AN ORATION MADE ON THE PART OF THE lords spiritual,  
In the Chamber of the Third Estate (or Communality) of France, upon the Oath (pretended Of Allegiance) exhibited in the late General Assembly of the three Estates of that Kingdom:  
By the Lord Cardinal of PERON, Archbishop of Sens, Primate of Gaul and Germany, Great Almenour of France etc.  
Translated into English, according to the French Copy, lately printed at Paris, by Antoine Estiene.  
Whereunto is adjoined a Preface, by the Translator.  
Permissu Superiorum. M.DC.XVI.   

THE PREFACE OF THE Translator, to the Reader.  
Though worldly men, whose souls are swallowed up in sense, be content to make their purse of gold their God, by occasion whereof S. Paul thought good to say, that covetousness was no better than a kind of sacrifice to Idols: yet such as are not wholly deaf to the voice of reason, may hear it protest, that as man is compounded of flesh & spirit, so his spiritual goods are incomparably superior to the corporal, and that riches are to be held of the meanest & lowest rank, among all such benefits as God Almighty hath vouchsafed to mankind. For as those things which men have any colour to account their own, are either plenty of fortune, health of body, glory of reputation, or lastly the soul itself; so, who is he that will not empty his purse to recover his health, or save his life? What man of worth will not despise his life to preserve his honour? And who doubteth but that the respect of honour should yield unto the care which a man ought to have of his soul? Hereupon may be grounded, amongst others, two apparent truths; The one, that for the soul a man is to despise all other things; the other, that except the soul, there is nothing so dear as reputation. Now, if reputation be so precious, for as much as concerns the moral man, what account ought Christians to have it in, since scandals are often given and taken, upon the abundance or defect thereof; and sometimes upon the credit of a few, dependeth the salvation of very many. The enemy of mankind who knows how true this is, hath continually laboured to rob God's servants of so great a jewel; yea and hath presumed to infame God himself, being made man for us; sometimes tempting men to traduce him as a conjuror, sometimes as a Samaritane, which did import a Schismatic, and sometimes as a traitorous and seditious person. The same style he held with the Christians of the Primitive Church, and we English Catholics of this age, whose cause is the same with theirs, have lain groaning long under the same burden, and felt with unspeakable grief, though with undaunted courage, the poisoned arrows of this kind, which he hath been daily shooting into our sides.  
Those Adversaries of our cause who believe in God but for fashion-sake, at least conceive that it imports not after what fashion he be served, think they do us a favour, when they call us fools, for exposing ourselves to persecution upon the differences of Catholic and protestant Religion. Such Protestants as in good earnest believe that Religion, which they profess, are wont to traduce us for superstitious and Idolatrous persons, under the pretence of our doctrines which concern the Real presence, and the reverent use which we make of Images: But they who use their Religion no more than for a servant, or rather slave to their absurd reason of state, and know well enough that if they should persecute us under the only title of Heretics, they must be feign both to disclaim from the Society of all ancient Christians, and should be forced to deserve the censure of savage cruelty, for presuming to condemn that faith, to which their ancestors and ours were converted from Paganism: they, I say, are the men who give out, that we are not unjustly persecuted for our religion, but justly punished for our faction, disobedience, and treason.  
For the painting over of which discourse, how many industries have been used; how many jewels and Cupbordes of plate to foreign Princes & Ambassadors have been presented; how many crafty and cruel laws have been at several times procured & enacted; and lastly what a couple of dangerous and detestable. Oaths, under the authority of the aforesaid laws, have with extreme rigour, & without distinction of sex or age, been propounded & exacted?  
The first of these Oaths, is that of the King's Supremacy, devised heretofore by our Adversaries for the making of all Catholics express Traitors, and executed for a while with great severity, though afterwards they grew half ashamed thereof. And the use which it affords at this day, is chief to distinguish such persons, as adore the present state of things, from others who are more indifferent: and so we see it is ordinarily ministered, but to such, as either pretend to make Laws by voice in Parliament, or else to carry Office in the Common wealth or Church. Always that Oath served rather to other ends, then to make division, or procure mutual scandals among English Catholics, since we all agree in the clear detestation thereof; and for this later purpose, the other Oath, which is called of Allegiance, was set on foot, by the instigation of some Ministers, immediately after the powder-treason, as if every one that did refuse to take it, were guilty of that prodigious plot. Withal, it was couched in such cunning and misty terms, as some Priests (yea even since the Pope condemned it) have not been ashamed to take it, and more lay Catholics have been led on by their bad example. This action of theirs, hath implied a kind, of disloyalty in them that refused the same; and the State hath not been a little careful to publish the brute thereof, both within and without the Realm, to the extreme disadvantage, and discomfort of all sincere and  Catholics.  
There hath not been a greater means towards the strengthening of fowl aspersions upon us, than the confidence which our Adversaries, the Ministers, have used in protesting, that we English Catholics who refuse the Oath, are controlled by many great parts of Christendom, even Catholic, where men would undoubtedly (say they) have taken such an Oath as this, if they were required thereunto by their several Princes. In particular the example of France hath been every day obtruded to us, as if the Catholic part of that Kingdom were wholly of the English Protestant faith in this particulars And although this undertaking of theirs, were known to be impudent and most untrue, by the industry of some English Catholics, who informed themselves of the Sorbon, which is the Divinity, School of Paris, and found that it abhorred the Oath; yet partly by the confident asseverations of our adversaries, partly by the corrupt belief in that point, which some one of the Ambassadors of that Country, residing heretofore in England, was fallen to, and the flattering discourse which for hope of reward he was wont to hold; so it is that the ordinary sort of Protestants conceived all this while, that French Catholics were in this point agreeing rather with the Parliament in England, than the Church of Rome.  
But, God be praised, the curtain is drawn at length, which heretofore hath parted the stage from the attiring house, and now the spectators (who are as many of our Country, as can write and read) may se● that such as plead the parts of civil, rich, and religious persons, are many of them no better then insolent, beggarly, and lewd companions. This work is performed in this Oration following (wherewith I ha●e thought good to present the courteous Reader) composed and pronounced by that ornament of our age, the Cardinal of Peron; a man so well known to the world, for the great child's portion which the father of all good things hath allotted out unto him, of incomparable learning, prudence, and zeal towards the Catholic Faith. It pleased God by his means long since to convert the last King of France from his erroneous belief; to make the said Cardinal, amongst others, an Instrument of compounding that business of the Venetians, whereupon the peace of the Church did in some sort depend; and now this honour was only wanting to him, that he should be the means to restore one of the noblest members of the Church (for so we may without any vanity, to the glory of God, esteem the English Catholics, who with so admirable grace, and strength are still swimming through the bitter waves of persecution) to the honour of only suffering for that faith, which other Catholic Countries do profess, whereof our Adversaries have studied so earnestly to deprive us, whilst they say, the doctrine contained in the Oath of Allegiance is impugned by us, out of singularity, or seditious humour, and that our next neighbouring Churches, of the same Communion, would acknowledge and confess the same.  
But I must not reflect so particularly upon the dignity of the cardinals person, and the extreme obligation which all good English Catholics have to him, as thereby to neglect the setting forth of the advantage which our cause hath got by his Oration. For although it were not a matter of small importance if it had been delivered by himself but as a private man: yet it ought to rise to another manner of account, when it appeareth, that, as the style thereof was ordered by his eloquence, and the sound thereof pronounced by his voice; so also the substance and strength of it, did spring even from the heart root of the whole Clergy of France represented by those Archbishops, and Bishops, and other Prelates there assembled, and was both joyfully received, and clearly avowed by the whole Nobility of France, assembled also and represented in like manner. Now to the end, good Reader, that thou mayest run through with mo●e facility, and be able with more sincerity to discern of that which is contained in the Oration, I will make thee acquainted with the occasion thereof, and premise also some few other things, whereof perhaps thou art ignorant, and which may serve to set thy judgement strait in that which followeth.  
The Parliaments in France have no resemblance to ours in England, but are certain sedentary and supreme Courts of justice, compounded only of Lawyers, who judge without appeal within their several precincts of jurisdiction. Of these Courts there are eight in France, all independent on of another, though the Parliament of Paris have a Country under it of greater extent, and by residing in that City, which is the ordinary habitation of the French Kings, it hath grown to that kind of ambition and usurpation, which some Patriarches of Constantinople, and some Bishops of Ravenna have been subject to in different causes, but upon like occasions. That which in France doth answer the nature of our English Parliament, is the holding of the three Estates General, the Clergy, the Nobility, and the Communality (which last is called the Third Estate;) but it is with this difference, amongst others, that they sit in three several Chambers, whereas the two former of ours sit in one and whereas, with us, an Act is not presented to the King, unless the mayor part of both our Houses or Chambers do find it good; in France if the mayor part of two Chambers do resolve upon any proposition, it is to go under the name of all the Three Estates, although one of them should dissent therein.  
This supposed, I will proceed to inform thee, courteous Reader, that the greater number of the deputies of the third Chamber, in this last Assembly of the Estates in France, did conceive, & frame the form of an Oath, which they wished might be ministered in that Kingdom, as that which bears the name of Allegiance is in ours; whereby the same principal Article is abjured, namely, that no French King can be deposed, nor his subjects absolved from their obedience, by any Pope, for any cause whatsoever; and that the contrary opinion is Heretical, and repugnant to the doctrine of the Scriptures. But this difference is found between the two Oaths, that whereas the English one, in one of the clauses, seems to exclude not only the authority of the Church over Kings, but even of the Common wealth also (yea though it should be accompanied with that of the Church:) that of France shoots only at the abnegation of the Church's authority. Nor is there a man in that Kingdom who appears to hold, that Kings in certain cases are not subject to the censure of the Common wealth. And as for the Parliament of Paris in particular, who knows not, that divers of that body have now helped to animate the Prince of Condé and his complices, to take arm●s against the King and Queen of France, upon the supposal which they make of the ill Government of that Kingdom. But howsoever tha● case stands, this Oath was drawn by the Chamber of the Communality, which in France is called the Third Estate, and rejected, as containing false and wicked doctrine, by both the Chambers of the Clergy, and Nobility, and consequently for the reason that I gave before, by the Estate General. Some man perhaps amongst o●r English adversaries may object, that notwithstanding the custom and style of France doth bear that whatsoever is authorized, or repr●oued by any two of the Chambers, doth take the name of all the thre●, yet it makes exceeding●y for the credit of our Oath of Allegiance, that they of the Third Estate in France, which is the greatest member of that body, should c nspire in opinion with the Authors of our English Oath, though they be of a contrary Religion to the Protestant in other things, and esteemed the most devout professors of it in that Kingdom. I answer that this argument may look fair a far off, but with such as know how things were carried, it will fall out to be of no force at all.  
It is to be understood, that this Chamber of the Third Estate was wholly, in effect, compounded of Lawyers, (most of them belonging to the Court of Parliament of Paris) and certain Officers of the Long rob, belonging to the King, as Treasurers, Receivers, and such like; who commonly being the chiefest men of their Parish, are wont with such case to procure themselves to be chosen deputies, as an English Gentleman of means and credit, can make himself in like case be made a Burgess. By this means there were very few places in the Third Chamber, which were filled by Freeholders, or substantial Merchants of those Cities and Provinces, and therefore no marvel, if under the name of the Commons of France, who are perhaps of the most pious men of that Kingdom (and whereof there was in this Assembly of Estates no more in effect but the name) this wicked proposition of a profane Oath did come to light, being conceived partly by the kings Officers (who crept into those places, expressly against the Laws of France, and who make no scruple to flatter their King with fair words, upon condition they may the more securely rob him by other, means;) and partly by certain other Lawyers, as hath been said, who use to be well content to deliver the King from all Tribunals but their own, and are generally the greatest Libertines both in understanding and will, that perhaps the Christian world is acquainted with.  
This action therefore of the Third Estate being thus miscompounded, need not make our Adversaries more insolent than they were before; but much rather ought they to retract their former actions upon a due consideration of the proceeding, which was held in this business, by the Clergy and Nobility of France, of whom it cannot be pretended, but that they would gladly have granted to their King, whatsoever they could in conscience. The Clergy I say of France, which dependeth more upon those Kings by the exemptions of sundry Popes, than any Catholic Clergy doth in Christendom; and the Nobility of France which enjoyeth not only more access, & other privileges, but draweth more money in specie by way of pension from their King, without obligation to any particular residence, or service, than any Nobility doth in Christendom, whether it be Catholic, or other; wherein I will not except Spain, for I know I need not. And when I should say, that the French King di●burseth yearly not much less by way of pension to his subjects of the Nobility, than the King of England receiveth year●y to his purse all manner of ways, I should not be the Author of a Paaadoxe, for the sum arriveth in sight (besides that which is unknown) to upon the point of six hundred thousand pounds per annum.  
The Oration itself doth follow at the end of this Preface, and therefore I enter not upon the particulars thereof; only the Reader, when he hath perused it, may be pleased to remember two things in general contained therein. One, that the Oath is such, as that they of the French Clergy and Nobility will rather die then take it; the other, that there was never any French writer, since the faculty of Divinity hath been taught in the Schools of France (not excepting even such as were the most earnest upholders of Regal authority, & were required by the Kings of their times, to defend the same by public writing) who affirmeth Kings to be indeposable by Popes in all cases. And whensoever any of them have debated the point of the Absolution, which subjects may have from the Oath of Allegiance to their Prince, the cases of the Prince's Heresy & Apostasy are always excepted; that is to say, in such cases, the subjects of a King, according to the judgement of all Catholic French writers, may be absolved from the Oath of their Allegiance.  
I tie not myself to the words, but the substance of these two propositions is clearly delivered by the Cardinal, in the name of the Clergy of France: which so long as the Reader shall keep in mind, it will make him (if he be a discreet Protestant) discern with ease, how falsely his Ministers have laid certain seditious opinions to the charge of us English Catholics, and such (say they) as are not believed by the Catholic Countries joining to us. If he chance to be a Precisian, he will have reason to take compassion of us Catholics, whom he finds to agree in this with himself, and all the Calumists in the world, that Kings may for some hideous crimes deserve to fall from their Royalty; though there be this difference between us, that we hold the common Father of all true Christians, to be the fittest judge of such high quarrels, as fall out between his children (wherein also he is directed by the Canons and inviolable Customs of the Church, in what sort, and by what degrees he must proceed) but they hold that Kings are subject to a kind of popular judgement, which is so much the likelier to be corrupt, as it is usual for the people whom they make the judge, to be a party. If he be a faint Catholic who hath brought his conscience to take the Oath of England, and to run dancing round the maypole of human respects, it will make him return to the good company, which in that point he hath left, and fetch the blood into his face, when he considers that he being an English Catholic, who was wont to have the honour to be so entire in the confession of his faith, hath need to be put in mind of his duty, by an action performed in France, where levity and liberty are ordinarily so much in use. If lastly he he a sincere and loyal Catholic, who doth choose rather to starve, then to strain his conscience, and consequently resolveth to be far enough from taking the English Oath, he may give God humble thanks for his infinite mercy, who besides the promise of future rewards, for these present sufferings, and the testimony of a good conscience, which, even in this life, is so great a jewel as both the Indies cannot buy, hath vouchsafed to justify him in point of spiritual reputation, by the testimony of that Nation, whose sincerity was called most in question, and whose example hath been heretofore so impudently, though without control, alleged against him, and us.  
And though if we were sure that our persecution were to continue as long as the world: yet we should know withal, that there is no proportion between the longest time and eternity; and that, the sufferings of this life, though never so grievous, are infinitely unworthy of that glory, which is prepared for such as keep the Depositum of Catholic Faith, undiminisht. But we are taught, not only by the experience of former times, which tells us of the period of great persecutions, even then when there seemed to be least human hope thereof; but also by that which we may have observed by the passages of the late action of the Estates in France, how able God Almighty is, to make his greatest enemies the liveliest instruments of his glory, in despite of their own wicked hearts, and to make their endeavours, which aim at the dishonouring, and abusing of his Church, to give the greatest contribution that could be wished, to the Dignity, and Majesty of the same.  
Who knows not, that the holding of these Estates in France, was pursued only, in effect, by certain irreverent semi-Catholikes, who love nothing less than the splendour and vigour of Ecclesiastical discipline, and ●urisdiction? Who knows not, that as soon as the said Estates were opened, that rotten member which took the name of the Third Estate, discovered that Canker, which hath been feeding greedily upon it (especially since the introduction of heresy into that Kingdom) by plodding upon some course, how to make an Id●ll of the temporal power of Kings, in respect of the reverence due to Popes; and so far to abuse the authority of the Apostolic Sea, as that they would redoubt it no more than a mere Scarecrow, or chimera? And yet we see God hath fetched the Treacle of which I have spoken, from the poison that grew in the festered bowels of his Enemies; for if that French Oath had not been propounded by those Lawyers, the contrary doctrine and belief of the Church of France, had not been protested by those Prelates. Shall the providence therefore of God, be able to watch so fruitfully over the Catholic Church of France, and shall the narrow seas be broad enough to keep him from showing 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 us learn by this, that when our persecuting Ministers do most conspire our ruin, then shall we be surest of Gods present help; & when the grave shallbe finished wherein they hope to bury us alive, incident in foveam quam fecerunt, it is then that they are likeliest to die in the same ditch which they made for us.  
