The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 40
THE XL. ARTICLE.
We say then, that we must obey all lawes and statutes, pay all tributes and imposts, and other duties, and beare the yoke of subiection with a good and free will, although they be infidels. So that Gods Empire may flourish and be vndefaced. And so we detest those that would reiect superioritie, and establish communitie of goods, and ouerthrow all course of iustice.
MOVLIN.
Sect. 38 In the 30. Article of our Confession, wherein we speake not any thing of Kings nor Magistrates, M. Arnoux speaketh of vsus, as of those that are enemies to all humane order, and such as teach men to shake off the yoke of lawes and Magistrates. But against these two Articles, wherein we speake of subiection and fidelity to Magistrates, as of a necessary thing ordained by God, he saith nothing, and so iustifieth vsus by his silence. Whether it be that our innocencie is knowne vntounto him, and for that our Confession touching this point is so expresse, that it confuteth all sorts of slanders: or because he hath bene striken with some remorse of conscience, and is ashamed to speake any thing in this matter for the obedience due to Magistrates; knowing well that the Popes power, and the doctrine of the Iesuites wholly tend to the subuersion of Empires, exempteth Clergie men from the subiection of Kings, and putteth the liues and the Crownes of soueraigne Princes into the Popes power. Which moueth vsus to speake briefly of these two things: First, of the exemption of spirituall persons from temporall power: Secondly, of the Popes power to giuegive and take away kingdomes.
Of the exemption of the Clergie.
Sect. 39 The Councell of Constance in the 31 Session, declareth, that*Laici in clericos nullā habent iurisdictionem & potestatem. the Laitie (that is, Kings and Princes) hauehave no iurisdiction nor authoritie ouer Clergie men. The Councell of Trent in the 25 Session and 20 chapter saith, that**Personarum Ecclesiasticarum immunitas Dei ordinatione & canonicis sanctionibus instituta est. The exemption of ecclesiasticall persons was instituted by the ordinance of God, and by canonicall constitutions. Bellarmine in his booke of Clerkes, 28. chapter, saith,***Clerici non possunt à Iudice politico puniri, vel vllo modo trahi ad secularis magistratus tribunal. That Clerks may not be punished by the ciuill Iudge, nor by any meanes be brought before the iudgement seates of secular Magistrates. And in the same place he saith,*Summus Pontifex clericos exemit à subiectione Principum, nō sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores The soueraigne Bishop hath exempted Clerks from the subiection of Princes, & therefore Kings are no more Soueraignes ouer Clerks. And if our Kings and their Courts of Parlament do reserue any iurisdiction to themselues ouer the Clergie, as Appeales, their regall right vponupon vacant Benefices, tythes, and the patronage of certaine Benefices, then the Clergie rage, and cry out, and say, that they violate the liberties of the Church. For the libertie which Iesus Christ obtained for the Church, which consisteth in her deliuerance from the ceremonies of the Law, and in her deliuerance from the seruitude of sinne and the diuell, at this day is conuerted into an exemption from all subiection to Magistrates, and into franchises and temporall immunities. And if the Magistrate taketh any knowledge of a crime committed by any Clerke, and layeth hand on him to punish him, (as not long since it happened in Venice,) it is enough to thunder downe an Estate, and to threaten a Commonwealth to interdict it. And not to seeke for more proofes of so, manifest a thing, the Pope yearely on maundy Thursday, thundreth an excommunication against Kings & Magistrates that shall take any knowledge of Ecclesiasticall causes and crimes, or that shall raise any tythes of the Clergie. This is it which it called the Bull De coena Domini; where in all cases reserued to his Holinesse are orderly set downe.
These exemptions are a great preiudice and weakening to our Kings; partly in respect of the multitude of persons that are withdrawne from the obedience of the King, which hauehave their Iudges and their prisons apart, and their causes are carried to Rome by Appeale: and partly in regard of their goods and possessions; for the Clergie possesseth the third part of France, and the goodliest peeces of ground and houses, vponupon which the King loseth his right. For a foeffe escheating to the possession of the Clergie falleth into a Mortmaine, and oweth no more personal serucie to the King, to aide him in his necessitie: and in case of high treason, his goods cannot be confiscate, nor his person punished, if it pleaseth not the Bishop to degrade him, that he may become a lay man, and so punishable by secular power. By this meanes the Pope hath erected an Estate temporall for himselfe in the middle of the Estates of Christian Kings. From thence it proceedeth that our Kings, in a great kingdome, raise small armies, and that the Clergie waxe fat, and the Nobilitie & the third estate become poore, as the armes and the legs waxe weake, when the belly swelleth with excesse. Which maketh the head (which is the soueraigne Prince) draw the lesse seruice from them. Therefore it is not without cause that many yeares since Ecclesiasticall persons hauehave hidden the Scripture from our Kings, because it speaketh so expresly touching this matter.
1. In the old Testament the Priests and the Leuits were subiects to Kings. It was not in the high Priests power to punish Leuites with corporall or pecuniarie punishment.
2. King Dauid in the first chapter of the first of Kings calleth Sadoc the high Priest and Nathan the Prophet, his seruants, saying, Take with you the seruants of your Lord, and let Sadoc the high Priest and Nathan the Prophet annoint him there King ouer Israel.
3. In the second chapter, verse 26. King Salomon putteth Abiathar from the office of high Priest, and confineth him to Anathoth. And the actions done in the beginning of Salomons reigne are generally commended, in the third chapter, verse 3.
4. In the 17. of Saint Matthew Iesus Christ payed tribute, and Saint Peter with him. It cannot be said that he did it for feare, seeing he had power enough to exempt himselfe from it. It is true that being of the royall race, he had bene exempted frō paying tribute, if he had bene acknowledged in that quality, as he himselfe saith in that place, That the children of Kings are free. But knowing that he could not alledge his royall descent to the collectors of tribute without offending them, he subiected himselfe thereunto, in that giuing vsus an example to conforme our selues to do the like.
5. He himselfe appeared before Pilate, as before his lawfull Iudge, and to whom that power was giuen from aboue, Ioh. 19.11.
