian did wash away this cryme, togeather with other his impieties, when as hauing gotten Pope Constantine into the East, He threw himselfe prostrate on the earth [Page 27] Bed. ib. before him (saith Beda) and praying him to make intercession for his sinnes, he did renew all the priuiledges of the Church.

And when the Emperour Philippicus, successour to Iustinian 2. came to the Empire, and according to the custome of the Empe­rours (presently after their comming to the state) of sending the profession of their faith to the Pope, had addressed vnto him a profes­sion of an hereticall faith; the Pope reiected it in Synode, and vpon the refusal of it, the people of Rome abrogated the Emperour Philippicus his Imperiall titles. Philippicus (sayth Beda de sex aetat. mundi Bede and after him Paulus Paulus Diacon. de gestis Lon­gob. lib. 6, cap. 4. Diaconus) sent vnto Pope Constantine letters of peruerse doctrine, which the Pope togeather with the Councell of the Sea Apo­stolique reiected &c. And the people of Rome ordey­ned, that neither the name, nor the edictes, nor the money that had the image of the heretical Emperour vpon it, should be admitted, or receaued.

And at what time the Emperour Leo I­sauricus fell into the heresy of the Iconclastes, or Image-breakers, and began to persecute the Catholikes in the East; Pope Gregory the se­cond after many dilations assembled a Coun­cell of the Bishops of the West at Rome, by which he depriued the Emperour of all his rightes, tributes, iurisdiction, and power Im­periall that he had in Italy, and all this with the aduise & assistance of the French. And though some Authors be silent herein, yet Theophanes, [Page 28]Cedrenus, & Zonarus, Greeke historians, affirme it, and none of them deny it. The most holy Gre­gory, sayth Theophanes Theop. in hi [...] mi­scel lib. 21., withdrew Rome & I­taly, and al the rights as well of the Republique, as of the Church into the west partes, from the obedience of Leo, and of his Empire. Zonaras saith Zon. tom. 3 An­nal. in Leon. Isate­rico., Pope Gregory seeing the persecutions of the Emperour Leo against the Catholikes, did cut off from communion with him the Bishop of Constantinople, and those who imbraced the same impiety, and exposed them together with the Emperour, to an Anathema Syno­dique, & forbad the tributs which til then had beene paid to the Empire, and adioyned himselfe with the French; whereupon they might take an occasion to make themselues maisters of Rome.

And when the French were resolued to abandon and forsake Childerike, and to substi­tute Pipine in his place, though the cause that moued them to remooue and make away Chil­derike, was his impertinency and his stupidity: yet in as much as it touched Religion by occa­sion, because Childerike his imbecillity & weak­nes did put France in danger of falling from Christianity, Orat. le­gat. Pipini apud Paul. Aemilium in Child. 3. through the inuasion of the Sarazens, who were become possessed of all Af­frike and Spaine, and had already many times ouerrun and wasted France, and that otherwise it rested vpon the absolution of an oath in mat­ter of conscience: They would not in any wise yeild to do homage to Pipin, vntill the Pope had absolued them in the spirituall Tribunall, from [Page 29]their precedent and former oath they had made to Childerike. Pipin (saith Paulus Aemilius Paul. Aemil. de reb. gestis Franc. in Child. 3. af­ter infinite other authors) sent Burchard Bishop of Wirtzburg to Pope Zachary, for the abrogating & taking away of the obligatio of the oath, by which the French were bound to Childerike. And againe: The Pope absolued the French frō the Oath they had made to Childerike, and they assembling the States did homage to Pipin, in quality of King. du Til­let en la vie du Child. 3. And the Lord of Tillet in his Memorialls, sayth: To take a way the note of periury and infidelity, it was thought best to send vnto Pope Zachary, Vegard Bishop of Wirtzburg, & Fulrad chaplayne of the said Pipine, for the obteyning of absolution vnto the said subiects, from the oath made vnto the said King Childerike, and of approbation of the election by them made of the said Pipin for their King. And this was accorded by the said Pope.

And when as againe, after the heresy of the Emperour Constantine Copronymus, and of Leo his Sonne, and the persecution that Constantine Sonne of Leo raysed against the Catholikes for his false marriage, Charlemaine became beloued, and potent in the West, and that it came to be vnderstood, that by the in­constancy of the Emperours of Greece, there was no more certainty at all for stability of re­ligion in those prats of the East; Pope Leo the third absolued with effect, all their subiectes of the West from their fidelity, declaring Char­lemaine Emperour of the West in their place. [Page 30] The French, sayth Zonaras, Zonar tom. 3. Annal. in Iren, & Constant. made themselues Lords of Rome, Pope Leo hauing crowned Char­les, and called him Emperour of the Romans: And Theophanes: In hist. nuscell. 22. The Pope to requite Charles, crowned him Emperour. And Eginard Chance­lor to Charlemain saith: Egi­nard. in vita Caro­li magni. our Charles in the begin­ning had such an horrour at the title of Augustus, as he affirmed, if he had vnderstood the Popes inten­tion, he would not that day haue come to the Church, notwithstanding it were a solemne festiuity. And the Lord of Tillet in his Memorials sayth thus: du Til­let enla vie de Charle­maine. Charlemayne was King of all France, by the half wellneere augmented and increased by him, and after that by Pope Leo crowned the first Emperour of the West.

And when King Charles the Simple meant to vse the help of the Infidells, and to bring in the Normanes, who were Pagans & Idolaters, into the Christian Countries of the French, to make warres against his enemies; Fouques Arch. bishop of Rhemes threatned him, that he would renounce the fidelity he ought vnto him: Frodo­ard. hist. Eccles. Rhemens. Who is he, quoth he, who being faithfull vnto you, as he is bound, hath not an horrour, that you desire the amity and friendship of Gods enemies, and haue a will, to the detriment and ruine of the name of Christ, to receaue and admit the armes of the Infidells, and detestable aliances with them? And a litle after: It were better you had neuer beene borne, then to haue a will to raigne by the pro­tection of the Diuell, and for you to be assistant vnto [Page 31]them, whome you should most eagerly oppugne. Wher­fore know you, that if you so do, and condescend to such counsells, you shall neuer haue me loyall and faithfull to you: and I will further withdrawe from your fidelity all that I shalbe able: and I, togeather with my fellow Bishops will excommunicate you, and your complices, and adherentes, and condemne you with a perpetuall curse, in place of the fidelity I beare vnto you.

And when King Philip the first in the be­ginning of the last race forsooke Bertha his wife, daughter to the Count of Holland, and tooke in place of her Bertrude, wife of Fouques Count of Anjou yet liuing, (matter that con­cerned the violating of a Sacrament, and not of the breach of one Sacrament by simple adul­tery, which had beene a crime of manners, but by the superinduction of another Sacra­ment, and by a publique profession of making it a matter lawful, in keeping, euen in the sight of his whole realme, the wife of another man still liuing, in his Royall bed, and in title of Queene and his Spouse, in place of his owne wife yet also aliue, when as the precedent mariages had not by the Church been declared to be of no validity, which was a cryme acom­panied with heresie:) Pope Vrbane notwithstā ­ding he was to contend with an Antipope, re­prehended the King, and after many admoni­tions, perceauing his pertinacy and obstinacy, excōmunicated him in a Councell of almost [Page 32]300. Berthold. ad ann. 1095. Bishops, assembled at Clermont in Auuer­gne, and interdicted his Realme. And Pope Pas­chal after him did the same. At the Councell of Clermont, sayth Malmesbury, Guil. Malmesb. lib. 4. c. 2. in Guil. 2. the Pope excommu­nicated Philip King of France, and all them who cal­led him King and obeyed him, or spake vnto him, if it were not to correct him. And Iuo Iuo Carnot. ad Vrban. Epist. 46. of Charters, writing vnto the same Vrbane, sayth: They will menace and threaten you, that the King and his Realme will depart from your obedience (that is, will passe to the obedience of the Antipope) if you restore not the Crowne to the King, and absolue him from the excommunication. And the Lord of Til­let sayth Du Til­let en la vie de Philip. 1.: In the yeare 1100. Iohn and Benedict Cardinalls, and Legates of Pope Paschal the second, sent into France, assembled the Prelates at Autun, at Valence, and at Poictiers, and after hauing ad­monished the King to take the said Queene Bertha agayne, and to leaue Bertrude, excommunicated them, and interdicted the Realme. Wherupon the said King was moued to iudignation: But in conclusion he obeyed.

And when the Emperour Henry the fourth who liued at the same tyme with Philip the first complayned a while before Pope Gregory the seauenth, for hauing absolued and discharged his subiectes from the Oath of fidelity; he re­proached him that he could not doe it, for that he had not committed any errour in faith, and that the tradition of the Fathers, (obserue the tradition of the Fathers, to giue to vnderstand [Page 33]that it was not then any new inuention, or de­uise) did warrant, that he could not be depo­sed, if he erred not in faith: Epist. Henr. 4. ad Greg. 7. à Protestant. edita, vnà cum alijs. Refertur à Centuriat. Cent. 11. c. 8. de Schis­mate. The tradition of the Fathers, saith the Emperour, hath taught that I ought to be iudged by God alone, and that I could not be deposed for any crime, so I declined not from the faith, which is not pleasing vnto God.

And when Philip Augustus, the litle sonne of Philip the first, was fallen into the like con­tempt and dislike of his wife Engeberge sister to the King of Denmark, that his Grandfather was of his wife Bertha; and had caused his mariage to be dissolued & disaunlled by Car­dinal William his vncle Archbishop of Rhemes and Legate in France, in preiudice of his former mariage, he tooke to wife the daughter of the Duke of Morauia: The Pope thereupon tooke notice of the matter, as of the violating and transgressing of a Sacrament vnder pre­tence of religiō. And seeing the resistāce that the King made, he excommunicated him, & interdicted his Realme: Du Til­let en la vie de Philip. August. The sentence of Cardi­nall William was (sayth the Lord of Tillet) reuo­ked by Pope Innocent the third, as giuen without order of iustice. And because the King presently af­ter the sentence giuen holding himselfe vntied and free, married Agnes daughter of the Duke of Mora­uia, the King and the Realme were interdicted. And hereunto the Cronicle of Foiz, cited by Vignier, hath addeth, Viginer liure 3. de Phist. de Prance en Panne 1200 en la Bibli­oth. hist. pag. 3. That during the time of this interdict, they did put in France to the publique [Page 34]contracts, not in the raigne of Philip, but in the raigne of Iesus Christ.

And when Iohn King of England, who was not yet at that time obliged by any tem­porall acknowledgment to the Pope, Act. int. Bonif. 8. & Phil. Pulch. fol. 91. p. 1. had driuen the Bishops out of his Realme, and seized vpon their goodes, the same King Philip Augustus held an assembly of his Estates at Soysson, where he proposed to make warre vpon the King of England, for that he perse­cuted the Church, and for that the Pope had discharged and absolued his subiects from their oath of Allegiance to him: Du Haillan li. 10. de Phist. de France en la vie de Phil. Aug. Rigard. lib. de vita Thil. Aug. adan, 1212. The King sayth Du Haillan (notwithstanding he be an historiā very passionate against the Popes) at the intreaty of the Pope, at Soyssons held an assem­bly of the Prelates and Peeres of his Realme, to take aduise, and consult about the meanes, how he might passe euer into England against King Iohn, to make war vpon him, as a persecutor of the Church, whome the Pope had then excommunicated, ac­quiting, taking away, and discharging his subiectes of the Oath of allegiance they did owe vnto him. And a litle after. The greater part of the Nobili­ty were of opinion, that he had iust cause so to do, as well being thereunto moued, by authority of the Pope, as for the reestablishing of the Bishops, and o­ther the Prelates in their Churches, from which they had beene thrust and driuen out by Iohns Tyranny, whome the Pope had excommunicated. And againe all the Nobility with one accord promised Augu­stus [Page 35] to serue him with their owne persons in this enterprize, Ferrard the Count of Flanders only excepted.

And when the Emperour Otho, nephew of the said Iohn King of England, meant to take his part, and to make warre vpon France, the said Philip Augustus sent vnto the Pope to solli­cite and mooue him to declare Otho depriued of all the rightes of his Empire: and for the execution of this censure he bestirred himself, and vsed his courage and his Armes so effectu­ally, as vnder the conduct and fauour of the Popes cause and quarrell, he wan the greatest battavle that euer King of France had gayned against any Emperour, to wit, the battayle du Pont de Bouuines, where the Emperour had aboue an hundred and fifty thousand fighting men. The King, sayth du Haillan, aduertised of the threates of the Emperour Otho, Du Haillan la mesine. Rigard. ibid. vsed such expedition in the busines, and wrought so effectu­ally with the Pope, as he declared the said Otho enemy of the Sea of Rome, and depriued him of his Imperiall titles. And the Electors of the Empire, at the sollicitation and incitement of Augustus, who sent to them Ambassadours to make his way, elected and chose Frederike the King of Sicily Emperour. And a litle after he putteth downe King Philip his speach to his army in these wordes. My Friends, saith the King, let vs take good courage: Du Haillan ibid. Ri­gard. ibid. Let vs not be afraid: Let vs haue honour before our eies, and the feare of God in the first place, to whom [Page 36]we must recommend our selues. VVe haue to fight against an Enemy condemned, censured, and ex­communicated by the Church, and for his impieties and wickednes separated, and cut off from commu­nion with the faithfull.

And when Reymond Count of Tholouse, and the greater part of Gaule Narbonoise, be­came to be infected with the heresy of the Al­bigenses, & began to persecute the Catholikes, there assembled first a Councell of French Bi­shops at Montpellier, Histoire Albigeoise rapportèe par Vig­nier en son hist. de France liu. 3. en l'ann. 1214. and after that, the Coun­cell of Laterane, for heresy, depriued both him and Reymond his sonne of the County of Tho­louse, and adiudged it to Symon Count of Montfort, who had taken armes against him, (and of this came the vnion of the County of Tholouse, and of the adioyning Prouinces to the Crowne of France:) By decree of all the Councell of Laterane (saith du Haillan Du Haillan en la vie de Philip August. Rigard. ibid. whom I do often cite because it is euery where in the handes of all) Reymond the Count of Tholouse, & his sonne also named Reymond were excommuni­cated &c. And the County of Tholouse was adiud­ged to Symon Count of Montfort. And againe: Simon shewed vnto the Estates of the County of Tholouse, the decree of the Councell, by which he was declared Count of the said County. And there opposed not any one against it, but all with one ac­cord tooke the Oath of fidelity to him. And the Lord of Tillet saith in his Memorials these wordes: En la vie de Louys 8. The County of Tholouse came to the King [Page 37]by good right, the said Reymond and his Father being confiscated, that is to say, hauing lost it by con­fiscation for heresy; and Symen Count of Montfort hauing procured and gotten it, and Amaulry his Sonne hauing transferred, and made it ouer to the King: he was so gratious to the said Reymond by the treaty of peace, as to restore it vnto him condi­tionally, that it should returne to the said King if his said only daughter had not issue by Alphonse of France the Count of Poittou

And when the same vniuersall Councell of Laterane (which may worthily be called the most Vniuersal Councel, for so much as besides the Pope, and the foure Patriarkes of the East, Matth. Paris. in Ioan. ad [...] an 1215. Magde­burg. Cent. [...]. cap. 9. de Synod. who were there present, some in person, as the Pope, and the Patriarkes of Constantinople and of Hierusalem, and the other by their legates, as those of Alexandria and of Antioch, there were seauenty Archbishops, 412. Bishops, and more then 800. Prelates: and more then this, all the Monarches and Kinges of Christendome were there assistant, eyther by themselues, or by their Ambassadours, and the Emperour of the Fast, the Emperour of the West, the King of Hierusalem, the King of France, the King of England, the King of Arragon, the King of Castile and others:) When the Councell, I say, intended to prouide for the extirpation and rooting out of the Reliques of the Albigenses, it ordeyned, that the Princes, who should be­come contemners of the Councell, that con­demned [Page 38]the Albigenses, should be depriued of the obligation of their subiectes fidelity to­wardes them. And this I remember not for an example to disturbe or trouble the publique peace and tranquillity, sith the Heretikes be in so great a number, as they make a notable part of the body of the Estate: but to shew that we cannot hold that for hereticall, which was pronounced and decreed 400. yeares since by the mouth of the Vniuersall Church.