Courage therefore is that which we are to beg at the hands of God, who knows not how to forsake, but such as confide not in him It was said long ago by one who had no supernatural assistance whereby his crosses were to be assuaged, Si longus levis, si magnus brevis; but we have infinitely more reason to assure ourselves then he, that if our persecution linger on, it willbe lightened, if it increase it willbe shortened. Nor ought we be without hope, but that it may be both short and light, when his majesties Excellent judgement shall have observed (which in all likelihood he h●th already done, by he ensuing Oration and other books) that his Catholic subjects ho●d no other opinions in favour of the Sea Apostolic, but such as are common to those Catholics, that are accounted even the most remiss i● Europe; That there is no Protestant Church, which hath declared this proposition to be true, That a King can never be deposed by any authority under heaven, nor his subjects be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance, which once they made, for any incorrigible crimes whatsoever. That on the other side, rebellions of subjects against their natural Princes, have grown familia since protestancy broke lose, and have been as it were hatched by that sect in England, Scotland, Holland, Sweveland, Germany, Switzerland, Geneva, and most often in France, whereof tru● histories mak● particule mention. And 〈◊〉 that should not be able to read or understand a book, might see the matter verified even at this instant in the Kingdom of France, where the Prince Protestant of them all, is vexing his King by all the power he hath, either of credit, or other means, having drawn to his lure many others of both Religions: That, since his Majesty hath been ill counseled and v●ged by Ministers (amongst all whom there hath n●uer yet been any one good man of State) he hath gotten nothing less, then that they aimed at, which was, That Regal Authority, now that it is employed in their defence, should be as superstitiously adored, as in Queen Mary's days, both of England, and Scotland (when their religion received a check) it was irreligiously decried and disgraced For now instead of being held a kind of Divinity upon earth (which notion men's minds were fit for, before they were opened by such Oaths) they are grown to looke● abroad upon that light, which they were wont to be afraid would dazzle their eyes; and at last are come so near unto it, as that they touch and handle it, by the discourse of reason, and experience, which tells them, that Kingly Authority cannot come immediately from God to any man, but by miracle: That all the Kings whom we know, do either rule by force of conquest, and in that case the authority of the Common wealth if it be usurped, may be resumed, or by Donation, Election, Marriage, or Succession of blood, in which cases Kings forfeit by not performing the conditions, under which either they or their first ancestors 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 upon earth should cause a King to govern them without obliging him in particular to do this, or that, it were a Barbarous conceit to think that it were in his law full power, to Tyrannize over them at his pleasure, without having respect either to their defence in time of war, or the administration of justice in time of peace, for which only respects they made him King. If this discourse be true in case of Kings, even by the Law of Nature and of Nations; how much more shall it be so, amongst Christian Kings, who in their Baptism do their homage to the Faith of Christ; and at their Coronations do swear the maintenance of Religion, and justice, which are the conditions expressed, whereupon the progenitors of the most absolute Christian Kings, were placed in their Royal Throne. These things, I say, are grown into the consideration of men, and strikes the reasonable part of their souls with such an evidence and demonstration of truth, as no formulary of an Oath, though perhaps for fear, or fashion sake they may chance to accept thereof, will ever be able to wipe out.  
Some questions there may be, between men of different Religions (as hath been touched) to whom the judgement over Kings for their offences may belong; some holding that this jurisdiction resides in the Church; some in the Common Wealth; some in both together; and some others other several 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 Kings for hideous crimes may fall from their dignity, and their subjects may be absolved from their Oath of fidelity. Nay I have not heard even in England, where our Oath of Allegiance was enacted, nor in France where the like was offered, that when the general propositions which were contained in both the formularies were well deduced into particulars, men would be drawn to subscribe and swear thereto (otherwise then forced by fear) excepting only a few hypocritical Ministers amongst us, or profane Lawyers amongst our neighbours. But as God would have it, neither the Ministers in France are of that opinion (for they profess the contrary) nor yet the Lawyers of England, if you put the case home to them: for howsoever it costs them nothing to swear, that the Pope can never come to depose a King because he is a protestant; it would trouble some of their consciences, if they have any, to swear that if an Upper and Lower house of the English Parliament should condemn a King, who might happen to be so great a Tyrant, as that he would abrogate all the Statutes and Common Laws of the Realm; bring in by force a summary course of justice, as is used in Switzerland; confiscate all the Common Lawyers of England, who are able to spend above a thousand pounds per annum; and in a word dispose of their wives and children, as if they were his own; it would trouble them, I say, to swear, that such a King might not be deposed by the Houses of Parliament, and that themselves could not be so far discharged from the Oath of Fidelity, which they made to him when they were sworn justices of Peace, as to make some personal resistance in their own defence.  
There is nothing more certain, then that many a man reads over the Oath of Allegiance, and divers take it, who consider not the importance of those fearful general clauses, which include and exclude all particular cases of No Pope, No King, neither by his own, nor by any other Authority, for any cause whatsoever, can Depose or Absolve subjects etc. And yet, as I said before, there are so many Protestants, who by occasion of this Oath have entered so deeply into the consideration of Kingly Authority, as it is evident (to all such as freely and familiarly live with Protestants, and understand sincerely from them what they think) that thousands of them are grown to a less adoring conceit of Royal Dignity, than they were wont to have. And though his Majesty can hardly come to know the prejudice that he hath sustained by yielding to them, who have unfitly sought to help him, or rather to help themselves by propounding this Oath, because he is a King, and cannot equally converse with his subjects, (nor can he from his servants expect but such news, as will be pleasing to him) yet it may be hoped for, at the Hands of so Excellent a judgement as his Majesty is endued withal, that he will one day fall upon the true account of these businesses, by other means, and not continued his Catholic Subtectes in his so ill conceit, for professing of that belief, which is now, in terminis, avowed by the learned and noble Catholics, even of France; the contrary whereof is not avowed by any Protestant Church upon earth (if we change the name of Pope into the name of Common wealth) and the sequel whereof hath done nothing but disservice to him. I beseech God of his infinite mercy, give his Majesty such light of mind whereby to discern the distempered thoughts of his Ministers, who are in such a rage against Catholics, and to us, that he will vouchsafe so much strength of mind, as that whatsoever happeneth, we may rather obey God, then man..   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER, translated out of the French.  
THE Author of this Discourse understanding that some had put in print two several Speeches in his name, far different both in sense and words, from that which he by word of mouth delivered, he was constrained to bring this to light as an Antidote or Countermand to those other. Neither did he much wonder to see such pieces of changeable colours clapped together, some true, some false, according unto every one's passion, without resemblance to the original: for he doth think that no pen could follow, nor memory retain two Speeches whereof the shortest lasted three hours, although swiftly pronounced. But he was much astonished at the liberty of this time, that within Paris (himself being present) any should publish two Speeches in his name without acquainting him with it, thereby to understand whither he would acknowledge them for his own. It is true indeed, that he was not the only man, who had been so dealt withal: for some other Prelates had lyn handled after the same manner, and found as little of theirs in those remnantes bestowed on them, as Euphorbus in Pythagoras.  
Now therefore it doth suffice him to present thee with that he pronounced in the Chamber of the Third Estate. For that it was in a manner all one with that he made in the Chamber of the Nobility, the reasens being the same, and no difference at all, but in the beginning, conclusion, and ornuments: By reason whereof the publishing of the one might serve for a general remedy of the suppositions of the other two.  
As soon as he had therefore signified to the Gentlemen of the Third Order, that being to speak in their presence, he thought himself obliged to make the same prayer to God, which Pericles was accustomed to do, being to speak to the Athenians, that nothing might pass from him unbeseeming those that had employed him, neither of those that were to hear him, 
Psal. 50.  he directed his words to God, saying with the Psalmist: Domine labia men aperies, and then began as followeth.   

THE ORATION.  
IT had been to small purpose (Noble Gentlemen) to honour the dignity of those that make profession to minister justice; It had been to little purpose that which Aristotle taught us, by saying, that justice is beautiful, and admirable like to the star Lucifer; and it had been to as little purpose to have taught us, that in justice all virtues are summarily contained; And the answer of Agesdaus King of Sparta had been unto as little purpose, which he gave unto the King of Persia (who took to himself the title of the great King) that he could not be greater than himself, valesse he could prove he were more just. And that fable of the Poets had been to as little purpose, feigning Minos the Patron of just Princes, to have been the son of jupiter: and that Themis and Dicas were placed on either side of jupiter; if the Scripture did not teach us that by justice Kings do reign; if the Son of God had not chosen him who was to be his figure, & called him Melchisedech, that is to say King of justice; and that the same Melchisedech whose name doth signify, King of justice, had not been also King of Salem, that is, King of peace, to show that of justice dependeth peace, which is the mother of all good in heaven and earth. And seeing the oracles of divine scripture agree in commendation of this virtue with the testimony of profane authors, it seems in giving her the first place of honour and dignity amongst human virtues, is to put in execution the will both of God and men.  
Now (Gentlemen) if ever there were any Nation in which this virtue hath shined and been flourishing; it is this in which we live. I will not speak of the glory of the Druids, or ancient Sacrificers, in whose hands the Gauls had put the execution of justice, with intent to make it sacred and venerable to the people by the quality of the persons that should exercise it; I omit the care and zeal our Kings did bear to the practice of justice, themselves becoming ministers and distributers, not only in their first and second race, but likewise in the third: To say nothing of the splendour of our Courts of Parliament, and in particular of this great, and high Parliament of Paris, whereof the reputation hath been such amongst foreign Princes, that they themselves often made choice of it for their judge and arbitrator in causes of greatest importance. It shall suffice me to affirm of our Nation, that it hath ever been so famous, and flourished in the exercise of this virtue, that the very women amongst the Gauls were heretofore esteemed better able to administer justice, than the men of all other Provinces. For when Hannibal received and incorporated the Gauls in his Army (in his passage to the Conqest of Italy) it was agreed on, that if at any time there should arise any difference between the two Nations, if the Carthaginians were plaintiffs, the verdict should belong to the Tribunal of the Carthaginians, resident in Spain: and if the Gauls found themselves aggrieved, the decision was referred to the Dames of France. And therefore (Gentlemen) our Kings having assigned the keeping and disposing of this precious treasure in the hands and custody of your Order, it is not without cause that we honour and respect you, not only as ministers and interpreters of Themis, but as such her interpreters in the chiefest Tribunal she hath upon earth.  
And now (Gentlemen) this Themis, this Dicas, this ●lustice itself, which teacheth you to render to every one his due, inspired you likewise from the first meeting of the States, to render above all other things what you own to God, to his Religion, and to his Ministers; making you thereby to imitate the example of those great lawgivers and Sages the Romans your Predecessors, who carried so great respect to Divine things, that although the Religion was false, yet notwithstanding because in this false Religion they pretended, as S. Augustine saith, to honour the true Deity, it pleased the same God to recompense their zeal with temporal graces and benedictions, whereby they raised their Empire above the clouds. For than you gave us testimony by di●ers Embassages, that you held us for your parents, as the Pastors; and directors of your souls, and such as lived in continual watchfulness to render account of them to Almighty God: For the which we have of ten-times given you many and hearty thanks. But that which did most assure us, that you practised effectually what you gave testimony of by words, was the last occasion which presented itself. For upon the news which was sent unto us, of a certain article, touching the security of Kings, entitled, a Fund a mental Law proposed & resolved amongst yourselves, where there was matter of Religion mixed with interest of state, you were contented to be persuaded by the learned, and eloquent informations delivered you in our names by the Archbishop of Aix, and the Lord Bishop of Mumpelier, to communicate the matter with us, and jointly to receive our opinion thereof.  
For this cause (Gentlemen) the Ecclesiastical assembly hath chosen & sent me unto you: First to give you thanks for the honour you pleased to do them herein: then to let you understand their opinion concerning as well the substance, as circumstances of your Article. And they have especially given me in charge above all other things to render you infinite thanks, and praise your zeal, in providing so carefully for the security of the life, and person of our Kings; withal protesting, that they all conspire together with you in this thought, and extraordinary feeling of yours, and that from the bottom of their hearts and souls. For they lament, and shall never cease mourning with tears of blood, the tragical, and detestable Assassinats, which have wronged and defiled the memory of this age, with two so horrible parricides; and do find in themselves so much greater obligation to have their hearts pierced with this grief, by how much more they must acknowledge themselves tied with straighter bands, than any other Orders, to maintain and stand affected to the Sacred Person of our Kings. I mean not to enlarge myself for the present in telling you, how God hath put into their hands the light of his word, to lighten other orders, and how the Clergy must march foremost and direct others, by doctrine and example in serving well and faithfully those, whom God hath placed over his people: Only thus much out of mere human considerations; There is no profession so straightly bound, in all fidelity and loyalty to our Princes, as the state Ecclesiastical. For other states come to offices, honours, and dignities of the realm, some of them, as the Gentlemen & Nobility, at the dearest rate of all other, with loss of their blood, and peril of their lives; others; besides their merit, by contribution of some part of their goods, and commodities. But as for us, we attain them by the only grace and favour of our Kings, without hazard or employment of aught, either of life, goods, or honours. Neither by any other means (being as we are naked and unarmed) can we enjoy our quiet or commodities, but under the shadow of the peaceable and prosperous affairs of the King, being otherwise exposed as a prey to all sorts of wrongs and outrages. And therefore, what man of sound judgement can live in doubt, but that we have more interest, than any other in his conservation, in whose life, as within some fatal brand, all our lives and fortunes are comprised?  
We therefore alike join issue with you in this your zeal and fervency of passion, and do alike condemn, nay more if possible may be, the perfidious butchery of those monsters, which dare adventure on Sacred personages of Kings. But with all desiring you to enter into consideration, that as the only laws sufficient to restaine those who set at nought their lives, are the Ecclesiastical which curb those spirits, that contemn death with the apprehension of those pains after death: So must we carefully take heed, not to insert any thing into those laws, but that which is held for certain, and undoubted by the whole Church, for fear of disabling the authority of that which is certain & infallible, by mixture of that which is doubtful and in contention. For experience hath taught us too well, that human laws only, and apprehension of temporal punishment can never serve for sufficient remedy to such evils, as proceed from a perverse and corrupted imagination of Religion. We must have therefore laws of conscience such as work on our souls, and keep them in fear of eternal torments. Those who undertake these detestable parricides under a false per suasion of Religion, are not kept back with any fear of corporal punishment; they bathe themselves in torments with delight, they expect triumphs and Crowns of Martyrdom, they flatter themselves with false application of that sentence of our Saviour, do not fear them that can kill the body, 
Matt. 10.  but rather fear him that can send both soul and body into hell. So that to restrain and terrify this kind of people, we must lay before them, not such laws as are executed in this life, which they care not for, and thereby deprive other men of theirs: but of such laws, whose rigour and severity are exacted after death, that is of laws Ecclesiastical and spiritual. The Milesian Virgins were possessed of so furious and prodigious hatred of their lives, that they ran voluntarily with great contentment to their deaths, they strangled, threw themselves down headlong, and cut their own throats, the prayers and tears of their parents not being able to hinder them. The Magistrates of the Island oftentimes consulted, and made many decrees to stop the public mourning, but none of their designments took effect. For they despising and hating life, entered likewise into contempt of whatsoever was ended with life, until in the end seeing all other means to fail them, agreed to publish a law, whereby all those which voluntarily made away themselves, should be drawn openly through the streets, & that stark naked after their death: Then the frenzy, 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 madness; there is nothing but the fear of pains to be imposed after death; nothing but the apprehension of the pains of hell; nothing but the horror of eternal torments, which are sufficient to cure their distemper, who think to immolate and sacrifice their lives to God, when they lose them, by putting in execution this horrible and abominable enterprises.  
Now the spiritual and Ecclesiastical laws, are those only which can imprint in men's hearts the terror of excommunication, and lively apprehension of everlasting torments. For to cause this effect, they must proceed from Ecclesiastical Authority; that is certain, absolute, & infallible, that is to say universal, and such as containeth nothing wherein the whole Church doth not agree. For if they proceed from doubtful and different authority, & contain such things whereof one part of the Church holds one opinion, the head and other parts thereof teach another; those, in whose bearts they desire these things should make impression, instead of holding them for certain and infallible, and thereby to be terrified and swayed by their threats, fall to laughing at them, and hold them in extreme derision. And therefore we must take great heed, I say once again we must take extraordinary great heed to mix 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 himself in danger of the devil, and eternal death, may adventure upon the life of Kings) with any point in controversy, for fear of weakening that which is undoubtedly true, by joining it with some other thing which other parts of the Church do debate, and hold in dispute.  
Three points there are in the substance of your Fundamental Law, besides certain accessary points and circumstances. The first concerneth the security of kings persons, and in this we all agree, offering to seal it, not with ink, but with our blood; that is to say, that it is not lawful for any cause whatsoever to murder Kings: and not only with David, do de●est the Amalecite, who vaunted to have laid his hands on Saul, 
1. Reg. 11.  although rejected and deposed by God by the mouth of Samuel, but moreover cry out aloud with the Sacred Council of Constance, 
Concil. Constant. sess. 5.  against the murderers of Kings, even such as might be preteded to be Tyrants, Anathema, to such as murder Kings; eternal malediction to the assassinats of Kings, eternal damnation on all such as murder Kings. The second point is of the temporal dignity, and sovereignty of the Kings of Frances, and in this likewise we agree. For we believe our Kings are absolute in every fort of temporal Sovereignty in their Realm, and that they are neither feudatories to the Pope (as some others who have either received, or obliged their Crowns with this condition) nor to any other Prince; but that in the pure administration of temporal things they depend immediately of God, and acknowledge no other power over them but his. These two points than we hold for certain, and undoubted but in different manner of certainty: for the certainty of the first is divine and theological; the certainty of the second human and historical. For that which Pope Innocent III. 
(a) Cap. per Venerab. Tit. Qui filii sint legitimi.  affirms, that the King of France acknowledgeth no superior in temporalities, is spoken by him in form of historical testimony: and that certain other Realms (whereof he seems to wright 
(b) Cap. causam tit. eodem.  the same) have since changed, and bound themselves to some certain kind of temporal dependence upon the Sea Apostolic; and that France remains in her prime estate, it is history, and not faith that tells us so.  
There remains the third point, which is this: Whether if Princes having made an oath to God, and their people, either themselves or their predecessors, to live and die in the Christian Catholic faith, and do afterwards violate their oath, rebel against Christ, bidding him open war, that is to say, fall not only to open profession of heresy, or Apostasy from Christian Religion, but withal pass to force their subjects' consciences, and go about to plant Arianism, or Mahometism, or any such like infidelity within their states, and thereby destroy and root out Christianity; whether, I say, in this case, their subjects on the other side may not be declared absolved from their oath of Loyalty and Fidelity: And this coming to pass to whom it appertaineth to pronounce this absolution.  
This then is the point in controversy between us: For your article containeth the negarive; that is to say, that in no case whatsoever the subjects may be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance made to their Princes. As on the contrary side, all other parts of the Catholic Church, together with this of France, since the institution of Schools of Divinity, until the coming of Catuin, held the affirmative proposition, which is, that when the Prince breaks the Oath he hath made to God and his subjects to live and die in Catholic Religion, and doth not only become an Arian, or a Mahometan, but manifestly wars against jesus Christ, in compelling his subjects in matters of conscience, and constraining them to embrace Arianism or Mahometism, or any other detestable in fidelity: That then this Prince may be declared fallen from his right, as culpable of felony towards him, to whom he hath made the oath of his Realm, that is to Christ: and his subjects may be absolved in conscience, both at the spiritual and Ecclesiastical Tribunal, from the oath of allegiance they have made unto 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 Council, to publish this declaration. And not only all the other parts of the Catholic Church, but likewise all the Doctors who lived in France from the first setting up of schools of Divinity amongst them, have held the affirmative opinion, that in the case of heretical, or infidel Princes, and such as persecute Christianity, or Catholic Religion, their subjects may be absolved from their oath of allegiance. By means whereof though the contrary doctrine were the truest, yet notwithstanding all the other parts of the Church being against it, you cannot hold it for more than problematical in matter of faith. I call that doctrine problematical in matter of faith, which we are not bound to believe, by necessity of faith, and the contradictory thereof doth not bind them that believe it with excommunication, and disunion or separation from the community. Otherwise you must acknowledge, that the communion which you exercise with the other parts of the Church, holding the contrary doctrine, yea even that communion which you conserve with the memory of your predecessors, was unlawful, defiled with heresy and excommunication.  