6. The Apostle Saint Paul appealeth to Caesar, and not to Peter. Which he did not for feare, for he would not by feare or by fraud preiudice the right of the Church: for Saint Luke Acts 23.11. witnesseth, that he did it by the motion of the Spirit of God, the Lord appearing vntounto him in the night. Wherefore Bellarmine much wrongs himselfe, to say,Cap. 3. in Barkl. that S. Pauls cause was for a point of religion, the knowledge whereof appertained not to the Magistrate. For in Acts. 24. Tertullus accused Paul to hauehave raised sedition, and Saint Paul 25.8. defendeth himselfe by alledging, that they accused him to hauehave offended Caesar.
7. The Apostle Saint Peter in his first Epistle writeth to all the faithfull, and by consequence to Pastors of the Church. And therefore to them it is that in the 2.13. he saith, Submit your selues to eueryevery ordinance of man, for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme; or vntounto gouerners, as vntounto them that are sent by him.
8. But Saint Pauls words, Romans 13.1. are most expresly set downe to that end, where he saith, Let eueryevery soule be subiect vntounto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoeuer therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And to the end lest some Sophister should thinke to auoide this, by saying, that Clerkes or spirituall persons are subiects to the Pope, and that he in respect of them is the superiour power; the same Apostle in the 4. and 6. verses sheweth that he speaketh of the power which beareth the sword, and whereunto tribute is payed. For then, & long time after that, there was no superiour powers which bare the sword, and to whom men payed tribute, but the power of secular Princes. The interlineat Glosse confesseth it, where vponupon these words, Potestatibus sublimioribus, the Glosse saith, Id est, saecularibus bonis & malis. And it is to be noted, that then Nero reigned, a Pagan Emperour, who as he was the greatest, so he was the wickedest of all men, & a persecutor of the Church, to whom neuerthelesse S. Paul would hauehave Christians yeeld obedience. Therfore Chrysostome in his 23. Homilie vponupon the Epistle to the Romans, expoundeth that place in this manner,foreign. saying: He commandeth that to all men, both to Priests and cloyster men, and not onelyonly to secular persons: yea although thou art an Apostle, or an Euangelist, or a Prophet, or whatsoeuer thou art.
9. And to the end that men should not say, that feare of punishment, or present necessitie drew those words from the Apostle, he saith that we must be subiect to the higher powers, Not onelyonly because of wrath, that is, not onelyonly because we are afraid to offend the Prince, But also for conscience sake. And in the second verse he saith, Whosoeuer therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.
10. It is either in despite or in mockerie, that Bellarmine in the 28. chapter of his booke of Clerkes, for the exemption of Clerkes, alledgeth an example of the Egyptian Priests that were not constrained to sell their lands through pouerty, as the other Egyptians were. For, doth it from thence follow, that their lands and possessions were exempted from tallages or tributes? And say they had bene so, may a Pagan example serue for a law in the Church of God?
11. Reason also is most euident therein. For is it reasonable that the King should pay souldiers that go to warre, and that he should fortifie the frontiers of his kingdome, to the end that Clerks and spirituall persons may sleepe securely, and that they should not contribute something towards his charge?
12. And being borne French men, and subiects to the King, why should that naturall subiection be defaced by their shauing? Or who can suffer that a French man borne in France, of French parentage, should not be subiect to the King of France? and that in temporall things he should acknowledge another Soueraigne out of the Realme? and so be exempted from the commandement, vntounto which God in his word bindeth all Christians?
13. This also is clearer then the day, that Christian religion doth not depriue any man of his goods, nor of that lawfull power which he had before he was conuerted to the faith. All men confesse that while King Clouis reigned, and was a Pagan, and all men generally were subiects vntounto him, in all the countries contained within his kingdome. Then why should his conuersion to the faith depriue him of a part of his power, and exempt a part of his subiects (that is, spirituall persons) from being punishable by secular Iudges?
14. And seeing that the soueraigne Prince ought to foresee as much as possible he may, how to preuent all disorders that happen in his Realme, how can he do it, if one part of those that liue in his Realme, and which possesse great wealth, are not subiects vntounto him? Shall he without remedie therein taken, suffer certaine Clergie men to corrupt the good manners of his subiects? or that they should hauehave secret intelligēce with strangers? or that they should cōspire treason against his life, or against his State? And if a Bishop being accessarie to the same crime, will not degrade a Clerke, shall he go vnpunished?
15. The examples which Bellarmine produceth to defend this cause, sufficiently shew what we may iudge of these exemptions. For in that the Pope separateth marriages and exempteth children from the obedience of their parents, he inferreth that he may also exempt Clerkes from due obedience to their soueraigne Princes. That is to say, that the Pope may disanull the rule of Saint Mathew 19.6. which saith, What therefore God hath ioyned together, let no man put asunder: And exempt children from the commandement of God, which saith, Honour thy father and thy mother, &c: And, Children obey your parents in all things, for that is well pleasing vntounto the Lord, Coloss. 3.20.
16. To say that Clergie men hauehave receiued these priuiledges from the liberalitie & courtesies of Princes, is to contradict the Pope & Bellarmine, who maintaine that the Pope hath exempted Clerkes from this subiection, and that he may do it without asking counsell of any Prince. You must also know, that as a father cannot exempt his sonne from obeying the commandement of God, who will hauehave children to honour their fathers and mothers, by obeying them; so a Prince cannot exempt one part of his subiects (as long as they dwell duplicate page duplicate page in his realme) from subiection to punishment for their faults, seeing that subiection is ordained by the word of God.
17. To say that Clerks ought voluntarily to subiect themselues to the lawes and gouernments of Magistrates, but if they do otherwise, that they may not be punished by the Magistrate, is as much as if a man should say, that lawes are no lawes to them. A law without punishments added thereunto, is onelyonly a counsell. It is a commandement with a condition to do nothing, vnlesse we will our selues. Men ordinarily disobey lawes, notwithstanding prescribed punishments: how much more then will they disobey them when they feare not to be punished?
Of the Popes power ouer the Crownes and liues of Kings and Princes, and ouer all the temporalties of kingdomes.
Sect. 40 Popes for the space of 550. yeares, hauehave attributed power vntounto themselues to dispossesse Emperours and Kings of their kingdomes, and to dispense with their subiects from keeping and obseruing their oathes of fidelitie to their Princes, as also power both ouer spirituall and temporall Magistrates.