For as touching them, who for the fru­strating of this decree do alleage, and cite Plat. in vita Inno­cen. 3. what Platina, and after him the Suppl. Chron. l. 13. ad an. 1215. Supplement of the Chronicles affirme, that the Councell proposed many thinges but resolued nothing, they are more worthy of pitty then answere. For who sees not, that those Authors there speake of the preparatiues of the army for the warre of the holy Land, and not of matters of Doctrine, or Ecclesiasticall discipline? Other­wise a man should impugne as false, that therin was resolued the Article of Transubstantia­tion; the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost, of the Father, and of the Sonne; the precept of annuall Confession to all the faith­full; the condemnation of the errours of the Abbot Ioachim; together with all the writinges of the Schoole Doctours alleaging these things; the practise of all the Iurisdictions of France, followed in the searching and finding out of heretikes. We should impugne of falsity the [Page 39]Decretals of Gregory the ninth, Decret. Gregor. l. 5. tit. 7. de haeret. c. 13. Excom­municamus compiled twelue yeares after the Councell of Laterane, where that decree is repeated at length, vnder the title of the Councell of Laterane; the writings of Matthew Paris Math. Parisan [...]e. ad. ann. 1215. a Writer of the same age, and a great enemie of the Popes, who sayth, that the Councell of Laterane made 60. (you must reade 70.) Decrees; the Bul of Pope Clement the 5. in fauour of King Philip the Fayre, who returned the rea­ders to the decrees of the Laterane. Councell; & the Centuriators also, Acta inter Bonif. 8. & Phi­lip. Pulch. who inserted all the 70. Articles of the Laterane Councell into their Centuries. Finally we should impugne of falsity the coniunction of the County of Tholouse to the Crowne, which was founded vpon that Councells Decree; and the reasons and decla­rations of the Court of Parlament to King Lewis the Eleuenth, touching the extingui­shing of that pragmaticall Sanction or Decree, where the Court prayeth the King to order the Elections according to the Councell of Laterane in these wordes: In the Councell of La­ter [...]ne (saith the Court) which Refer­tur à Bibli­oth. lib. 4. decret. Eccl. Gall. was assembled & held at Rome by Pope Innocentius the third, in the yeare 1215. where were assistant and present 1333. Prelates; there was prescribed a certaine forme of E­lection, and thereunto was annexed, that in case of the Electors negligence, the right and power of pro­uision for the Church, should fall to the Superiour Prelate, Cap. Cone. Lateran. c. 24. Quia propter. & Cap. Ibid. [...] 23. Ne pro defectu. But I haue made to far a digression; let [Page 40]vs returne to our Historie.

Wherefore when the Generall Councell of Lateran, which represented all the Chri­stian Common wealth, both spirituall and temporall, meant to prouide for the extingui­shing of the reliques of the Albigensian heresy, it conceaued, made, and published this Conc. Later. c. 3. Ca­non: If any Prince neglect in his landes and terri­tories to extirpate the heresy of the Albigenses; let him be excōmunicated by the Archbishop of the Pro­uince: And if he continue obstinate; let it within the space of one yeare be signified to the Pope, that he may absolue his subiects from their Oath of fidelity.

And when Pope Innocentius the 4. did at the Councell of Lions, absolue the Subiectes of the Emperour Frederike, from the fidelity they owed vnto him (I dispute not now whe­ther iustly or vniustly, for so much as my scope, drift, and intention is not, but to shew how the Kinges of France haue in such occasions car­ried themselues) the King S. Lewis, took vpon him the protecting of the Popes cause against the Emperour. The King of France (saith Paulus Paul. Aemil. in vita S. Ludouici. Aemilius) being come to Lions, by zeale of office & of Religion, for the assisting of Innocentius, and hauing made a protestation, that both himself, & his forces, and the Counsel of his Realme were ready to maynteyne, & defend the power and authority of his Holines, added strength and dignity to Innocen­tius his cause. And euen those, who to make the Pope & the king S. Lewis odious, write that the [Page 41]Pope offered to cause Robert Count of Artois, the Kinges brother, to be elected & chosen in place of Frederike, but that the Barons of France refused it; add that the Barons themselues pro­tested, that the Emperour could not be de­posed, if he erred not in faith. You shall heare the Barons wordes, be they true, or be they faigned, deliuered after many inuectiues against the Pope, by Matthew Paris an English­man, Matth. Paris. in Hen. 3. ad an. 1239. who fauoured the Emperour, & was the Popes heauy enemie, and taken out of him by Vignier, Vignier en la 3. p. de la Biblioth. hist. Pan. 1239. who yeilded not a whit vnto him in that behalfe. And thus he sayth: But to the end we may not seeme to contemne the Popes commandement, though it be euident that it came from the Church of Rome, more vpon hatred to the Emperour, then for a loue to our Nation; we will send men of prudence on our part to the Empe­rour, who shall diligently informe themselues what conceit he hath of the Catholike faith, and therof shall make a report vnto vs. And in case they find not any thing but sound, wherefore should we dis­quiet him? But if otherwise, we will persecute both him, Cost ad­dition (and the Pope himself) sent [...] stile de l'Anglois. & non co­mydes Ba­rons de S. Louys. and the Pope himselfe, if he beleeue not in God aright, or whome soeuer besides, to the very roo­ting out of the memory of them.

And when Peter King of Aragon, besides much intelligence, and correspondence he interteyned with the Insidels, had caused the festiuity of Easter day to be violated, by the horrible massacre of the Sicilian Euensong; [Page 42] Pope Martin the 4. saith Paul Aemilius, Paul. Aemil. in Philip. 3. and du Du Haillan l. 12. de Phist. de France. Haillan after him) acquited, and absolued the Aragonians of the Oath of fidelity they had made to the said Peter. And Philip, surnamed the Hardy, Sonne of the same S. Lewis, and Father of Philip the Fayre, tooke armes for the execu­tion of the Popes censure, & died in executing of it. But I insist the lesse vpon this example, because though there were some cryme of reli­gion intermixed with the motiues of the cen­sure: yet there wanted not many temporall respectes and causes: I only alledge it to shew how far off the Kinges of France were from holding, that it was contrary to the word of God, and impious and detestable to thinke, that in certaine cases the subiectes might be absolued from their fidelity and allegiance, sworne to their Princes, sith they became thē ­selues the executors, and reputed such actes a­mongst the chiefest workes of their piety. For the defendors of Act. inter Bo­nif. & Phil. Pul [...]h. fol. 80. pag. 2. Philip le belle, haue put this example amongst the meritorious workes of the Kinges of France. Philip his Father, say they, ended his life, and went to God prosecuting in Aragon the Churches quarell.

And when the Pope Vrban the fifth had excommunicated Peter the Cruell King of Ca­stile, For that, saith Froissart Prois­sart vol. 1. cha. 230. an Authour of the same tyme, he was an Bulga­ret en Froissart signifie Al­bigeois, an heretike. heretike, a persecutor of the Church, & conspired with the Moores (some adde De Ser­ [...]es. an abnegatour and abiurer of his Christia­nity) [Page 43]and had discharged his subiectes of the Oath of their fidelity: King Charles the si [...]th assisted the Popes censure with his armes, and sent his Constable with an Army to driue Peter out of Castile, and to put Henry the Ba­stard of Castile in his place The King of France, saith Froissart, Froiss. en Phist. de Fran. 1. vo­lian c. 230. was very glad of this ordination and decree, and laboured and effected that Monsieur Bertrard du Guesclin was sent to the Finance. And du Haillā saith: Charles Du Haillan e [...] la vie de Charle 5. the fifth King of France relying vpon the interdict laid by the Pope vpon the Realme of Castile, & vpon the right by him giuen to the Bastard, sent forces of the French for his ayde and succour, vnder the conduct and charge of Ber­trard du Gues [...]lin newly returned from his prison.

And when the Con̄cell of Constance (which all the Parlamentes of France imbrace, and receaue, as the Palladium of liberties of the Church of France) was assembled and held, for the taking away of the schisme that was be­tweene the three Popes, contestating and stan­ding for the Popedome; & that the Emperour Sigismund tooke vpon him the charge of going in Embassage in behalf of the Councell to Pope Benedict the 13. into Spayne (a iourney vnder­taken for a reunion, and taking away of the schisme of the vniuersall Church, & wherunto none might cause any impediment or let, with­out declaring himselfe an enemy of Christian religion) the safe conduct that the Councell gaue him for his security of passage through the [Page 44]landes of other Princes and Potentates, was cōprised in these wordes: Concil. Constant. fess. 27. If any King, Cardi­nall Patriarke, Archbishop, B [...]shop, Duke, Marques, Count be any hinderance, or let vnto him; let him be depriued of his dignity, be it secular or Ecclesia­sticall. And this, Gerson Chancelour of the vni­uersity of Paris, and the Kinges Ambassadour, and all the Bishops deputed of the Church of France, being present and consenting.

And when the Councell of Basil consisting for the greater part of French Bishops, and which the Parlamentes hould for another Bulwark of the Church of France, meant to propose a perpetuall example of direction & d [...]scipline to posterity, it caused the same Actes of the Councell of Constance to be published a­new, and with the very same wordes. And not only the Councell in generall, but also the Doctours in particuler, who haue liued since the Diuinity which we call Scholasticall, hath been instituted, and namely those who haue beene Frenchmen, or haue written and taught in France, haue all held & auerred this doctrine.

I will not speake of them who haue more exalted and extended the Popes power, as Ale­xander de Hales Alex­and Halen. p. 4. quast. 10. an English Doctour; but who read and taught in Paris, Hugo de [...]ugo de S. Vict. l 2. de Sa­cram. p. 2. [...]. 41. S. Victore, an Almaine, yet a Doctour and Abbot of Paris; Durand Bishop of Mande, Durād. M [...]. in [...]. surnamed the Speculatour; Durand Durād. M [...]ld. l. de orig. [...]uris­dict. q. 2. Bishop of Meaux; Peter Paludanus Petr. Palud. tract. de caus. im­nad. potest. art. 4. Patriark titular of Hierusa­lem; [Page 45] Heru. tract. de potest. Papae. Heruey, and others: But I will speake only of them who haue specified the case of he­resy, or of Apostacy, and namely of S. Thomas, who for hauing taken the degree of Doctour in France, and studied, read, and written so long a time in France, ought to be reckoned and numbred among the French Doctours; and who, for hauing beene the chief of them all, and for hauing had the honour to be Kins­man to S. Lewis, and to haue beene highly fa­noured by him, and to haue eaten at his table, ought to be the lesse suspected of Princes.

He then in his Summe, which is the sub­stance of all his other writinges, and as his last will and testament, and which hath at all times beene publiquely read, and (if I may say it) adored in the Schoole of Paris, sayth expressely in these wordes: Tho. 2.2. q. [...] art. 10. [...] corp. art. The right of dom [...]nation or gournement that the Infidells haue ouer the faith­full, may be iustly taken away by the sentence or de­cree of the Church, hauing the authority from God. For the Infidells by the des [...]rt of their infidelity merit to loose their power ouer the faithfull, who be trās­ferred to be become the children of God. And some­times it happeneth, that the Church doth this, and sometimes it doth it not. And againe: Ibid. q. 11. art. 2. [...] corpore art. So soone as any is deuounced excomunicated by sentence for Apostacie from the faith, his subiectes be absolued from his domination and subiection, and from the Oath of fidelity, whereby they were bound vnto him before. Behold what this holy and wonder­full [Page 46]Doctour, or rather this Eagle of Doctours, whome the Schoole of Deuines calleth the An­gelicall Doctour saith, and this in his Summe which hath been euer publiquely read at Paris, and held for the miracle and oracle of Schola­sticall diuinity, and who hath neuer been noted nor taxed in this Article by any, neither French, nor other.

And not only he, but euen those also, who among the Doctours of the faculty of Pa­ris, haue purposely and expresly written for the Emperours, and for the Kings against the Popes, and haue taken vpon them to demon­strate, that the Popes could not declare the sub­iects absolued in conscience from the Oath made to their Princes, haue alwaies excepted the case of heresy, and infidelity; and especi­ally when the Princes went and proceeded so far, as to haue a will to destroy, and ouer­throw the Christian, or Catholike Religion, and to inforce, and constraine their subiects in their consciences, and to persecute them as they were either Christians, or Catholikes.

For William Occam, who fauoured the Emperour against the Pope, and whome the French Doctours who haue impugned the Popes temporall authority, haue taken for their Patron, hauing written expressely touching the Power Ecclesiastique and Laique, spiritu­all and temporall, where he disputeth of set purpose, that the Pope hath not any power at [Page 47]all, to absolue the Subiects of Kings from the Oath of Allegiance they owe vnto them; ex­cepted in generall termes the cases of Heresy or Infidelity: Occam. lib. 8. q. 2. c. 8. ad 3. alleg. The Pope (sayth he) cannot or­dinarily depose the Emperour, no more then other Kings, though he be neuer so worthy to be deposed: nor for any crime or default, though neuer so great, if it be not of the number of the spirituall crymes.

And Iohn of Paris, to whome the more sincere seruants and fauourers of Kings send the Readers to learne and vnderstand, what ought to be the limits and bounds of the au­thority spirituall and temporall, doth there bring the very same exception: Io. Par, lib. de po­test. Regis & Papae c. 14. If a Prince, sayth he, were an heretike, and incorrigible, and lib. a contemner of the Churches censure, the Pope might do something in the behalf of the people, wherof might ensue that he should be depriued of his secular dignity, and deposed by the people. And this the Pope may do in the only crime Ecclesiastique, the vnderstanding and notice wherof, appertayneth to him that is to excommunicate all them, who should obey such a Prince as their Lord and Soueraigne.

And Iames Almaine Doctour of the Facul­ty of Paris, who at what time King Lewis the 12. was at difference and variance with Pope Iulius, tooke vpon him the defence of the Kings power against that of the Pope; and for that cause did publish and put to light what Occam aforesaid had composed, and written against the Pope, touching the boundes of both [Page 48]powers, and illustrated them with explications and notes of his owne, relateth the words of Occam in these termes: Doctour Occam, Almain l. de potest. Eccles. & Late. c. 8. sayth he, writeth, that Iesus Christ hath not giuen po­wer to the Pope to depriue the Laiques of their Do­minions, and their possessions, except in case that a secular Prince should abuse himselfe therin to the ruine of Christianisme, or of the faith; so as that abuse should extend to the domage of eternall felicity. For in this case it is not to be denied, but that the Pope hath power to dispose, though other Doctours deny it: albeit they confesse, that the Pope hath only authority, and power to declare, that such a Prince ought to be deposed. Loe Almaine his wordes in the first part of his booke. And see agayne what he sayth in the second part of it; The Doctour (sayth he, speaking Alm. ibidem. of Occam) hath answered, that if the Emperour be worthy of deposition for a cryme of the former kind, that is, for spirituall crymes, he may be deposed by the Pope: for as much as the Pope hath full power to punish spirituall sinnes. But if he be worthy of deposition for a cryme ciuill and politique, it then belongeth not to the Pope to depose him. And it is not to be said, that the condition of the Emperour, and of other Kinges, is not paralell, alike, and equall. For Occam handleth them as equall, and manteyneth, that the Emperour dependeth not in any sort of the Pope for his temporalities. And a little after, passing vnto the opinion of Iohn Doctour of Paris, he sayth: Alm. ibidem. Iohn of Paris holdeth, that for any crime, either [Page 49]spirituall or politique, it apperteyneth not vnto the Pope to depose the Emperour, but by accident &c. that is to say, in as much as he may excommunicate him for such a cryme, and all them that take parte with him; and consequently by such an excommuni­cation to constreyne them to depose him. And so he deposeth him only by accident, and indirectly, and not directly.