And indeed those who take upon them to defend the doctrine of the English Oath which is the pattern of yours, 
Widring. disput. de juram. fidel. cap. 3. sect. 19  defend it for no other than problematical, Our intention (say they) is not to affirm the other opinion, as repugnant to faith, or salvation, it being defended and maintained by so many & so great Divines, whom God forbidden we should go about to condemn of so great a crime.  
And therefore to include this clause under the same obligation of faith, under that very degree of excommunication, under the which we comprehend the condemnation of those which attempt the lives of Princes, is to fall into four manifest Inconveniences, which our Chamber hath given me in charge to lay before your eyes. The first, is to force men's souls, and entangle their consciences, in bidding them to believe, and swear under pain of excommunication, as doctrine of faith, and conformable to the word of God, a point of doctrine, the contrary whereof is held by all the other parts of the Catholic Church, and hath been ever hitherunto, by their own predecessors. The second inconvenience, is utterly to overthrow the authority of the Church, and to open the gate to all sorts of heresies, to give scope to lay men, without direction, or warrant either of general Council, or Ecclesiastical sentence, to undertake the decision of matters of faith, to determine points of Controversy, and to pronounce openly what is conformable to the Scripture, what is impious and detestable. This than we say is to usurp the office of Priesthood; this is to stretch our hand to the Ark; this is to take the Censar for Sacrifice. In brief, this is to commit the self same outrages, for which Gods maledictions have justly fallen long since on the usurpers, as well private persons as Kings themselves. The third Inconvenience, is to throw us head long into evident and inevitable schism. For all other Catholic nations holding this doctrine, we cannot declare it to be contrary to holy Writ, nor hold it for wicked and detestable, but therewithal we must renounce the communion both of the head, and other parts of the Church: and thereby confess, that the Church for so many ages hath not been the Church of God, but the Synagogue of Satan: not the spouse of Christ, but the devils strumpet. The fourth Inconvenience, is not only to make frustrate the remedy, which men seek in this peril of Princes, in weakening that which is held for certain and undoubted, by joining it to a thing contradicted; but withal instead of assuring the life and estate of Princes, to put in great danger both the one and the other, by means of wars and other mischances and disasters, which ordinarily schism draws after it.  
These are (Gentlemen) the four points our Company have given me in charge to represent unto you, which I will do my best to dispatch with all possible clearness and facility, if you please to hear me with the like patience you have hitherto continued, which I easily persuade myself you will, if you set before your eyes the importance of the matter I am hear to treat with you, which is the greatest at this present in Christendom. And beside; consider that it is not myself, whom you hear speak in this Controversy. For it is not I who speak in this cause, but the whole body of the Ecclesiastical Order, and all that of the Nobility adjoined unto it, and which have deputed these twelve Noble men, taken from the twelve governements in the Realm, of purpose to give authority to my words with their presence: and withal to give testimony in this present occasion, of the self same devotion their predecessors have ever borne the Church, which they have planted by their Arms, and watered with their blood, in the furthest parts of the world. And therefore I will no more enlarge myself in begging of you, favourable audience and attention; only let me entreat you, before I enter into the matter, to give me leave to make these two protestations, thereby to prevent certain calumniations. The first, that when I say, those who hold the negative part, cannot hold it for other then problematical, I intent not to comprehend by the word problematical, that which concerns the condemnation of those parricides, who undertake to kill Princes: for this I hold for a point of faith, and condemn the contrary opinion for heretical, and guilty of all sorts of excommunication and eternal punishment. The other, that it is contrary to my disposition, and full sore against my will, that I come to treat of these questions in such a time, when our Country is newly come out of many differences, and divisions in State-matters, and is yet full of debates in matters of Religion; and have refused this charge many times, even with tears, knowing well how I was to embark myself in a sea full of rocks and perils, and to how many harsh contradictions and calumniations I should expose myself. But the publishing of Copies of your Article (the bruit whereof was spread far and near) hath hindered us from keeping it any longer secret; and the wound once discovered, the discharge of our Office bound us to seek a remedy.  
NOw then Gentlemen (concerning the first Inconvenience) to lay the foundation of my discourse, not on pillars of gold, as Pindarus said, but on the firm pillars of History, and practise of the Church, the method I will observe, shallbe in proving two things. The one, that not only all the other parts of the Church which are at this day in the world hold the affirmative opinion, that is to say, in the case of heretical Apostates, and persecuting Princes, the subjects may be absolved from their Oath of allegiance made to them or their predecessors: but also for these eleven hundred years, there hath not been any one age, in which this doctrine hath not been believed and practised in divers nations. The other, that it hath been continually held in France, where our Kings, and particularly those of the last race, have defended it by their authority and arms; where our councils have upheld and maintained it; where our Bishops, and Scholastical Doctors, since the first institution of schools of Divinity until our days, have written, preached, and taught it; and where, to conclude, all our Magistrates, Officers and Lawyers have followed and favoured it; yea often times for crimes in matters of Religion, much more light than heresy or Apostasy. Wherewith notwithstanding I intent not to help myself, but where they serve to defend either the general Theses, that is to say, Whether in some cases the subjects may be absolved from the Oath made by them to their Princes; or this particular Hypothesis, that in the case of heretical Apostates, and persecuting Princes, their Subjects may be dispensed withal in obeying them. To the end therefore to free you from all obscurity, I will not oppugn your Article, but by those maxims wherein our Doctors of France, who have written in defence of Princes temporal authority, do all agree; containing myself notwithstanding in the simple plain way of fact, without passing to that of right, the decision whereof appertains not to this time nor place.  
First then to begin with Anastasius who was made Emperor more than eleven hundred years ago. When this Emperor Anastasius, an Eutychian heretic, took on him the Empire, Euph●mius Patriarch of Constantinople would never acknowledge him for Emperor, until he had signed and subscribed with his own hand to the Creed of the Chalcedon Council. Anastasius (as Victor Tunonensis 
(a) Victor. Tunon. in Chron. à Scaligero edito.  an Author of that age hath left written) urged by the Bishop of Constantinople, was constrained to promise under his hand, to attempt nothing that was sinister against the Apostolic Faith, and the Council of Chalcedon. And Euagrius: 
(b) evagr. hist. Eccle. lib. 3. ca 32.  The Empress Ariadne desirous to put the Imperial habiton Anastasius, the Bishop Euphemius would never give his consent, until he had given up a profession of his faith, written with his own hand, with grievous and severe Oaths. And Theodorus Anagnostes saith, that 
(c) Theod. Anagnost. l. 2. collect. hist. Eccl.  Anastasius being declared Emperor by the Empress Ariadne, Euphemius the Bishop made resistance, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  calling him heretic and unworthy to have command one Christians. Notwithstanding the Empress and the Senate, trailing Euphemius by force, did their uttermost to compel him: But he would never consent to anything before he had drawn from him a profession by writing to embrace the doctrine of the Chalcedon Council. And when the said. Anastasius fell back contrary to his Oath unto the Eutychian heresy, and passed further to persecute the Catholics; Pope Symachus resisted him, & took upon him the defence of the Church in these words: 
(b) Sym. in Apologet  It may be thou wilt say, it is written, We must be subject to all power. It is true; We acknowledge human power, according to the degree thereof, yet so notwithstanding, that it be not erected against God. But for the rest, if all power come from God, with much more reason, that, which governs divine things. Bear respect to God in us; and we will reverence God in thee. But if thou honour not God, thou canst not claim privilege by him whose laws thou contemnest. And immediately after: Thou sayest that the Senate conspiring with me, I have excommunicated thee: that which I found lawfully done by my Predecessors, I have without doubt followed. Thou sayest that the Senate of Rome doth treat thee ill; if we treat thee ill by inciting thee to leave heretics, can it be thought thou dealest well with us, which wouldst throw us headlong into the society of heretics? And when he went about to distill the infection of his heresy into the Church's offices ●●d set his hand to the banishment of Bishop●; not only the people of Constantinople were in commotion against him, and demanded another Emperout but moreover Vitalianus one of the chiefest Generals of that age, having assembled a puissant army, went to present him battle at the very gates of Constantinople, and would never agree to peace, but with this condition, That he should recall the Bishops whom he had banished from their seas, & should reunite all the Eastern Churches with the Roman. The Catholics (says Marcellinus Comes) 
(a) Marcel. Com. in chron.  demanded Areobuidas for Emperor, and threw to ground the Images and statuas of Anastasius. And Cedrenus: 
(b) Cedr. in compend. hist. in Anastas.  Anastasius going about to join these words to the Hymn of the Church, who was crucified for us, there was made a popular insurrection within Constantinople, the Citizens calling for another Emperor, whereby the Emperor being affrighted, put of for a time his heresy. And Victor Tunonensis: 
(d) Victor Tunon. in chron.  Count Vitalianus the son of Patriciolus understanding the subversion of the Catholic faith, the condemnation of the Chalcedon Council, the banishment of the Catholic Bishops, and the intrusion of heretics into their places; he assembled a great army revolted from the Emperor Anastasius, and joining battle which Patricius the emperors Nephew & Constable of the Empire, he killed threescore and seven thousand of the Roman soldiers, and took Patricius prisoner. And a little after: Vitalianus being encamped at the gates of Constantinople, notwithstanding many demands of peace made to him by the Emperor, he would never harken to any but with this condition, that he should call back the defenders of the Chalcedon Council, who had been cast out from their seas, and should reunite all the Churches of the East, with the Roman.  
And when Clotharius the first of that name King of France, that lived in the same age with the Emperor justinian, had slain within the Church of Soisson, on good Friday in the time of the adoring the Cross, 
* Gautier.  Walter Lord of Yuetot in Normandy; Pope Agapetus whom the Greeks' call 
(a) Concil. Const. sub Men.  the Beloved of God and men, did threaten him with his censures, if he did not make amends for the outrage he had committed against Christian Religion. In satisfaction whereof, the King did erect the territory of Yuetot, with 
* En tiltre & condition de Roy●ume.  the title and freedom of a Kingdom Whereof besides the possession without interruption continued, and the perpetual tradition of the Province, there were writings made that very hour, the date, according to the account of the year of our Lord, falling to be the same with the year 536. Which I allege not, as I have before made protestation, therehence to infer any particular consequence from fact, to right, but to show in general how great reverence our first kings did bear to the censures of ancient Popes. The Pope, says du Haillan 
(b) Du Haillan en Phist. de France l. 1.  incensed with this cruel act, sent word to the King, that he should make amends for this fact, otherwise that his realm should be interdicted. Then Clotharius feeling remorse of conscience for his crime, did ordain for amends thereof, that from that time forward the Lords of Yuetot, and their heirs should be quit from all homage, service, and obedience due to the King for the territory of Yuetot etc. And thereupon were the evidences drawn and sealed by the foresaid Clotharius. And Gaguin: 
(a) Gaguinus hist. ●ranc. l. 2.  I find as an infallible truth, that this was done the year of our Lord 536. For the English having long time after dominion in Normandy, there fell out a suit, between john of Holland Englishman, and the Lord of Yuetot, as if his territory had been tributary to the King of England; The Lieutenant of 
(b) The word which the translator of Gaguin useth, is Caletz, which signifieth as well the town as the coast of Calais, the people whereof in old time were called Caletes, and whereof one part is even to this day called le Pais de Caults.  Calais, after he had thoroughly in the year of our Lord 1428. informed himself of the case by order of justice, did determine that he had found just, as I have noted before.  
And when Queen Brune child, and King Theodorike desirous to have a confirmation of the privileges of the hospital of Autun, which the said Queen had founded, and to have the ensuing Kings bound by the authority of the Sea Apostolic, to conserve them inviolable, without the least touch of any sacrilege; the Pope S. Gregory the great, at their instance wrote these words in an Epistle to Senator, which is the tenth, in the eleventh book of his Epistles: 
(c) An absurd Author hath as fond made answer, that this decree is not found in S Gregory: as it was absurdly answered that the Excommunication of the Emperor Theodosius by S. Ambrose, was not to be found in the Ecclesiastical History.  We grant and confirm, ordaining that no Kings, Prelates, nor any other of what degree soever, may in part diminish, or take away any thing bestowed on the said hospital, by the foresaid most excellent Kings our sons. And a little after. And if any one of the Kings, Prelates, judges, or other secular persons, after information given of this our constitution, do go about to contradict it, let him be deprived of his power and dignity. For I will not serve myself of those Bulls of the Abbey of Soisson, for that they were not inserted within the Register of S. Gregory's Epistles, but were taken out of the Coffers of the Monks of S. Medard, and put after the work at the end of the Register, as appears both by ancient impressions of the same Register, and by the citation of Pope Gregory VII. 
(a) Gregor. 7. lib. 8. ep. 21.  (who lived more than 500 years since) made of the Epistle to Senator, without speaking of that of Soisson.  
And when the Emperor justinian the 2. sent his Constable to take Pope Sergius, and transport him from Rome to Constantinople, for that he would not approve the Council falsely called the sixth; the Imperial soldiers of Italy opposed themselves, drove back the emperors Constable with injuries & reproaches. justinian the 2. (says Beda 
(b) Bed. de sex aetat. mundi.  an Author of the same age) being offended, for that Sergius of happy memory Bishop of the Church of Rome, would not sign and favour the erroneous Synod, which he caused to be held at Constantinople, sent his Constable Zachary, commanding him to take the Pope, and bring him to Constantinople: But the Soldiers of Ravenna, with the Provinces adjoining, did resist the impious commandment of the Prince, and repelled the said Zachary with contumelies, & reproaches from the City of Rome. It is true indeed, that afterwards the same justinian did wash away this crime, together with other his impieties, when as having gotten Pope Constantine into the East, He threw himself prostrate on the earth 
(c) Bed. ib.  before him (saith Beda) and praying him to make intercession for his sins, he did renew all the privileges of the Church.  
And when the Emperor Philippicus, successor to justinian 2. came to the Empire, and according to the custom of the Emperors (presently after their coming to the state) of sending the profession of their faith to the Pope, had addressed unto him a profession of an heretical faith; the Pope rejected it in Synod, and upon the refusal of it, the people of Rome abrogated the Emperor Philippicus his Imperial titles. Philippicus (saith 
(a) Beda de sex aetat. mundi  Bede and after him Paulus 
(b) Paulus Diacon. de gestis Longob. lib. 6, cap. 4.  Diaconus) scent unto Pope Constantine letters of perverse doctrine, which the Pope together with the Council of the Sea Apostolic rejected etc. And the people of Rome ordained, that neither the name, nor the edicts, nor the money that had the image of the heretical Emperor upon it, should be admitted, or received.  
And at what time the Emperor Leo Isauricus fell into the heresy of the Iconclastes, or Image-breakers, and began to persecute the Catholics in the East; Pope Gregory the second after many dilations assembled a Council of the Bishops of the West at Rome, by which he deprived the Emperor of all his rights, tributes, jurisdiction, and power Imperial that he had in Italy, and all this with the advise & assistance of the French. And though some Authors be silent herein, yet Theophanes, Cedrenus, & Zonarus, Greek historians, affirm it, and none of them deny it. The most holy Gregory, saith Theophanes 
(c) Theop. in hi●● miscel lib. 21. , withdrew Rome & Italy, and all the rights as well of the Republic, as of the Church into the west parts, from the obedience of Leo, and of his Empire. Zonara's saith 
(d) Zon. tom. 3 Annal. in Leon. Isaterico. , Pope Gregory seeing the persecutions of the Emperor Leo against the Catholics, did cut off from communion with him the Bishop of Constantinople, and those who embraced the same impiety, and exposed them together with the Emperor, to an Anathema Synodique, & forbade the tributes which till then had been paid to the Empire, and adjoined himself with the French; whereupon they might take an occasion to make themselves masters of Rome.  
And when the French were resolved to abandon and forsake Childerike, and to substitute Pipine in his place, though the cause that moved them to remove and make away Childerike, was his impertinency and his stupidity: yet in as much as it touched Religion by occasion, because Childerike his imbecility & weakness did put France in danger of falling from Christianity, 
(a) Orat. legate. Pipini apud Paul. Aemilium in Child. 3.  through the invasion of the Saracens, who were become possessed of all Afrique and Spain, and had already many times overrun and wasted France, and that otherwise it rested upon the absolution of an oath in matter of conscience: They would not in any wise yield to do homage to Pippin, until the Pope had absolved them in the spiritual Tribunal, from their precedent and former oath they had made to Childerike. Pipin (saith Paulus Aemilius 
(b) Paul. Aemil. de reb. gestis Franc. in Child. 3.  after infinite other authors) sent Burchard Bishop of Wirtzburg to Pope Zachary, for the abrogating & taking away of the obligatio of the oath, by which the French were bound to Childerike. And again: The Pope absolved the French from the Oath they had made to Childerike, and they assembling the States did homage to Pippin, in quality of King. 
(c) du Tillet en la vie du Child. 3.  And the Lord of Tillet in his Memorials, saith: To take a way the note of perjury and infidelity, it was thought best to send unto Pope Zachary, Vegard Bishop of Wirtzburg, & Fulrad chaplain of the said Pipine, for the obtaining of absolution unto the said subjects, from the oath made unto the said King Childerike, and of approbation of the election by them made of the said Pippin for their King. And this was accorded by the said Pope.  
And when as again, after the heresy of the Emperor Constantine Copronymus, and of Leo his Son, and the persecution that Constantine Son of Leo raised against the Catholics for his false marriage, Charlemagne became beloved, and potent in the West, and that it came to be understood, that by the inconstancy of the Emperors of Greece, there was no more certainty at all for stability of religion in those prats of the East; Pope Leo the third absolved with effect, all their subjects of the West from their fidelity, declaring Charlemagne Emperor of the West in their place. The French, saith Zonaras, 
(a) Zonar tom. 3. Annal. in Iren, & Constant.  made themselves Lords of Rome, Pope Leo having crowned Charles, and called him Emperor of the Romans: And Theophanes: 
(b) In hist. nuscell. 22.  The Pope to requite Charles, crowned him Emperor. And Eginard Chancellor to Charlemagne saith: 
(c) Eginard. in vita Caroli magni.  our Charles in the beginning had such an horror at the title of Augustus, as he affirmed, if he had understood the Pope's intention, he would not that day have come to the Church, notwithstanding it were a solemn festivity. And the Lord of Tillet in his Memorials saith thus: 
(d) du Tillet enla vie de Charlemagne.  Charlemagne was King of all France, by the half well-near augmented and increased by him, and after that by Pope Leo crowned the first Emperor of the West.  
