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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 shal be 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 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 coūsell 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 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 cōtempt 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 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 excoÌ„municating 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 wherof there be temporall paynes ordained which is that wherof the Apostle speaketh (a) 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 (b) 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 vâ—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 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 â— Reg. 11. That the Prophet Abia deposed Roboam froÌ„ 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. â—â—g 19. 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 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 example the story of King Ozias 2. Paralip 26. who was suddainly stroken with a mark in the forehead for hauing
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 seÌ„tence 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 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 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 froÌ„ 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 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 coÌ„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 deâ—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 ConstaÌ„ce Concil Constant sess 5. against the murtherers of Kings euen such as might be pretÌ„eded to be Tyrants Anathema to such as murther Kinges eternall malediction to the assassinats of Kinges eternall damnatioÌ„ 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 administratioÌ„ of temporall thinges they depend immediatly 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. (a) 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 (b) 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 suâ—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 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 propositioÌ„ 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
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 (a) 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 Pope Martin the 4. saith Paul Aemilius (b) Paul Aemil. in Philip. 3. and du (c) 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 theÌ„selues the executors and reputed such actes amongst the chiefest workes of their piety For the defendors of (d) Act. inter Bonif Phil. Pulâ—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 (a) Proissart vol. 1. cha 230. an Authour of the same tyme he was an (b) Bulgaret en Froissart signifie Albigeois an heretike heretike a persecutor of the Church conspired with the Moores some adde (c) De Serâ—es an abnegatour and abiurer of his Christianity and had discharged his subiectes of the Oath of their fidelity King Charles the siâ—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 (d) 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 HaillaÌ„ saith Charles (e) Du Haillan eâ— 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 Guesâ—lin newly returned from his prison And when the ConÌ„cell 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 landes of other Princes and Potentates was coÌ„prised in these wordes (a) Concil Constant fess 27. If any King Cardinall Patriarke Archbishop Bâ—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 dâ—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 (b) Alexand Halen p. 4. quast 10. an English Doctour but who read and taught in Paris Hugo de (c) â—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 (d) DuraÌ„d Mâ—â—â—â— in 〈…〉 surnamed the Speculatour Durand (e) DuraÌ„d Mâ—ld l. de orig â—urisdict q. 2. Bishop of Meaux Peter Paludanus (f) Petr. Palud tract de caus imnad potest art 4. Patriark titular of Hierusalem (g) 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 (a) Tho. 2.2 q. 〈◊〉 art 10. 〈◊〉 corp art The right of domâ—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 desâ—rt of their infidelity merit to loose their power ouer the faithfull who be traÌ„sferred to be become the children of God And sometimes it happeneth
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 temporall Soueraignty as it appeareth by the disauowing of the proposition that was comprised in these words (a) Apâ—d Bochâ—â—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 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 ReligioÌ„ 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 by the conuersation of their Prince whether he maketh professioÌ„ of the Catholike ReligioÌ„ 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 preuentioÌ„ 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 persoÌ„ 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 (a) Petr. Câ—gner grauam 59. the Kinges Aduocate among other the coÌ„plaints 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 the diuine seruice therein to cease against the priuiledges that our Soueraigne Kinges haue from many Popes For Pope Alexander the (b) Alexand 4.2 Calend. April Pontif. an 2. 4. yealded thâ—se wordes vnto the King S. Lewis by expresse Bulls That no Archbishop nor other Prelate can publish against your land sentence of excoÌ„munication without commaundement or speciall licence of the Sea Apostolike And Nicolas (a) Nicol. 3.13 Calend. Octobr. PoÌ„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 (b) Clem. 4.3 Idib Martij Pontif-an 2. the fourth Gregory (c) Greg. 10.9 Cal. April Pontif. an 1. the tenth Martin (d) Mart. 4. cal Octob Pont ann 1. the fourth Clement (e) Clem. 5.2 cal Aug. Pontif. ann 2. the fift who published the like Bulls Clement (f) 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 coÌ„maund or licence of the Sea Apostolike And againe by other Bulls (g) IdeÌ„ 12. cal Maij Pontif. ann 9. sent to the same King Iohn and Queene Iane for their Chappell 's in particuler in these wordes That it be not lawfull for any to put the Chappell 's of you and of your Successors Kinges after you vnder Ecclesiasticall Interdict without speciall licence of the Sea Apostolique And these Bulls were addressed and sent to the Court of the Parlament of Paris by the letters Patentes (h) Anno 1369. of Charles the Fifth to cause them to be registred And they were registred (i) 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 (a) 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 religioÌ„ 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 (b) supra pag. 47. Iohn Maior (c) Io. Maior in 4. sent dist 24. Iames Almain (d) Io. Alma supra pag. 48. Peter Gregory (e) 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 (f) Occ. supra pag 47. Antony de Rossellis (g) Ant. de Rossell Monarch part r. c. 56 and Vulturnus (h) 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 (i) 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 (a) Vâ—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 writteÌ„ the Emperour resided actually in Liege (b) Ibid. Thirdly for that the Chapter of Liege hath since (c) 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 (d) Inter Epist Hen. â— Protest edit That it was the tradition of the Fathers that he could not be deposed if he erred not in faith Which Cusanus (e) Cusan l. 3. concord Cath. c. 7. the Imperialist writing for the CouÌ„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 (f) 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 (g) 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 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 coÌ„sciences not only make men to receaue this doctrine (a) 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 propositioÌ„ 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 maÌ„ner as this Audience doth deserue THE SECOND INCONVENIENCE that I haue bound my self to shew in this Fundamentall PropositioÌ„ 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 (a) 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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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 (a) 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 (b) â— 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 (c) 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 (d) 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 (e) Esay 54. saith to the Church Euery tongue resisting thee in iudgment thou shalt iudge And againe (f) 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 Iurâ—diction in these wordes (g) 2. Paralâ—p 19. Amarias saith he the Priest and your Bishop shal be chiefe in these thinges that appertayne to God and Zabadias the sonne of Ismael who is the Prince in the house of Iuda shal be ouer those workes which perteyne to the Kinges office And our Sauiour (h) 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 (i) 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 (a) Heb. 3. Obey your Prelates for they watch hauing to render an accompt of your soules And againe (b) 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 (c) Ruff. l. 10. Eccles hâ—st c. 2. Constantine the Great who am placed ouer temporalities to censure and iudge the causes of Bishops And the Emperour Valentinian (d) 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 (e) Epist ad Sinodâ— 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 the answere that Censtantine made saith (f) Carol. mâ—gâ— 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 (a) 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 (b) Epist ad Const apud AthaÌ„ 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 (c) 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 (d) Ibidem He treateth not of matters of the Roman CoÌ„mon wealth where there may be credit giuen to you as to an Emperour but he speaketh of a Bishop And a little after (e) 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 desolatioÌ„ fortould by Daniel And Gregory Nazianzen (f) 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 and perfecter then yours And S. Ambrose (g) 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 (h) 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 (a) 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 â—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 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