And yet these be the principall supportes wherewith the Kinges and Church of France, haue serued themselues, when they meant to withstand and oppose themselues, against the progresse of the Ecclesiasticall power, ouer the temporall. These be the bookes which the Kinges haue caused to be writtē for the mayn­teyning; and vpholding of their authority. These be the bookes which the Faculty of Di­uinity, haue caused to be published at such time, as the Kinges had any variance with the Popes. These be those writinges that were re­printed and put to light agayne, and illustra­ted with explications, when King Lewis the 12. entred into a difference with Pope Iulius, in the time of the Councell of Towers, and of Pisa. These be the bookes which were caused to be published for the same subiect, vnder our de­ceased King of glorious Memory, and that an eight yeares since, that is to say, in the yeare 1606. and whereunto the Maisters of the Kinges retinue of the Parlament of Paris, do remit and refer their Readers, to vnderstand [Page 50]what be the batteries & strongest defences of the Iurisdiction spirituall & temporal. And this Schoole of Sorbonne (saith the deceased Monsieur Procuratour, or Attorney Generall de la Guesle, Apud Rochell. in Decreto Eccl. Gall. lib. 5. c. 8. speaking to the Schoole of Sorbone on the behalf of the Court) hath excellent ob­seruations in the writings of Gerson, and in the booke de potestate Regia, & Papali, composed by Iohn of Paris Doctour in this faculty, and in a thou­sand places besides. And notwithstanding this, what saith Iohn of Paris? That the Pope Supra pag. 47. in case of heresie, can depose only indirectly, in as much as he can excōmunicate those who do adhere to an here­ticall Prince, and consequently compell them by im­position of some spirituall payne to depose him, though he cannot depose directly. And what saith Gerson? That the power Ecclesiasticque cannot take vpon it power ouer the secular, but in case of heresie, or of impugning the faith. The power Ecclesiastique (saith Gerson de pot. Eccl. con­fiderat. 22. tom. 1. Gerson) ought not to presume, or vsurpe ouer the rightes, dignities, lawes, and iudgments of the secular power, but when the abusing of the se­cular power redoundeth to the manifest impugnatiō of the faith, and the blasphemy of the Creatour, and to the manifest iniury of the power Ecclesia­stique. For then a remembrance must be had of the last clause of this consideration; that is, that in such cases, the power Ecclesiastique hath a certaine dominion and power regitiue, directiue, regulatiue, & ordinatiue.

And not only the Deuines, but the Lawy­ers [Page 51]also be of the same opinion. For to say no­thing of those who haue further extended the Popes power, as Iohn de Selue Io. de Seiu. eract. de Benef. p. 3. q. 8. President of the Parlament of Paris, Ioan. Fab. in log. 1. nu. 10. c. de sum. Trinit. & fide Cath. Iohn Faber Aduocate of the same Parlament, Stephen Aufrerius Aufr. de potest. saecul. President of the Parlament of Tholouse: But to restreyne my selfe to those who haue written expresly for the limiting of the Popes power, when Maister Raoul de Presles Counsailour and Maister of Requests to King Charles the fifth, translated by commandement of the same King, the work intituled, Of the Power Pontificall and Imperiall, or Royall, he proposed the 15. ob­iection for the Popes temporall authority in these wordes: Item the Pope may abso [...]ue the vas­salls (or subiects) from the oath of fidelity, which is due to the temporall Lord, which thing he would not do, if he had not power in temporall matters. And he made answere for the Princes in these wordes: Raoul de Presles imprimé en Al­maine parles Prote­stants. I answere to this argument, & say, that in a case in which the Pope may haue action against a Prince, he may also absolue the vassals from their oath of fidelity: or which is more, he may declare them absolued as in case of heresie, of diuision of the faith, or of contumacy against the Church of Rome.

And when the Chancelour of the same King Charles the fift composed in fauour of his Lord and Maister, a dialogue of the Power Re­gall and Sacerdotall, Le songe dit Verger, attribué par quel­ques vns au Chaun­celeur des Domans: par les autres a Philip de M [...]gi [...]s Cos [...]ller & in [...]ne cō ­fident du R [...]y Char­les 5. he made answere by him who mainteyned the part of the Regal power, That the power spirituall commaundeth not [Page 52]the secular, but when the secular power intermedled it self in matters spirituall, to the preiudice and hurt of the eternal good of the soule. Behold his wordes. Lib. 1. c. 7.8. in res milit. But there where the secular Prince would meddle in spirituall matters, and do some thing in regard of his subiects, to the detriment and hurt of their eter­nall saluation, the spirituall power is then necessary, which in such a case commaundeth, and guideth the temporall.

And after this when Peter Gregory a lawyer of Tholouse vndertooke in his Treatise of the Republique, the defence of the Regall authority against that of the Pope, he alwaies excepted the cases of faith, & saith, that the Pope could not depose Childerike of his owne authority, that is to say, without the instance of the French; for he addeth: Petr. Gregor. Tholof. tract de Re­pub. l. 6. cap. 5. Childerike was not an Heretike, nor had commited any Ecclesiasticall crime, wherby he should haue beene enforced to sub­mit himself to the Iurisdiction of the spirituall Sea. And againe: Cest au­theur est citè parles An­glois, par [...]auteritè temporel des Roys, & impri­mè [...]uecq priuilege verifie au Parlemēt. The example of the Emperours ought not to be drawne for a president for other realmes principalities and gouerments, which depend not v­pon the Sea of Rome in temporall matters, and care not much for her commandements in such matters. I alwaies except, as I haue said els where, the cases of faith, in which the Princes of what power and li­bertie soeuer they be, are directly subiect to the Sea of Rome, & may be punished for the crymes they cō ­mit in such cases; Alwayes vnderstood, that as the crimes be personal, & go not further then to persons [Page 53]deli [...]quēt, so the paine that is due to them, infringeth not the right of the success [...]urs to their Kingdome.

But against this, one obiectes three prin­cipall instāces. The first is taken from the resi­stance made by Philip the Fayre, to the attempt of Pope Boniface. The second is taken from the opposition of King Lewis the tweluth, to the pretensions of Pope Iulius. And the third is drawne from the arrest, and Decree of the Parlament of Paris against Tanquerell.

To the first of these instances, the defen­dours of the exception answere is, that the sub­iect of the controuersy was not matter of here­sy, or of Apostacy from Christian Religion. On the contrary the people of France gaue te­stimony to King Philip the Fayre, that he was a great distroyer of the Bulgares, They anciently called the Asbigēses, Bulgares, because the Bul­gores held their here­sie, & after that al He­retiques were by extension so called. that is to say of Heretikes. And as touching them who wrot for the King, so farre were they from houl­ding, that it is impiety to belieue that the Pope can for cry me of Religion disanull the Oath of fidelity and allegiance, as they themselues al­leaged amongst the meritorious workes of the Kings predecessours, that his father died for the execution of the absolution, which the Pope had giuen and graunted the Aragonians from their fidelity to their Prince. Philip his Fa­ther (say they) Act in­ter [...]enif. & Thil. [...]idch. q [...] de po [...]st Pap. fol. 80. passed to God prosecuting in Aragon the Churches cause. But the subiect of the quarrell was, that the Pope pretended, that the temporall soueraignty of France apperteyned [Page 54]vnto him. Against this therefore the King op­posed himselfe and all his Realme, & appealed not to the Pope, but from the person of Boni­face (whome he maynteyned not to be Pope) to the Councel, & to the Sea Apostolique, when it should be prouided of a true Pope. The King, saith du Haillan, Du Hailan in his history of Frāce in the life of Philip the Fayre. answered, that sith Boniface was not the lawfull Pope, he appealed for this fact to the Sea apostolique, at that time destitute of Pope & Pastour. And King Philip the Fayre himself in the forme of his appellation saith: Act. inter Bo­nif. & Phil. Pulch. Wee ap­peale to the said Generall Councell, which we most hartily craue may be assembled, and to the true and lawfull supreme Bishop that shalbe, and to others to which, or to whome it shalbe meete to appeale. For the King and his maynteyned, that Boniface was not the true Pope, but was intruded and thrust into the Popedome by fraud & simony, Ibidem. Celestine his predecessour the true & lawfull Pope still liuing. And they further added that he was an Ibidem. Heretique, and consequently not Pope, for as much as, said they Ibid. in appell fact. per reg. & regni col. art. 18. he had reuea­led a confession: and more then that, he pre­tended, that he beleeued not in the presence of Christes body in the Holy Sacrament. And for this the Coūt of Artois caused his Buls to be burnt, not as of the true Pope, but as of a false one, intruded heretical, & symoniacal: and for this cause the King appealed not frō the Pope, but from the person of Boniface to the Councel, & to the Sea Apostolique, when it should haue [Page 55]a true Pope; & he sent two Knights to signify his appeale, the one an Italian named Schiarra, and the other a Frenchman named Nogaret, who surprized by intelligence the Cittie of A­nagnia wherin Pope Boniface was, whence be­ing deliuered vp, and sent to Rome, he dyed within awhile of sorrow.

In place of Boniface was chosen Benedictus, to whome presētly after his creation, the King gaue sufficiently to vnderstand, that what he had done against Boniface, was done but a­gainst his person, and not against the Sea A­postolique. For he wrote vnto him with this superscription, Act. inter Bo­nif. & Phil Pulch. fol. 94. To the most holy Father in our Lord, Benedict by the diuine prouidence, Supreme Bishop of the sacred holy Church, Roman and vni­uersall, Philip by the grace of God King of France, deuoutly kisseth his blessed seete. And further with this cōgratulatiō: Ibid. f. 95. The Order of the Prea­chers do glorie to see sitting in the supreme throne of iustice, such a father of the Vniuerse, and of the faith; such a successour of S. Peter, and such a vicar of Christ. And together with this concludeth: Ibid. f. 96. We recommend confidently the Realme, in the gouernement whereof we doe by the grace of God sit, and withall we recommend the Church of France to the fauours of your Holines. And to Benedict who continued in the Sea but eight monethes, succeeded Clement the fifth, vnder whome the affaires of reconciliation were in such sort ac­corded, and brought to an end, as the tempo­rall [Page 56]rightes of the Realme continued in their integrity. And Clement himselfe came to Lions, where the King to honour in him the spiritual power of Christ, put himselfe on foot, togea­ther with his brethren, to receaue him. Our Chronicles, saith du Haillan, Du Haillan en la vie de Philip le Belle. doe affirme, that the King of France, and his two brethren were on foote by the Popes side, holding his horses bridle.

To the second instance, which is of the complaint of Lewis the 12. the defendors of the exception make the very same answere: That the source and origen of that difference was not matter of religion, but cases meerely temporall, that is, of the league and association that Pope Iulius and King Lewis the 12. at that time Duke of Millane, had made and entred into against the Venetians. For the Pope seeing how the King grew as great as he could de­sire in Italy, fel of from that alliance with him, and reconciled himselfe with the Venetians. The King incensed with this separation, and the Popes deportement, and bad carriage towardes him thereon following, caused a Councell to be held at Pisa, and after againe at Millan, by the Cardinals and other Prelates of his side, where the Pope was declared sus­spēded frō the administration of the vniuersal Church. The Pope sore moued at this attaint, caused another to be held at Rome, where to requite the King, he declared him, and his adherents deposed from the administration of [Page 57]their temporall Estates. But the French both Ecclesiastike and Laike, knowing that the first source & beginning of that discord proceded from passion of matter of State, & not of reli­gion, interteyned vnion in such sort with the King, as nothing could separate them from him. For as touching the losse that happened vnto Iohn de Albret of the Kingdome of Na­uarre, the Continuer of Paulus Aemiltus, though he was a sore enemy of the memory of Pope Iulius, confesseth not, that the sentence of the Pope was the true cause: on the contrary, he maynteineth that the cause for which Iohn de Albret lost the Kingdome of Nauarre, was for breaking of from the alliance he had with Fer­dinand King of Aragon, which alliance Ferdi­nand affirmed was ratified vpon condition, that if the Kinges of Nauarre did violate the same, then the Kingdome of Nauarre should returne to the Spaniardes: and he did put himselfe into that alliance of King Lewis the 12. vnder promise, that he should procure the soueraignity of Berne to be restored vnto him. This then the Continuer of Paulus Aemilius auerreth to be the true cause of the losse of the Kingdome of Nauarre. And the other neither to haue beene the true cause, nor true pretext, but only a help of a pretext, of which Ferdi­nand not hauing taken his aduantage, did not yet leaue to pretend, that the Kingdome of Nauarre appertained vnto him, and so to take [Page 58]possession of it. The King of Nauarre, saith he Ferrō. Continuat. Pauli Aemil. in. Lud. 12. denied in the beginning, that he could refuse to giue passage to the King of Aragon, to passe into France, saying; first that he was hindred to declare himself enemy to Ferdinand, by the alliance he had with him: and Ferdinand himselfe vaunted, that when the Kingdome of Nauarre, was by the Spani­ardes rendred vp, into the handes of the race of Al­bret, it was by caution written and prouided, That in case their successors should breake their alliance, the Kingdome should returne to the Spaniardes. And a litle after: Ibid. Whereupon Ferdinand ha­uing vnderstood that the King of Nauarre was en­tred into amity with the King of France, turned against him the forces which he had prepared for his iourney into France. And this was the cause for which Ferdinand did thrust his neighbour, & next bordering King out of his Kingdome. And more then this, he added the pretext of another matter, namely that the Pope had declared the King and his adhe­rentes excomunicate, & their Kingdomes exposed.

To the Third Instance which is taken from the Arrest, or Decree of Parlamēt, which Mousieur Chancelour of the Hospitall caused to be made against Tanquerell, there needeth no other answere then the Answers going before. For the Arrest toucheth not in any sort the ex­ception, wherof the French Doctours speake, who haue written in defence of Regall Autho­rity, which is the case of Heresy, or Apostacy from Christian Religion; but only the fact of [Page 59]temporall Soueraignty, as it appeareth by the disauowing of the proposition that was com­prised in these words; Ap [...]d Boch [...]l. Decree. Eccl. Gall. lib. 5. ca. 6. I am sorie, that I haue held, that the Pope was Monarch spirituall and tem­porall, and can depose Princes that are rebellious to his commaundements. And therefore to what purpose is it to alleadge this history, and other the like, which speake of temporall Soueraign­ty, alleadging them against the exception of which we treate, which they who make it, extend but to the cases of Heresy, or of Infide­lity alone, that is to say, of abiuration of Ca­tholike, or Christian Religion? But it may be replied, that the Popes may well impute vnto Kinges, either by passion or bad information, that they be Heretikes or Apostata's from Christian Religion, though they be not so indeed. But against this, the authors of the ex­ception thinke they haue carefully prouided. For first they protest, that they meane to speake of an Heresy notorious, well knowne, and condemned by the precedent sentence of the Church. And secondly they confesse not, that the execution temporall of these Ecclesiasticall iudgmentes (that is to say of actuall deposition) appertaineth to the Pope, but to the body of the Realme. By occasion wherof, if the Pope erre in fact, and he presuppose falsely, that a Prince maketh a publique profession, to be­lieue, or establish an Heresy condemned by the Church (a matter that cannot be concealed [Page 60]or hidden) the Cleargy and all the rest of the Realme in place of following the iudgment of the Pope, do ioyne themselues with the King; and make knowne vnto the Pope, how he was deceaued, and mistaken in the fact, demaun­ding that the matter may be iudged in full Councell, the Church of France being present.

In so much as it is so far off that this man­ner of proceding restrayned to the only case of Heresy or manifest Apostacy from Christian Religion, may cause the ruine and ouerthrow of Catholike Kinges, as that on the contrary it doth assure and fortify them with a double rampaire. For if the subiects haue any bad will, they are not permitted vnder pretext of Religiō to moue any thing against their Prince, vntill the authority of the vniuersall Church, resi­ding either in the head which is the Pope, or in the body which is the Councell, hath decla­red him fallen into heresy, or Apostacy from Christian Religion. And if the Pope deceaued or misinformed in the fact, precipitantly and vniustly declare him such a one; besides the recourse that the French are wont to haue to require of the Pope, that the matter may be exa­mined in a Councell, where the Bishops of all the Church, & in particuler those of the French Church are present; the declaration of the Pope cannot be followed to the temporall ef­fect, which is actuall deposition, vntill the Re­alme consent vnto it, and see demonstratiuely [Page 61]by the conuersation of their Prince, whether he maketh professiō of the Catholike Religiō, or of any other. Now, who vnderstandeth not, that it much more profiteth Kings to haue this double rampaire before them, that is, that no­thing can be designed against them, without the preuentiō of the Churches vniuersall iudg­ment, nor be effected without the concurrence of the consent of their people, then to permit & leaue to the liberty of euery particuler persō, to censure of the religion of his Prince, & after he hath giuen his iudgment, to make himselfe an arbitrer of the remedy that is to be applied?

It further appeareth, that our Kinges haue beene so farre of from thinking that this barre of the Popes authority, interposed betweene them and their subiects, hath beene preiudici­all vnto them, as on the contrary they haue with great instance obteyned of the Popes (and that by a priuilege both very singular and fauourable) that none other but the Popes may excommunicate the Kinges of France, or im­pose interdiction, be it in generall vpon the whole Realme, or in particuler vpon the Landes vnder their obedience.

