forme of his appellation saith (b) 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 shal be and to others to which or to whome it shal be 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 (c) Ibidem Celestine his predecessour the true lawfull Pope still liuing And they further added that he was an (d) Ibidem Heretique and consequently not Pope for as much as said they (e) 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 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 (a) 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 (b) 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 (c) 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 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 (d) 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 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 possession of it The King of Nauarre saith he (a) 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 (b) 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
of Paris and certaine Officers of the Long Robe belonging to the King as Treasurers Receauers and such like who commonly beeing the chiefest men of their Parish are wont with such case to procure themselues to be chosen deputies as an English Gentleman of meanes and credit can make himselfe in like case be made a Burgesse By this meanes there were very few places in the Third Chamber which were filled by Freeholders or substantiall Merchants of those Citties and Prouinces and therefore no meruayle if vnder the name of the Commons of France who are perhaps of the most pious men of that Kingdome and whereof there was in this Assembly of Estates no more in effect but the name this wicked proposition of a profane Oath did come to light beeing conceaued partly by the Kinges Officers who crept into those places expresly against the Lawes of France and who make no scruple to flatter their King with faire words vpon condition they may the more securely robbe him by other meanes and partly by certaine other Lawyers as hath beene said who vse to be wel content to deliuer the King from all Tribunalls but their owne and are generally the greatest Libertines both in vnderstanding and will that perhaps the Christian world is acquainted with This action therefore of the Third Estate being thus miscompounded need not make our Aduersaries more insolent then they were before but much rather ought they to retract their former actions vpon a due consideration of the proceeding which was held in this busines by the Clergy and Nobility of France of whome it cannot be pretended but that they would gladly haue graunted to their King whatsoeuer they could in conscience The Clergy I say of France which dependeth more vpon those Kinges by the exemptions of sundry Popes then any Catholike Clergy doth in Christendome and the Nobility of France which enioyeth not only more accesse other priuileges but draweth more money in specie by way of pensioÌ„ from their King without obligation to any particuler residence or seruice then any Nobility doth in Christendome whether it be Catholike or other wherin I will not except Spayne for I know I need not And when I should say that the French King diâ—burseth yearly not much lesse by way of pensioÌ„ to his subiects of the Nobility then the King of England receaueth yearâ—y to his purse all manner of wayes I should not be the Authour of a Paaadoxe for the suÌ„me ariueth in sight besides that which is vnknown to vpon the point of six hundred thousand poundes per annum The Oration it self doth follow at the end of this Preface and therefore I enter not vpon the perticulers thereof only the Reader when he hath perused it may be pleased to remember two thinges in generall conteyned therein One that the Oath is such as that they of the French Clergie and Nobility will rather die then take it the other that there was neuer any French writer since the faculty of Diuinity hath beene taught in the Schooles of France not excepting euen such as were the most earnest vpholders of Regal authority were required by the Kinges of their tymes to defend the same by publique writing who affirmeth Kinges to be indeposable by Popes in al cases And wheÌ„soeuer any of them haue debated the point of the Absolution which subiectes may haue from the Oath of Allegiance to their Prince the cases of the Princes Heresy Apostasy are alwayes excepted that is to say in such cases the subiects of a King acording to the iudgmeÌ„t of all Catholike French writers may be absolued from the Oath of their Allegiance I tie not my self to the wordes but the substance of these two propositions is cleerely deliuered by the Cardinall in the name of the Clergy of France which so long as the Reader shall keep in mind it will make him if he be a discreet Protestant discerne with ease how falsly his Ministers haue laid certaine seditious opinions to the charge of vs English Catholikes and such say they as are not belieued by the Catholike Countries ioyning to vs. If he chaunce to be a Precisian he will haue reason to take compassion of vs Catholikes whome he findes to agree in this with himselfe and all the Calumists in the world that Kings may for some hideous crymes desâ—rue to fall from their Royalty though there be this difference betweene vs that we hold the common Father of all true Christians to be the fittest Iudge of such high quarrells as fall out betweene his children wherin also he is directed by the Canons and inuiolable Customes of the Church in what sort and by what degrees he must proceed but they hold that Kinges are subiect to a kinde of popular iudgment which is so much the likelier to be corrupt as it is vsuall for the people whome they make the Iudge to be a party If he be a faint Catholike who hath brought his conscience to take the Oath of England and to run dauncing round the may-pole of humane respectes it will make him returne to the good company which in that point he hath left and fetch the bloud into his face when