And when King Charles the Simple meant to use the help of the Infidels, and to bring in the normans, who were Pagans & Idolaters, into the Christian Countries of the French, to make wars against his enemies; Fouques Arch. bishop of Rheims threatened him, that he would renounce the fidelity he ought unto him: 
(e) Frodoard. hist. Eccles. Rhemens.  Who is he, quoth he, who being faithful unto you, as he is bound, hath not an horror, that you desire the amity and friendship of God's enemies, and have a will, to the detriment and ruin of the name of Christ, to receive and admit the arms of the Infidels, and detestable alliances with them? And a little after: It were better you had never been borne, then to have a will to reign by the protection of the Devil, and for you to be assistant unto them, whom you should most eagerly oppugn. Wherefore know you, that if you so do, and condescend to such counsels, you shall never have me loyal and faithful to you: and I will further withdraw from your fidelity all that I shallbe able: and I, together with my fellow Bishops will excommunicate you, and your complices, and adherentes, and condemn you with a perpetual curse, in place of the fidelity I bear unto you.  
And when King Philip the first in the beginning of the last race forsook Bertha his wife, daughter to the Count of Holland, and took in place of her Bertrude, wife of Fouques Count of Anjou yet living, (matter that concerned the violating of a Sacrament, and not of the breach of one Sacrament by simple adultery, which had been a crime of manners, but by the superinduction of another Sacrament, and by a public profession of making it a matter lawful, in keeping, even in the sight of his whole realm, the wife of another man still living, in his Royal bed, and in title of Queen and his Spouse, in place of his own wife yet also alive, when as the precedent marriages had not by the Church been declared to be of no validity, which was a crime accompanied with heresy:) Pope Urban notwithstanding he was to contend with an Antipope, reprehended the King, and after many admonitions, perceiving his pertinacy and obstinacy, excommunicated him in a Council of almost 300. 
Berthold. ad ann. 1095.  Bishops, assembled at Clermont in Awergne, and interdicted his Realm. And Pope Paschal after him did the same. At the Council of Clermont, saith Malmesbury, 
(a) Guil. Malmesb. lib. 4. c. 2. in Guil. 2.  the Pope excommunicated Philip King of France, and all them who called him King and obeyed him, or spoke unto him, if it were not to correct him. And Ivo 
(b) Ivo Carnot. ad Vrban. Epist. 46.  of Charters, writing unto the same Urban, saith: They will menace and threaten you, that the King and his Realm will departed from your obedience (that is, will pass to the obedience of the Antipope) if you restore not the Crown to the King, and absolve him from the excommunication. And the Lord of Tillet saith 
(c) Du Tillet en la vie de Philip. 1. : In the year 1100. john and Benedict Cardinals, and Legates of Pope Paschal the second, sent into France, assembled the Prelates at Autun, at Valence, and at Poitiers, and after having admonished the King to take the said Queen Bertha again, and to leave Bertrude, excommunicated them, and interdicted the Realm. Whereupon the said King was moved to iudignation: But in conclusion he obeyed.  
And when the Emperor Henry the fourth who lived at the same time with Philip the first complained a while before Pope Gregory the seventh, for having absolved and discharged his subjects from the Oath of fidelity; he reproached him that he could not do it, for that he had not committed any error in faith, and that the tradition of the Fathers, (observe the tradition of the Fathers, to give to understand that it was not then any new invention, or devise) did warrant, that he could not be deposed, if he erred not in faith: 
(d) Epist. Henr. 4. ad Greg. 7. a Protestant. edita, unà cum alijs. Refertur à Centuriat. Cent. 11. c. 8. de Schismate.  The tradition of the Fathers, saith the Emperor, hath taught that I ought to be judged by God alone, and that I could not be deposed for any crime, so I declined not from the faith, which is not pleasing unto God.  
And when Philip Augustus, the little son of Philip the first, was fallen into the like contempt and dislike of his wife Engeberge sister to the King of Denmark, that his Grandfather was of his wife Bertha; and had caused his marriage to be dissolved & disaunlled by Cardinal William his uncle Archbishop of Rheims and Legate in France, in prejudice of his former marriage, he took to wife the daughter of the Duke of Moravia: The Pope thereupon took notice of the matter, as of the violating and transgressing of a Sacrament under pretence of religion. And seeing the resistance that the King made, he excommunicated him, & interdicted his Realm: 
(a) Du Tillet en la vie de Philip. August.  The sentence of Cardinal William was (saith the Lord of Tillet) revoked by Pope Innocent the third, as given without order of justice. And because the King presently after the sentence given holding himself untied and free, married Agnes daughter of the Duke of Moravia, the King and the Realm were interdicted. And hereunto the Chronicle of Foiz, cited by Vignier, hath addeth, 
(b) Viginer liure 3. de Phist. de Prance en Pan 1200 en la Biblioth. hist. pag. 3.  That during the time of this interdict, they did put in France to the public contracts, not in the reign of Philip, but in the reign of jesus Christ.  
And when john King of England, who was not yet at that time obliged by any temporal acknowledgement to the Pope, 
(c) Act. in't. Bonif. 8. & Phil. Pulch. fol. 91. p. 1.  had driven the Bishops out of his Realm, and seized upon their goods, the same King Philip Augustus held an assembly of his Estates at Soysson, where he proposed to make war upon the King of England, for that he persecuted the Church, and for that the Pope had discharged and absolved his subjects from their oath of Allegiance to him: 
(d) Du Haillan li. 10. de Phist. de France en la vie de Phil. Aug. Rigard. lib. de vita Thil. Aug. adan, 1212.  The King saith Du Haillan (notwithstanding he be an historiam very passionate against the Popes) at the entreaty of the Pope, at Soyssons held an assembly of the Prelates and Peers of his Realm, to take advise, and consult about the means, how he might pass ever into England against King john, to make war upon him, as a persecutor of the Church, whom the Pope had then excommunicated, acquitting, taking away, and discharging his subjects of the Oath of allegiance they did owe unto him. And a little after. The greater part of the Nobility were of opinion, that he had just cause so to do, as well being thereunto moved, by authority of the Pope, as for the re-establishing of the Bishops, and other the Prelates in their Churches, from which they had been thrust and driven out by john's Tyranny, whom the Pope had excommunicated. And again all the Nobility with one accord promised Augustus to serve him with their own persons in this enterprise, Ferrard the Count of Flanders only excepted.  
And when the Emperor Otho, nephew of the said john King of England, meant to take his part, and to make war upon France, the said Philip Augustus sent unto the Pope to solicit and move him to declare Otho deprived of all the rights of his Empire: and for the execution of this censure he bestirred himself, and used his courage and his Arms so effectually, as under the conduct and favour of the Pope's cause and quarrel, he won the greatest battaule that ever King of France had gained against any Emperor, to wit, the battle du Pont de Bouuines, where the Emperor had above an hundred and fifty thousand fight men. The King, saith du Haillan, advertised of the threats of the Emperor Otho, 
Du Haillan la mesine. Rigard. ibid.  used such expedition in the business, and wrought so effectually with the Pope, as he declared the said Otho enemy of the Sea of Rome, and deprived him of his Imperial titles. And the Electors of the Empire, at the solicitation and incitement of Augustus, who sent to them Ambassadors to make his way, elected and chose Fredrick the King of Sicily Emperor. And a little after he putteth down King Philip his speech to his army in these words. My Friends, saith the King, let us take good courage: 
Du Haillan ibid. Rigard. ibid.  Let us not be afraid: Let us have honour before our eyes, and the fear of God in the first place, to whom we must recommend ourselves. We have to fight against an Enemy condemned, censured, and excommunicated by the Church, and for his impieties and wickedness separated, and cut off from communion with the faithful.  
And when Reymond Count of Tholouse, and the greater part of Gaul Narbonoise, became to be infected with the heresy of the Albigenses, & began to persecute the Catholics, there assembled first a Council of French Bishops at Montpellier, 
(a) Histoire Albigeoise rapportèe par Vignier en son hist. de France liu. 3. en l'ann. 1214.  and after that, the Council of Laterane, for heresy, deprived both him and Reymond his son of the County of Tholouse, and adjudged it to Simon Count of Montfort, who had taken arms against him, (and of this came the union of the County of Tholouse, and of the adjoining Provinces to the Crown of France:) By decree of all the Council of Laterane (saith du Haillan 
(b) Du Haillan en la vie de Philip August. Rigard. ibid.  whom I do often cite because it is every where in the hands of all) Reymond the Count of Tholouse, & his son also named Reymond were excommunicated etc. And the County of Tholouse was adjudged to Simon Count of Montfort. And again: Simon showed unto the Estates of the County of Tholouse, the decree of the Council, by which he was declared Count of the said County. And there opposed not any one against it, but all with one accord took the Oath of fidelity to him. And the Lord of Tillet saith in his Memorials these words: 
En la vie de Louis 8.  The County of Tholouse came to the King by good right, the said Reymond and his Father being confiscated, that is to say, having lost it by confiscation for heresy; and Symen Count of Montfort having procured and gotten it, and Amaulry his Son having transferred, and made it over to the King: he was so gracious to the said Reymond by the treaty of peace, as to restore it unto him conditionally, that it should return to the said King if his said only daughter had not issue by Alphonse of France the Count of Poittou  
And when the same universal Council of Laterane (which may worthily be called the most Universal Council, for so much as besides the Pope, and the four patriarchs of the East, 
Matth. Paris. in joan. ad● an 1215. Magdeburg. Cent. ●●. cap. 9 the Synod.  who were there present, some in person, as the Pope, and the patriarchs of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, and the other by their legates, as those of Alexandria and of Antioch, there were scutcheon Archbishops, 412. Bishops, and more than 800. Prelates: and more than this, all the monarchs and Kings of Christendom were there assistant, either by themselves, or by their Ambassadors, and the Emperor of the Fast, the Emperor of the West, the King of Jerusalem, the King of France, the King of England, the King of Arragon, the King of Castille and others:) When the Council, I say, intended to provide for the extirpation and rooting out of the Relics of the Albigenses, it ordained, that the Princes, who should become contemners of the Council, that condemned the Albigenses, should be deprived of the obligation of their subjects fidelity towards them. And this I remember not for an example to disturb or trouble the public peace and tranquillity, sith the Heretics be in so great a number, as they make a notable part of the body of the Estate: but to show that we cannot hold that for heretical, which was pronounced and decreed 400. years since by the mouth of the Universal Church.  
For as touching them, who for the frustrating of this decree do allege, and cite 
(a) Plat. in vita Innocen. 3.  what Platina, and after him the 
(b) Suppl. Chron. l. 13. ad an. 1215.  Supplement of the Chronicles affirm, that the Council proposed many things but resolved nothing, they are more worthy of pity then answer. For who sees not, that those Authors there speak of the preparatives of the army for the war of the holy Land, and not of matters of Doctrine, or Ecclesiastical discipline? Otherwise a man should impugn as false, that therein was resolved the Article of Transubstantiation; the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost, of the Father, and of the Son; the precept of annual Confession to all the faithful; the condemnation of the errors of the Abbot joachim; together with all the writings of the School Doctors alleging these things; the practice of all the jurisdictions of France, followed in the searching and finding out of heretics. We should impugn of falsity the Decretals of Gregory the ninth, 
(c) Decret. Gregor. l. 5. tit. 7. de haeret. c. 13. Excommunicamus  compiled twelve years after the Council of Laterane, where that decree is repeated at length, under the title of the Council of Laterane; the writings of Matthew Paris 
(d) Math. Parisan●e. ad. ann. 1215.  a Writer of the same age, and a great enemy of the Popes, who saith, that the Council of Laterane made 60. (you must read 70.) Decrees; the Bull of Pope Clement the 5. in favour of King Philip the Fair, who returned the readers to the decrees of the Lateran. Council; & the Centuriators also, 
(a) Acta inter Bonif. 8. & Philip. Pulch.  who inserted all the 70. Articles of the Lateran Council into their Centuries. Finally we should impugn of falsity the conjunction of the County of Tholouse to the Crown, which was founded upon that councils Decree; and the reasons and declarations of the Court of Parliament to King Lewis the Eleventh, touching the extinguishing of that pragmatical Sanction or Decree, where the Court prayeth the King to order the Elections according to the Council of Lateran in these words: In the Council of Lateran (saith the Court) which 
(b) Refertur à Biblioth. lib. 4. decret. Eccl. Gall.  was assembled & held at Rome by Pope Innocentius the third, in the year 1215. where were assistant and present 1333. Prelates; there was prescribed a certain form of Election, and thereunto was annexed, that in case of the Electors negligence, the right and power of provision for the Church, should fall to the Superior Prelate, Cap. 
(c) Cone. Lateran. c. 24.  Quia propter. & Cap. 
(d) Ibid. 〈◊〉 23.  Ne pro defectu. But I have made to far a digression; let us return to our History.  
Wherefore when the General Council of Lateran, which represented all the Christian Common wealth, both spiritual and temporal, meant to provide for the extinguishing of the relics of the Albigensian heresy, it conceived, made, and published this 
(e) Conc. Later. c. 3.  Canon: If any Prince neglect in his lands and territories to extirpate the heresy of the Albigenses; let him be excommunicated by the Archbishop of the Province: And if he continue obstinate; let it within the space of one year be signified to the Pope, that he may absolve his subjects from their Oath of fidelity.  
And when Pope Innocentius the 4. did at the Council of Lions, absolve the Subjects of the Emperor Fredrick, from the fidelity they owed unto him (I dispute not now whether justly or unjustly, for so much as my scope, drift, and intention is not, but to show how the Kings of France have in such occasions carried themselves) the King S. Lewis, took upon him the protecting of the Pope's cause against the Emperor. The King of France (saith Paulus 
(a) Paul. Aemil. in vita S. Ludovici.  Aemilius) being come to Lions, by zeal of office & of Religion, for the assisting of Innocentius, and having made a protestation, that both himself, & his forces, and the Counsel of his Realm were ready to maintain, & defend the power and authority of his Holiness, added strength and dignity to Innocentius his cause. And even those, who to make the Pope & the king S. Lewis odious, writ that the Pope offered to cause Robert Count of Artois, the kings brother, to be elected & chosen in place of Fredrick, but that the Barons of France refused it; add that the Barons themselves protested, that the Emperor could not be deposed, if he erred not in faith. You shall hear the Baron's words, be they true, or be they feigned, delivered after many invectives against the Pope, by Matthew Paris an Englishman, 
(b) Matth. Paris. in Hen. 3. ad an. 1239.  who favoured the Emperor, & was the Pope's heavy enemy, and taken out of him by Vignier, 
(c) Vignier en la 3. p. de la Biblioth. hist. Pan. 1239.  who yielded not a whit unto him in that behalf. And thus he saith: But to the end we may not seem to contemn the Pope's commandment, though it be evident that it came from the Church of Rome, more upon hatred to the Emperor, then for a love to our Nation; we will send men of prudence on our part to the Emperor, who shall diligently inform themselves what conceit he hath of the Catholic faith, and thereof shall make a report unto us. 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 〈◊〉 style de l'Anglois. & non comydes Barons de S. Louis.  and the Pope himself, if he believe not in God aright, or whom soever beside, to the very rooting out of the memory of them.  
And when Peter King of Arragon, besides much intelligence, and correspondence he entertained with the Insidels, had caused the festivity of Easter day to be violated, by the horrible massacre of the Sicilian Evensong; 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) acquitted, and absolved the Arragonians of the Oath of fidelity they had made to the said Peter. And Philip, surnamed the Hardy, Son of the same S. Lewis, and Father of Philip the Fair, took arms for the execution of the Pope's censure, & died in executing of it. But I insist the less upon this example, because though there were some crime of religion intermixed with the motives of the censure: yet there wanted not many temporal respects and causes: I only allege it to show how far off the Kings of France were from holding, that it was contrary to the word of God, and impious and detestable to think, that in certain cases the subjects might be absolved from their fidelity and allegiance, sworn to their Princes, sith they became themselves the executors, and reputed such acts amongst the chiefest works of their piety. For the defenders of 
(d) Act. inter Bonif. & Phil. Pul●h. fol. 80. pag. 2.  Philip le bell, have put this example amongst the meritorious works of the Kings of France. Philip his Father, say they, ended his life, and went to God prosecuting in Arragon the Church's quarrel.  
And when the Pope Vrban the fifth had excommunicated Peter the Cruel King of Castille, For that, saith Froissart 
(a) Proissart vol. 1. cha. 230.  an Author of the same time, he was an 
(b) Bulgaret en Froissart signify Albigeois, an heretic.  heretic, a persecutor of the Church, & conspired with the Moors (some add 
(c) De Ser●es.  an abnegatour and abiurer of his Christianity) and had discharged his subjects of the Oath of their fidelity: King Charles the si●th assisted the Pope's censure with his arms, and sent his Constable with an Army to drive Peter out of Castille, and to put Henry the Bastard of Castille 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 Haillan saith: Charles 
(e) Du Haillan e● la vie de Charle 5.  the fifth King of France relying upon the interdict laid by the Pope upon the Realm of Castille, & upon the right by him given to the Bastard, sent forces of the French for his aid and succour, under the conduct and charge of Bertrard du Gues●lin newly returned from his prison.  
And when the council of Constance (which all the parliaments of France embrace, and receive, as the Palladium of liberties of the Church of France) was assembled and held, for the taking away of the schism that was between the three Popes, contestating and standing for the Popedom; & that the Emperor Sigismond took upon him the charge of going in Embassage in behalf of the Council to Pope Benedict the 13. into Spain (a journey undertaken for a reunion, and taking away of the schism of the universal Church, & whereunto none might cause any impediment or let, without declaring himself an enemy of Christian religion) the safe conduct that the Council gave him for his security of passage through the lands of other Princes and Potentates, was comprised in these words: 
(a) Concil. Constant. fess. 27.  If any King, Cardinal Patriarch, Archbishop, B●shop, Duke, Marques, Count be any hindrance, or let unto him; let him be deprived of his dignity, be it secular or Ecclesiastical. And this, Gerson Chancellor of the university of Paris, and the kings Ambassador, and all the Bishops deputed of the Church of France, being present and consenting.  