Hence it is, that Peter de Cugneres Petr. C [...]gner. grauam. 59. the Kinges Aduocate among other the cōplaints that he made to King Philip de Valois against the Church-men, brought this article for one: Moreouer they haue many times interdicted many of the Kinges Cities and Castles, and haue caused [Page 62]the diuine seruice therein to cease, against the pri­uiledges that our Soueraigne Kinges haue from many Popes. For Pope Alexander the Alex­and. 4.2. Calend. A­pril. Pontif. an. 2. 4. yealded th [...]se wordes vnto the King S. Lewis, by expresse Bulls; That no Archbishop, nor other Prelate can pu­blish against your land sentence of excōmunication, without commaundement, or speciall licence of the Sea Apostolike. And Nicolas Nicol. 3.13 Calend. Octobr. Pō ­tif. an. 1: the third vseth these wordes in his Bull to Philip his sonne: That none generally pronounce the sentence of ex­communication, or of interdiction against all your land, or against the Realme of France, without spe­ciall commandement of the Sea Apostolique. And besides Clement Clem. 4.3 Idib. Martij. Pontif-an: 2. the fourth, Gregory Greg. 10.9. Cal. April. Pontif. an. 1. the tenth, Martin Mart. 4. cal. O­ctob. Pont ann. 1. the fourth, Clement Clem. 5.2. cal. Aug. Pontif. ann. 2. the fift who published the like Bulls, Clement Clem. 6.2. cal. lan. Pontif. ann. 9. the sixt renewed them afterward againe by Bulls sent to King Iohn, and to the Queene Iane his wife in these termes: Giuing consent to your deuout petitions, we yeild vnto you by Aposto­like authority, to you and to your successours Kings of France, who shall be from time to time, that none can publish sentence of Interdict against your land or theirs, without speciall cōmaund, or licence of the Sea Apostolike. And againe by other Bulls Idē 12. cal. Maij Pontif. ann. 9. sent to the same King Iohn and Queene Iane, for their Chappells in particuler, in these wordes: That it be not lawfull for any to put the Chappells of you, and of your Successors Kinges after you, vnder Ecclesiasticall Interdict, without speciall licence of the Sea Apostolique. And these Bulls [Page 63]were addressed, and sent to the Court of the Parlament of Paris, by the letters Patentes Anno 1369. of Charles the Fifth, to cause them to be regi­stred; And they were registred 14. ca­lend maij. by Act of the same Parlament, shewing their execution and verification.

But here the question of Right is not dis­puted, namely whether the French Doctours haue had reason to except against the insolubi­lity of the Oath of alegiance, in cases of Heresy or Apostacie from Christian religion? The matter which we now speake of, is a que­stion of Fact, that is to say, Whether they haue excepted them? And for this wee need no better witnesses then the English writers, VVi­drington Apol. pro Iur. Prine. who haue put their hand to pen for the de­fence of the Oath, made by the present King of England against the Pope. For hauing vsed all their endeuour to find some doctours, & in particuler French, who had held their opinion before these last troubles, they could hitherto bring forth neuer any one, neither Diuine nor Lawyer, who saith, that in case of Heresie or Apostacie from Christian religiō the subiects could not be absolued from the Oath of Alle­giance. On the contrary, the French men (whome they haue cited, as Iohn of Paris supra pag. 47., Iohn Maior Io. Ma­ior in. 4. sent. dist. 24., Iames Almain Io. Al­ma. supra pag. 48., Peter Gregory Petrus Greg. supra pag. 52., alwaies except the cases of Heresie or of A­postacy from Christian religion. And as for Strangers and Forrayners, as Occham Occ. su­pra pag 47., Antony [Page 64]de Rossellis Ant. de Rossell. Monarch. part. r. c. 56, and Vulturnus Vul­tur. lib. de Reg. mundi, they affirme the same. For as touching Marsile of Padua they were not so hardy as to alleage him, for so much as he is well knowne for an heretike by the vniforme consent of all Catholiques, as hauing denied, that the Pope was head of the Church iure diuino, and S. Peters Successour, which the Councell of Constance Concil. Costant. sess. 8. in condem. art. VVi­caf. bindeth to beleeue, as an Article of faith, and vnder payne of Anathema: In so much as for this very cause the Emperour Charles the Fifth caused his bookes to be burned publiquely.

Moreouer they durst not alleage the Epi­stle of the Chapter of Liege against Pope Pasca­lis during the contentions of the Popes and of the Emperour Henry the 4. First, for that the Bishop of Liege vnder whome it was written, was the Emperours Chaplaine, and one of his faction; V [...]s­perg. in Chron. & very passionate against the Pope, as hauing beene created Bishop by the Empe­rour, & by the Anti-pope. Secondly, for that at what time it was writtē, the Emperour resided actually in Liege Ibid.: Thirdly, for that the Chap­ter of Liege hath since Ibid. abrogated it, & razed it out, by the pardon they craued of the Pope, for hauing taken part with the Emperour: And fourthly that the same Emperour doth recall it, when he wrote to Pope Gregory the seauenth the third Pope after Paschalis, saying: Inter Epist. Hen. [...] Protest. edit. That it was the tradition of the Fathers, that he could not be deposed, if he erred not in faith. Which [Page 65] Cusanus Cusan. l. 3. concord. Cath. c. 7. the Imperialist writing for the Coū ­cell of Basil against the Pope, hath since auow­ued and auerred in these words: If the Pope finde that he who hath beene chosen Emperour, erreth in faith, he may declare him not to be Emperour,

They well alleage indeed Sigebert Sigeb. in chro. anno 1088. who saith, that it was a nouelty, not to say heresy, to teach the people, that they did not owe any subiection to bad Kinges. But besides that, this Sigebert was a man no lesse passionate for the part of the Em­perour, then was the Bishop of Liege: what he sayth, doth not any way touch the case brought by the exception, which is of Kinges Heretikes, or Infidells.

Now, if those who haue of set purpose laboured in fauour of the Oath of England, VVi­dring: in A­pol. pro iur. Princ. to finde out authors who haue affirmed, that in case of Heresy, or of Infidelity, the subiectes could not be absolued from the obligation that they owe to their Princes, could not finde out any one: And if those, who haue since written of the same subiect in France, could neuer finde out in all France, since the time that Schools of Diuinity haue beene instituted, and set open, til this day, one only Doctour, neither Diuine, nor Lawyer, nor Decree, nor Councell, nor de­termination, nor Act of Parlament, nor Magi­strate either Ecclesiastique or Politique, who hath said, that in case of heresie, or of infidelity the subiectes cannot be absolued from the oath of fidelity they owe to their Princes: On the [Page 66]contrary, if all those who haue written for the defence of the temporall power of Kinges a­gainst Popes, haue euer excepted the case of he­resy, and of apostacy from Christian Religion; how is it, that they can without inforcing of cōsciences, not only make men to receaue this doctrine, Artic. of the third Estate. that in no case the subiects can be ab­solued from the oath of Allegiance they owe to their Princes, for a perpetuall and vniuersall doctrine of the French Church: But also to cause all the Bishops, Abbots, and other Ecclesiasticall persons to sweare it, as Doctrine of faith, and to condemne the contrary, as impious; per­uerse, and detestable? And how can we endure a propositiō to passe for a Fundamentall Law of the Estate of France, which came to light & was borne in France, more then an eleauen hundred yeares since the State of it was foun­ded? And when there shal be found as many persons who shall haue followed it in France, as there be found who haue followed the con­trary, what shall they be able to inferre more (other nations contradicting) then to hold it for problematique in matter of faith, and not to cause men to take and sweare it, as conforme to Gods word, and necessary to saluation, and to abuse the other as contrary to the word of God, & impious, peruerse & detestable? But this is inough for this point. Let vs passe to others, and endeuour to handle them all in as full & worthy māner, as this Audience doth deserue.

THE SECOND INCONVENIENCE, that I haue bound my self to shew in this Fun­damentall Propositiō is, that not only it giueth vnto Lay persons power & authority to iudge of thinges of Religion, and to decide the do­ctrine that it contayneth, to be conformable to the word of God, and the contrary to be im­pious, peruerse, and detestable: But also it giueth these men authority, to impose a neces­sity vpon the Ecclesiastical persons, to sweare, preach, and teach the one, and by Sermons and writinges to impugne the other. And who seeth not that this is to make the Church like vnto that woman, of whome S. Epiphanius spea­keth, Epiph. hares. 59. quae est Cathar. who did put her head-tyre vpon her feete, and her shoes vpon her head: which is as much to say, as to commit the commaund and autho­rity of the Church to the parties that should obey; and to put obedience vpon the parties whose office it is to commaund? And what is this but to open a gate to all heresy? What is it, but to turne vpside downe, & to ouerthrow the Churches authority? What is it but to tread vnder foote the respect of Iesus Christ, and of his ministery? To be short, who seeth not, that it is a Sacriledge, that hath at all times drawne the Ire, Wrath, and Vengeance of God aswell vpon Kinges, and Princes, as vpon particuler Persons, who haue at­tempted the same?

Euery one knoweth that, Saul 1. Reg. 13 & 15. was deposed from the right of his Royalty, and died a miserable death, because he would take vpon him the office of a Sacrificer. We know that Oza [...]. Reg. 6. was punished with a sudaine death, for putting his hand to the Arke, that seemed to sway to the one side. We know that King 2. Para­lip. 26. Ozias was stroken with leprosy, and exclu­ded from the administration and gouernment of his Kingdome, for taking the Censar into his hand. And holy Writ saith, Ma­lach. 26. The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge, and the Law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angell of the lord of Hostes. And the Prophet Esay Esay. 54. saith to the Church, Euery tongue resisting thee in iudg­ment, thou shalt iudge. And againe: Idem. 60. The King shall walk in thy light, & the people in the brightnes of thy rising. And King Iosaphat distinguisheth the boundes of the one and the others Iur [...]di­ction in these wordes: 2. Pa­ral [...]p. 19. Amarias (saith he) the Priest and your Bishop, shalbe chiefe in these thinges that appertayne to God: and Zabadias the sonne of Ismael, who is the Prince in the house of Iuda, shalbe ouer those workes which perteyne to the Kinges office. And our Sauiour Matth. 19. saith him­selfe, VVhosoeuer shall not heare the Church, let him be vnto thee, as an Ethnick and a Publican. And S. Paul speaking vnto Pastors Act. 20. saith: The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his owne bloud. And speaking to the Laytie he saith: [Page 69] Heb. 3. Obey your Prelates, for they watch, hauing to render an accompt of your soules. And againe: Heb. 5. Neither doth any man take the honour to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as Aaron.

And therefore we see that the first Chri­stian Emperours, were euerso respectiue and Religious, as they would neuer make them­selues Iudges, neither of matters of faith, nor of matters of the Churches discipline, nor of the Bishops causes among themselues, for feare of violating the rectitude that Gods Ministers ought to bring to Ecclesiasticall Iudgments, by the feare of temporall Iurisdictions. And that if they published any lawes in such cases, it euer was, after the Bishops had passed them, and to further the temporall execution of the decisions, formerly made by Ecclesiastique au­thority.

It is not lawfull forme, saith Ruff. l. 10. Eccles. h [...]st. c. 2. Constantine the Great, who am placed ouer temporalities, to cen­sure and iudge the causes of Bishops And the Em­perour Valentinian Sozom. l. 6. c. 7. the first said: It is not law­full for me who am of the Laitie, to arrogate to my selfe the curiosity of searching into these matters. And the Emperour Theodosius the second Epist. ad Sinod [...] Ephes. writing to the Councell of Ephesus, sayth: It is not lawfull for him, who is not of the ranke of Bi­shops to intermeddle himself with the decision of the affaires of the Church.

And the most glorious and victorious of all our Kinges, which was Charlemaine, confir­ming [Page 70]the answere that Censtantine made, saith: Carol. m [...]g [...]. l. 6. cap. 301. The Emperour Constantine answered vpon the accusations of the Bishops, To me who am placed ouer temporalities, it is not lawfull to iudge the Bi­shops causes. And confirming that which the Emperour Valentinian had said, he vsed these words: Ibid. Your busines is aboue vs, and therefore iudge among your selues of your owne causes: For you are aboue vs.

And when on the contrary, the hereticall Emperours would take vpon them, to meddle with Ecclesiasticall iudgmentes, the holy Fa­thers resisted them, & contradicted them with all manner of constancy. We are not permitted (said Hosius to the Emperour Epist. ad Const. apud Athā. in ep. ad so­lit. vit. a­gent. Constance) to hold the Empire on earth, nor to You to lay hand on the Censar, and to vsurpe the authority of Religion. And S. Athanasius sayth: Athan. epist. ad solit. vitam agen. When was it euer heard in the memory of man, that the iudgments of the Church, tooke their force from the Emperour? And againe: Ibidem He treateth not of matters of the Roman Cōmon wealth, where there may be cre­dit giuen to you as to an Emperour: but he speaketh of a Bishop. And a little after: Ibidem Who is he, who seeing an Emperour, occupying the chiefest place in matters of the Church, would not iudge that it were the abomination of the desolatiō fortould by Daniel? And Gregory Nazianzen Greg. Naz. orat. adcities ti. percuis. & Princip. irascent. saith: Will you heare a free word, which is, That the law of Iesus Christ subiecteth you to my Iurisdiction, & to my tribunal. For we are Emperours also, namly in an Empire grea­ter [Page 71]and perfecter then yours. And S. Ambrose Ambr. ep. 32. ad Imper. Va­lent. inni­or. saith. Who maketh any doubt if we regard the order of the Scripture, or the antiquity of the Church, but that the Bishops in causes of faith haue a custome to iudge of Christian Emperours? And againe: Your Father said, It is not for me to iudge betweene Bi­shops; And your Clemency saith, It apperteineth to me to iudge. And S. Martin the renowned orna­ment of the Gaules, saith: Apud Seuer. Sul­pit l. 2. sa­crae. hist. It is an impiety new, and not heard of before, that a secular Iudge should iudge of matters of the Church.

And against this it helpeth not to alleage that the Emperour Constantine did call him­selfe Euseb. l. 4. de vit. Constant. cap. 24. a Bishop out of the Church. For Constan­tine by that meant nothing lesse, then to say that he had iurisdiction and superintendency ouer the externall forme and discipline of the Church. Els wherfore should he haue desi­red with so great instance the authority of the Councell of Nice, for the decision of the day of Easter? But he meant only to say, that what the Bishops did by their preachings among the Christians within the Church, that did he out of the Church, by his Edictes against the In­fidells. He ordayned (sayth [...]usebius) by his Edictes, and gaue order to the Gouernours of the Pagans, to cause them to keep the Sunday also, as­well as the Christians, and to honour the dayes of the Martyrs, and the feastes appointed in the Chur­ches. And therof it came, that hauing one day feasted some. Bishops, he called himselfe, Bishop in [Page 72]their presence, saying vnto them: God hath placed you Bishops within the Church, and me a Bishop out of the Church.

But me thinkes I heare You already say, that the matter of this article is not a question of Religion, but a simple and meere question of Estate, and Policy. As if to handle, how farre the spirituall vse of the keyes, and of the power of binding and loosing, which God hath giuen vnto his Church, extendeth it self, were not a question of Religion? As if to dis­pute whether these keyes might passe to the excōmunicating of them, that willingly obey their Princes, who after hauing done homage of their Crownes to Iesus Christ, come to vse manifest felony against him, to proclay me warre against him, and to impugne his faith and doctrine, were not a question of Religion? As though to dispute whether those keys could in conscience, and in the Churches tribunall absolue soules of the Oath of Allegiance, they owe to their Princes, when their Princes violate, and breake the reciprocall Oath they haue made to God and to them, to mayntaine them in Christian and Catholike Religion, were not a question of Religion?

For therin being two obligations and bandes, by which the subiectes are bound to obey their Princes, the one politicke, which hath for his scope, the peace and felicity of the temporall life, and against the violating [Page 73]wherof there be temporall paynes ordained, which is that wherof the Apostle speaketh Rom. 13. when he saith, That a man must obey Princes not only for wrath; the other, religious and Ecclesi­astike, which is that of the obedience, that Chri­stians owe to their Princes, not for the simple respect of lawes and paynes temporall, but for respect vnto God, and for the consideration of rewards and paynes eternall, which is that, that the same Apostle Ibid. calleth for conscience sake: Who doubteth, when there is question of vntying, not of the simple knot politike, for which the politike lawes be instituted, but of the spirituall, and Ecclesiastike knot, and of the obligation contracted in the tribunall and Court of conscience, and this being the matter which is now in dispute, whether in case of he­resy it may be v [...]tied or not; who doubteth I say, whether this question be a question of Diuini­ty? And more then this, whatsoeuer the matter be in it selfe, who seeth not, that to dispute, if it be conforme, or contrary to Gods word, is a question of Religion?