he considers that he beeing an English Catholike who was wont to haue the honour to be so entire in the confession of his faith hath need to be put in mind of his duty by an action performed in France where leuity and liberty are ordinarily so much in vse If lastly he he a sincere and loyal Catholike who doth choose rather to starue then to strayne his conscience and consequently resolueth to be far inough from taking the English Oath he may giue God humble thankes for his infinite mercy who besides the promise of future rewardes for these present sufferinges and the testimony of a good conscience which euen in this life is so great a Iewell as both the Indies cannot buy hath vouchsafed to iustify him in point of spirituall reputation by the testimony of that Nation whose syncerity was called most in question and whose example hath been heretofore so impudently though without controle alleadged against him and vs. And though if we were sure that our persecution were to continue as long as the world yet we should know withall that there is no proportion betwene the longest tyme and eternity and that the sufferings of this life though neuer so grieuous are infinitly vnworthy of that glory which is prepared for such as keepe the Depositum of Catholike Faith vndiminisht But we are taught not only by the experience of former tymes which tells vs of the periode of great persecutions euen then when there seemed to be least humane hope therof but also by that which we may haue obserued by the passages of the late action of the Estates in France how able God Almighty is to make his greatest enemies the liueliest instruments of his glory in despight of their owne wicked hartes and to make their endeauours which ayme at
the dishonoring and abusing of his Church to giue the greatest contribution that could be wished to the Dignity and Maiesty of the same Who knowes not that the holding of these Estates in France was pursued only in effect by certaine irreuerent semi-Catholikes who loue nothing lesse then the splendour and vigour of Ecclesiasticall discipline and â—urisdiction Who knowes not that as soone as the said Estates were opened that rotten member which tooke the name of the Third Estate discouered that Canker which hath been feeding gredily vpon it especially since the introduction of heresy into that Kingdome by plodding vpon some course how to make an Idâ—ll of the temporall power of Kinges in respect of the reuerence due to Popes and so far to abuse the authority of the Apostolike Sea as that they would redoubt it no more then a meere Scarcrow or Chymera And yet we see God hath fetcht the Treacle of which I haue spoken from the poyson that grew in the festred bowells of his Enemies for if that French Oath had not been propounded by those Lawyers the contrary doctrine and beliefe of the Church of France had not beene protested by those Prelates Shall the prouidence therefore of God be able to watch so fruitfully ouer the Catholike Church of France and shall the narrow seas be broad inough to keepe him from shewing his power in England to our comfort and the confusion of such as either know him not or care not for him nay rather let vs learne by this that when our persecuting Ministers do most conspire our ruine then shall we be surest of Gods present help when the graue shal be finished wherin they hope to bury vs aliue incident in foueam quam fecerunt it is then that they are likeliest to die in the same ditch which they made for vs. Courage therfore is that which we are to beg at the hands of God who knowes not how to forsake but such as confide not in him It was said long ago by one who had no supernaturall â—ssistance wherby his crosses were to be asswaged Si longus leuis si magnus breuis but we haue infinitly more reason to assure our selues then he that if our persecution linger on it wil be lightned if it increase it wil be shortned Nor ought we be without hope but that it may be both short and light when his Maiestyes Excellent Iudgment shall haue obserued which in all likelihood he hâ—th already done by he ensâ—ing Oration and other bookes that his Catholiâ—e subiects hoâ—d no other opinions in fauour of the Sea Apostolike but such as are common to those Cathoâ—iâ—es that are accounted euen the most remisse iâ— Europe That there is no Protestant Church which hath declared this proposition to be true That a King can neuer be deposed by any authority vnder heauen nor his subiects be absolued from the Oath of Allegiance which once they made for any incorrigible crimes whatsoeuer That on the other side rebellions of sâ—biects against their naturall Princes haue growne familia since â—rotestancy brake loose and haue been as it were haâ—cht by that sect in England Scotland Holland Sweueland Germany Switzerland Geneua and most often in France wherof truâ— histories makâ— particuâ—e mention And 〈◊〉 that should not be able to read or vnderstanâ— a booke might see the matter verified euen at this instant in the Kingdome of France where the Prince Protestant of them all is vexing his King by all the power he hath either of credit or other meanes hauing drawne to his lure many others of both Religions That since his Maiesty hath beene ill counselled and vâ—ged by Ministers amongst all whome there hath nâ—uer yet beene any one good man of State he hath gotten nothing lesse then that they aymed at which was That Regall Authority now that it is imployed in their defence should be as superstitiously adored as in Queene Maries dayes both of England and Scotland when their religion receaued a check it was irreligiously decried and disgraced For now insteed of being held a kind of Diuinity vpon earth which notion mens mindes were fitter for before they were opened by such Oathes they are growne to lookeâ— abroad vpon that light which they were wont to be afraid would dazell their eies and at last are come so neere vnto it as that they touch and handle it by the discourse of reason and