And when the Council of Basil consisting for the greater part of French Bishops, and which the parliaments hold for another Bulwark of the Church of France, meant to propose a perpetual example of direction & discipline to posterity, it caused the same Acts of the Council of Constance to be published anew, and with the very same words. And not only the Council in general, but also the Doctors in particular, who have lived since the Divinity which we call Scholastical, hath been instituted, and namely those who have been Frenchmen, or have written and taught in France, have all held & averred this doctrine.  
I will not speak of them who have more exalted and extended the Pope's power, as Alexander de Hales 
(b) Alexand Halen. p. 4. quast. 10.  an English Doctor; but who read and taught in Paris, Hugo de 
(c) ●ugo de S. Vict. l 2. de Sacram. p. 2. 〈◊〉. 41.  S. Victore, an Almain, yet a Doctor and Abbot of Paris; Durand Bishop of mand, 
(d) Durand. M●●●●. in 〈…〉.  surnamed the Speculatour; Durand 
(e) Durand. M●ld. l. de orig. ●urisdict. q. 2.  Bishop of Meaux; Peter Paludanus 
(f) Petr. Palud. tract. de cause. imnad. potest. art. 4.  patriarch titular of Jerusalem; 
(g) Heru. tract. de potest. Papae.  Heruey, and others: But I will speak only of them who have specified the case of heresy, or of Apostasy, and namely of S. Thomas, who for having taken the degree of Doctor in France, and studied, read, and written so long a time in France, aught to be reckoned and numbered among the French Doctors; and who, for having been the chief of them all, and for having had the honour to be Kinsman to S. Lewis, and to have been highly fanoured by him, and to have eaten at his table, aught to be the less suspected of Princes.  
He then in his Sum, which is the substance of all his other writings, and as his last will and testament, and which hath at all times been publicly read, and (if I may say it) adored in the School of Paris, saith expressly in these words: 
(a) Tho. 2.2. q. 〈◊〉 art. 10. 〈◊〉 corp. art.  The right of domination or gournement that the Infidels have over the faithful, may be justly taken away by the sentence or decree of the Church, having the authority from God. For the Infidels by the des●rt of their infidelity merit to lose their power over the faithful, who be transferred to be become the children of God. And sometimes it happeneth, that the Church doth this, and sometimes it doth it not. And again: 
(b) Ibid. q. 11. art. 2. 〈◊〉 corpore art.  So soon as any is devounced excommunicated by sentence for Apostasy from the faith, his subjects be absolved from his domination and subjection, and from the Oath of fidelity, whereby they were bound unto him before. Behold what this holy and wonderful Doctor, or rather this Eagle of Doctors, whom the School of Divines calleth the Angelical Doctor saith, and this in his Sum which hath been ever publicly read at Paris, and held for the miracle and oracle of Scholastical divinity, and who hath never been noted nor taxed in this Article by any, neither French, nor other.  
And not only he, but even those also, who among the Doctors of the faculty of Paris, have purposely and expressly written for the Emperors, and for the Kings against the Popes, and have taken upon them to demonstrate, that the Popes could not declare the subjects absolved in conscience from the Oath made to their Princes, have always excepted the case of heresy, and infidelity; and especially when the Princes went and proceeded so far, as to have a will to destroy, and overthrow the Christian, or Catholic Religion, and to enforce, and constrain their subjects in their consciences, and to persecute them as they were either Christians, or Catholics.  
For William Occam, who favoured the Emperor against the Pope, and whom the French Doctors who have impugned the Pope's temporal authority, have taken for their Patron, having written expressly touching the Power Ecclesiastic and Laique, spiritual and temporal, where he disputeth of set purpose, that the Pope hath not any power at all, to absolve the Subjects of Kings from the Oath of Allegiance they own unto them; excepted in general terms the cases of Heresy or Infidelity: 
(a) Occam. lib. 8. q. 2. c. 8. ad 3. alleg.  The Pope (saith he) cannot ordinarily depose the Emperor, no more than other Kings, though he be never so worthy to be deposed: nor for any crime or default, though never so great, if it be not of the number of the spiritual crimes.  
And john of Paris, to whom the more sincere servants and favourers of Kings send the Readers to learn and understand, what ought to be the limits and bounds of the authority spiritual and temporal, doth there bring the very same exception: 
(b) Io. Par, lib. de potest. Regis & Papae c. 14.  If a Prince, saith he, were an heretic, and incorrigible, and lib. a contemner of the Church's censure, the Pope might do something in the behalf of the people, whereof might ensue that he should be deprived of his secular dignity, and deposed by the people. And this the Pope may do in the only crime Ecclesiastic, the understanding and notice whereof, appertaineth to him that is to excommunicate all them, who should obey such a Prince as their Lord and Sovereign.  
And james Almain Doctor of the Faculty of Paris, who at what time King Lewis the 12. was at difference and variance with Pope julius, took upon him the defence of the King's power against that of the Pope; and for that cause did publish and put to light what Occam aforesaid had composed, and written against the Pope, touching the bounds of both powers, and illustrated them with explications and notes of his own, relateth the words of Occam in these terms: Doctor Occam, 
(a) Almain l. de potest. Eccles. & Late. c. 8.  saith he, writeth, that jesus Christ hath not given power to the Pope to deprive the Laiques of their Dominions, and their possessions, except in case that a secular Prince should abuse himself therein to the ruin of Christianisme, or of the faith; so as that abuse should extend to the damage of eternal felicity. For in this case it is not to be denied, but that the Pope hath power to dispose, though other Doctors deny it: albeit they confess, that the Pope hath only authority, and power to declare, that such a Prince ought to be deposed. lo Almain his words in the first part of his book. And see again what he saith in the second part of it; The Doctor (saith he, speaking 
(b) Alm. ibidem.  of Occam) hath answered, that if the Emperor be worthy of deposition for a crime of the former kind, that is, for spiritual crimes, he may be deposed by the Pope: for as much as the Pope hath full power to punish spiritual sins. But if he be worthy of deposition for a crime civil and politic, it than belongeth not to the Pope to depose him. And it is not to be said, that the condition of the Emperor, and of other Kings, is not parallel, alike, and equal. For Occam handleth them as equal, and manteyneth, that the Emperor dependeth not in any sort of the Pope for his temporalities. And a little after, passing unto the opinion of john Doctor of Paris, he saith: 
(c) Alm. ibidem.  john of Paris holdeth, that for any crime, either spiritual or politic, it appertaineth not unto the Pope to depose the Emperor, but by accident etc. that is to say, in as much as he may excommunicate him for such a crime, and all them that take part with him; and consequently by such an excommunication to constrain them to depose him. And so he deposeth him only by accident, and indirectly, and not directly.  
And yet these be the principal supports wherewith the Kings and Church of France, have served themselves, when they meant to withstand and oppose themselves, against the progress of the Ecclesiastical power, over the temporal. These be the books which the Kings have caused to be written for the maintaining; and upholding of their authority. These be the books which the Faculty of Divinity, have caused to be published at such time, as the Kings had any variance with the Popes. These be those writings that were reprinted and put to light again, and illustrated with explications, when King Lewis the 12. entered into a difference with Pope julius, in the time of the Council of Towers, and of Pisa. These be the books which were caused to be published for the same subject, under our deceased King of glorious Memory, and that an eight years since, that is to say, in the year 1606. and whereunto the Masters of the kings retinue of the Parliament of Paris, do remit and refer their Readers, to understand what be the batteries & strongest defences of the jurisdiction spiritual & temporal. And this School of Sorbonne (saith the deceased Monsieur procurator, or Attorney General de la Guesle, 
(a) Apud Rochel. in Decreto Eccl. Gall. lib. 5. c. 8.  speaking to the School of Sorbone on the behalf of the Court) hath excellent observations in the writings of Gerson, and in the book de potestate Regia, & Papali, composed by john of Paris Doctor in this faculty, and in a thousand places beside. And notwithstanding this, what saith john of Paris? That the Pope 
(b) Supra pag. 47.  in case of heresy, can depose only indirectly, in as much as he can excommunicate those who do adhere to an heretical Prince, and consequently compel them by imposition of some spiritual pain to depose him, though he cannot depose directly. And what saith Gerson? That the power Ecclesiasticque cannot take upon it power over the secular, but in case of heresy, or of impugning the faith. The power Ecclesiastic (saith 
(c) Gerson de pot. Eccl. confiderat. 22. tom. 1.  Gerson) ought not to presume, or usurp over the rights, dignities, laws, and judgements of the secular power, but when the abusing of the secular power redoundeth to the manifest impugnation of the faith, and the blasphemy of the Creator, and to the manifest injury of the power Ecclesiastic. For then a remembrance must be had of the last clause of this consideration; that is, that in such cases, the power Ecclesiastic hath a certain dominion and power regitive, directive, regulative, & ordinative.  
And not only the Divines, but the Lawyers also be of the same opinion. For to say nothing of those who have further extended the Pope's power, as john de Selue 
(a) Io. de Seiu. eract. de Benef. p. 3. q. 8.  Precedent of the Parliament of Paris, 
(b) joan. Fab. in log. 1. nu. 10. c. de sum. Trinit. & fide Cath.  john Faber Advocate of the same Parliament, Stephen Aufrerius 
(c) Aufr. de potest. saecul.  Precedent of the Parliament of Tholouse: But to restrain myself to those who have written expressly for the limiting of the Pope's power, when Master Raoul de Presles' counsellor and Master of Requests to King Charles the fifth, translated by commandment of the same King, the work entitled, Of the Power Pontifical and Imperial, or Royal, he proposed the 15. objection for the Pope's temporal authority in these words: Item the Pope may absolve the vassals (or subjects) from the oath of fidelity, which is due to the temporal Lord, which thing he would not do, if he had not power in temporal matters. And he made answer for the Princes in these words: 
(d) Raoul de Presles imprimé en Almaine parles Protestant's.  I answer to this argument, & say, that in a case in which the Pope may have action against a Prince, he may also absolve the vassals from their oath of fidelity: or which is more, he may declare them absolved as in case of heresy, of division of the faith, or of contumacy against the Church of Rome.  
And when the Chancellor of the same King Charles the fift composed in favour of his Lord and Master, a dialogue of the Power Regal and Sacerdotal, 
(e) Le song dit Verger, attribué par quelques vns au Chaunceleur des Domans: par les autres a Philip de M●gi●s Cos●●ller & in●●ne confident du R●y Charles 5.  he made answer by him who maintained the part of the Regal power, That the power spiritual commandeth not the secular, but when the secular power intermeddled itself in matters spiritual, to the prejudice and hurt of the eternal good of the soul. Behold his words. 
(a) Lib. 1. c. 7.8. in res milit.  But there where the secular Prince would meddle in spiritual matters, and do some thing in regard of his subjects, to the detriment and hurt of their eternal salvation, the spiritual power is then necessary, which in such a case commandeth, and guideth the temporal.  
And after this when Peter Gregory a lawyer of Tholouse undertook in his Treatise of the Republic, the defence of the Regal authority against that of the Pope, he always excepted the cases of faith, & saith, that the Pope could not depose Childerike of his own authority, that is to say, without the instance of the French; for he addeth: 
(b) Petr. Gregor. Tholof. tract de Repub. l. 6. cap. 5.  Childerike was not an Heretic, nor had committed any Ecclesiastical crime, whereby he should have been enforced to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the spiritual Sea. And again: 
Cest autheur est citè parles Anglois, par ●auteritè temporel des Roys, & imprimè ●uecq privilege verify au Parliament.  The example of the Emperors ought not to be drawn for a precedent for other realms principalities and governments, which depend not upon the Sea of Rome in temporal matters, and care not much for her commandments in such matters. I always except, as I have said else where, the cases of faith, in which the Princes of what power and liberty soever they be, are directly subject to the Sea of Rome, & may be punished for the crimes they commit in such cases; Always understood, that as the crimes be personal, & go not further then to persons delinquent, so the pain that is due to them, infringeth not the right of the successors to their Kingdom.  
But against this, one objects three principal instances. The first is taken from the resistance made by Philip the Fair, to the attempt of Pope Boniface. The second is taken from the opposition of King Lewis the tweluth, to the pretensions of Pope julius. And the third is drawn from the arrest, and Decree of the Parliament of Paris against Tanquerell.  
To the first of these instances, the defenders of the exception answer is, that the subject of the controversy was not matter of heresy, or of Apostasy from Christian Religion. On the contrary the people of France gave testimony to King Philip the Fair, that he was a great destroyer of the camphors, 
(a) They anciently called the Asbigenses, Bulgares, because the Bulgores held their heresy, & after that all Heretics were by extension so called.  that is to say of Heretics. And as touching them who wrote for the King, so far were they from holding, that it is impiety to believe that the Pope can for cry me of Religion disannul the Oath of fidelity and allegiance, as they themselves alleged amongst the meritorious works of the King's predecessors, that his father died for the execution of the absolution, which the Pope had given and granted the Arragonians from their fidelity to their Prince. Philip his Father (say they) 
(b) Act inter ●●enif. & Thil. ●idch. q● de po●●st Pap. fol. 80.  passed to God prosecuting in Arragon the Church's cause. But the subject of the quarrel was, that the Pope pretended, that the temporal sovereignty of France appertained unto him. Against this therefore the King opposed himself and all his Realm, & appealed not to the Pope, but from the person of Boniface (whom he maintained not to be Pope) to the Council, & to the Sea Apostolic, when it should be provided of a true Pope. The King, saith du Haillan, 
(a) Du Hailan in his history of France in the life of Philip the Fair.  answered, that sith Boniface was not the lawful Pope, he appealed for this fact to the Sea apostolic, at that time destitute of Pope & Pastor. And King Philip the Fair himself in the form of his appellation saith: 
(b) Act. inter Bonif. & Phil. Pulch.  We appeal to the said General Council, which we most heartily crave may be assembled, and to the true and lawful supreme Bishop that shallbe, and to others to which, or to whom it shallbe meet to appeal. For the King and his maintained, that Boniface was not the true Pope, but was intruded and thrust into the Popedom by fraud & simony, 
(c) Ibidem.  Celestine his predecessor the true & lawful Pope still living. And they further added that he was an 
(d) Ibidem.  Heretic, and consequently not Pope, for as much as, said they 
(e) Ibid. in appell fact. per reg. & regni col. art. 18.  he had revealed a confession: and more than that, he pretended, that he believed not in the presence of Christ's body in the Holy Sacrament. And for this the Count of Artois caused his Bulls to be burnt, not as of the true Pope, but as of a false one, intruded heretical, & simoniacal: and for this cause the King appealed not from the Pope, but from the person of Boniface to the Council, & to the Sea Apostolic, when it should have a true Pope; & he sent two Knights to signify his appeal, the one an Italian named Schiarra, and the other a Frenchman named Nogaret, who surprised by intelligence the City of Anagnia wherein Pope Boniface was, whence being delivered up, and sent to Rome, he died within awhile of sorrow.  
In place of Boniface was chosen Benedictus, to whom presently after his creation, the King gave sufficiently to understand, that what he had done against Boniface, was done but against his person, and not against the Sea Apostolic. For he wrote unto him with this superscription, 
(a) Act. inter Bonif. & Phillip Pulch. fol. 94.  To the most holy Father in our Lord, Benedict by the divine providence, Supreme Bishop of the sacred holy Church, Roman and universal, Philip by the grace of God King of France, devoutly kisseth his blessed feet. And further with this congratulation: 
(b) Ibid. f. 95.  The Order of the Preachers do glory to see sitting in the supreme throne of justice, such a father of the Universe, and of the faith; such a successor of S. Peter, and such a vicar of Christ. And together with this concludeth: 
(c) Ibid. f. 96.  We recommend confidently the Realm, in the government whereof we do by the grace of God sit, and withal we recommend the Church of France to the favours of your Holiness. And to Benedict who continued in the Sea but eight months, succeeded Clement the fifth, under whom the affairs of reconciliation were in such sort accorded, and brought to an end, as the temporal rights of the Realm continued in their integrity. And Clement himself came to Lions, where the King to honour in him the spiritual power of Christ, put himself on foot, together with his brethren, to receive him. Our Chronicles, saith du Haillan, 
(d) Du Haillan en la vie de Philip le Belle.  do affirm, that the King of France, and his two brethren were on foot by the Pope's side, holding his horses bridle.  
To the second instance, which is of the complaint of Lewis the 12. the defenders of the exception make the very same answer: That the source and origen of that difference was not matter of religion, but cases merely temporal, that is, of the league and association that Pope julius and King Lewis the 12. at that time Duke of Milan, had made and entered into against the Venetians. For the Pope seeing how the King grew as great as he could desire in Italy, fell of from that alliance with him, and reconciled himself with the Venetians. The King incensed with this separation, and the Popes deportement, and bad carriage towards him thereon following, caused a Council to be held at Pisa, and after again at Milan, by the Cardinals and other Prelates of his side, where the Pope was declared susspended from the administration of the universal Church. The Pope sore moved at this attaint, caused another to be held at Rome, where to requite the King, he declared him, and his adherents deposed from the administration of their temporal Estates. But the French both ecclesiastic and Laike, knowing that the first source & beginning of that discord proceeded from passion of matter of State, & not of religion, entertained union in such sort with the King, as nothing could separate them from him. For as touching the loss that happened unto john de Albret of the Kingdom of Navarre, the Continuer of Paulus Aemiltus, though he was a sore enemy of the memory of Pope julius, confesseth not, that the sentence of the Pope was the true cause: on the contrary, he maintaineth that the cause for which john de Albret lost the Kingdom of Navarre, was for breaking of from the alliance he had with Ferdinand King of Arragon, which alliance Ferdinand affirmed was ratified upon condition, that if the Kings of Navarre did violate the same, than the Kingdom of Navarre should return to the Spaniards: and he did put himself into that alliance of King Lewis the 12. under promise, that he should procure the sovereignty of Berne to be restored unto him. This then the Continuer of Paulus Aemilius averreth to be the true cause of the loss of the Kingdom of Navarre. And the other neither to have been the true cause, nor true pretext, but only a help of a pretext, of which Ferdinand not having taken his advantage, did not yet leave to pretend, that the Kingdom of Navarre appertained unto him, and so to take possession of it. The King of Navarre, saith he 
(a) Ferron. Continuat. Pauli Aemil. in. Lud. 12.  denied in the beginning, that he could refuse to give passage to the King of Arragon, to pass into France, saying; first that he was hindered to declare himself enemy to Ferdinand, by the alliance he had with him: and Ferdinand himself vaunted, that when the Kingdom of Navarre, was by the Spaniards rendered up, into the hands of the race of Albret, it was by caution written and provided, That in case their successors should break their alliance, the Kingdom should return to the Spaniards. And a little after: 
(b) Ibid.  Whereupon Ferdinand having understood that the King of Navarre was entered into amity with the King of France, turned against him the forces which he had prepared for his journey into France. And this was the cause for which Ferdinand did thrust his neighbour, & next bordering King out of his Kingdom. And more than this, he added the pretext of another matter, namely that the Pope had declared the King and his adherentes excomunicate, & their Kingdoms exposed.  