But some will reply, and say, that this is so cleere and so euident by Scripture, as it admit­teth neither vntruth, nor dispute, nor censure. Is it true? Where then there is a proposition which all the schoole Doctours, and namely the two great lightes of Schoole Diuinity S. Thomas, and S. Bonauenture, and so many other Bishops and Doctours, haue thought con­forme, [Page 74]or at least not repugnant to the word of God; shall the contrary proposition be so cleere in Scripture, as it shall need neither to be disputed about, nor censured? And what article then of faith may not be thrust out of the Churches Tribunall, and exposed to the prey of Hereticall presumption, if it be inough to say, that it is so cleere in Scripture, as that therin, there is neither need of dispute, nor iudgment?

Indeed this might haue some apparence, if those who hold the one of the propositions, should alledge Scriptures for themselues, and the others should not cite any at all. But as well those who hold the affirmatiue proposition, as those who hold the negatiue, argue by Scripture, answere by Scripture, and reply by Scripture. For example, they who hold the affirmatiue, that Princes who ouerthrow and destroy reli­gion, 1. Reg. 15. may be excluded and depriued of their right, alledge, that Samuel deposed Saul, or ac­cording to others (for I pretend not to treate here by way of resolution, but only problema­tically) declared him deposed, for hauing vio­lated the lawes of the Iewish religion. [...]. Reg. 11. That the Prophet Abia deposed Roboam frō his right of regality that he had ouer the Ten tribes of the people of Israel, because Salomon his Fa­ther had reuolted and fallen from the lawe of God, and sacrificed to false Gods. That the Prophet Elias deposed Achab for hauing imbra­ced 3. [...]g. 19. [Page 75]the religion of false Gods, and persecuted the seruantes of the true God.

Those contrariwise who stand for the negatiue part, answere, that the organs, instru­ments, ministers, and oracles of such depositi­ons, were the Prophets, who were particulerly and infallibly instructed, taught and inspired of Gods will, and that their actions cannot be drawne into a consequence for the time of the Euangelicall law, wherin there be more Prophets.

Those, who reply forthe affirmatiue part say, that where there were in the Iewish religion, two sortes of missions, the one ordinary which was Sacerdotall, and the other extraordinary which was that of the Prophets it; was to this end, that if the ordinary came to decay, or to decline, it might be raysed vp agayne and sup­ported by the extraordinary: But in the law of the Ghospell there is but one mission, and that Sacerdotall, or of Priestes. All the authority & infallibility which was in the two missions of the old Testament, is vnited in the only ordi­nary & Sacerdotall mission of the new; which consequently can no more fayle, and be decea­ued in iudging of Heresy, or of Apostacy from Christian Religion (which be the two only causes, for which the French Doctours, who haue written in fauour of Kinges, think a Prince may be excluded from the right of raig­ning ouer Gods people) then the propheticall [Page 76]mission of the old Testament.

And others adde, that euen in the old Testament this prerogatiue was not restray­ned to the Prophets alone, but was extended to the Priest: For the Priests iudged of the le­prosy, If thou perceauest (saith the Law) that there is difficulty betwene leprosy and leprosy, Deut. 27. thou shalt arise, & go vp to the Priests of the Leuiticall stock. And hereof there were two reasons: the one, for that the leprosy, as all the ancient Fathers haue obserued, was a figure of heresie, the iudgment wherof by right apperteyned to the Priests of the new law of the Gospel alone: the other, for that the leprosy was not then one simple malady or disease, naturall amongst the Iewes, as it is now, but it was a punish­ment extraordinary, Leuit. 14. miraculous and diuine. For this cause it lay one while in a stone of the wall, Leuit. 13. which was to be pulled out, to take it a­way, another while in a linnen, or wollen garment.

By occasion whereof the iudgment of this plague, apperteyned to them who were the ordinary interpreters of the causes of Gods Ire, that is to say, to the Priestes. And in this ease, say they, all were subiect vnto them, euen the Kinges themselues and bound after they had giuen sentence of the leprosy, and declared them to be touched with it, to separate them­selues from company, and from the gouern­ment of the people. And of this they bring for [Page 77]example the story of King Ozias, 2. Paralip. 26. who was suddainly stroken with a mark in the forehead for hauing (notwithstanding what Azarias the high Priest said vnto him) taken the Cen­sar in hand, to offer incense before the Altar; & the high Priest iudging it to be the leprosy, did thrust him out of the Temple, and from conuersing with the people, & by that meanes caused, that the administration and gouern­ment of the Kingdome was taken from him, and transferred to his sonne: though among o­ther nations the leprosy depriued none of con­uersation with others; nor of the gouernment of the Common wealth; witnesse wherof is Naaman, 4. Reg. 5. who was Generall of the warfarre of the King of Syria, and Gouernour of his whole Kimgdome.

Finally to passe from thinges figured, to things literal, 1. Mach. 2. & seq. they allege the story of Matathias high Priest, & the head of the family & house of the Machabees, who seeing Antiochus who raigned in Iury, to haue an intent to force the Iewes in their ancient customes, and to ouer­throw their law, and to persecute them by pu­nishmentes, torments, & death, tooke armes, & gathered Gods dispersed seruantes together who effected & wrought so much vnder his cō ­duct and his sonnes, as they deliuered the peo­ple from the yoke of the Seleucides, and tooke from them the Kingdome of Iury, and by that meanes conserued the religion of the Iewes, [Page 78]which without such a resolution, fauoured by Gods visible assistance, had els beene quite ex­terminated, and abolished out of the land.

Those who hold the negatiue part, come downe to the new Testament, and cite for themselues this passage of S. Rom. 13. Paul, where he writeth; Let euery soule be subiect to higher Pow­ers: 1. Petr. 2. For he that resisteth the power, resisteth the order instituted of God. And this of S. Peter: Be ye subiect, whether it be to Kings, as more excelling, or to Rulers. And by this they inferre, that o­bedience to Kinges, is of Right Diuine, and therefore cannot admit dispensation by any authority, neither spirituall nor temporall.

The maynteyners of the affirmatiue part, answere to this, that these passages do not in any sort touch the knot, or difficulty of the controuersie. For the question (say they) is not, whether it be de Iure diuino, to obey Kinges whilest they are Kinges, or knowne for Kinges; But the question is, if it be de Iure di­uino, that he who hath beene once known, & acknowledged for King by the body of Estate, may cease to be; that is, that he may do some thing, by which he commeth to loose and for­go his rights, & to cease to be acknowledged for King.

Now, these two questions be farre different: For, to take an example euen of him, vnder whome S. Peter suffered martyr­dome, it was de Iure diuino to obey Nero, whi­lest [Page 79]he was Emperour: But it was not de Iure Diuino (say they) that he could not fall from his Imperiall rightes, and be deposed, and de­clared an enemy of the Common wealth. It was de Iure diuino, so long as Antiochus was by the Community of the Iewes acknowledged for King, that the Iewes should obey him in matters that were not against God; For he was no lesse temporall soueraigne of the Iewes, then was the Emperour Claudius, vnder whome S. Peter wrote. But after that Mattathias the high Priest, and the rest of the nation of the Iewes, who liued conforme to their owne law, had declared him a Tyrant, and a violatour of the consciences of the people of God, & there­fore no more their lawful Prince; the particuler Iewes were then no longer bound to yeild him obedience.

And not only the defenders of the affir­matiue parte: but euen M. Barcklay himselfe, who is the principall propugner of the nega­tiue part, vseth this distinction and sayth: Controuers. Menarch. Mach. l. 4. cap. 16. There is not any case wherin the people can rise against a Prince ruling after an insolent manner, so long as he continueth King. For this commandement of God is alwaies against it, ‘Honour the King, and he that resisteth power, resisteth God. And therfore the people cannot haue by any other means authority ouer him vnles he do something, by which he by right ceaseth to be King.’

And els where they adde, 1. Petr. 2. what S. Peter writeth, Rom. 13. Be subiect to euery creature, whether it be to King, as excelling, or to Rulers as sent by him. And S. Hebr. 13. Paul: Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers. And the same Apostle writeth els where in more expresse words thus: Obey your Prelates, and be ye subiect vnto them: For they watch for your soules, as those who ought to render accompt. Hence it ariseth, that it is as wel de iure diuino to yeild spirituall obedience to Prelates, as it is to yeild temporall obedience to Princes. And yet it followeth not, that it is de iure diuino, that the Prelates, no not the Pope himselfe, cannot fall from their rights of Prelacy; nor that it is de Iure diuino to continue to obey them, after they haue lost their right.

But the defendours of the negatiue part obiect, that the Church which liued vnder the first Pagan Emperours, neuer made vse of this right of absoluing in the spirituall Court, the Christians from the Oath they had made vnto them: And contrariwise, that the first Christi­ans preached not any other thing, then obe­dience that they yeilded to the Emperours.

To this againe the maynteyners of the affirmatiue part answere many thinges. For first they say, that the Church not hauing ab­solued the Christians of the Oath of fidelity by thē made to the Pagan Emperours, all the Chri­stians in particuler were bound, euen in con­science, to obey them, and pray to God for the [Page 81]safety and prosperity of their Empire. And as touching the cause for which the Church did not take away the spirituall obligation, the Christians had to obey them, they bring three reasons.

The first is; For that it had beene ouer great imprudency and folly, to irritate and in­cense the Pagan Emperours, by such a declara­tion, in a time when they were the Lordes of the whole world, & for that such an act could haue beene not only vnprofitable, but also ab­solutly domageable & pernicious to the Chri­stians, against whom to incense the Emperour at such time, as they had all the forces, and the world within their handes, was not to succour or promote religion, but to precipitate & ouer­throw it cleane. For it is not sufficient to say, that the Church is bound to doe some thing, because she may lawfully do it, vnlesse she also can doe it with prudence and profit.

The second reason is; For that there is great difference betweene the Pagan Empe­rours, vnder whome the Church began to lay her first foundations, and to take the first roo­tes, and the Princes who should now fall in­to Heresy, or into Apostacy from Christian religion, and should become either Arians, or Mahometans, or Pagans. For the Pagan Empe­rours who then were, had not yet at that tyme done homage to Christ, nor yielded or bowed their necks to Christes yoke, as we read that [Page 82] S. Greg. Tu­ron. in Clo­doueo. Remigius said to our first Christian King: Mitis depone colla Sicamber, they were not yet by a mutuall, and reciprocall oath bound to their subiects to liue & dye in the religion & obedience of him who carieth written vpon his thigh, Apocal. 19 Psal. 105. Kinge of Kinges, and Lord of Lordes. And those wordes of the Psalme: The Kinges & nations shallbe gathered togeather, to serue our Lord, Esa. 49. were not yet at that tyme fullfilled: Nor those of the Prophet Esay: The Kinges shall adore thee prostrate vpon the earth, and shall lick vp the dust of thy feete.

By meanes whereof, they not hauing beeue declared vassalls & tributaries of Christ, nor hauing made to him any oath of homage & fidelity, nor hauing beene receaued by their subiects with that condition they should liue vnder the Empire and Ensigne of Christ, and not beeing bound to their subiects by contract and mutuall oath; when they began to pro­clayme warre against Christ, they fell not by their owne proper Profession into any mani­fest cryme of felony; neither declared they themselues by their owne iudgment vnwor­thy, and to haue lost the Fee which they held of him; they violated not the reciprocall and mutual oath, that was betweene them & their people.

But at this day the Christian Princes, who haue for so many ages since made profes­sion, to be vassals and tributaries of Christes [Page 83]Kingdome, and to subiect their Scepters, their Diadems, & Crownes vnto his Empire, who haue raysed, seated, and placed his Crosse vpon their Ensignes, and in their standardes, carried it vpon the forefront of their Diadems, haue set it vpon the top of their Crownes, haue stamped it vpon their monies and coynes, that it might appeare whose tribute-coyne it was, haue made these Inscriptions, Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, haue bound themselues after so long a tyme, by oath, at their Consecrations, both to God and to their people, to maynteyne the faith of Christ, and with that cōdition receaued the Scepter at the handes of their Peeres, and the reciprocall oath of the people: These I say, when they come to proclaime warre against Christ, & to breake the oath they haue made to him, and to their Estates, not by a simple act of contrariety, nor by a simple declaration and fact of repugnāce, but by a profession and protestation of a will alwaies bent to contradict, and to oppose a­gainst him: not by a simple violating and brea­king of an oath, but by a vow and oath of a mind, resolued for euer to violate and break their oath: not by simple default of faith, but by the yealding of their faith and promise to the enemy of him, to whome they had by a former promise and faith bound themselues; that is to say, by abiuring and persecuting the Catholike Religion, and by publike profession [Page 84]of Arianisme, or of Mahometanisme, or of Pa­ganisme; Then they fall into a contumacy of perfidiousnes against God, and make themsel­ues incapable of the tenures they hold of their Soueraigne, & vnworthy to be acknowledged for Lieutenantes of their Subiectes, and of those that be vnder their charge.

And from this derogateth not that which others object, that Kinges cease not to be Kinges before their cōsecratiō, & therfore the oathes which they take at their Consecratiō are not essentiall conditions of their Royalty: For they answer, that Kinges before they be conse­crated, be presumed to haue taken their Oath, & made it to their people in the person of their predecessors, as the people are also reputed, & held to haue takē their Oathes of Allegiance vnto their Kinges, in that which they haue made to their predecessours. In so much, as when there happeneth any impediment of Consecration, they are alwayes thought to haue made and taken their Oath in desire and will, and implicitè, as the Schoole Deuines say, by a couered relation, that the condition vn­der which they raigne, is pretended to haue, to the oathes of their predecessors, and namely to the first Kinges of the races and lynes. They who are not only content to bind theyr Suc­cessors by their example to take the like oath to their subiectes but also to assure vnto them the Crowne, with the more strong bandes, they [Page 85]would oft see them consecrated in their owne life tyme, teaching them by the oath that they caused them in such a case to take, and make to their people, with what a lawe and condi­tion they passed the Crowne ouer vnto them. 4. Cor. [...].

And to this they further add, that where S. Paul sayth, That it was ashame to Christians, that they were iudged in causes, that they had a­mongst themselues, Cedr. in com. hist. in Iust. ad lib. 1. tit. 5.6.11. by the Infidells (a thing which the Emperour Iustinian conuerted into a law, when he ordeyned that neither Pagan nor He­retike should be admitted to the administration or gouernement of the Common wealth) he seemed to insinuate, that the commandement which the same Apostle gaue the Christians who liued vnder Pagan Emperours, to obey them, was a commaundement made by proui­sion, and for the time; namely vntill the Church were so multiplied and increased, by the vniuersall conuersion of the Pagans to Christian Religion, as it were, or should be within the power of Christians, to be able, without perill and wrack of state, to hinder the admitting & receauing of any other Prin­ces, but Christians; and to obserue this Law of Deuteronomy: Thou shalt make one a King a­mong the number of thy brethren. Deut. 17.

The second difference that is betweene the one & the other Princes, is taken frō the di­uers condition of Christian people. For in the time of the anciēt Pagan Emperours, which is [Page 86]the tyme (sayth S. Augustine) meant by the first part of Daniels Prophecy, Aug. epist. 60. the Christian had not yet attayned the temporall Tribunall of Christ, nor as yet apperteyned they to Christs temporall Kingdome. For as much, as Christ did not at that tyme exercise, or manage any temporall Kingdome on earth, neither had as yet any temporall Ministers of his Lawes, but only exercised a spirituall Kingdome by his spirituall Ministers, which were the Bishops and Pastours. But after that the second part of the Prophecy was fulfilled, that is to say, after the conuersion of Kings, and Countries to the Christian Religion, and that Kings serued our Lord in feare, and apprehended discipline, or according to the Hebrew text, did homage to the Sonne, Psal. 2. he then gayned, and added the Chri­stians, not only to his spirituall Kingdome, which he exerciseth by his spirituall Ministers, which be the Bishops and Pastors; but also to his temporall Kingdome, which he exerciseth by his temporall Ministers and Substitutes, which be the Kings and Princes, who serue him (sayth S. Augustine) not simply, as men in obser­uing his Laws, but as Princes, in causing them to be obserued.

And therefore since the time, the Chri­stian people hath, by the conuersion of Empe­rours and Empires, and by the reduction of Kinges and Kingdomes, beene gayned and consecrated to Iesus Christ his temporal raigne, [Page 87]it cannot any more be vsurped, nor possessed by way of right, by the enemies of Christs name. And hence it is, that whatsoeuer Con­quest the Turke maketh of the Christians, and whatsoeuer possession of long continu­ance it be, he cannot by any tract of tyme gaine the least inch of prescription ouer Chri­stian people, who were formerly subiect to Christes temporall tribunall, before any such Conquest by him made.