Gregorie the 7.*Platina, Helmodus, Abbas Stadensis, Vspergensis, Sigonius, Fascicul. temporum, Sigebertus, Nauclerus, Languius, &c. first drew out this sword against the Emperour Henrie the 4, whom he deposed from the Empire, but to his owne hurt, and his to whom he transferred the Empire, that was Rodulphus Duke of Sweueland, that died of a wound giuen him in his hand; and Gregorie being driuen out of Rome, for griefe thereof died in Salerne.
Anno 1212. Innocent 3.**Mat. Paris p. 215. & 223. & Westmonasteriensis. deposed Iohn king of England, and gaue his realme to Philip Augustus king of France, vponupon condition to conquer it at his owne cost and peril. After that he absolued the said king Iohn, vponupon condition that he should become the Popes vassall, and hold his kingdome in fee of the Church of Rome, and that he should yearely pay a thousand marks of siluer, in signe of subiection.
The Councell of Latran holden anno 1215. vnderunder the same Pope, in the third Chapter,***Significetur hoc summo Pontifici vt ex tunc ipse vasallos, ab eius fidelitate denunciet absolutos, & terram exponat occupandam. giueth the Pope power to absolue subiects of their oathes of fidelitie made vntounto their Lords, and to giuegive their lands to other Catholicke Princes.
Anno 1191. as Baronius declareth, the Emperour Henrie the sixth came to Pope Celestine the third, and fell downe at his feete. At which time the Pope with his foote spurned the Emperours Crowne from off his head, to shew, that it was in his power to take the Empire from him, and to pull off his Crowne.
Anno 1245. Innocent the 4. in an open Councell holden in Lions, deposed the Emperour Fredericke the second, and would neuer accept of any submission nor reconciliation. And from Gregorie the 7. to Lewis of Bauiere, to whom the Empire entirely fell, for the space of 260 yeares, there was nothing but deposing and excommunicating of Emperours, vnlesse it were those that maintained themselues by force; from whēce ensued infinite bloudie warres, and about an hundred maine battels, and an innumerable number of townes taken and sacked.
Anno 1302. Pope Boniface the 8. wrote arrogant letters to Philip the Faire king of France,See Paulus Aemilius and Nicolas Giles whereby he declared that king Philip was subiect vntounto him in temporall things: that no collation of Benefices belonged vntounto him, and that all those that spake against it were heretickes. And resistance being made by Philip, the Pope gaue his kingdome to the Emperour Albertus, vponupon condition to conquer it. What answer Philip the Faire made, and how he reuenged himselfe, eueryevery man knowes.
Anno 1511. Pope Iulius the second deposed Iohn Albert king of Nauarre, and gaue his kingdome to Ferdinand king of Castile, who seized vponupon it, and his successors still hold it. Our good King Lewis the 12. was likewise thundred at, but he ouerthrew the Pope and his adherents in a battell at Rauenna; and at Pisa assembled a Councell against the Pope, causing certaine crownes of gold to be stamped with this superscription, Perdam nomen Babylonis.
Alexander the sixth, gaue the West Indies to the Spaniards, duplicate page duplicate page and the East Indies to the Portugals, placing the Meridian which passeth by the Azores, for their limits.
Sanderus & alij plerique nobiles Catholici, freti Bulla Pij 5. in Hibernia contra Angliae Reginam bella pro patria & religione gerunt.Pope Pius the 5. pronounced a sentence of degradation and deposition against Elizabeth Queene of England, and caused Ireland to rebell against her, as Genebrard writeth, an. 1581. of his Chronicle, saying, Sanders and other Catholickes, warranted by a Bull made by Pope Pius the 5. made warre in Ireland against the Queene, for their countrey and for religion.
With the like iniustice Henrie the 3. king of France, hauing bene deposed by Sixtus the 5. and excommunicated, was not long after killed by Iaques Clement a Iacobin.
Anno 1592. monitorie Buls were sent from Rome by Pope Gregorie the 14. into France, whereby King Henrie the fourth was declared incapable of the Crowne of France; which Buls (by a Decree made by the Court of Parliament then resident in Tours, bearing date the 5. of August,) were torne in peeces and burnt by the hand of the common executioner.
The Pope pretends that he may depose soueraigne Princes for heresie, as he pretended against Queene Elizabeth, and Henry the fourth late King of France deceassed: Or for being vpholders of hereticks, as Henry the third: Or for want of capacitie and weaknesse of spirit. So Pope Zacharie in the Canon Alius, in the 15. Cause and 6. Question, boasteth, that he deposed Chilperic King of France, and translated his kingdome to Pepin. Or for violating the priuiledges of Monasteries, as it is declared in the pretended priuiledge of the Abbey of Saint Medard in Soissons, which is added to the end of Pope Gregories 1. works. Or for attributing vntounto themselues the collation of Prebends and Benefices, which was the cause for which Pope Boniface the 5. thundred at Philip the Faire, and gaue his Realme to Albertus the Emperour.
By this meanes affaires hauehave bene much altered: for before this vsurpation, Emperours deposed and punished Popes, as subiects to their Empire.
Theodoret lib. 2. hist. cap. 16.The Emperour Constantius, sonne to Constantine the Great, draue Liberius Bishop of Rome, out of Rome, and banished him to Beroe, and put Felix in his place, giuing Liberius fiue hundred crownes to maintaine himselfe in his banishment.
Anno 420. the Emperour Honorius draue Boniface and Eulalius competitors for the Bishopricke, out of Rome, and not long after called Boniface thither againe.
Theodoricke a Goath, King of Italie, sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Embassador to the Emperour Iustinian, Platina. Sigibert.and after calling him home, caused him to die in prison.
Bellizarius Lieutenant to the Emperour Iustinian, anno 538. draue Siluerius Bishop of Rome out of Rome, and set Vigilius in his place, who by the Emperour Iustinians commandement,Liberati Breuiarium. came to Constantinople, where he was honorably receiued, but not long after the Emperour being offended with his bold speeches, made him to be beaten till he was almost dead, and to be drawne with a rope about his necke through the citie, like a theefe, as Platina reciteth. The things following are recited by Nicephorus in his 16. booke, and 17. chaptet.
Anno 654. the Emperour Constantius, caused Pope Martin to be bound in chaines, and banished him to Chersona, where he died.