To the Third Instance which is taken from the Arrest, or Decree of Parliament, which Mousieur Chancellor of the Hospital caused to be made against Tanquerell, there needeth no other answer then the Answers going before. For the Arrest toucheth not in any sort the exception, whereof the French Doctors speak, who have written in defence of Regal Authority, which is the case of Heresy, or Apostasy from Christian Religion; but only the fact of temporal Sovereignty, as it appeareth by the disavowing of the proposition that was comprised in these words; 
(a) Ap●d Boch●●l. Decree. Eccl. Gall. lib. 5. ca 6.  I am sorry, that I have held, that the Pope was Monarch spiritual and temporal, and can depose Princes that are rebellious to his commandments. And therefore to what purpose is it to allege this history, and other the like, which speak of temporal Sovereignty, alleging them against the exception of which we treat, which they who make it, extend but to the cases of Heresy, or of Infidelity alone, that is to say, of abjuration of Catholic, or Christian Religion? But it may be replied, that the Popes may well impute unto Kings, either by passion or bad information, that they be Heretics or Apostatas from Christian Religion, though they be not so indeed. But against this, the authors of the exception think they have carefully provided. For first they protest, that they mean to speak of an Heresy notorious, well known, and condemned by the precedent sentence of the Church. And secondly they confess not, that the execution temporal of these Ecclesiastical judgements (that is to say of actual deposition) appertaineth to the Pope, but to the body of the Realm. By occasion whereof, if the Pope err in fact, and he presuppose falsely, that a Prince maketh a public profession, to believe, or establish an Heresy condemned by the Church (a matter that cannot be concealed or hidden) the Clergy and all the rest of the Realm in place of following the judgement of the Pope, do join themselves with the King; and make known unto the Pope, how he was deceived, and mistaken in the fact, demanding that the matter may be judged in full Council, the Church of France being present.  
In so much as it is so far off that this manner of proceeding restrained to the only case of Heresy or manifest Apostasy from Christian Religion, may cause the ruin and overthrow of Catholic Kings, as that on the contrary it doth assure and fortify them with a double rampaire. For if the subjects have any bad will, they are not permitted under pretext of Religion to move any thing against their Prince, until the authority of the universal Church, residing either in the head which is the Pope, or in the body which is the Council, hath declared him fallen into heresy, or Apostasy from Christian Religion. And if the Pope deceived or misinformed in the fact, precipitantly and unjustly declare him such a one; besides the recourse that the French are wont to have to require of the Pope, that the matter may be examined in a Council, where the Bishops of all the Church, & in particular those of the French Church are present; the declaration of the Pope cannot be followed to the temporal effect, which is actual deposition, until the Realm consent unto it, and see demonstratively by the conversation of their Prince, whether he maketh profession of the Catholic Religion, or of any other. Now, who understandeth not, that it much more profiteth Kings to have this double rampaire before them, that is, that nothing can be designed against them, without the prevention of the Churches universal judgement, nor be effected without the concurrence of the consent of their people, then to permit & leave to the liberty of every particular person, to censure of the religion of his Prince, & after he hath given his judgement, to make himself an arbitrer of the remedy that is to be applied?  
It further appeareth, that our Kings have been so far of from thinking that this bar of the Pope's authority, interposed between them and their subjects, hath been prejudicial unto them, as on the contrary they have with great instance obtained of the Popes (and that by a privilege both very singular and favourable) that none other but the Popes may excommunicate the Kings of France, or impose interdiction, be it in general upon the whole Realm, or in particular upon the Lands under their obedience.  
Hence it is, that Peter de Cugneres 
(a) Petr. C●gner. gravam 59  the kings Advocate among other the complaints that he made to King Philip de Valois against the Churchmen, brought this article for one: Moreover they have many times interdicted many of the kings Cities and Castles, and have caused the divine service therein to cease, against the privileges that our Sovereign Kings have from many Popes. For Pope Alexander the 
(b) Alexand. 4.2. Calend. April. Pontif. an. 2.  4. yielded th●se words unto the King S. Lewis, by express Bulls; That no Archbishop, nor other Prelate can publish against your land sentence of excommunication, without commandment, or special licence of the Sea Apostolic. And Nicolas 
(a) Nicol. 3.13 Calend. Octobr. Pontif. an. 1:  the third useth these words in his Bull to Philip his son: That none generally pronounce the sentence of excommunication, or of interdiction against all your land, or against the Realm of France, without special commandment of the Sea Apostolic. 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. call. Octob. Pont ann. 1.  the fourth, Clement 
(e) Clem. 5.2. call. Aug. Pontif. ann. 2.  the fift who published the like Bulls, Clement 
(f) Clem. 6.2. call. lan. Pontif. ann. 9  the sixth renewed them afterward again by Bulls sent to King john, and to the Queen jane his wife in these terms: Giving consent to your devout petitions, we yield unto you by Apostolic authority, to you and to your successors Kings of France, who shall be from time to time, that none can publish sentence of Interdict against your land or theirs, without special command, or licence of the Sea Apostolic. And again by other Bulls 
(g) Idem 12. call. Maij Pontif. ann. 9  sent to the same King john and Queen jane, for their chapels in particular, in these words: That it be not lawful for any to put the chapels of you, and of your Successors Kings after you, under Ecclesiastical Interdict, without special licence of the Sea Apostolic. And these Bulls were addressed, and sent to the Court of the Parliament of Paris, by the letters patents 
(h) Anno 1369.  of Charles the Fifth, to cause them to be registered; And they were registered 
(i) 14. calend maij.  by Act of the same Parliament, showing their execution and verification.  
But here the question of Right is not disputed, namely whether the French Doctors have had reason to except against the insolubility of the Oath of allegiance, in cases of Heresy or Apostasy from Christian religion? The matter which we now speak of, is a question of Fact, that is to say, Whether they have excepted them? And for this we need no better witnesses then the English writers, 
(a) Widrington Apol. pro jur. Prine.  who have put their hand to pen for the defence of the Oath, made by the present King of England against the Pope. For having used all their endeavour to find some doctors, & in particular French, who had held their opinion before these last troubles, they could hitherto bring forth never any one, neither Divine nor Lawyer, who saith, that in case of Heresy or Apostasy from Christian religion the subjects could not be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance. On the contrary, the French men (whom they have cited, as john of Paris 
(b) supra pag. 47. , john Maior 
(c) Io. Mayor in. 4. sent. dist. 24. , james Almain 
(d) Io. Alma. supra pag. 48. , Peter Gregory 
(e) Petrus Greg. supra pag. 52. , always except the cases of Heresy or of Apostasy from Christian religion. And as for Strangers and Foreigners, as Occam 
(f) Occ. supra pag 47. , Antony de Rossellis 
(g) Ant. de rossel. Monarch. part. r. c. 56 , and Vulturnus 
(h) Vultur. lib. de Reg. mundi , they affirm the same. For as touching Marsile of Padua they were not so hardy as to allege him, for so much as he is well known for an heretic by the uniform consent of all Catholics, as having denied, that the Pope was head of the Church iure divino, and S. Peter's Successor, which the Council of Constance 
(i) Concil. Costant. sess. 8. in condemn. art. Wicaf.  bindeth to believe, as an Article of faith, and under pain of Anathema: In so much as for this very cause the Emperor Charles the Fifth caused his books to be burned publicly.  
Moreover they durst not allege the Epistle of the Chapter of Liege against Pope Pascalis during the contentions of the Popes and of the Emperor Henry the 4. First, for that the Bishop of Liege under whom it was written, was the emperors Chaplain, and one of his faction; 
(a) V●sperg. in Chron.  & very passionate against the Pope, as having been created Bishop by the Emperor, & by the Antipope. Secondly, for that at what time it was written, the Emperor 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 craved of the Pope, for having taken part with the Emperor: And four that the same Emperor doth recall it, when he wrote to Pope Gregory the seventh the third Pope after Paschalis, saying: 
(d) Inter Epist. Hen. ● Protest. edit.  That it was the tradition of the Fathers, that he could not be deposed, if he erred not in faith. Which Cusanus 
(e) Cusan. l. 3. concord. Cath. c. 7.  the Imperialist writing for the Council of Basil against the Pope, hath since avowued and averred in these words: If the Pope find that he who hath been chosen Emperor, erreth in faith, he may declare him not to be Emperor,  
They well allege indeed Sigebert 
(f) Sigeb. in chro. anno 1088.  who saith, that it was a novelty, not to say heresy, to teach the people, that they did not owe any subjection to bad Kings. But besides that, this Sigebert was a man no less passionate for the part of the Emperor, than was the Bishop of Liege: what he saith, doth not any way touch the case brought by the exception, which is of kings Heretics, or Infidels.  
Now, if those who have of set purpose laboured in favour of the Oath of England, 
(g) Widring: in Apol. pro iur. Princ.  to find out authors who have affirmed, that in case of Heresy, or of Infidelity, the subjects could not be absolved from the obligation that they own to their Princes, could not find out any one: And if those, who have since written of the same subject in France, could never find out in all France, since the time that Schools of Divinity have been instituted, and set open, till this day, one only Doctor, neither Divine, nor Lawyer, nor Decree, nor Council, nor determination, nor Act of Parliament, nor Magistrate either Ecclesiastic or Politic, who hath said, that in case of heresy, or of infidelity the subjects cannot be absolved from the oath of fidelity they own to their Princes: On the contrary, if all those who have written for the defence of the temporal power of Kings against Popes, have ever excepted the case of heresy, and of apostasy from Christian Religion; how is it, that they can without enforcing of consciences, not only make men to receive this doctrine, 
(a) Artic. of the third Estate.  that in no case the subjects can be absolved from the oath of Allegiance they own to their Princes, for a perpetual and universal doctrine of the French Church: But also to cause all the Bishops, Abbots, and other Ecclesiastical persons to swear it, as Doctrine of faith, and to condemn the contrary, as impious; perverse, and detestable? And how can we endure a proposition to pass for a Fundamental Law of the Estate of France, which came to light & was borne in France, more than an eleven hundred years since the State of it was founded? And when there shall be found as many persons who shall have followed it in France, as there be found who have followed the contrary, what shall they be able to infer more (other nations contradicting) then to hold it for problematique in matter of faith, and not to cause men to take and swear it, as conform to God's word, and necessary to salvation, and to abuse the other as contrary to the word of God, & impious, perverse & detestable? But this is enough for this point. Let us pass to others, and endeavour to handle them all in as full & worthy manner, as this Audience doth deserve.  
THE SECOND INCONVENIENCE, that I have bound myself to show in this Fundamental Proposition is, that not only it giveth unto Lay persons power & authority to judge of things of Religion, and to decide the doctrine that it containeth, to be conformable to the word of God, and the contrary to be impious, perverse, and detestable: But also it giveth these men authority, to impose a necessity upon the Ecclesiastical persons, to swear, preach, and teach the one, and by Sermons and writings to impugn the other. And who seethe not that this is to make the Church like unto that woman, of whom S. Epiphanius speaketh, 
(a) Epiph. hares. 59 quae est Catarrh.  who did put her head-tire upon her feet, and her shoes upon her head: which is as much to say, as to commit the command and authority of the Church to the parties that should obey; and to put obedience upon the parties whose office it is to command? And what is this but to open a gate to all heresy? What is it, but to turn upside down, & to overthrow the Church's authority? What is it but to tread under foot the respect of jesus Christ, and of his ministry? To be short, who seethe not, that it is a Sacrilege, that hath at all times drawn the Ire, Wrath, and Vengeance of God aswell upon Kings, and Princes, as upon particular Persons, who have attempted the same?  
Every 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 upon him the office of a Sacrificer. We know that Oza 
(b) ●. Reg. 6.  was punished with a sudden death, for putting his hand to the Ark, that seemed to sway to the one side. We know that King 
(c) 2. Paralip. 26.  Ozias was strooken with leprosy, and excluded from the administration and government of his Kingdom, for taking the Censar into his hand. And holy Writ saith, 
(d) Malach. 26.  The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and the Law they shall require of his mouth, because he is the Angel of the lord of Hostes. And the Prophet Esay 
(e) Esay. 54.  saith to the Church, Every tongue resisting thee in judgement, thou shalt judge. And again: 
(f) Idem. 60.  The King shall walk in thy light, & the people in the brightness of thy rising. And King josaphat distinguisheth the bounds of the one and the others Iur●diction in these words: 
(g) 2. Paral●p. 19  Amarias (saith he) the Priest and your Bishop, shallbe chief in these things that appertain to God: and Zabadias the son of Ishmael, who is the Prince in the house of juda, shallbe over those works which pertain to the kings office. And our Saviour 
(h) Matth. 19  saith himself, Whosoever shall not hear the Church, let him be unto thee, as an Ethnic and a Publican. And S. Paul speaking unto Pastors 
(i) Act. 20.  saith: The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And speaking to the laity he saith: 
(a) Heb. 3.  Obey your Prelates, for they watch, having to render an account of your souls. And again: 
(b) Heb. 5.  Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron.  
And therefore we see that the first Christian emperors, were everso respective and Religious, as they would never make themselves judges, neither of matters of faith, nor of matters of the Church's discipline, nor of the Bishop's causes among themselves, for fear of violating the rectitude that God's Ministers ought to bring to Ecclesiastical judgements, by the fear of temporal jurisdictions. And that if they published any laws in such cases, it ever was, after the Bishops had passed them, and to further the temporal execution of the decisions, formerly made by Ecclesiastic authority.  
It is not lawful form, saith 
(c) Ruff. l. 10. Eccles. h●st. c. 2.  Constantine the Great, who am placed over temporalities, to censure and judge the causes of Bishops And the Emperor Valentinian 
(d) Sozom. l. 6. c. 7.  the first said: It is not lawful for me who am of the Laity, to arrogate to myself the curiosity of searching into these matters. And the Emperor Theodosius the second 
(e) Epist. ad Sinody Ephes.  writing to the Council of Ephesus, saith: It is not lawful for him, who is not of the rank of Bishops to intermeddle himself with the decision of the affairs of the Church.  
And the most glorious and victorious of all our Kings, which was Charlemagne, confirming the answer that Censtantine made, saith: 
(f) Carol. m●g●. l. 6. cap. 301.  The Emperor Constantine answered upon the accusations of the Bishops, To me who am placed over temporalities, it is not lawful to judge the Bishop's causes. And confirming that which the Emperor Valentinian had said, he used these words: 
(a) Ibid.  Your business is above us, and therefore judge among yourselves of your own causes: For you are above us.  
And when on the contrary, the heretical Emperors would take upon them, to meddle with Ecclesiastical judgements, the holy Fathers resisted them, & contradicted them with all manner of constancy. We are not permitted (said Hosius to the Emperor 
(b) Epist. ad Const. apud Athan. in ep. ad solit. vit. agent.  Constance) to hold the Empire on earth, nor to You to lay hand on the Censar, and to usurp the authority of Religion. And S. Athanasius saith: 
(c) Athan. epist. ad solit. vitam again.  When was it ever heard in the memory of man, that the judgements of the Church, took their force from the Emperor? And again: 
(d) Ibidem  He treateth not of matters of the Roman Common wealth, where there may be credit given to you as to an Emperor: but he speaketh of a Bishop. And a little after: 
(e) Ibidem  Who is he, who seeing an Emperor, occupying the chiefest place in matters of the Church, would not judge that it were the abomination of the desolation fortould by Daniel? And Gregory Nazianzen 
(f) Greg. Naz. orat. adcities ti. percuis. & Princip. irascent.  saith: Will you hear a free word, which is, That the law of jesus Christ subjecteth you to my jurisdiction, & to my tribunal. For we are Emperors also, namely in an Empire greater and perfecter than 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 have a custom to judge of Christian Emperors? And again: Your Father said, It is not for me to judge between Bishops; And your Clemency saith, It appertaineth to me to judge. And S. Martin the renowned ornament of the Gauls, saith: 
(h) Apud Sever. Sulpit l. 2. sacrae. hist..  It is an impiety new, and not heard of before, that a secular judge should judge of matters of the Church.  
And against this it helpeth not to allege that the Emperor Constantine did call himself 
(a) Euseb. l. 4. de vit. Constant. cap. 24.  a Bishop out of the Church. For Constantine by that meant nothing less, then to say that he had jurisdiction and superintendency over the external form and discipline of the Church. Else wherefore should he have desired with so great instance the authority of the Council 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 Edicts against the Infidels. He ordained (saith ●usebius) by his Edicts, and gave order to the Governors of the Pagans, to cause them to keep the Sunday also, aswell as the Christians, and to honour the days of the Martyrs, and the feasts appointed in the Churches. And thereof it came, that having one day feasted some. Bishops, he called himself, Bishop in their presence, saying unto them: God hath placed you Bishops within the Church, and me a Bishop out of the Church.  
But me thinks I hear You already say, that the matter of this article is not a question of Religion, but a simple and mere question of Estate, and Policy. As if to handle, how far the spiritual use of the keys, and of the power of binding and losing, which God hath given unto his Church, extendeth itself, were not a question of Religion? As if to dispute whether these keys might pass to the excommunicating of them, that willingly obey their Princes, who after having done homage of their Crowns to jesus Christ, come to use manifest felony against him, to proclaim war against him, and to impugn his faith and doctrine, were not a question of Religion? As though to dispute whether those keys could in conscience, and in the Church's tribunal absolve souls of the Oath of Allegiance, they own to their Princes, when their Princes violate, and break the reciprocal Oath they have made to God and to them, to maintain them in Christian and Catholic Religion, were not a question of Religion?  
For therein being two obligations and bands, by which the subjects are bound to obey their Princes, the one politic, which hath for his scope, the peace and felicity of the temporal life, and against the violating whereof there be temporal pains ordained, which is that whereof the Apostle speaketh 
(a) Rom. 13.  when he saith, That a man must obey Princes not only for wrath; the other, religious and ecclesiastic, which is that of the obedience, that Christians own to their Princes, not for the simple respect of laws and pains temporal, but for respect unto God, and for the consideration of rewards and pains eternal, which is that, that the same Apostle 
(b) Ibid.  calleth for conscience sake: Who doubteth, when there is question of untying, not of the simple knot politic, for which the politic laws be instituted, but of the spiritual, and ecclesiastic knot, and of the obligation contracted in the tribunal and Court of conscience, and this being the matter which is now in dispute, whether in case of heresy it may be untied or not; who doubteth I say, whether this question be a question of Divinity? And more than this, whatsoever the matter be in itself, who seethe not, that to dispute, if it be conform, or contrary to God's word, is a question of Religion?  