And to say the contrary, were not only to imbrace and hod one of Luthers errours, who hath taught that the warre, that the Christians made against the Turkes, was vn­iust and vnlawful, & not only to cōdemne the authority of so many Councells, which haue decreed the expeditions of the holy Land, for the ayding of the Christians of the East, for the deliuering of them from the yoke and ser­uitude of the Infidells (which had beene a thing vniust (For the Accessary followeth the Principall) and if the Christians of the East had beene lawfull subiectes to the Mahometan Princes, they neither could haue reuolted from them, nor rebelled against them:) But also euen to anathematize, and accurse the memory of so many Christian Worthies, and to affirme that so many Knightes, Princes and Kinges & among them our most glorious S. Lewis, who dying in that warre, as Champious & mayn­teyners of Christes cause, pretended to gayne [Page 88]the Crowne of Martyrdome, dyed in a cause vniust and worthie of damnation.

But those who defend the negatiue part reply, and say, that in tyme of the first Arian Emperours Constantius and Valens, before whome the Empire had already acknowled­ged Christ Iesus, the Church vsed not such manner of proceeding, nor acquited the Chri­stians of their obedience. On the contrary that the Bishop Hosius, writing vnto the Em­perour Constantius, Apud A­thana. in e­pist, desolit. vit. agen. saith vnto him in these wordes: As he who would spoyle you in your Em­pire, should resist Gods ordenance: So I feare that your vsurping the authority of the Church, will make you culpable of a great cryme.

To this then the defendants of the affir­matiue part answere two thinges; The one, that the Custome of obliging Princes to make an expresse oath vnto God, and to their people, to liue and to die in the Christian and Catholique Religion, had not yet place in the tymes of the first Heretique, or Apostata Em­perours, & was not brought in but afterwards, namely then when they would stay, and hin­der Religion from falling into the same perills, wherin it was vnder them. The other, that the Church vsed not this proceeding, not for de­fault of Right, but for want of force and strength; not for want of power in it to or­deyne it, but through want of ability in the Christian people to execute it. For it is not [Page 89]inough to bind the Church to declare Princes Infidells, & to haue lost their rightes, & to ex­hort their subiects to depart from their obedi­ence, that she may lawfully do it, but it is fur­ther necessary, that she be able to do it prudent­ly and profitably.

And therefore S. D. Tho. 2.2. 2. q. 10. art. 10. Thomas after he had said: Infidells by the desert of their Infidelity be worthy to loose their power ouer the faithfull, ad­deth; But this the Church sometimes doth, and sometimes doth it not. And if we should conclude that because the ancient Church hath not de­clared the first Arian Emperours excluded from the right they had from God, of commaunding Catholiks, that therefore she had not the autho­rity to do it; we then should conclude the very same, that because it excommunicated them not, it had no authority to do it. For we find not, that any either Pope or Councell did euer na­mely and personally excommunicate the Arian Emperours: Not for that the Church cānot ex­cōmunicate them, as wel as other Ariās, whome it excōmunicated from tyme to tyme, but for that it deemed it a matter of imprudency, and pernicious to Religion, to exasperate them, not hauing forces to represse and curbe them.

And as touching Hosius they āswere, that he saith, not, that the Church cānot absolue in the spiritual Court, the Catholiks from the obe­dience of Cōstantius, if she should haue thought it profitable, possible, and necessary for them to [Page 90]attempt the deliuery of themselues from his ty­ranny. Neither, saith he, that if the Emperour Constance being a Catholique Prince had not beene dead, and that he had declared and proclaymed warre against his brother Con­stantius, as he threatned he would do, if he cea­sed not to persecute the Catholikes; the Ca­tholikes of the East would not haue ioyned & taken part with him, and would not haue be­lieued that the Church could haue dispensed with them about their oath of fidelity they had made to Constantius. Theod. hist. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 9. & alibi. But they say, that Hosius speaketh of them, who of their priuate autho­rity, and of their owne ambition raised them­selues against Constantius, to depriue him of the Empire, and to become Tyrantes themselues.

Yet Lucifer Calaritanus maketh no diffi­culty, Lucif. Cola. rit. lib. de non par­cend. in Deum de­linq. to call Constantius himselfe A Tyrant, and the Antiochus of his age, and protesteth, that he is not bound towardes him, to obserue the modesty of wordes, which the Apostle commaundeth to be obserued to Princes and Magistrates; for as much as the Apostle spea­keth of Princes, who haue not yet belieued in Christ, and not of such Princes as haue reuol­ted from Christ. I adde (saith he) that the A­postle speaketh of Princes and Magistrates, which haue not yet belieued in the only Sonne of God, whome we should by our humility, and meeknes, and long patience in aduersity, and most great obedience in thinges reasonable, prouoke to belieue in him.

But those who hold the negatiue part, Socrat. hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 19. reply, that the Christians might well haue de­posed the Emperour Iulian the Apostata. For when the Emperour Iouian who was elected after his death, Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1. answered the soldiers of the Army, Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 1. that he would not haue a commaund ouer men who were not Christians, they re­plyed that they were Christians.

And to this againe, they who maynteyne the affirmatiue part, want not their answere. For on the contrary, they auerre that the Church could not do it prudently, nor profi­tably: For besides, that the Christians were so deuided, as the faction of the Arians alone, ioyned with the Heathens, (without speaking of other Heretikes, or of the cold Catholikes, who as S. Gregory Nazianzene saith, Greg. Naz. in Iul. orat. serued the tyme, and had not (as he further addeth) other law, then the Emperours will) held their foote vpon the Catholike Churches throate. And besides when Iulian was Emperour, he was so far from persecuting the Catholikes at the first, as that in the beginning of his Empire which continued but there yeares, he called the Catholike Bishops home againe, who had beene banished and sent into exile, by Constan­tius his predecessour. And in the end he had by fauours and his other carriage so gayned the souldiers of the Roman bands, as they made almost all profession of Paganisme.

Whence it was, that Iouian a Christian [Page 92]souldier being by them chosen after Iulian his death, answered them that he would not com­maund men who were not Christians. For the answere which they made, We are Christians, was as much to say, that all they made an out­ward profession of Paganisme to please Iulian, yet in their heartes they continued still Chri­stians. By occasion whereof the feare of a grea­ter ruine hauing hindered the Church, from absoluing the Catholikes from the obliga­tion of fidelity, in behalfe of Iulian the Apo­stata, they were still bound to do that which S. Austine sayth of them, Aug in Psal. 124. For the loue of the Em­perour of Heauen, they obeyed the Emperour of the Earth.

But some will say, the Christians might well haue deposed the Emperour Valentinian, for as much as they were the stronger in Millane, when he would haue one of their Churches, for the exercising of his Heresy therin. It is true. But to this the defendants of the affirmatiue part, answere foure thinges. The first, that the memory of the Emperour Gratian his elder Brother, and as it were Father and Tutor of the Emperour Valen [...]ar, and slayne by Maximus the Tyrant, and the most Catholike Prince, and the greatest freind of S. Ambrose that euer was, changed all the malice or euill, that the Catholike people could haue had, or carried towardes Valen­tinian, into fauour and compassion, and into a [Page 93]desire of assisting him, for the reuenging of that murther, and making away of his Brother.

The second is, that Valentinian was yet so yong, & the sonne of so Catholike a Father, as there was not any cause or ground to des­paire of his conuersion, which also followed within a while after, and that with so great an Edification of the Church, as S. Ambrose cele­brateth him for one of the most Religious Em­perours of his age.

The third, that though in the beginning the people conteyned themselues within the simple boundes of petition, & gaue Valentinian to vnderstand: We contend not, O Emperour, but we become Suppliantes vnto you: yet when Valen­tinian had a meaning to proceed further, the people held their owne, resisted the Emperour, and stood so resolute in the matter, as he fea­ring a tumult and reuolt, was constreyned to yeild vnto them. Hence it is, that they thought not, that the commandment our Sauiour gaue to his disciples, when they persecute in one Cittie, to flie into another, was an absolute & perpetuall precept, but rather a dispensation & a permission, accommodated to the tyme; wherein the Christian people either were still vnder Pagan Emperours, or had not yet the meanes to make resistance, against persecuti­ons by might and force.

The Fourth is, that the Emperour Valen­tinian his owne souldiers, thought not them­selues [Page 94]so bound in way of fidelity vnto him, as they belieued they could not be dispensed with; when he should perseoute the Catholikes. For when the tumult began to be hoat, they caused it to be signified vnto him, that if he would come vpon the Place, he should come thither accompanied, for as much as they would assist and help him, if they sawe him conioyned, and to take part with the Catho­likes, els they would put themselues in com­pany with the troupes that held with Ambrose.

But the propugners of the negatiue, part, recurre to the Analogy of other practises of the Church, & say, that for Heresie the ow­ners are not depriued of their goodes, and con­sequently much lesse Princes should be spoyled of their estates.

To this agayne the maynteyners of the af­firmatiue part bring two answers. The one is, that in this our Realme, Heretikes loose not their goodes, and the cause is, for that the ex­ecution of the lawes made against Heretikes, is suspended for the conseruation of the publique peace, and tranquillity. But if there should creep forth some third sect in France, & should begin to growe, and were not come to be so great, and to make a notable part of the body of Estate, as Arianisme, or Nestorienisme it is questionles, that the other two would [...]udge them, who should make such profession, wor­thy to be depriued, not only of their goodes, [Page 95]but of their liues also. For this is practised at Geneua, where Caluin caused Seruetus to be burnt: and it is the practise at this day in En­gland, where the Most Renowned moderne King of Great Britany punisheth the Arians, with losse of goodes, and of life.

The other answere is, that there is a great difference between the power that ow­ners haue ouer their goodes, and that which Princes haue ouer their Estates: For goodes are made for their Maisters, and Princes con­trariwise for their Estates; neyther haue goods any soule, nor can be compelled by force, or by example, or by perswasion of their Mai­sters to loose life euerlasting, as subiectes may be by their Princes, by meanes whereof the preiudice of the one doth not make any conse­quence for the other.

And if this question be no where found certainly decided, neither by scripture, nor by the decrees of the ancient Church, nor by the Analogy of other Ecclesiasticall proceedinges, how is it, that lay persons will of their owne authority, and without light and president of any generall Councell, of any Oecumeni­call Synod, of any vniuersall Assembly of the Church, yea against the greater part of the rest of the Church, cōuert this doctrine into an article of faith, and make the Clergie to sweare it is conformable to Gods word, & cause them to abiure the other, as a doctrine contrary to [Page 96]the word of God, impious and detestable?

It is fiue and twenty yeares since those of your Order, caried away by the tumult and trouble of the tyme, laboured in the full Assem­blie of Estates, to establish one Fundamentall Law of Estate, cleane contrary to that article of yours: And now you propose another Fun­damentall Law, intituled of Estate, and of Reli­gion, quite contrary to that former. And will you (not you, but those, by whose inspiration and aduise these clauses be crept into your Bill) that the Laytie cause the Clergie to sweare it? That the Laytie exact of the Clergie an Oath in matter of faith? That the Laytie impose the Lawes of Religion vpon the men of the Church?

O reproach, and shame! Oscand all! O gate set open to all sort of Heresies! And shall our faith then be subiect to the varieties, and in­constancy of the affections of the people, who chaung euery fiue and twenty yeares? And shall the flockes then be guides to their shep­heardes, Luc. 16. Hebr. 13. and Pastors? And shall the children teach their Father? And shall that then be fru­strated that our Lord hath cryed aloud, The scholler is not aboue the Maister? And shall it be in vayne, that the Apostle hath said: Obey your Prelates, Greg. Na­zian. orat. de ser. suis ad Iul. trib. exeq. and be subiect vnto them: For they watch for your soules? And shall that be said in vayne, that S. Gregorie Nazianzene hath written, You sheepe, feed not your pastors? And shall it be in [Page 97]vayne that Saul was accursed because he would vsurpe, and take vpon him the authority of Priesthood? And shall it be to no purpose that Oza was punished with suddaine death for ha­uing put his hand to the Arke? And shall it be in vayne that Ozias was stroken with the le­prosy because he would take the Censar in his hand? But the tyme presseth me to get out of this point, & to dispatch the other two remai­ning, with as much breuity as possibly I can.

THE THIRD INCONVENIENCE, that I haue vndertaken to discouer and lay open to the eye, in the examen of your article was, that it did thrust vs into a manifest and ineuitable schisme. For to say nothing of the de­claration, that his Holines hath already made of the Oath of England, vpon the modell wherof this Article hath been formed, and not to permit any hold to those who say, that it should be the Pope, who should be the au­thour of the Schisme and not we: I say that though the Pope intermeddle not himselfe in our affaires, the Schisme is all made the very houre that we accept and sweare this Article or Bill. And that it is not the Pope, but we that make it.

And to confirme it, how can we sweare that the Pope, and all the other parts of the Catholike Church, hold a doctrine contrary to the word of God, impious and detestable, [Page 98]without making schisme, and schisme not on­ly against the Popes person, but also against the Sea Apostolike, and against all the rest of the body of the Church? For if the founda­tion of the Communion Ecclesiastique, be v­nity in faith, and in matters appertaining to saluation; how can we belieue, and sweare that the Pope, and all the rest of the Church, erre in faith, and in matters belonging to saluation, and hold a doctrine contrary to Gods word and impious and detestable, and consequently Hereticall, without separating our selues from Communion with them, and subiecting them in as much, as is in vs, to a malediction and an Anathema; and consequently to deuide the Church, or rather separate our selues from the Church?

And how odious a thing, schisme is to God, and how much it is detested both of An­gells and men, we need not any more expresse testimony, then that of holy Writ, that teacheth vs, that the earth opened it selfe vnder the Schismatikes, and that they descended all li­uing, Num. 16. and aliue into hell: The ground (sayth Moyses) brake in sunder vnder their feete, and ope­ning her mouth, deuoured them, with their Taber­nacles, and all their substance, and they went downe quick into hell. We need not a more ex­presse witnes then Great S. Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 45. Denis of Alexandria who wrote to Nouatian in these wordes: It were meet in very deed rather to endure all things, [Page 99]then to consent to the deuiding of Gods Church: the Martyrdomes to which we expose our selues, to hinder the dismembring of the Church, being no lesse glorious, then those which we suffer for the al­steyning from sacrificing vnto Idols. We need not more expresse testimony, then that which S. Cyprian bringeth: That the stayne and spot of Schisme, is not washed away by the bloud of Martyr­dome. De vnit. Ecclesiae. We need not a more manifest testimony then this of S. Chrysostome, who sayth: That those who deuide the Church of Christ, Ad Eph. hom. 11. merit no lesse punishment, thent hose who pierced and deuided his owne body. We need not a more expresse te­stimony then that of S. Augustine, Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 1. cap. 8. who affir­meth, that the wound of schisme is more grie­uous then that of Idolatry. Those (sayth he) whome the Donatists heale of the wound [...] Idolatry, or of Infidelity, they hurt, and wound more grie­uously with the wound of schisme.

Neither doth this Article only cast vs into an ineffable schisme; but doth also precipitate vs into a manifest heresy, necessarily obliging vs to confesse, that the Catholike Church is peri­shed and decayed on earth for many ages past. For if they, who imbrace the opposite Do­ctrine, hold an opinion cotrary to Gods word, impious and detestable; the Pope hath not then for so many ages past, beene Head of the Church and Christes vicar, but an Heretike & Antichrist, and all the other partes of the Church, haue not beene true partes of the [Page 100]Church, but members of Antichrist.

And this being so, where continued the Catholike Church? In France alone? And shall then the Part haue giuen a bill of diuorce to the whole? Shall then that which an ancient Father cried out be accomplished: I see that, which cannot be done; Author li. contra Ful­gent. inter ep. Aug. tom. 7. The Part of the Donatists hath ouercome the whole body; A corner of Afrike, hath excluded and thrust out the whole world? What then shall become of the inheritance, to whome God the Father said: Aske of me, and I will giue thee the Gentils for thine inheritance? Psal. 2. what then shall become of the title of Catholike, by which S. Aug. cont. ep. Funda­ment. Augustine professeth himself to haue beene most of all held and kept in the Church?

But how should it haue contiuued in France, if this Article be true, sith all the French Doctors haue for so many ages held the con­trary in case of Heresie, and of Apostacie from Christian Religion? we should then also bid adiew to the Church of France, that hath beene before our times, and take vp the bodies of so many Doctours, either French, or those who haue written and taught in France, as S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, and others without number, and burne their bones vpon the Al­tar, as did Iosias burne and consume the bones of the false prophets.