In the times of these Emperours, the Popes payed 20. crownes for their inuestitures to the Emperour, as to their Prince, as we may see by Iustinians Authentickes 123. cap. 3. The Emperour Constantine le Barbu, released this tribute to Pope Agathon, anno. 679.
And since the Emperours of Constantinople lost Italie, the successors of Charles the Great draue away and punished diuers Popes. Anno. 963. the Emperour Othon draue Iohn the 13. out of the Papacie: anno. 1007. Henrie the second deposed 3. Popes, Benet 9. Syluester 3. and Gregorie the 6. whom Platina calleth three horrible monsters.
From these excommunications and degradations of Kings, spring the enterprises against their liues. The excommunication sent out against Elizabeth Queene of England was seconded by many conspiracies against her life. From the deposition of Henrie the 3. by Sixtus 5. ensued the parricide committed by Iacques Clement, for the which the said Pope gaue thankes to God in open Consistorie.This Oration was printed at Paris by Nicholas Niuelle, and Rollin Thierri, with approbation of three Doctors, Boucher, de …reil, and Ancelin. His oration was put in print by our aduersaries. And the Iesuite Mariana extolleth that fact as an heroicall act, worthy of great commendation. Bellarmine openly approueth such murthers of Kings in the 7. chapter of his booke against Barkley, saying, The Popes were wont to absolue their subiects of their oathes of fidelitie, and, if need were, to depriue them of their regall authoritie, touching the execution it belongeth to others.**Si Papa regem deponat ab illis tantùm poterit expelli vel interfici quibus ipse id commiserit. And the Iesuite Suarez in the 4. chapter of his 6. booke against the King of great Brittaine, saith, If the Pope deposeth a King, he may not be driuen away nor killed, but by those to whom the Pope shall giuegive order to do it. But if the Pope deposeth a King, without giuing expresse commission to kill him, in that case (he saith) it belongeth onelyonly to his lawfull successor if he be a Catholike, or if he will not do it, it belongs to the common people to do it. And generally all our aduersaries that write in the defence of the Popes power ouer the Crownes and temporall iurisdictions of Kings,*2. of King chap. 11. As Bellarmine, Becanus, Francis de Verona, Suarez, Ribadinera Gretzer, Eudaemon Iohannes, and Emanuel Sa, &c. alledge the example of Queene Athalia, deposed and slaine by the commandement of Ioiada the high Priest, and maintaine that the Pope hath the same power. Therefore the iudgement of the Court of Parlament in Paris pronounced against Iohn Chastel, that condemned this doctrine to be hereticall, and tending to the subuersion of kingdomes, was censured at Rome; to the which censure, was ioyned the storie of the late President of Thou, and of certaine bookes of Mariana, wherin he speaketh of monies, without once mentioning the booke which he wrote of the institution of a King, in the which the murther of Kings is approued.*Hoc tamen temperamento vti in hac quidem disputatione licebit, si non ipse qui perimitur venenum haurire cogatur quo intimis medullis concepto pereat. Sed exterius ab alio adhibeatur, nihil adiuuante eo qui perimendus est, nimirū cum tanta vis est veneni vt sella eo aut veste delibuta vim interfieiendi habeat. Neuerthelesse, with this moderation, that it is better to poyson a Tyrant, in his chaire, or in his clothes, (therein imitating the Kings of the Moores,) then to poyson his drinke, or his meate, lest that Tyrant should be culpable of killing himselfe, and that so it might be preiudiciall to his saluation. For with a great example of humanity or merciemercy these fathers hauehave a care of those soules whose bodyes they cause to be killed.
To support this bloudy doctrine, they note certaine maximes of diuellish diuinitie,**Eudaemon, in Apol. Garneti. c. 13. & Suarez tractae tu de Poenitentia. Nullū tantum potest esse maium cuius vitandi causa cōfessionem prodere liceat. as that it is better to suffer a King to be slaine, then to reueale a confession: that the Pope may dispense with the accomplishing of an oath made to God.***Bellarmin. in Barklaium cap. 13. In bono sensu Christus dedit Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum. That the Lord gaue to Saint Peter, and by consequence to the Pope, power to make that which is no sinne, to be sinne: and that which is sinne, to be no sinne. Which is Cardinall Bellarmines maxime in his booke against Barkley, cap. 31. That to kill a King that is deposed, is not to kill a King, but a particular person.*Toletus lib. 4. de Instruct. sacerdotali c. 58. That being taken, it is lawfull to vse equiuocation before a Iudge to escape punishment. That a religious person ought to obey his Superiour with a blinde obedience, that is, without iudging whether it be good or euill. That a man must not keepe faith and promise with one that is excommunicated. That he is not a murtherer that killeth an excommunicated person; as Pope Vrban saith in the 23. Cause and 5. question:**Canone Excommunicatorum. Nō enim eos homicidas arbitramur quos aduersus excommunicatos, Zelo matris Catholicae Ecclesiae ardentes, aliquos eorum trucidasse contigerit. We esteeme thē not to be murtheres, who being possessed with zeale (towards our mother the Chatholike Church,) against those that are excommunicated, shall chance to kill any of them.***Toletus lib. 1. de Institutione Sacerdotali cap. 13. Excommunicatus non potest exercere actū iurisdictionis absque peccato: Immò si publica est excommunicatio facta, sententiae nullae sunt. That the sentences, decrees, and iudgements of Iudges that are excommunicated are voide and of no authority. That the Pope either directly or indirectly is Lord of all the temporall possessions of kingdomes. That being Pastor he may confirme, and destroy furious Rams, that is, Kings which are not obedient vntounto him.*Bellarmine in Barkl. cap. 21. And also that he hath power ouer infidell and Pagan Kings, although for certaine considerations he doth not vse that power. These are propositions whereof the writings of the Iesuites are full, and which the Iesuites of France hauehave oftentimes bene moued and solicited to condemne, and to write against them, but neuer could be induced thereunto.