experience which tells them that Kingly Authority cannot come immediatly from God to any man but by miracle That all the Kinges whome we know do either rule by force of conquest and in that case the authority of the CommoÌ„ wealth if it be vsurped may be resumed or by Donation Election Marriage or Succession of bloud in which cases Kings forfait by not performing the conditions vnder which either they or their first auncestors did enter whether they were expressed or necessarily implied Necessarily I say implied for supposing that a people who was without question the first owner of supreme authority vpon earth should cause a King to gouerne them without obliging him in particuler to do this or that it were a Barbarous conceipt to thinke that it were in his law full power to Tyrannize ouer them at his pleasure without hauing respect either to their defence in time of warre or the administration of Iustice in tyme of peace for which only respectes they made him King If this discourse be true in case of Kinges euen by the Law of Nature and of Nations how much more shall it be so amongst Christian Kinges who in their Baptisme do their homage to the Faith of Christ and at their Coronations do sweare the mayntenance of Religion and Iustice which are the conditions expressed whereupon the progenitours of the most absolute Christian Kinges were placed in their Royall Throne These thinges I say are growne into the consideration of men and strikes the reasonable part of their soules with such an euidence and demonstration of truth as no formulary of an Oath though perhaps for feare or fashion sake they may chance to accept therof will euer be able to wipe out Some questions there may be betweene men of different Religions as hath beene toucht to whom the iudgment ouer Kings for their offences may belong some holding that this Iurisdiction resides in the Church some in the Common Wealth some in both together and some others other seuerall opinions which are not so much worth the specifying but all the Christian Congregations of all Religions in the world do agree in this that all Kinges for hideous crimes may fall from their dignity and their subiectes may be absolued from their Oath of fidelity Nay I haue not heard euen in England where our Oath of Allegiance was enacted nor in France where the like was offered that when the generall propositions which were conteyned in both the formularies were well deduced into particulers men would be drawne to subscribe and sweare thereto otherwise then forced by feare
all this while that French Catholikes were in this poynt agreeing rather with the Parlament in England then the Church of Rome But God be praised the curtaine is drawne at length which heretofore hath parted the stage from the attyring house and now the spectatours who are as many of our Country as can write and read may seâ— that such as plead the partes of ciuill rich and religious persons are many of them no better then insolent beggarly and lewd companions This worke is performâ—d in this Oration following wherewith I haâ—e thought good to present the courteous Reader composed and prâ—nounâ—ed by that ornament of our age the Cardinal of Peron a man so well knowne to the world for the great childes portion which the father of all good thinges hath allotted out vnto him of incomparable learning prudence and zeale towardes the Catholique Faith It pleased God by his meanes long since to conuert the last King of France from his erroneous beliefe to make the said Cardinall amongst others an Instrument of compounding that busines of the Venetians whereupon the peace of the Church did in some sort depend and now this honour was only wanting to him that he should be the meanes to restore one of the noblest members of the Church for so we may without any vanity to the glory of God esteeme the English Catholikes who with so admirable grace and strength are stil swimming through the bitter waues of persecution to the honour of only suffering for that faith which other Catholike Countries do professe wherof our Aduersaries haue studied so earnestly to depriue vs whilest they say the doctrine conteyned in the Oath of Allegiance is impugned by vs out of singularity or seditious humour and that our next neighbouring Churches of the same Communion would acknowledge and confesse the same But I must not reflect so particulerly vpon the dignity of the Cardinalls person and the extreme obligation which al good English Catholikes haue to him as therby to neglect the setting forth of the aduantaâ—e which our cause hath got by his Oration For although it were not a matter of small importance if it had beene deliuerâ—d by himself but as a priuate man yet it ought to rise to another manner of accoumpt when it appeareth that as the stile thereof was ordered by his eloquence and the sound thereof pronounced by his voyce so also the substance and strength of it did spring euen from the hart roote of the whole Clergy of France represented by those Archbishops and Bishops and other Prelates there assembled and was both ioyfully receaued and clerely auowed by the whole Nobility of France assembled also and represented in lik maÌ„ner Now to the end good Reader that thou mayâ—st runne through with moâ—e facility and be able with more syncerity to discerne of that which is conteyned in the Oration I will make thee acquainted with the occasion therof and premise also some few other thinges whereof perhaps thou art ignoranâ— and which may serue to set thy iudgment straight in that which followeth The Parlaments in France haue no resemblance to ours in England but are certaine sedentary and supreme Courts of Iustice compounded only of Lawyers who iudge without appeale within their seuerall precinctes of Iurisdiction Of these Courtes there are eight in France all independant on of another though the Parlament of Paris haue a Country vnder it of greater extent and by residing in that Citty which is the ordinary habitation of