And this done, where should the Church haue beene? In the desert of the Apocalyps? And why then should we with so mayne force [Page 101]oppugne the inuisibilitie of the Heretikes Church? Wherefore should we delay to yeald them the victorie, and our armes, and all? For what greater trophies and signes of victory can we rayse and set vp for them, then to auerre & professe, that the visible Kingdome of Christ, should be perished & cleane decayed through the world: and that for so many hundred yeares past, there hath beene neither temple of God, nor spouse of Christ, nor Church, but that all hath beene the Kingdome of Anti­christ, the Synagoue of Sathan, and the spouse of the Diuell? And what stronger machines & engines, could they desire for the abolishing & ouerthrowing of the Article of Transubstantia­tion, that of Auricular Confession, and other the like, which were decided against the Albigen­ses, and in few wordes for the ouerturning and ruining of all Catholike Religion, then to say, that the Church which hath decided them, hath done it without authority, and was not at that tyme any more Christes Church, but Antichristes Concubine? See therefore wher­unto these men leade vs, who compell vs to sweare, that it is a doctrine contrary to Gods word, impious and detestable, to hold, that subiects in some cases may be absolued of their fidelitie. And this proposition they would haue vs put in the same conclusion of faith, and vn­der the same decree of Anathema, with that of the murthering of Kinges.

THERE remayneth the last Inconuenience, which I promised to examine, which is, that this medly doth not only make the reme­die, that they would bring to the daunger of Kinges, to be vnprofitable, but more then that to be pernicious and domageable. And now I beseech you, Gentlemen, before I enter into the matter, to permit me to tell you, that I giue not place in affection to the seruice of the King to any of my Countrymen. I am a French man borne, and the sonne of a French man, and I haue neuer but respected our Kinges. I haue neuer in fact of State, cast mine eyes v­pon others, & God lending me my right wits I will neuer turne mine eyes away. I haue beene nourished, brought vp, intertayned and raysed vp vnder the winges of my Soueraigne King Henry the third, & haue alwayes continued an adherent to his fortunes, whilest he liued.

After his death I followed likewise the for­tune of the deceased King Henry the Great, of glorious memory, and that with a good, and with a sound conscience, euen according to the Maximes, as well of those who defend the affirmatiue part, as of those who hold the ne­gatiue. For to say nothing of the word of Re­lapse, that was by bad information imputed vnto him, he was neuer either persecutour or incorrigible. On the contrary, after the tyme of his predecessors death, he promised to pro­cure to informe himself and be instructed, and [Page 103]in his greatest affayres, he did me the honour to confer with me in secret about the points of our faith, for the preparing of himselfe to his Conuersion. I brought him by the grace of God back, or the grace rather by me to the Ca­tholike religion. I obteyned his absolution at Rome of Pope Clement the 8 and reconciled him with the Sea Apostolike: Actions, by which he effected and wrought the recouery of his Estate, and the restoring of you all to your houses, commodities, and fortunes.

I euer serued him after that, supporting & vpholding the honour, and rightes of his Ma­iesty, in a more affectionate manner then I tendred mine owne life; not here, where it is an easy matter to extoll the Kinges soruice, and to commend, as the saying is, the Athenians at Athens, but out of his owne Kingdome, and there where matters were canuased and dis­puted vpon. And of this also, I haue receaued for a signe, and testimony of approbation of my seruice, all these honours & commodities I am now possessed of; for as much as I neuer re­ceaued neither goods nor dignities, but of him. It is he alone who hath aduanced me, and ray­sed me vp to a Bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinall. He made me Great Almenour, and bestowed v­pon me the meanes and prouisions, necessary for the helping of me, towards the susteyning and bearing out a part of these charges.

And from the King his Sonne, I continue [Page 104]the enioyng and possession of the same benefits and good turnes, without hoping or desire of hope of gratificatiō from any other. And ther­fore, Gentlemen, you ought to be belieue that I am not moued in this, for any other interest, then for his seruice and for the conseruation of the Catholike Religion, in preseruation whereof is comprehended both the spirituall and temporall safety of himself, & of his estate.

For the first branch then of our last op­position, which is, that the mixtion of conten­tious matters, maketh the remedy which they would bring for the daunger of Kinges, vn­fruitfull and vnprofitable, we haue already said inough from the beginning. For seeing we will agree both the one & the other that the tēpo­rall laws, & the paynes & penalties imposed v­pon the body, do not any waies serue the turne or be inough to preuent, auert, & put by these wicked attemptes, and that we must make re­course to spirituall lawes, and to the paynes that be exercised after death, that is to say, to the lawes of excommunication, and of damna­tion eternall; and for that reason teacheth vs, that the lawes of Anathema, and of excommuni­cation, make not any impression in the soules, if they be not belieued to proceed from an in­fallibleauthority, how is it, when there shalbe intermixed some clause contestated & called into question, by the rest of the Church, that they will serue for a bridle to those, who feare [Page 105]nothing but the paynes and tormentes of the soules? And how shall such lawes imprint the terrour and feare of Anathema in mindes, that shall belieue, that the lawes themselues be sub­iected to Anathema?

On the contrary, how will they not quite ouerthrowe, the good and sufficient remedies, that the generall Councells, whereof the au­thority is infallible, haue instituted for the sa­fety of Kinges, which they would take from vs by the medly of other thinges wherevnto the vniuersall Church doth not agree? I haue sayd good & sufficient remedies for the safety of Kinges, which they would haue taken from vs; For who knoweth not, that if the infernal monsters, who made the attemptes vpon the liues of our two last Kinges, had read the Ec­clesiastical lawes, they had found their damna­tion expressed in the decree of the Councell of Constance. And therefore it was not for default of Ecclesiasticall lawes, that they committed those two most horrible murders, but for this, that they had not read them, or rather by oc­casion of an enraged and diuellish malice, wherewith they were possessed.

But they will reply, that it was not inough for the securing and assuring of the life of Kinges, that the Church hath decreed vnder the payne of Excōmunication, that none may attempt vpon their persons, if it decreeth not further, vnder the same paynes, that the sub­iects [Page 106]cannot be absolued from their obedience, in whatsoeuer estate they be, that is to say, euen when they should make profession of heresy, or incorrigible Infidelity, and should become persecutours and violators of conscience. For though (say they further) the Church for­biddeth, that no attempt be made vpon the life of Princes; yet if the Princes happen to fall into incorrigible Heresy or Apostacy, and become persecutours of the faith, and that the Church thereupon declare their subiectes ab­solued from the oath of Allegiance, and that notwithstanding this declaration, they will inforce the subiects to continue their obedi­ence vnto them, they become Tyrants. And then (adde they) the Politique Lawes per­mit euery particuler body to attempt vpon the person of Tyrantes, and consequently their life in case of Heresie, or of Apostacy cannot be secured.

To this obiection the answere is short and easy. For the Church intermedleth not her selfe with the absolution of the subiects, but in the Ecclsiasticall Court: and therin be­sides this payne, and that of excommunica­tion, it imposeth not any other. By meanes wherof it is so far from consenting, that any attempt be made vpon the life of them whom it hath excommunicated, as it abhorreth all fortes of killinges, and murtheringes, and es­pecially such as be sudaine and vnexpected, in [Page 107]regard of the losse of both body and soule, which cōmonly go therin accompanied togea­ther.

And if they say, that the Church orday­neth it not, but that it is the cause that it is done, for as much as the Common wealth conforming it selfe to the Churches iudgment, and making the same decision in the tribunall politique, if the Prince keepe on his former course, declareth him a Tyrant, and an enemy of the state, and consequently subiecteth him to the power of the Lawes politique, which permit the conspiring against Tyrantes, for the making of them away, and for killing of them: we bring first this exception, that there is great difference betweene Tyrantes of vsur­pation, whome the Lawes permit to extirmi­nate by all manner of wayes, and Tyrantes of administration and gouernement, who are lawfully called to their Principality, but go­uerne it ill: and we add that the Hereticall Princes who persecute the faith and their Ca­tholike subiects, be of the number of Tyrantes of administration, and not of the number of Tyrants of vsurpation, against whome alone it is permitted to conspire by clandestine and secret practises.

And if they further vrge and say, that the politique Lawes permit conspiracies against the one and the other: we answere, that they are politique, prophane, and heathenish Laws, [Page 108]as those of the ancient Romans, or of the Gre­cians in former tymes, and not Christian poli­tique Lawes. For the Christian politique Laws consider not only in their Princes the respect due vnto them, for the good of temporall pollicy, and the regard of the Maiesty of the Estate which they represent, but they further consider in them the Image and vnction of God, who hath called them to that Dignity, in so much as in them, who haue once had the lawfull vocation of Royalty, what Tyrany soeuer they exercise, the Christian politique Laws neuer passe so farre, as to permit the vse of proscription against their persons, or that any do attempt by clandestine, or secret coniu­ration, or conspiracy against their persons, or liues; but they carry the same respect to them, that did Dauid to Saul, notwithstan­ding he knew he were reiected, 1. Reg. 26. cast of, and re­proued of God, when he said: Who shall extend his hand vpon the anoynted of our Lord, and shalbe innocent?

In so much, as if the Christians be con­strayned to defend their religion, and their life against Hereticall and Apostata Princes, from whose allegiance they were absolued, the Chri­stian politique Laws permit not more then what is permitted by military Lawes, and the right of nations; that is to say, open warre and not clandestine and secret [...] and con­spiracies. For there alwaies remayneth in them [Page 109]a certain habitude to the dignity Royall, & as it were a marke of a politique character, that discerneth them from simple particulers: and when the obstacle and impediment is taken a­way, that is, when they come to amend them­selues, and to giue satisfactiō, it restoreth them to the lawfull vse and exercise of their regality.

And therefore we see, that in so many con­trouersies that the Popes haue had with tēporall Princes, neuer any Pope went so far as to coū ­sell, or to assent to the murthering of Princes. Contrariwise if any calumniators laboured to impute it vnto them, they haue euer iustified themselues, euen with the horrour and abho­mination of such actes, remembring them­selues of these wordes of S. Gregory, when the Lombards made war vpon him: If I would haue medled with the death of men, Greg. lib. 7. epist. 1. the Nation of the Lombards should at this day haue had neither King non gouernors: But because I stand in feare of God, I will not haue to moddle, or deale with the death of any person.

And touching the other point of the last Inconuenience, which is, that this medly ma­keth the remedies, that they would bring to the daunger of the Kinges, to be not only vn­profitable, but also pernicious and domageable, there needeth not much eloquence to per­swade it. For if those who made the attempts vpon the liues of our Kinges, were moued to those horrible parricides by a false imagina­tion [Page 110]which they conceaued, to wit, that our Kings did something in preiudice of religion, how much more would they haue thought they had a greater & better pretext, if they had beleeued, that our Kings had abused their au­thority by the bringing in of schisme, and the ouerthrowing of Religion, and that they had seene themselues in schisme, & separated from the communion of the Sea Apostolique, and cut off from the other partes of the Church?

And more then this, who vnderstandeth not, that there cannot happen any thing of more and greater daunger for the life and au­thority of Kinges, then intestine and ciuill wars, which schismes do ordinarily draw after them?

Moreouer who knoweth not, that the cō ­tempt and indifferencie of Religion, which must needes follow vpon schismes, engendreth and occasioneth Impiety and Atheisme, and taketh quite away all the respect that men are wont to carry to Kinges for the loue of God, and for the reuerence of Religion, which is the strongest corps or Court of Guard, and the su­rest rampaire for the defence and security of their persons? For when Religion is had in contempt, men are not any longer withholden from attempting vpon the persons of Kinges, then by force, and by feare of the temporall paynes, and therfore when they thinke they may do it, without beeing punished, or that [Page 111]they contemne and make no reckoning of the temporall paynes, they haue no more bridle to conteyne them, or to hold them in.

Finally, who seeth not, that there can be nothing worse for the safety of the persons, and of the estate of Kinges, then to stir vp, and drawe vpon them, by an ouerture of a new schisme, and diuision from the Church, Psal. 75. the wrath of him, who taketh away the spirits of Princes from out of the earth?

And heere, Gentlemen, I will not with you vse more reasons and argumentes, but wil passe ouer to exhortations and intreaties; and wil coniure you to remember, that you are French men, and that you are also Christians and Catholikes, and that in treating touching the securing of Kinges, you must not only cast your eies vpon the earth, but also lift them vp to Heauen; and you must not remedy their temporall safetie in causing them to forgo and loose the euerlasting, nor prouide for your bo­dily part which is France, by destroying and ruyning the spirituall parte, which is the Church.

The Pope tolerateth and endureth for the good of the Churches peace, that the French-men, that is to say some of them hold & mayn­teyne in this point, Doctrine contrary to his owne, and to that of all the rest of the Church, so they hold it only as problematicall, in mat­ter of faith, that is to say, that they propose it [Page 112]not as necessary to be held, with that necessi­ty which is of faith, and declare not the other to be contrary to Gods word, impious and detestable. And though in the cases before specified, there be ten Countries against but a parte of one, an hundred Doctours against one, ten Councells against none: yet whether it be that these Councells do not therin ex­presse their intention by forme of decision of faith, but by forme & manner of supposition, or for some other causes, he is contented to hold the Doctrine contayned in them for true, without binding vs to hold it for necessary, as matter of faith; he is contented to hold the contrary opinion for erroneous, without bin­ding vs to hold it for Hereticall, and not to ex­communicate them, as Heretikes, that hold it.

And wherefore then should wee now go about to breake the Churches communion, & to deuide the vnity of Christes body, by tur­ning into matter of fayth, a doctrine, which doth not only make the remedies, which they would bring for the security of Kinges, vnpro­fitable, but further, maketh them pernicious, both to their persons, and to their Kingdome?

There is no tyme wherin schismes be not most domageable, and preiudiciall to religion and to State, but they be most of all ruinous and pernicious to the one and the other, when the tymes be already infected with heresy. For as the Phisitians say, that in the tyme of pesti­lence [Page 113]all sortes of feuers end in the plague: so in the tyme of Heresy all schismes haue their ending in Heresy. And therefore Heresie ha­uing now at this day so great part in France, if we proceed to bring in a schisme among Catho­likes, who doubteth but that the fruite of this diuision, will be the enfeebling and weakning of the Church, and the strengthning of He­resy? And if Heresy euen when she is weakest hath so much ado to keep herselfe quick, how will she continue in peace when she shall once come to an equality? And if we breake it, how shall she be able to disturbe the peace of Re­ligion, without troubling therewithall the Kinge, and the State also?

It is certayne, Gentlemen, the scope and intention of them that first moued this stone of scandall, was not to prouide for the security of the State, and the person of our Kinges: Their drift and intention was to cast the seedes of diuision in the Church of France, and to as­say either to separate it from the other partes of the Church, or to deuide it within it self.

I say not this to taxe you. I honour you all, as persons of singular wisedome, and merit, and most affected to the Catholike Religion. But I know you are not the first authors and inuentors of this Article. I know that it hath beene craftily thrust into some of your seates, It is not long tyme since they haue menaced and threatned vs with this apple of discord. [Page 114]These be those that be already seuered from vs, and haue by this meanes thought to sow some sparcles of diuision amongst vs; and for this end they haue serued themselues of men, who carry the name of Catholikes, and more then that, of Ecclesiasticall persons, and for the vn­dermining & beguiling of the ingenuity, good disposition, and simplicity of others, vnder the title of seruice to the King.

The pretext they haue taken, is fayre, it is specious, it is ouer shadowed with the name of the King, but vnder this couer, is hiden schisme and the designe of making a diuision in the Church. These be the Vlissesses fighting vnder Achilles his buckler,

When Iulian the Apostata meant to draw the Christians to the adoration of the false Gods, he caused the Idolls of Iupiter, Venus, and Mercury to be intermixed, and put in company with his owne pictures, to the end, that when they should present his owne Images to the Christians to adore (as it was the custome then, for the people to adore the Images of their Emperour) the Christians either refu­sing to do it, should be accused of high treason, as hauing refused to adore the Emperours Image, or in doing it be constreyned ioyntly with the Image of the Emperour to adore Idolls. These men haue heere done the very same, hauing intermedled in one and the same Article, a decree of the securing of Kinges, to­gether [Page 115]with an introduction of schisme, to the end that those who shal refuse this oath, should put themselues in daunger, either to be estee­med litle affectioned to the seruice of Kinges, or to be thought culpable of schisme.