But some will reply, and say, that this is so clear and so evident by Scripture, as it admitteth neither untruth, nor dispute, nor censure. Is it true? Where then there is a proposition which all the school Doctors, and namely the two great lights of School Divinity S. Thomas, and S. Bonaventure, and so many other Bishops and Doctors, have thought conform, or at least not repugnant to the word of God; shall the contrary proposition be so clear 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 Church's Tribunal, and exposed to the prey of Heretical presumption, if it be enough to say, that it is so clear in Scripture, as that therein, there is neither need of dispute, nor judgement?  
Indeed this might have some appearance, if those who hold the one of the propositions, should allege Scriptures for themselves, and the others should not cite any at all. But as well those who hold the affirmative proposition, as those who hold the negative, argue by Scripture, answer by Scripture, and reply by Scripture. For example, they who hold the affirmative, that Princes who overthrow and destroy religion, 
1. Reg. 15.  may be excluded and deprived of their right, allege, that Samuel deposed Saul, or according to others (for I pretend not to treat here by way of resolution, but only problematically) declared him deposed, for having violated the laws of the jewish religion. 
●. Reg. 11.  That the Prophet Abia deposed Roboam from his right of regality that he had over the Ten tribes of the people of Israel, because Solomon his Father had revolted and fallen from the law of God, and sacrificed to false Gods. That the Prophet Elias deposed Achab for having embraced 
3. ●●g. 19  the religion of false Gods, and persecuted the servants of the true God.  
Those contrariwise who stand for the negative part, answer, that the organs, instruments, ministers, and oracles of such depositions, were the Prophets, who were particularly and infallibly instructed, taught and inspired of God's will, and that their actions cannot be drawn into a consequence for the time of the evangelical law, wherein there be more Prophets.  
Those, who reply forth affirmative part say, that where there were in the jewish religion, two sorts of missions, the one ordinary which was Sacerdotal, 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 raised up again and supported by the extraordinary: But in the law of the Gospel there is but one mission, and that Sacerdotal, or of Priests. All the authority & infallibility which was in the two missions of the old Testament, is united in the only ordinary & Sacerdotal mission of the new; which consequently can no more fail, and be deceived in judging of Heresy, or of Apostasy from Christian Religion (which be the two only causes, for which the French Doctors, who have written in favour of Kings, think a Prince may be excluded from the right of reigning over God's people) than the prophetical mission of the old Testament.  
And others add, that even in the old Testament this prerogative was not restrained to the Prophets alone, but was extended to the Priest: For the Priests judged of the leprosy, If thou perceivest (saith the Law) that there is difficulty between leprosy and leprosy, 
Deut. 27.  thou shalt arise, & go up to the Priests of the Levitical stock. And hereof there were two reasons: the one, for that the leprosy, as all the ancient Fathers have observed, was a figure of heresy, the judgement whereof by right appertained 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, natural amongst the jews, as it is now, but it was a punishment extraordinary, 
Levit. 14.  miraculous and divine. For this cause it lay one while in a stone of the wall, 
Levit. 13.  which was to be pulled out, to take it away, another while in a linen, or  garment.  
By occasion whereof the judgement of this plague, appertained to them who were the ordinary interpreters of the causes of God's Ire, that is to say, to the Priests. And in this ease, say they, all were subject unto them, even the Kings themselves and bound after they had given sentence of the leprosy, and declared them to be touched with it, to separate themselves from company, and from the government of the people. And of this they bring for example the story of King Ozias, 
2. Paralip. 26.  who was suddenly strooken with a mark in the forehead for having (notwithstanding what Azarias the high Priest said unto him) taken the Censar in hand, to offer incense before the Altar; & the high Priest judging it to be the leprosy, did thrust him out of the Temple, and from conversing with the people, & by that means caused, that the administration and government of the Kingdom was taken from him, and transferred to his son: though among other nations the leprosy deprived none of conversation with others; nor of the government of the Common wealth; witness whereof is Naaman, 
4. Reg. 5.  who was General of the warfare of the King of Syria, and Governor of his whole Kingdom.  
Finally to pass from things figured, to things literal, 
1. Mach. 2. & seq.  they allege the story of Matathias high Priest, & the head of the family & house of the Maccabees, who seeing Antiochus who reigned in jury, to have an intent to force the jews in their ancient customs, and to overthrow their law, and to persecute them by punishments, torments, & death, took arms, & gathered Gods dispersed servants together who effected & wrought so much under his conduct and his sons, as they delivered the people from the yoke of the Seleucides, and took from them the Kingdom of jury, and by that means conserved the religion of the jews, which without such a resolution, favoured by God's visible assistance, had else been quite exterminated, and abolished out of the land.  
Those who hold the negative part, come down to the new Testament, and cite for themselves this passage of S. 
Rom. 13.  Paul, where he writeth; Let every soul be subject 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 subject, whether it be to Kings, as more excelling, or to Rulers. And by this they infer, that obedience to Kings, is of Right Divine, and therefore cannot admit dispensation by any authority, neither spiritual nor temporal.  
The maintainers of the affirmative part, answer to this, that these passages do not in any sort touch the knot, or difficulty of the controversy. For the question (say they) is not, whether it be de jure divino, to obey Kings whilst they are Kings, or known for Kings; But the question is, if it be de jure divino, that he who hath been 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 cometh to lose and forego his rights, & to cease to be acknowledged for King.  
Now, these two questions be far different: For, to take an example even of him, under whom S. Peter suffered martyrdom, it was de jure divino to obey Nero, whilst he was Emperor: But it was not the jure Divino (say they) that he could not fall from his Imperial rights, and be deposed, and declared an enemy of the Common wealth. It was the jure divino, so long as Antiochus was by the Community of the jews acknowledged for King, that the jews should obey him in matters that were not against God; For he was no less temporal sovereign of the jews, than was the Emperor Claudius, under whom S. Peter wrote. But after that Mattathias the high Priest, and the rest of the nation of the jews, who lived conform to their own law, had declared him a Tyrant, and a violator of the consciences of the people of God, & therefore no more their lawful Prince; the particular jews were then no longer bound to yield him obedience.  
And not only the defenders of the affirmative part: but even M. Barcklay himself, who is the principal propugner of the negative part, useth this distinction and saith: 
controvers. Menarch. Mach. l. 4. cap. 16.  There is not any case wherein the people can rise against a Prince ruling after an insolent manner, so long as he continueth King. For this commandment of God is always against it, Honour the King, and he that resisteth power, resisteth God. And therefore the people cannot have by any other means authority over him unless he do something, by which he by right ceaseth to be King.  
And else where they add, 
1. Petr. 2.  what S. Peter writeth, 
Rom. 13.  Be subject to every creature, whether it be to King, as excelling, or to Rulers as sent by him. And S. 
Hebr. 13.  Paul: Let every soul be subject to higher powers. And the same Apostle writeth else where in more express words thus: Obey your Prelates, and be ye subject unto them: For they watch for your souls, as those who ought to render account. Hence it ariseth, that it is as well the iure divino to yield spiritual obedience to Prelates, as it is to yield temporal obedience to Princes. And yet it followeth not, that it is de iure divino, that the Prelates, no not the Pope himself, cannot fall from their rights of Prelacy; nor that it is de jure divino to continue to obey them, after they have lost their right.  
But the defenders of the negative part object, that the Church which lived under the first Pagan Emperors, never made use of this right of absolving in the spiritual Court, the Christians from the Oath they had made unto them: And contrariwise, that the first Christians preached not any other thing, than obedience that they yielded to the Emperors.  
To this again the maintainers of the affirmative part answer many things. For first they say, that the Church not having absolved the Christians of the Oath of fidelity by them made to the Pagan Emperors, all the Christians in particular were bound, even 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 spiritual obligation, the Christians had to obey them, they bring three reasons.  
The first is; For that it had been over great imprudency and folly, to irritate and incense the Pagan Emperors, by such a declaration, in a time when they were the Lords of the whole world, & for that such an act could have been not only unprofitable, but also absolutely damageable & pernicious to the Christians, against whom to incense the Emperor at such time, as they had all the forces, and the world within their hands, was not to secure or promote religion, but to precipitate & overthrow it clean. For it is not sufficient to say, that the Church is bound to do some thing, because she may lawfully do it, unless she also can do it with prudence and profit.  
The second reason is; For that there is great difference between the Pagan Emperors, under whom the Church began to lay her first foundations, and to take the first roots, and the Princes who should now fall into Heresy, or into Apostasy from Christian religion, and should become either Arians, or Mahometans, or Pagans. For the Pagan Emperors who then were, had not yet at that time done homage to Christ, nor yielded or bowed their necks to Christ's yoke, as we read that S. 
Greg. Turon. in Clodoveo.  Remigius said to our first Christian King: Mitis depone colla Sicamber, they were not yet by a mutual, and reciprocal oath bound to their subjects to live & die in the religion & obedience of him who carrieth written upon his thigh, 
Apocal. 19 Psal. 105.  King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. And those words of the Psalm: The Kings & nations shallbe gathered together, to serve our Lord, 
Esa. 49.  were not yet at that time fulfiled: Nor those of the Prophet Esay: The Kings shall adore thee prostrate upon the earth, and shall lick up the dust of thy feet.  
By means whereof, they not having been declared vassals & tributaries of Christ, nor having made to him any oath of homage & fidelity, nor having been received by their subjects with that condition they should live under the Empire and Ensign of Christ, and not being bound to their subjects by contract and mutual oath; when they began to proclaim war against Christ, they fell not by their own proper Profession into any manifest crime of felony; neither declared they themselves by their own judgement unworthy, and to have lost the Fee which they held of him; they violated not the reciprocal and mutual oath, that was between them & their people.  
But at this day the Christian Princes, who have for so many ages since made profession, to be vassals and tributaries of Christ's Kingdom, and to subject their Sceptres, their Diadems, & Crowns unto his Empire, who have raised, seated, and placed his Cross upon their Ensigns, and in their standards, carried it upon the forefront of their Diadems, have set it upon the top of their Crowns, have stamped it upon their moneys and coins, that it might appear whose tribute-coyne it was, have made these Inscriptions, Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, have bound themselves after so long a time, by oath, at their Consecrations, both to God and to their people, to maintain the faith of Christ, and with that condition received the Sceptre at the hands of their Peers, and the reciprocal oath of the people: These I say, when they come to proclaim war against Christ, & to break the oath they have made to him, and to their Estates, not by a simple act of contrariety, nor by a simple declaration and fact of repugnance, but by a profession and protestation of a will always bend 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, resolved for ever to violate and break their oath: not by simple default of faith, but by the yielding of their faith and promise to the enemy of him, to whom they had by a former promise and faith bound themselves; that is to say, by abjuring and persecuting the Catholic Religion, and by public profession of Arianism, or of Mahometanisme, or of Paganism; Then they fall into a contumacy of perfidiousness against God, and make themselves incapable of the tenors they hold of their Sovereign, & unworthy to be acknowledged for Lieutenants of their Subjects, and of those that be under their charge.  
And from this derogateth not that which others object, that Kings cease not to be Kings before their consecration, & therefore the oaths which they take at their Consecration are not essential conditions of their Royalty: For they answer, that Kings before they be consecrated, be presumed to have taken their Oath, & made it to their people in the person of their predecessors, as the people are also reputed, & held to have taken their Oaths of Allegiance unto their Kings, in that which they have made to their predecessors. In so much, as when there happeneth any impediment of Consecration, they are always thought to have made and taken their Oath in desire and will, and implicitè, as the School Divines say, by a covered relation, that the condition under which they reign, is pretended to have, to the oaths of their predecessors, and namely to the first Kings of the races and lines. They who are not only content to bind their Successors by their example to take the like oath to their subjects but also to assure unto them the Crown, with the more strong bands, they would oft see them consecrated in their own life time, teaching them by the oath that they caused them in such a case to take, and make to their people, with what a law and condition they passed the Crown over unto them. 
4. Cor. ●.   
And to this they further add, that where S. Paul saith, That it was ashame to Christians, that they were judged in causes, that they had amongst themselves, 
Cedr. in come. hist. in just. ad lib. 1. tit. 5.6.11.  by the Infidels (a thing which the Emperor justinian converted into a law, when he ordained that neither Pagan nor Heretic should be admitted to the administration or government of the Common wealth) he seemed to insinuate, that the commandment which the same Apostle gave the Christians who lived under Pagan Emperors, to obey them, was a commandment made by provision, and for the time; namely until the Church were so multiplied and increased, by the universal conversion of the Pagans to Christian Religion, as it were, or should be within the power of Christians, to be able, without peril and wrack of state, to hinder the admitting & receiving of any other Princes, but Christians; and to observe this Law of Deuteronomy: Thou shalt make one a King among the number of thy brethren. 
Deut. 17.   
The second difference that is between the one & the other Princes, is taken from the divers condition of Christian people. For in the time of the ancient Pagan Emperors, which is the time (saith S. Augustine) meant by the first part of daniel's Prophecy, 
Aug. epist. 60.  the Christian had not yet attained the temporal Tribunal of Christ, nor as yet appertained they to Christ's temporal Kingdom. For as much, as Christ did not at that time exercise, or manage any temporal Kingdom on earth, neither had as yet any temporal Ministers of his Laws, but only exercised a spiritual Kingdom by his spiritual Ministers, which were the Bishops and Pastors. But after that the second part of the Prophecy was fulfilled, that is to say, after the conversion of Kings, and Countries to the Christian Religion, and that Kings served our Lord in fear, and apprehended discipline, or according to the Hebrew text, did homage to the Son, 
Psal. 2.  he then gained, and added the Christians, not only to his spiritual Kingdom, which he exerciseth by his spiritual Ministers, which be the Bishops and Pastors; but also to his temporal Kingdom, which he exerciseth by his temporal Ministers and Substitutes, which be the Kings and Princes, who serve him (saith S. Augustine) not simply, as men in observing his Laws, but as Princes, in causing them to be observed.  
And therefore since the time, the Christian people hath, by the conversion of Emperors and Empires, and by the reduction of Kings and Kingdoms, been gained and consecrated to jesus Christ his temporal reign, it cannot any more be usurped, nor possessed by way of right, by the enemies of Christ's name. And hence it is, that whatsoever Conquest the Turk maketh of the Christians, and whatsoever possession of long continuance it be, he cannot by any tract of time gain the least inch of prescription over Christian people, who were formerly subject to Christ's temporal tribunal, before any such Conquest by him made.  
And to say the contrary, were not only to embrace and hold one of Luther's errors, who hath taught that the war, that the Christians made against the Turks, was unjust and unlawful, & not only to condemn the authority of so many councils, which have decreed the expeditions of the holy Land, for the aiding of the Christians of the East, for the delivering of them from the yoke and servitude of the Infidels (which had been a thing unjust (For the Accessary followeth the Principal) and if the Christians of the East had been lawful subjects to the Mahometan Princes, they neither could have revolted from them, nor rebelled against them:) But also even to anathematize, and accurse the memory of so many Christian Worthies, and to affirm that so many Knights, Princes and Kings & among them our most glorious S. Lewis, who dying in that war, as Champious & maintainers of Christ's cause, pretended to gain the Crown of Martyrdom, died in a cause unjust and worthy of damnation.  
But those who defend the negative part reply, and say, that in time of the first Arian Emperors Constantius and Valens, before whom the Empire had already acknowledged Christ jesus, the Church used not such manner of proceeding, nor acquitted the Christians of their obedience. On the contrary that the Bishop Hosius, writing unto the Emperor Constantius, 
Apud Athana. in epist, desolit. vit. again.  saith unto him in these words: As he who would spoil you in your Empire, should resist God's ordinance: So I fear that your usurping the authority of the Church, will make you culpable of a great crime.  
To this then the defendants of the affirmative part answer two things; The one, that the Custom of obliging Princes to make an express oath unto God, and to their people, to live and to die in the Christian and Catholic Religion, had not yet place in the times of the first Heretic, or Apostata Emperors, & was not brought in but afterwards, namely then when they would stay, and hinder Religion from falling into the same perils, wherein it was under them. The other, that the Church used not this proceeding, not for default of Right, but for want of force and strength; not for want of power in it to ordain it, but through want of ability in the Christian people to execute it. For it is not enough to bind the Church to declare Prince's Infidels, & to have lost their rights, & to exhort their subjects to departed 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: Infidels by the desert of their Infidelity be worthy to lose their power over the faithful, 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 Emperors excluded from the right they had from God, of commanding catholics, 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 Council did ever namely and personally excommunicate the Arian Emperors: Not for that the Church cannot excommunicate them, as well as other Arians, whom it excommunicated from time to time, but for that it deemed it a matter of imprudency, and pernicious to Religion, to exasperate them, not having forces to repress and curb them.  
And as touching Hosius they answer, that he saith, not, that the Church cannot absolve in the spiritual Court, the catholics from the obedience of Constantius, if she should have thought it profitable, possible, and necessary for them to attempt the delivery of themselves from his tyranny. Neither, saith he, that if the Emperor Constance being a Catholic Prince had not been dead, and that he had declared and proclaimed war against his brother Constantius, as he threatened he would do, if he ceased not to persecute the Catholics; the Catholics of the East would not have joined & taken part with him, and would not have believed that the Church could have 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 private authority, and of their own ambition raised themselves against Constantius, to deprive him of the Empire, and to become Tyrants themselves.  
Yet Lucifer Calaritanus maketh no difficulty, 
Lucif. Cola. rit. lib. de non parcend. in Deum delinq.  to call Constantius himself A Tyrant, and the Antiochus of his age, and protesteth, that he is not bound towards him, to observe the modesty of words, which the Apostle commandeth to be observed to Princes and Magistrates; for as much as the Apostle speaketh of Princes, who have not yet believed in Christ, and not of such Princes as have revolted from Christ. I add (saith he) that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and Magistrates, which have not yet believed in the only Son of God, whom we should by our humility, and meekness, and long patience in adversity, and most great obedience in things reasonable, provoke to believe in him.  
But those who hold the negative part, 
Socrat. hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 19  reply, that the Christians might well have deposed the Emperor julian the Apostata. For when the Emperor jovian 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 have a command over men who were not Christians, they replied that they were Christians.  