Some, (as the Cardinall du Perron in his oration made to the States in Paris vponupon the 15. of Ianuarie, 1615) do not finde it good that Kings should be killed, but allow that the Pope should depose them: which is all one; for, to pronounce the sentence of deposing against a King, is as much as to condemne him to die, because (as they say) from the time of his deposing he is no more a lawfull King, but is held to be an vsurper. A meere vsurper of a kingdome may iustly be killed. In reos maiestatis & publicos hostes, omnis homo miles est. So saith Tertullian. Take from a King the title of a lawfull King, and you take that from him which is the defence of his life, which may easily be taken from him by eueryevery man that is carelesse of his owne life. Adde hereunto, that eueryevery King which is deposed, seeketh meanes to vphold his honour, to retaine the gouernment of his Countrie, and to defend himselfe against those that make any attempt against his Crowne. In this publicke confusion, the King incurreth a thousand dangers, and exposeth his person to the dangers of warre. And there are not many soueraigne Princes found that hauehave suruiued their Empires, or that hauehave preserued their liues when they lost their Crownes. For a King is set in an high place, from whence he descendeth not by degrees, but falleth down headlong. And he that deposeth him goeth against all rules of humane wisedome, if he suffereth him to liue whom he hath deposed from the Empire, who without doubt will seeke to lay hold vponupon that which he hath lost. Then whosoeuer he be that will not hauehave Kings killed, but wil hauehave them deposed, speakes as if he should say, Let vsus not kill them, but let vsus disarme them, that they may be killed. Let vsus not take their liues from them, but let vsus take the meanes from them to saue their liues. Let vsus not kill him while he is a King, but let vsus depose him; for by that meanes, he that shall kill him, shall not kill a King. These things are full of contradictions, and are very weakely set together: As the King of Great Brittaine hath excellently well shewed in his Declaration against the said Cardinall, whereby he did that to the said Prelate which the Pope doth to the new Cardinals the first day of their sitting in Consistorie;*Looke touching this ceremonie the 1. booke of Sacred Ceremonies. Sect. 9. at which time the Pope stoppeth their mouthes; but herein is the difference, that the Pope openeth their mouthes againe at the next Consistory following, but that great and wise King stopt the Cardinals mouth**Note that the said Cardinall liued three yeares and a halfe after the publication of the King of great Brittains book for euer, and in that matter put him to perpetuall silence. He did sufficiently condemne himselfe in his Oration, by saying, That for the same cause he was ready to suffer martyrdome; and yet it is a question not decided by the Scripture, nor by any Councels, and besides the Pope himselfe suffereth it to be accounted a Probleme, (that is, problematicall and vncertaine:) from whence it followeth, that the martyrdome which a man suffereth for such a cause should be problematicall and vncertaine.
Now that which is most hard and intollerable in this matter, is, that our aduersaries confesse, that the Pope may erre in his iudgement, and depose an innocent King, and*Cap. 31. Quod autem dicis iniustam sententiam nō laedere eum in quem fertur, verū est quando is in quem fertur eam humiliter tolerat & obseruat, donec iniustitia vel potius nullitas manifestè se prodat. Cap. 17. Si fortè Princeps spiritualis abutatur potestate sua iniustè excommunicando Principem tēporalem, vel eius subditos sine iusta causa ab eius obedientia absoluendo, peccabit Princeps spiritualis, sed non poterit tamen Princeps sibi sumere iudicium de spiritualibus rebus, aut spiritualē Principē iudicare. neuerthelesse they will hauehave that King which is so vniustly condemned to be peaceable, and not to contend, but to leaue his kingdome, and to stay till the iustice of his cause shall be tryed. It is Bellarmines speech in the 17. and 31. chapters of his book against Barkley. For he presupposeth that the new king that shall hauehave seised vponupon the kingdome, will not put the deposed king to death, but finding him to be innocent will receiue him againe, and reestablish him in his kingdome. What is this, but as much as if a man should spit in Kings faces, and leade them about like buffons, by adding euident laughter & mockerie to iniustice?
To support this doctrine which trampleth vponupon the maiestie of God, in the persons of his annointed and his Lieutenants, our aduersaries gather together a great number of places in the Scripture, as first, the Lord said to S. Peter, Feede my sheepe. Therefore the Pope may thrust Kings out of their thrones. And Saint Peter saying, Here are two swords; the Lord said, It is enough. And God said to Ieremie, 1. chap. 10. verse, I hauehave this day set thee ouer the nations and ouer the kingdomes. And Saint Paul said, 1. Cor. 2.15. The spirituall man iudgeth all things. This spirituall man is the Pope. And God said to Saint Peter. Whatsoeuer thou vnbindest on earth shall be vnbound in heauen. Therefore the Pope may discharge subiects of their subiection which they owe to their Prince. In the beginning of Genesis it is said, that In the beginning God made heauen and earth. It is in principio, and not in principijs, to shew that there is but one beginning, which is the Pope. These are of priuate vse, All things are giuen vntounto me of my Father, Matth. 11.27. And All power is giuen vntounto me in heauen and in earth, Matth. 28.18. And the diuels said, If thou wilt cast vsus out, send vsus into the swine that we may enter into them, Mark. 5.12. By this the Pope may dispose of temporall kingdomes. For it is said, Iohn 12.31. And I if I be lifted vp from the earth, will draw all men vntounto me. Therefore the Pope being exalted, ought to draw all temporalties to himselfe. And see other places which are hard to be answered: Iesus Christ said to Peter, Put forth into the sea, and cast out the nets. And he saith, Luke 19.30. You shall find a colt tyed whereon yet neuer man sate, loose him, and bring him hither. Ergo, the Pope may dispose of all temporall things, and put Kings from their thrones.S. Paul 1. Cor 9.4. saith, HaueHave we not power to eate and to drinke? With such places of Scripture the Popes and their Champions establish their Empire. Time is too precious to stand long to cōfute these childish proofes, which are not fit to be proposed but with the sword in hand. To propose these things is to refute them, and it is not credible that any man will receiue or allow of these proofes, but he that willingly will be deceiued.
Cardinall du Perron was ashamed of such allegations, and would not produce them in his Oration, but he alledged others which were no better then they. He said that the Prophet Samuel deposed King Saul, that the Prophet Ahia deposed King Roboam: That Azarias the high Priest draue King Osias from the gouernment of the Realme: That S. Paul said to the Corinthians, that it is a shame for Christians to be iudged by Iudges that are infidels. All which allegations are false, and by the Kings maiestie of Great Brittaine are manifestly and clearely confuted.