the French Kinges it hath growne to that kind of amâ—ition and vsurpation which some Patriarchs of Constantinople and some Bishops of Rauenna haue been subiect to in different causes but vpon like occasions That which in France doth answere the nature of our English Parlament is the holding of the three Estates Generall the Clergy the Nobility and the Communalty which last is called the Third Estate but it is with this difference amongst others that they sit in three seuerall Chambers whereas the two former of ours sit in one and wheras with vs an Act is not presented to the King vnles the maior part of both our Houses or Chambers do finde it good in France if the maior part of two Chambers do resolue vpon any proposition it is to go vnder the name of all the Three Estates although one of them should dissent therin This supposed I wil proceed to informe thee courteous Reader that the greater number of the deputies of the third Chamber in this last Assembly of the Estates in France did conceaue frame the forme of an Oath which they wished might be ministred in that Kingdome as that which beares the name of Allegiance is in ours whereby the same principall Article is â—biured namely that no French King can be deposed nor his subiects absolued from their obedience by any Pope for any cause whatsoeuer and that the contrary opinion is Hereticall and repugnant to the doctrine of the Scriptures But this difference is found betweene the two Oathes that whereas the English one in one of the clauses seemes to exclude not only the authority of the Church ouer Kinges but euen of the CoÌ„mon wealth also yea though it should be accompanied with that of the Church that of France shooâ—es only at the abnegation of the Churches authority Nor is there a man in that Kingdome who appeares to h ld that Kinges in certaine cases are not subiect to the censure of the Common wealth And as for the Parlament of Paris in particuler who knowes not that diuers of that body haue now helped to animate the Prince of Condé and his complices to take armâ—s against the King and Queene of France vpon the supposall which they make of the ill Gouernment of that Kingdome But howsoeuer thaâ— case standes this Oath was drawne by the Chamber of the Communalty which in France is called the Third Estate and reiected as conteyning false and wicked doctrine by both the Chambers of the Clergy and Nobility and coâ—sequently for the reason that I gaue before by the Estate Generall Some man perhaps amongst oâ—r English aduersaries may obiect that notwithstâ—nding the custome and stile of France doth beare that whatsoeuer is authorized or reprâ—oued by any two of the Chambers doth take the name of all the threâ— yet it makes exceedingâ—y for the credit of our Oath of Allegiance that they of the Third Estate in France which is the greatest member of that body should c nspire in opinion with the Authours of our English Oath though they be of a contrary Religion to the Protestant in other thinges and esteemed the most deuout professours of it in that Kingdome I answere that this argument may looke fayre a far off but with such as know how thinges were carried it will fall out to be of no force at all It is to be vnderstood that this Chamber of the Third Estate was wholy in effect compounded of Lawyers most of them belonging to the Court of Parlament
Supra pag. 47. in case of heresie can depose only indirectly in as much as he can excoÌ„municate 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 (c) 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 impugnatioÌ„ 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 also be of the same opinion For to say nothing of those who haue further extended the Popes power as Iohn de Selue (a) Io. de Seiu eract de Benef. p. 3. q. 8. President of the Parlament of Paris (b) Ioan. Fab. in log 1. nu 10. c. de sum Trinit fide Cath. Iohn Faber Aduocate of the same Parlament Stephen Aufrerius (c) 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 absoâ—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 (d) 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 (e) Le songe dit Verger attribué par quelques vns au Chaunceleur des Domans par les autres a Philip de Mâ—giâ—s Cosâ—â—ller inâ—â—ne coÌ„fident du Râ—y Charles 5. he made answere by him who mainteyned the part of the Regal power That the power spirituall commaundeth not 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 (a) 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 (b) 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 â—auteritè temporel des Roys imprimè â—uecq priuilege verifie au ParlemeÌ„t 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 coÌ„mit in such cases Alwayes vnderstood that as the crimes be personal go not further then to persons deliâ—queÌ„t so the paine that is due to them infringeth not the right of the successâ—urs to their Kingdome But against this one obiectes three principall instaÌ„ces 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 (a) They anciently called the AsbigeÌ„ses 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 (b) Act inter â—â—enif Thil. â—idch qâ— de poâ—â—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 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 (a) Du Hailan in his history of FraÌ„ce 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
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 cōduct 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 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 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 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 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 shall be 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 which 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 shal be 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 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 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