And therefore you must not suffer your selues to be beguiled by this first bayte. It is of hony, but yet of hony, that hath beene made by drone bees, that haue gone from one flo­wer of hemlock to another, that is to say, by soules that haue tasted and sucked the venome of schisme.

Aristotle writeth, that we must behold plea­sures not before, but behind, not when they are comming, but when they are gone & past. In like manner in this there be specious pre­textes, you must regard and behold them, not by the face, that is to say, by the first sight, but by the back, that is, by the sequele and successe.

This Oath resembleth Horace his Mōster, which hath the head of a fayre and beautifull woman, that is, the pretence of the seruice and safety of Kings; but it hath a fishes tayle, that is the tayle of Schisme, and of diuision in Re­ligion. And indeed it may well be said to haue a fishes tayle, seeing it is come swymming by sea from England. For it is the very same Oath of England (sauing that of England is yet more sweete, and more modest & moderate.) I will not prosecute this point for feare to offend the [Page 116]most Renowned King of Great Britany. I am (setting aside religion) his most humble and most affectionate seruant. I do in a most high degree, esteeme, & honour his learning, his e­minent morall vertues, and his excellent natu­rall conditions, and I find nothing to be desi­red by me in him, that might expresse, not a fayned Image made at pleasure, as that of Cyrus by Xenophon, but the true and reall image of a perfect, and complete Prince, the title of Ca­tholike only excepted.

Hee hath bound in generall all men of learning vnto him, hauing made the Muses to sit in his Royall throne, and he hath obliged me in particuler, for hauing pleased to take the paynes, to enter with me into the listes of dis­pute of Diuinity, & not to do as did Alexāder, who disdayned to enter into the Olympian race, if he were not to run his course against Kinges.

I therefore touch not this string, for feare of offending. I know that holding the religi­on he doth, he thinketh to do what he ought, when he assayeth to bring in a Schisme, and diuision in ours. But shall it be said, that what the King of Great Britany doth in England a­gainst the Catholikes, doth serue vs for a law, and an example to do the same in our Catho­lique Countrey? Shall it be said, that France, that hath for so many ages beene honoured with the name of a most Christian Realme, Hier. con­tra Vigil. and in which S. Hierome said, there were no mon­sters, [Page 117]is brought to this, that it permitteth not Catholike religion, but with the same condi­tions, and seruitudes that be imposed vpon it in England? Shall it be said, that Ecclesiasticall persons be not suffered to liue in Frāce, but vn­der the stipulations, & conditions vnder which it is permitted them to liue in England? Shall it be said, that the Catholikes of France, and espe­cially the Clergy, enioying security and free­dome, shall be enforced to sweare and binde themselues to belieue the same thing, which with groaning and sighes, thereby to gayne some litle breath, is done by Catholiques in En­gland? And if there be found in England Ca­tholikes constant inough to suffer all sortes of punishments, rather then to consent vnto it; shall there not be found those in France to doe the same, rather then to subscribe, & to sweare an article, that putteth the raynes of the faith into the handes of the Laytie, and bringeth a diuision and Schisme into the Church? Yes cer­tainly, Gentlemen, such will be found in France. And all we who are Bishops will rather go to martyrdome, then giue our consentes to the deuiding of Christes body, Apud Eu­seb. Eccl. hist. lib. 6. cap. 37. remembring this saying of S. Dionysius of Alexandria; That the martyrdomes that men suffer for the hindring of the Churches diuision, be no lesse glorious, then be those that men endure for absteyning from sacrifising to I­dolls.

But we are not, God be thanked, vnder a [Page 118]King who maketh martyrs, he leaueth the souls of his subiectes free, and if he doth it to those of his Subiectes, that be strayed from the Church, how much more will he do it to those soules of his Catholike subiects? we liue the one and the other, vnder the shadow of the Edictes of peace, in liberty of conscience. And wherefore then should we be constreyned to sweare that, which we forbeare to make others to sweare?

There is not one only Synod of Ministers who would haue subscribed to that article, w^ch they would bind vs to sweare. There is not one Consistory of others, but beleeueth that they are discharged of their Oath of fidelity towar­des Catholike Princes, when they shalbe for­ced by them in their consciences. Of this come those modificatiōs that they haue so oft in their mouth, Prouided, that the King forceth vs not in our conscience. Of this come these exceptions in their profession of faith, So the Soueraigne Em­pire of God abide in his owne integrity. Of this came the taking of arms so many times against the Kings, when they would take from thē the liberty of religiō. Of this came their insurrecti­ons and rebellions, both in Flanders against the King of Spayne, & Sweden against the Catho­like King of Polonia, whome they spoiled of the Realme of Sweden his lawfull inheritance, and therin established Duke Charles a Protestant.

Neither yet do they restrayne these ex­ceptions [Page 119]to the only case of religion, & of con­science, but they further extend them to secular matters. The writinges of Buchanan, Bruse, and infinite others giue testimony, who will, that if the Kinges fayle in temporall conuentions and accord, which they haue made with their subiects, their subiectes be free to reuolt from them.

Not considering that there is great dif­ference, as we haue already declared, betweene faylinge in a simple accord, made by Oath, and destroying the Oath, by the which the accord was made. For when a Prince doth of frayltie, or of humane passion com­mit some iniustice, he doth indeed against the Oath he hath made to his people, to do them iustice; yet he doth not thereby destroy his Oath.

But if he make a contrary Oath, that is to say, insteed of what he hath publiquely and so­lemnly sworne to his people, which was to do them iustice (to wit, as far as humaine frailty will permit) he should sweare and bind him­selfe by another publique and solemne Oath, that he would neuer render them iustice, but rather sweare, that he will minister nothing but iniustice; he should then destroy his Oath, & renounce his owne Royaltie, in renouncing by a contrary Oath the clauses and conditions of his former oath, for which, and by meanes and occasiō wherof his Royalty was instituted.

And therefore Barckley the Achilles of the doctrine of your Article, hath had most iust cause to reprehend, and find fault with the a­foresaid authours, but in reprehending them, he hath reserued an exception of two cases, which make much more to the preiudice of Kinges, then do the Churches censures from which he would exempt them. For he affirmeth expres­ly, that in two cases the people may shake off the yoke of Kinges, Guil. Barcl. lib. 4. cont. Monarcho­mach c. 16. & arme themselues against them. Behold his wordes. What then? Can there not occurre any cases in which the people may rise, & take armes by their owne authority, and assaile a King insolently raigning? None indeed, so long as he contynueth King: For this commaundement of God contradicteth it alwaies; Honour the King &c. who resisteth power, risisteth God. The people then (addeth he) cannot haue by any other meanes power ouer him, but when he doth some thing, by which he ceaseth of right to be King. For then, for as much as he spoyleth and depriueth himself of his principality, and maketh himself a priuate person, the people remayneth free, and becommeth superiour. And these two cases, as he saith, be when a Prince laboureth, and hath intention to exter­minate and ouerthrow the Kingdome & com­mon wealth, as Nero and Caligula did; or when he will make his Kingdome feudatary to ano­ther. Ibidem. I finde (saith he) two cases in which a King by fact maketh himself of a King no King, and depri­ueth himself of his royall dignity and of power ouer [Page 121]his subiectes. The one is, if he goeth about to ex­terminate the Realme & Common wealth, that is to say, if he hath a designe and intention to destroy the Realme, as it is recorded of Nero, that he had a de­liberation to exterminate the Senate, and the people of Rome &c. And the other, if the King hath a wil to put himselfe vnder the clientele and protection of some other.

But who seeth not, that this is a thing too­to vnworthie for a Christiā to admit these ex­ceptions, in case of the destruction of a Cōmon wealth, and not in case of the destruction of Religion? and otherwise the iudgment which the people may make of the one is much more perilous to Princes, thē that which the vniuer­sall Church may forme of the other. And yet these be at this day the writers whome they ce­lebrate, extoll, and whome they haue in their eyes; For so an authour say something against the Pope, and that he put as much as he please the safetie of Kinges vnder the peoples feete, him they imbrace, applaude, and adore.

And of this we neede not any better proofe, then the edition of Gerson, which they who haue beene the first authors of the Article that is now proposed vnto vs, haue caused to be imprinted eight yeares since, with inscrip­tions, pictures, and elogies, or testifications of his prayses, because he seemeth vnto them to haue writen against the Pope. For in his sermō made in the presence of King Charles the 7. in [Page 122]the name of the Vniuersitie of Paris, Gers. serm. ad Regem Fran. no­mine vni­uersit. Paris. after he had made Sedition to speake, which wills, that vse without exception and indifferently be made of this rule of Seneca: There is not a sacrifice more pleasing vnto God, then the killing of Tyrants, and that it is to be put in vre against all sortes of persons accused of Tyranny, and vpon all manner of suspitions, and of defamatory libels; and Dissimulation, that wills on the contrary, that we neuer vse it, but that we endure all Tyrants: he bringeth in Discretiō that teacheth when it is to be vsed in these wordes: Gers. ibid. We con­clude further, that if the head, or any other member of the Commō wealth should incurre such an incōue­nience, as he would swallow vp the deadly poyson of Tyrany, euery member in his place should oppose him­self by al his possibility by expediēt meanes; & such as should not make the matter worse, seing it were to small it purpose when the head aketh, that the hand should strike it, but rather folly. For nether is it neces­ary to cut it off by & by, & to separate it from the rest of the body, but we must cure it sweetly, aswel by good words, as otherwise, lyke prudent & wise Phisitians. There could not be any thing more against reason, & of greater cruelty, then Tyrany by a seditiō. I cal se­dition a rebellion of the people, without cause, and without reason, which is oft tymes worse thē tyrany &c. There needeth great & singuler discretion, pru­dence, and temperance about the expulsion & thru­sting out of tyranny, and therefore we must heare, and giue credit to wise Philosophers. Lawyers, [Page 123]Deuines, to men of good life, of good and naturall prudence, & of great experiēce, of whom it is said, In old men is found experience. For though a Prince and Lord sinne in many cases, yet he must not for that be presently censured a Tyrant. So he there.

And in his worke of ten Considerations against the flatterers of Kings, where he reca­pitulateth a part of the discourse of his Sermon, Gerson Considerat. 7. contra adulat. he sayth: It is an errour to belieue, that a terrene Prince is not bound in any thing, during his raigne, to his subiects. For according to diuine right and na­turall equity, and the end of true gouernement, as the subiects owe fidelity, ayd, succour and seruice to their Lord: So the Lord oweth agayne faith and protection to his subiects. And if the Prince manife­stly pursue and persecute them, and with obstinacy in iniury, and by fact, then this naturall rule (It is lawfull to repell force by force: and this saying of Seneca, There cannot be a more acceptable Sacrifice immolated and made to God, then by taking away of a Tyrant) taketh place.

And notwithstanding this which is more strange, those who haue caused this to be re­printed, haue not vouchsafed to add, either in the beginning of his workes, or in the margent of these wordes, any obseruation, or note for the censuring of them, or for aduertisement of the Reader to take heed. But indeed, how could they haue done it without condem­ning themselues: Themselues (I say) who du­ring the fury of these last troubles had been En­signe-bearers, [Page 124]or rather had caried the burning torches of this pernicious doctrine, and had maynteyned and publisht it against King Hen­ry the third, by propositions disputed and prin­ted? For these be their words: It is most cer­taine, that by right, both diuine and naturall, the Estates be aboue Kings. And againe: It was law­full for all the people of France most iustly to take ar­mes against the Tyrant: that is to say, agaynst King Henry the third. And a litle after: They, who consider matters attentiuely and diligently, will iudge that the eternall enemies of the Religion, and of the Country ought to be pursued not only by pu­blique armes, but also by the sword, and plotts of particuler persons. And that Iames Clement the Dominican, was not put forwards by any other desire, then by the loue of the Lawes of his Country, and of the zeale of Ecclesiasticall discipline, by which this restorer of our Liberty, hath put vpon his owne head grace, and vpon our neck a coller of gold, and the heauenly collers of the Church. Thus there.

This I say not to scandalize them (for I conceale their names) nor to reproach them with that, that the bounty, and clemency of the King hath buried vp and forgotten; but to shew, that they should be content to attend the rest of their dayes, to the cancelling and washing away of their offence with their tea­res, and not to meddle themselues with the making of lessons, of the seruice of Kinges, to [Page 125]them, who alwaies well and faithfully serued them, euen then when they persecuted them.

But these are violent spirits, who being transported to one extreme, and not being of power to hold the meane, thought that the best meanes, for the iustifying of themselues was to passe ouer to the other extreme, and to put their hand to pen, to write and fight a­gainst the Pope. Wherin as they are found con­forme, or at least very like vnto the Churches enemies, they haue beene so set on, and plyed by those our enemyes, and by some that dissem­bled with them, as they haue beene induced & thrust on, vnder a pretence of the Kinges ser­uice, to sow the seedes of schisme.

But, Syrs, the King desireth not to be serued after this sort: his will is not that proui­sion be made for his safety by schisme, and by the Churches diuision: In the ruines whereof is comprehended the ruine and ouerthrow of his owne safetie, spirituall and temporall: he is a Catholike, and the eldest child of the Catho­like Church; he is the first Catholike of all the Kinges, and the first King of all the Catho­likes. He feareth not to fall into Heresy, and standeth not in doubt of the Popes censures, nor dreadeth the Churches threates against Heretikes. He is the prime and principall pro­tect our of the one and the other. He is the heire both of the Crowne, and of the name, and of the faith of that glorious S. Lewis, who was the [Page 126]Churches support and piller, and the Popes de­fence, & retrait. He is descēded from a mother no lesse Catholike, pious, and Religious then his owne: he is inseparable & indiuisible from the vnion and amity of the Sea Apostolike, & doth seeke by all manner of reasons, both spiri­tuall and temporall, to manteyne it.

In the person of Elizabeth Queene of England, the interests of Estate fought against those of conscience, and bound her, to con­tinue seuered from the communion of the Pope. But all the interests aswell of State as of Reli­gion, bind the gratitude of our King, to con­serue himselfe in intelligence, correspondence, vnion and amity with the Pope: he is besides the Titles his predecessors haue gained him, a child of the Sea Apostolique in many sortes. Pope Clement the Eight receaued the deceased King Henry the Great his Father into the Churches bosome and lappe, he resolued, and established his mariage with the most Chri­stian Queene Mary de Medices, to whose pru­dence, vertue, and bountie, we owe the pros­perity of our new raigne, and the memory of whose most happy Regencie, al the ages of po­sterity will extoll and blesse. Out of this Ma­riage, is come the Sacred bud of our Lillyes, which Salomon did not match with all his glory: I meane the King who now raigneth. Pope Paul who sitteth at this day in the Sea of Peter was his good Father, and as his second [Page 127]Father, hath imployed himselfe by all manner of cares and good offices, to procure before God, and before Men, the conseruation of his person, and of his Realme.

And wherefore then should we desturbe or trouble this concord, by Lawes not only of State, but also of Religion, and of conscience, which our Fathers haue not knowne? Cast your eyes vpon the histories of France, and you shall finde, that allwayes when our Kinges haue beene in vnion, concord and correspon­dence with the Sea Apostolike, and that the Spouse (to vse the termes of Scripture) hath fed among the lillies; all sortes of graces and benedictions temporall and spirituall haue ray­ned, and come downe vpon them, and their people; you shall find that as when the Arke of Couenant stayed and continued in the house of Obededom, there was not any kind of felicity wanting euen so, as long as the Communion of the Sea Apostolique hath beene amongst vs, & that we haue had the assistāce of the Vi­car of him, who is the true Arke of Couenant, we haue had our share in al sortes of prosperi­ties: the name of Frenchmē hath dispersed it self from one end of the world to the other, and our Lillyes haue extended and reached themselues to the furthest remote corners of the earth.

Contrariwise at what time our Kinges were seuered from the communion of the Sea Apostolique, the Lillies hath beene amidst the [Page 128]thornes, and all sortes of afflictions, and of ad­uersities haue besieged vs. Renew within your selues the memory of those thinges, and there­hence drawe consequences for the tyme to come. Remember how many calamities and miseries we haue suffred in tyme of Schismes, or apprehensiō of Schismes; how many Churches ruyned, how many Altars pulled downe, how many Citties saccaged and spoyled. Represent to your eies the State of your passed life, the tyme that our deceased King was depriued of the Communion of the Apostolique Sea, and with how many vowes, and teares both he and you haue desired his restitution. But a­boue all, lay againe before your eies the state of the life to come, from which the authors and fauourers of Schisme be excluded, and whereunto none can possibly come, if he be not placed, not only in the faith, but also in the vnity, and in the communion of the Ca­tholike Church.