That this power of the Pope ouer the Crownes of Kings, and ouer the temporalties of kingdomes, is contrary to the word of God, and to all reason
Sect. 41 1. In this point if we will beleeue and giuegive credit to the Scriptures, the controuersie is ended. There were many idolatrous Kings in Iudaea, as Achas and Manasses, against whom the high Priests did not pronounce any sentēce of deposition.
2. The Prophet Ieremie 27.12. saith, Bring your neckes vnderunder the yoke of the King of Babylon, and serue him and his people, and liue. He will hauehave the Iewes to serue a Pagan King, as established by God. Conformable to that which Daniel 2.37. saith, speaking of the same king. Thou ô King art a King of Kings, for the God of heauen hath giuen thee a kingdome, power, and strength, and glorie.
Nero was a monster in nature, the shame of humane kind, and the first Emperour that began to persecute the Church. Neuerthelesse, the Apostle Saint Paul, Rom. 13. speaking of that power which thē was in being, saith, that it was ordained by God & that whosoeuer resisted the same resisted the ordinance of God. Cardinall du Perron in his Oration seemeth to perswade, that this commandement was but by prouision and for a time. Which is a meanes to auoide all the commandements of God, and to dispense with them when we will. He should at least hauehave shewed how long that prouisionall commandement continued, and at what time it began to binde mens consciences no more. This doth wrong the ancient Christians, and bereaueth their sufferings of the title of martyrdome, seeing that by his assertion they yeelded to the violence of Pagan Princes, (not to obey a necessarie and certaine commandement of God,) but to a prouisionall rule, made for a time, till the Church (hauing recouered force by multitude of people) might shake off the yoke of their soueraigne Prince. And thereby the Apostle is accused of hypocrisie, for teaching Christians to faine and dissemble, commanding them to be subiects to the Emperour, not thereby to obey God, but to accommodate themselues to the time, and to yeeld to present necessitie. All this is confuted by the same Apostle in the same place, where he saith, That we must be subiect to the Prince, not onelyonly because of wrath, that is, for feare to incurre his displeasure, but also for conscience sake.
Compare Iesus Christ paying tribute to Caesar, with the Pope which maketh Caesar pay tribute vntounto him, and bindeth*This ceremonie is described in the 1. booke of Sacred Ceremonies. Sect. 5. cap. 3. him to lay a quantity of gold at his holinesse feete, that day when he setteth the Crowne vponupon his head. Compare Iesus Christ counselling the Iewes to pay tribute to a Pagan Emrour, with the Pope that dispenseth with subiects touching their obedience to Christian Emperours and Kings: And Iesus Christ, saying, that his kingdome is not of this world, with the Pope which hath erected a worldly Empire for himselfe. Compare Iesus Christ, who being on earth, had power to destroy and ouerthrow all Monarchs of the earth that were enemies to God, but would not do it; with the Pope, that hath no power to giuegive nor to take away kingdomes, but yet will do it, and attributeth a power vntounto himselfe which he cannot execute:Luke 12.14. And Iesus Christ refusing to be arbitrator in a controuersie for an heritage betweene two particular persons, with the Pope, which intrudeth himselfe to be Soueraigne and absolute Iudge of quarrels betweene Princes, and distributer of kingdomes.
Adde to this the rule of the word of God, which forbiddeth periurie,Exod. 20. Psal. 15. and will hauehave vsus to keepe our promise although it be vntounto our owne hinderance. To the which commandement it is better to obey, then to the Pope, that boasteth that he can dispense with oathes made vntounto God: wherein he doth manifestly exalt himselfe aboue God. For he that will dispense with a seruant for obeying of his maister, is greater then his maister. And hereby it will be found, that God shall not be serued nor obeyed, but in such manner as the Pope wil permit it, and that if by the Popes permission, any man be faithfull towards God, God is beholding to the Pope, because he prouideth him seruants, and such persons as are faithfull vntounto him. Therefore to obey God, those Officers who at the entrance into their offices tooke oathes of fidelity to their Kings, must be faithfull to the Pope, what thunderings & inducements soeuer to rebellion shall happen to come from Rome to ouerthrow the Realme. If they reply and say, that by suffering a King that is an hereticke to reigne, Catholicke religion incurreth great danger: I answer, that oftentimes the Pope taketh on him to depose Kings that are of his owne religion. Was it for heresie that Henry the 3. King of France was deposed? Was it for heresie that Iohn Albert King of Nauarre was deposed, and depriued of his kingdome by Pope Iulius 2? and so of Henrie the 4. of the Emperour Fredericke the 2. of Philip le Bel, of Iohn King of England, and diuers others. And although true religion should be persecuted by a king that is an hereticke, yet we must not remedie an euill by a sinne, nor defend pietie by disloyaltie. God hath no need of our vices to defend his cause. The preseruation of true religion is Gods cause, and his worke, which he will not abandon nor forsake. When humane meanes seeme to faile and decay, he watcheth and taketh care for the preseruation of his Church: and if he will afflict it, we must humble our selues, and when he will deliuer it from danger, we need not to bring periurie and sedition to aide him, as if he had no other meanes to do it.
This also passeth all absurditie, to imagine, that Saint Peter and the Bishop of Rome after him, had power (as they say) to depose the Emperor Nero or Domitian. Without doubt those Emperours that knew not that there was a Christian Bishop in Rome (so poore and miserable were the said Bishops) are excusable for not acknowledging and honouring those Bishops as their superiours in temporall things, and who had power to thrust them out of their Empires.
But why did not those Bishops aduertise and shew the Emperours of the authoritie which they had ouer Empires, that so the Emperours might not pretend cause of ignorance? Why did not the Bishop of Rome depose those Emperours when they violently persecuted the Church? Was it because they would vse courtesie and clemencie vntounto those poore Emperours? But that clemencie had bene crueltie towards the Church. Was it because they feared the power of those Emperours? So it may be said, that the obedience which they yeelded to their soueraigne Prince, was done by dissimulation and by force. Adde hereunto that Tertullian in the 37. Chapter of his Apologie, and Cyprian against Demetrius, say, that in their times eueryevery place was ful of Christians that were able to defend themselues, and that they held the greatest part of the Empire of Rome, and yet did not defend themselues against the violence of those Emperours. In the time of the Emperour Iulian the Apostata, three parts of the Empire were Christians, and his armies were composed of Christians, and yet the Bishop of Rome did not thinke vponupon deposing him from the Empire. The same Bishop also did not pronounce sentence of deposition against the Kings of the Gothes that were Arrians, reigning in Spaine; nor against the Kings of the Vandals that were Arrians, reigning in Africa; although they were farre distant from Rome, and that the Bishop of Rome had no cause to feare their forces.
Who will beleeue that Iesus Christ gaue Saint Peter and his successors a charge for so many yeares together, without power to execute it? and that he gaue them a sword to hang vp a thousand yeares together against the wall, and neuer to be drawne out but of late yeares? Is it credible, that the Popes began first to know the nature of their charge, then when their Sea or seate fell into all maner of vices, as the greatest flatterers of the Pope confesse and acknowledge? Besides, it is euident and most manifestly knowne by experience, that the Pope neuer began to employ that power, but for his owne profit: and thereby increased in riches and greatnesse; neuer giuing any absolution to a Prince, but vponupon gainfull conditions for the Pope, as he did to Henrie the second, and Iohn, Kings of England. But when his thunderbolts cānot preuaile, and that the excommunicated King getteth the victorie, then his Holinesse with paternall compassion receiueth him into his fauour, and bestoweth all maner of spirituall benedictions vponupon him. As Pope Clement the 5. in the Exrrauagant Meruit did, where he commendeth and exalteth the pietie of Philip the Faire, and of his people, notwithstanding the hard vsage shewed vntounto him by Boniface the eight his predecessor.
It is no lesse incredible, that if a Pagan Prince becometh a Christian (as Clowis King of France did) he should hauehave lesse kingly authoritie then when he was a Pagan; and that his conuersion to the faith, should be a diminishing of his power Yet that is the Popes and the Iesuites opinion. For it is out of doubt, that Clowis being a Pagan, did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for his superiour, or that there was any Bishop either within or without his kingdome that could depose him of his Crowne. And if the Pope may change and depose Christian Kings, it followeth that Clowis Crowne vponupon the day of his conuersion lost the splendor and soueraigne dependance thereof, and began to be in the disposition of another, and that then he began to acknowledge a Superiour in temporall things: which is, to be a Soueraigne no more. By this doctrine it will be hard to perswade a Pagan Prince to become a Christian.
But what reason is there that Kings should be more subiect to the Pope, then their subiects are? and that Kings should be hardlier dealt withall then particular persons? For if a subiect of France shall erre in the faith, or commit adulterie, or vse his seruants tyrannously, the Pope neuer to this day durst vndertake to driue him from his house, or to depriue him of his office; then why should a King falling into the like faults be hardlier dealt withall? Why should the Pope hauehave more power ouer him, then ouer particular men? depriuing him of his Crowne, and by consequence of his life? Is it because the Pope thinketh that our Kings hauehave lesse spirit and lesse courage then particular persons? Or rather because the Pope abusing Kings in that maner, raiseth himselfe to soueraigne greatnesse, and becometh thereby distributer of Empires and kingdomes?
We hauehave somewhat largely spoken of this subiect, that eueryevery man may see whether M. Arnoux hath reason to speake of vsus as of men that repugne all humane order, and are enemies of al subiection. Our Confession protesteth the contrary, and experience iustifieth vsus. We neuer attempted any thing against the liues of our Kings. Iaques Clement, Iohn Chastel, Rauaillac, Garnet, Oldcorne, and such monsters, and all those who hauing sought to kill the King, and fained madnesse to saue themselues, were not of our religion: but the most part of them were Iesuites, or Iesuites disciples. We neuer spake of deposing our Kings, neither beleeue that any man liuing in the world can depose a King, or dispense with his subiects touching their oathes of fidelitie. And they that know the truth, will acknowledge, that the reason which hath moued the Pope and the Clergie to persecute vsus with fire and sword, hath not bene so much because we do not beleeue Transsubstantiation, nor the sacrifice of the Masse, nor inuocation of Saints, but because (if we might be beleeued) our Kings Crowne should no more depend vponupon the Pope. And causes of Benefices and of matrimonie should no more be called to Rome, the Realme should be no more tributarie, vnderunder pretence of Annates, Dates, Dispensations, and Absolutions. And French men should runne no more to Rome for pardons; whereby his Holinesse profits would much diminish. Which if we would not meddle withall, he would by speciall priuiledge suffer and permit vsus to beleeue the Gospell.
Whether the power of Kings, Princes and Magistrates is ordained by the diuine law of God, or whether it be an humane ordinance, as M. Arnoux saith.
Sect. 42 Thomas *Thom. 2. 2. Quaest. 10. Art. 10. Dominium & pralatio introducta sunt ex iure humano. Et Quaest. 12. Art. 2. Dominium introductum est de iure gentium, quod est ius humanum.the chiefe of the Schoolmen, saith, that the power of Princes and soueraigne Lords, is but an humane institutiō, and proceedeth not from God. With whom Cardinall Bellarmine ioyneth in his booke against Barkley; and M. Arnoux, who vponupon the 30 Article of our Confession, calleth the power of Magistrates an humane law; conformable to the Apophthegme of the reuerend father Binet the Iesuite, that said to M. Casaubon, that it were better that all Kings were killed, then to reueale a confession:**Casaub. in Epist. ad Frontonem Ducaeū Iesuitam. because the power of Kings is ordained by humane lawes, but confession by diuine law.
The reasons which they alledge for this opinion, are, that the first King that was in the world, that is Nimrod, ***Gen. 11.made himselfe King by force, and not by the ordinance of God. Secondly, that the greatest part of Empires and kingdomes that euer were, were erected by conquest, one nation hauing ouercome another, or one Prince moued by ambition, hauing moued an vniust quarrel against his neighbour Prince. Thirdly, that Emperours and Kings are established by humane meanes, whether they attaine to the Crowne by hereditarie succession, or by election: seeing there is neither any extraordinarie reuelation, nor rule in the word of God which bindeth a nation rather to follow hereditarie succession then election. Fourthly, that there is no expresse commandement set downe by God to obey Henrie or Lewis, or to acknowledge this or that man more then another to be King. Fiftly, that for these considerations, the Apostle Saint Peter calleth the obedience to Kings an humane order, saying, Submit your selues to eueryevery ordinance of man, for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreme, or vntounto Gouernours, &c. 1. Pet. 2.13.
We on the contrary maintaine, that obedience due to Kings and Magistrates proceedeth from the diuine Law, & is grounded vponupon the ordinance of God. To that end all the places of Scripture hereafter set down do serue, to shew that God commandeth obedience to Kings and Soueraigne powers, as to those whom he hath established, whom no man may resist without resisting God. There is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God, whosoeuer therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. Rom. 13.1.2. And verse 5. Wherfore ye must needs be subiect, not onelyonly for wrath, but also for conscience sake. And S. Peter in the same place which they obiect against vsus, will hauehave vsus to yeeld obedience to Kings for the Lords sake. And although Nabuchadnezzar was an vngodly King and a scourge vsed by God to destroy nations, neuerthelesse God speaketh thus vntounto him by his Prophet Daniel, in the 2. chapter 37. verse, saying: Thou ô King art a King of Kings, for the God of heauen hath giuen thee a kingdome, power, and strength, and glory. Moses the first Prince and Law-giuer in Israel, was established by the ordinance of God, & Ioshua after him. Nū. 27.18. Saul first King of Israel,1. Sam. 10.1. and 16.13. and Dauid his successor were annointed by Samuel, and consecrated to be Kings according to Gods ordinance. And 2. Kings 9.1.2. God sent a Prophet to Iehu to annoint him King of Israel. He looseth the bonds of Kings, and girdeth their loynes with a girdle, Iob 12.18. But God is the Iudge, he putteth downe one, and setteth vp another, Psal. 75.7. He raiseth the poore out of the dust, and lifteth the needie out of the dunghill, that he may set him with Princes. Psal. 113.7.8. And if the prouidence of God extendeth it selfe so farre as to feede birds, and giueth food to the beasts and to the yong rauens which cry vntounto him, Psal. 147.9. so farre as that he numbreth all our haires, so that not one falleth to the ground without his prouidence; who will beleeue that when a man is to be placed aboue others, and to be made head and ruler of so many millions of people, the counsell and prouidence of God doth not therein rule, or that he suffereth things to be done by chance or aduenture?
The reasons which they alledge against so euident a truth, halt, and flie but with one wing.
An answer to the 5. obiections of our aduersaries.1. They say, that Nimrod the first King in the world attained thereunto by force. But it is false, that before Nimrod there was no Soueraigne Prince in the world. Before Nimrod the fathers and heads of families were Kings, Priests, and soueraigne Princes of their families. For after the floud men liued 5. or 6. hundred yeares. Then it was an easie matter for a man to see 50. yea an 100. thousand persons of his posteritie, ouer whom he exercised paternall power, and by consequence soueraigne power: then when there was no other forme of a Realme vponupon the earth; to which children, their seruants being added, one familie alone made a great commonwealth. Likewise in Abrahams time, whē mans life was much shortened, we reade that Abraham was by the Hethites called a Prince of God, that is, an excellent Prince. Gen. 23.6. And that out of his familie he tooke 318. souldiers to go to warre therewith. If you adde his seruants and such seruants as were vnfit for the warre, you must confesse that although he had no children, his familie would hauehave peopled a whole towne.
2. They also obiect, that the greatest part of Empires and kingdomes began by conquest, and by force of armes, therefore not by the ordinance of God; and that if the conqueror inuaded another mans territories by the ordinance of God, the inhabitants of that countrie had offended God in defending themselues. Whereunto I say, that those whose countries a strange Prince seeketh to inuade, do well to defend themselues. And that if in that defensiue warre the vsurper chance to be slaine, he is iustly punished. But if he getteth the vpper hand, if the race of the ancient possessors of the same country be cleane extinguished, if the States of the country assembled together do agree vponupon a new forme of gouernment, and if all the officers throughout the countrie hauehave taken their oathes of fidelitie to the new King: then we must beleeue that God hath established such a Prince in that kingdome. Then I say, that the people ought to yeeld to the will of God, who for the sinnes of Kings and of their people transporteth kingdomes, and disposeth of the issues of battels at his will and pleasure.
3. It is to no purpose to say, that Princes enter into kingdomes, either by hereditary succession, or by election, which are ordinary meanes by custome, and not by the ordinance of God. For the question is not, by what meanes a Prince attaineth to his kingdome, but whether by the ordinance of God we ought to obey him after he is established therein. And our aduersaries will hauehave the power of Popes to proceed from the ordinance of God, although they enter into the Papacie by election, by indirect courses, by artificiall deuices, and by worse meanes then humane wayes.
4. If there be no commandement in the word of God to obey Henry or Lewis, it sufficeth that there is a commandement to obey the King, and a commandement to keepe our oathes of fidelity made to the King, and by consequence to be faithfull to that King to whom we sweare obedience and loyaltie. Neither is there a commandement of God to be found that bindes vsus to obey Clement or Boniface as Popes, to whom neuerthelesse our aduersaries esteeme themselues to be subiect by the Law of God. If this consideration might take place, it would follow that no man in the world is bound by diuine ordinance to feare God, or to beleeue in Iesus Christ, because the Scripture doth not particularly ordaine that Thibault, Anthony, or William, should feare God, and beleeue in Iesus Christ. If sufficeth that the word of God containeth generall rules, which bind particular persons without naming them.
5. It is true that S. Peter in the place before alledged, calleth the obediēce that men owe vntounto Kings, an humane order, either because Kings command diuers things which of their owne natures are not deriued from the diuine Law, as the forbidding of knocking by night, or to go by night without a candle; or because they attaine to that power by certaine humane meanes, induced by custome: which hinders not but that their power is grounded vpō the word of God after they are once established. For in this question our difference is not touching the meanes whereby a Prince attaineth to a kingdome, but what obedience is due vntounto him after he hath attained thereunto. Therefore after S. Peter had called that order an humane order, he commandeth vsus to subiect our selues thereunto for Gods sake: and so to obey his commandement.
Whosoeuer buildeth the authority of Kings vponupon mens institutions, and not vponupon the ordinance of God, cutteth off three parts of their authority, and bereaueth them of that which assureth their liues and their Crownes more then the guards of their bodies, or puissant armies, which put terror into subiects hearts, in stead of framing them to obedience. Then the fidelity of subiects will be firme and sure, when it shall be incorporated into pietie, and esteemed to be a part of religion, and of the seruice which men owe vntounto God.
FINIS.