And to this again, they who maintain the affirmative part, want not their answer. For on the contrary, they aver that the Church could not do it prudently, nor profitably: For beside, that the Christians were so divided, as the faction of the Arians alone, joined with the Heathens, (without speaking of other Heretics, or of the cold Catholics, who as S. Gregory Nazianzene saith, 
Greg. Naz. in jul. orat.  served the time, and had not (as he further addeth) other law, than the emperors will) held their foot upon the Catholic Church's throat. And besides when julian was Emperor, he was so far from persecuting the Catholics at the first, as that in the beginning of his Empire which continued but there years, he called the Catholic Bishop's home again, who had been banished and sent into exile, by Constantius his predecessor. And in the end he had by favours and his other carriage so gained the soldiers of the Roman bands, as they made almost all profession of Paganism.  
Whence it was, that jovian a Christian soldier being by them chosen after julian his death, answered them that he would not command men who were not Christians. For the answer which they made, We are Christians, was as much to say, that all they made an outward profession of Paganism to please julian, yet in their hearts they continued still Christians. By occasion whereof the fear of a greater ruin having hindered the Church, from absolving the Catholics from the obligation of fidelity, in behalf of julian the Apostata, they were still bound to do that which S. Austin saith of them, 
Aug in Psal. 124.  For the love of the Emperor of Heaven, they obeyed the Emperor of the Earth.  
But some will say, the Christians might well have deposed the Emperor Valentinian, for as much as they were the stronger in Milan, when he would have one of their Churches, for the exercising of his Heresy therein. It is true. But to this the defendants of the affirmative part, answer four things. The first, that the memory of the Emperor Gratian his elder Brother, and as it were Father and Tutor of the Emperor Valen●●ar, and slain by Maximus the Tyrant, and the most Catholic Prince, and the greatest friend of S. Ambrose that ever was, changed all the malice or evil, that the Catholic people could have had, or carried towards Valentinian, into favour and compassion, and into a desire of assisting him, for the revenging of that murder, and making away of his Brother.  
The second is, that Valentinian was yet so young, & the son of so Catholic a Father, as there was not any cause or ground to despair of his conversion, which also followed within a while after, and that with so great an Edification of the Church, as S. Ambrose celebrateth him for one of the most Religious Emperors of his age.  
The third, that though in the beginning the people contained themselves within the simple bounds of petition, & gave Valentinian to understand: We contend not, O Emperor, but we become suppliants unto you: yet when Valentinian had a meaning to proceed further, the people held their own, resisted the Emperor, and stood so resolute in the matter, as he fearing a tumult and revolt, was constrained to yield unto them. Hence it is, that they thought not, that the commandment our Saviour gave to his disciples, when they persecute in one City, to fly into another, was an absolute & perpetual precept, but rather a dispensation & a permission, accommodated to the time; wherein the Christian people either were still under Pagan Emperors, or had not yet the means to make resistance, against persecutions by might and force.  
The Fourth is, that the Emperor Valentinian his own soldiers, thought not themselves so bound in way of fidelity unto him, as they believed they could not be dispensed with; when he should perseoute the Catholics. For when the tumult began to be hot, they caused it to be signified unto him, that if he would come upon the Place, he should come thither accompanied, for as much as they would assist and help him, if they saw him conjoined, and to take part with the Catholics, else they would put themselves in company with the troops that held with Ambrose.  
But the propugners of the negative, part, recurre to the Analogy of other practices of the Church, & say, that for Heresy the owners are not deprived of their goods, and consequently much less Princes should be spoiled of their estates.  
To this again the maintainers of the affirmative part bring two answers. The one is, that in this our Realm, Heretics lose not their goods, and the cause is, for that the execution of the laws made against Heretics, is suspended for the conservation of the public peace, and tranquillity. But if there should creep forth some third sect in France, & should begin to grow, and were not come to be so great, and to make a notable part of the body of Estate, as Arianisme, or Nestorienisme it is questionless, that the other two would ●udge them, who should make such profession, worthy to be deprived, not only of their goods, but of their lives also. For this is practised at Geneva, where Caluin caused servetus to be burnt: and it is the practice at this day in England, where the Most Renowned modern King of Great Britain punisheth the Arians, with loss of goods, and of life.  
The other answer is, that there is a great difference between the power that owners have over their goods, and that which Princes have over their Estates: For goods are made for their Masters, and Princes contrariwise for their Estates; neither have goods any soul, nor can be compelled by force, or by example, or by persuasion of their Masters to lose life everlasting, as subjects may be by their Princes, by means whereof the prejudice of the one doth not make any consequence for the other.  
And if this question be no where found certainly decided, neither by scripture, nor by the decrees of the ancient Church, nor by the Analogy of other Ecclesiastical proceedings, how is it, that lay persons will of their own authority, and without light and precedent of any general Council, of any Ecumenical Synod, of any universal Assembly of the Church, yea against the greater part of the rest of the Church, convert this doctrine into an article of faith, and make the Clergy to swear it is conformable to God's word, & cause them to abjure the other, as a doctrine contrary to the word of God, impious and detestable?  
It is five and twenty years since those of your Order, carried away by the tumult and trouble of the time, laboured in the full Assembly of Estates, to establish one Fundamental Law of Estate, clean contrary to that article of yours: And now you propose another Fundamental Law, entitled of Estate, and of Religion, quite contrary to that former. And will you (not you, but those, by whose inspiration and advise these clauses be crept into your Bill) that the laity cause the Clergy to swear it? That the laity exact of the Clergy an Oath in matter of faith? That the laity impose the Laws of Religion upon the men of the Church?  
O reproach, and shame! Oscand all! O gate set open to all sort of Heresies! And shall our faith then be subject to the varieties, and inconstancy of the affections of the people, who change every five and twenty years? And shall the flocks than be guides to their shepherds, 
Luc. 16. Hebr. 13.  and Pastors? And shall the children teach their Father? And shall that then be frustrated that our Lord hath cried aloud, The scholar is not above the Master? And shall it be in vain, that the Apostle hath said: Obey your Prelates, 
Greg. Nazian. orat. de ser. suis ad jul. trib. exeq.  and be subject unto them: For they watch for your souls? And shall that be said in vain, that S. Gregory Nazianzene hath written, You sheep, feed not your pastors? And shall it be in vain that Saul was accursed because he would usurp, and take upon him the authority of Priesthood? And shall it be to no purpose that Oza was punished with sudden death for having put his hand to the Ark? And shall it be in vain that Ozias was strooken with the leprosy because he would take the Censar in his hand? But the time presseth me to get out of this point, & to dispatch the other two remaining, with as much brevity as possibly I can.  
THE THIRD INCONVENIENCE, that I have undertaken to discover and lay open to the eye, in the examen of your article was, that it did thrust us into a manifest and inevitable schism. For to say nothing of the declaration, that his Holiness hath already made of the Oath of England, upon the model whereof this Article hath been form, and not to permit any hold to those who say, that it should be the Pope, who should be the author of the Schism and not we: I say that though the Pope intermeddle not himself in our affairs, the Schism is all made the very hour that we accept and swear this Article or Bill. And that it is not the Pope, but we that make it.  
And to confirm it, how can we swear that the Pope, and all the other parts of the Catholic Church, hold a doctrine contrary to the word of God, impious and detestable, without making schism, and schism not only against the Pope's person, but also against the Sea Apostolic, and against all the rest of the body of the Church? For if the foundation of the Communion Ecclesiastic, be unity in faith, and in matters appertaining to salvation; how can we believe, and swear that the Pope, and all the rest of the Church, err in faith, and in matters belonging to salvation, and hold a doctrine contrary to God's word and impious and detestable, and consequently Heretical, without separating ourselves from Communion with them, and subjecting them in as much, as is in us, to a malediction and an Anathema; and consequently to divide the Church, or rather separate ourselves from the Church?  
And how odious a thing, schism is to God, and how much it is detested both of Angels and men, we need not any more express testimony, then that of holy Writ, that teacheth us, that the earth opened itself under the Schismatics, and that they descended all living, 
Num. 16.  and alive into hell: The ground (saith Moses') broke in sunder under their feet, and opening her mouth, devoured them, with their Tabernacles, and all their substance, and they went down quick into hell. We need not a more express witness then Great S. 
Euseb. hist. Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 45.  Denis of Alexandria who wrote to Novatian in these words: It were meet in very deed rather to endure all things, then to consent to the dividing of God's Church: the Martyrdoms to which we expose ourselves, to hinder the dismembering of the Church, being no less glorious, than those which we suffer for the alsteyning from sacrificing unto Idols. We need not more express testimony, then that which S. Cyprian bringeth: That the stain and spot of Schism, is not washed away by the blood of Martyrdom. 
De unit. Ecclesiae.  We need not a more manifest testimony then this of S. chrysostom, who saith: That those who divide the Church of Christ, 
Ad Eph. hom. 11.  merit no less punishment, thent hose who pierced and divided his own body. We need not a more express testimony then that of S. Augustine, 
Aug. de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 1. cap. 8.  who affirmeth, that the wound of schism is more grievous than that of Idolatry. Those (saith he) whom the Donatists heal of the wound 〈◊〉 Idolatry, or of Infidelity, they hurt, and wound more grievously with the wound of schism.  
Neither doth this Article only cast us into an ineffable schism; but doth also precipitate us into a manifest heresy, necessarily obliging us to confess, that the Catholic Church is perished and decayed on earth for many ages past. For if they, who embrace the opposite Doctrine, hold an opinion cotrary to God's word, impious and detestable; the Pope hath not then for so many ages past, been Head of the Church and Christ's vicar, but an Heretic & Antichrist, and all the other parts of the Church, have not been true parts of the Church, but members of Antichrist.  
And this being so, where continued the Catholic Church? In France alone? And shall then the Part have given a bill of divorce 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 overcome the whole body; A corner of Africa, hath excluded and thrust out the whole world? What then shall become of the inheritance, to whom God the Father said: Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance? 
Psal. 2.  what then shall become of the title of Catholic, by which S. 
Aug. count ep. Fundament.  Augustine professeth himself to have been most of all held and kept in the Church?  
But how should it have contiwed in France, if this Article be true, sith all the French Doctors have for so many ages held the contrary in case of Heresy, and of Apostasy from Christian Religion? we should then also bid adieu to the Church of France, that hath been before our times, and take up the bodies of so many Doctors, either French, or those who have written and taught in France, as S. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, and others without number, and burn their bones upon the Altar, as did josias burn and consume the bones of the false prophets.  
And this done, where should the Church have been? In the desert of the Apocalypse? And why then should we with so main force oppugn the invisibility of the Heretics Church? Wherefore should we delay to yield them the victory, and our arms, and all? For what greater trophies and signs of victory can we raise and set up for them, then to aver & profess, that the visible Kingdom of Christ, should be perished & clean decayed through the world: and that for so many hundred years past, there hath been neither temple of God, nor spouse of Christ, nor Church, but that all hath been the Kingdom of Antichrist, the Synagove of Satan, and the spouse of the Devil? And what stronger machine's & engines, could they desire for the abolishing & overthrowing of the Article of Transubstantiation, that of Auricular Confession, and other the like, which were decided against the Albigenses, and in few words for the overturning and ruining of all Catholic Religion, then to say, that the Church which hath decided them, hath done it without authority, and was not at that time any more Christ's Church, but Antichristes Concubine? See therefore whereunto these men lead us, who compel us to swear, that it is a doctrine contrary to God's word, impious and detestable, to hold, that subjects in some cases may be absolved of their fidelity. And this proposition they would have us put in the same conclusion of faith, and under the same decree of Anathema, with that of the murdering of Kings.  
THERE remaineth the last Inconvenience, which I promised to examine, which is, that this medley doth not only make the remedy, that they would bring to the danger of Kings, to be unprofitable, but more than that to be pernicious and damageable. And now I beseech you, gentlemans, before I enter into the matter, to permit me to tell you, that I give not place in affection to the service of the King to any of my Countrymen. I am a French man borne, and the son of a French man, and I have never but respected our Kings. I have never in fact of State, cast mine eyes upon others, & God lending me my right wits I will never turn mine eyes away. I have been nourished, brought up, entertained and raised up under the wings of my Sovereign King Henry the third, & have always continued an adherent to his fortunes, whilst he lived.  
After his death I followed likewise the fortune of the deceased King Henry the Great, of glorious memory, and that with a good, and with a sound conscience, even according to the Maxims, as well of those who defend the affirmative part, as of those who hold the negative. For to say nothing of the word of Relapse, that was by bad information imputed unto him, he was never either persecutor or incorrigible. On the contrary, after the time of his predecessors death, he promised to procure to inform himself and be instructed, and in his greatest affairs, he did me the honour to confer with me in secret about the points of our faith, for the preparing of himself to his Conversion. I brought him by the grace of God back, or the grace rather by me to the Catholic religion. I obtained his absolution at Rome of Pope Clement the 8 and reconciled him with the Sea Apostolic: Actions, by which he effected and wrought the recovery of his Estate, and the restoring of you all to your houses, commodities, and fortunes.  
I ever served him after that, supporting & upholding the honour, and rights of his Majesty, in a more affectionate manner than I tendered mine own life; not here, where it is an easy matter to extol the kings service, and to commend, as the saying is, the Athenians at Athens, but out of his own Kingdom, and there where matters were canvased and disputed upon. And of this also, I have received for a sign, and testimony of approbation of my service, all these honours & commodities I am now possessed of; for as much as I never received neither goods nor dignities, but of him. It is he alone who hath advanced me, and raised me up to a Bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinal. He made me Great Almenour, and bestowed upon me the means and provisions, necessary for the helping of me, towards the sustaining and bearing out a part of these charges.  
And from the King his Son, I continue the enjoing and possession of the same benefits and good turns, without hoping or desire of hope of gratification from any other. And therefore, Gentlemen, you ought to be believe that I am not moved in this, for any other interest, then for his service and for the conservation of the Catholic Religion, in preservation whereof is comprehended both the spiritual and temporal safety of himself, & of his estate.  
For the first branch then of our last opposition, which is, that the mixtion of contentious matters, maketh the remedy which they would bring for the danger of Kings, unfruitful and unprofitable, we have already said enough from the beginning. For seeing we will agree both the one & the other that the temporal laws, & the pains & penalties imposed upon the body, do not any ways serve the turn or be enough to prevent, avert, & put by these wicked attempts, and that we must make recourse to spiritual laws, and to the pains that be exercised after death, that is to say, to the laws of excommunication, and of damnation eternal; and for that reason teacheth us, that the laws of Anathema, and of excommunication, make not any impression in the souls, if they be not believed to proceed from an infallibleauthority, how is it, when there shallbe intermixed some clause contestated & called into question, by the rest of the Church, that they will serve for a bridle to those, who fear nothing but the pains and torments of the souls? And how shall such laws imprint the terror and fear of Anathema in minds, that shall believe, that the laws themselves be subjecteth to Anathema?  
On the contrary, how will they not quite overthrow, the good and sufficient remedies, that the general councils, whereof the authority is infallible, have instituted for the safety of Kings, which they would take from us by the medley of other things whereunto the universal Church doth not agree? I have said good & sufficient remedies for the safety of Kings, which they would have taken from us; For who knoweth not, that if the infernal monsters, who made the attempts upon the lives of our two last Kings, had read the Ecclesiastical laws, they had found their damnation expressed in the decree of the Council of Constance. And therefore it was not for default of Ecclesiastical laws, that they committed those two most horrible murders, but for this, that they had not read them, or rather by occasion of an enraged and devilish malice, wherewith they were possessed.  
But they will reply, that it was not enough for the securing and assuring of the life of Kings, that the Church hath decreed under the pain of Excommunication, that none may attempt upon their persons, if it decreeth not further, under the same pains, that the subjects cannot be absolved from their obedience, in whatsoever estate they be, that is to say, even when they should make profession of heresy, or incorrigible Infidelity, and should become persecutors and violators of conscience. For though (say they further) the Church forbiddeth, that no attempt be made upon the life of Princes; yet if the Princes happen to fall into incorrigible Heresy or Apostasy, and become persecutors of the faith, and that the Church thereupon declare their subjects absolved from the oath of Allegiance, and that notwithstanding this declaration, they will enforce the subjects to continue their obedience unto them, they become Tyrants. And then (add they) the Politic Laws permit every particular body to attempt upon the person of Tyrants, and consequently their life in case of Heresy, or of Apostasy cannot be secured.  
To this objection the answer is short and easy. For the Church intermeddleth not herself with the absolution of the subjects, but in the Ecclesiastical Court: and therein besides this pain, and that of excommunication, it imposeth not any other. By means whereof it is so far from consenting, that any attempt be made upon the life of them whom it hath excommunicated, as it abhorreth all forts of killinges, and murtheringes, and especially such as be sudden and unexpected, in regard of the loss of both body and soul, which commonly go therein accompanied together.  
And if they say, that the Church ordaineth it not, but that it is the cause that it is done, for as much as the Common wealth conforming itself to the Church's judgement, and making the same decision in the tribunal politic, if the Prince keep on his former course, declareth him a Tyrant, and an enemy of the state, and consequently subjecteth him to the power of the Laws politic, which permit the conspiring against Tyrants, for the making of them away, and for killing of them: we bring first this exception, that there is great difference between Tyrants of usurpation, whom the Laws permit to extirminate by all manner of ways, and Tyrants of administration and government, who are lawfully called to their Principality, but govern it ill: and we add that the Heretical Princes who persecute the faith and their Catholic subjects, be of the number of Tyrants of administration, and not of the number of Tyrants of usurpation, against whom alone it is permitted to conspire by clandestine and secret practices.  
And if they further urge and say, that the politic Laws permit conspiracies against the one and the other: we answer, that they are politic, profane, and heathenish Laws, as those of the ancient Romans, or of the Grecians in former times, and not Christian politic Laws. For the Christian politic Laws consider not only in their Princes the respect due unto them, for the good of temporal policy, and the regard of the Majesty of the Estate which they represent, but they further consider in them the Image and unction of God, who hath called them to that Dignity, in so much as in them, who have once had the lawful vocation of Royalty, what Tyranny soever they exercise, the Christian politic Laws never pass so far, as to permit the use of proscription against their persons, or that any do attempt by clandestine, or secret conjuration, or conspiracy against their persons, or lives; but they carry the same respect to them, that did David to Saul, notwithstanding he knew he were rejected, 
1. Reg. 26.  cast of, and reproved of God, when he said: Who shall extend his hand upon the anointed of our Lord, and shallbe innocent?  
In so much, as if the Christians be constrained to defend their religion, and their life against Heretical and Apostata Princes, from whose allegiance they were absolved, the Christian politic Laws permit not more than what is permitted by military Laws, and the right of nations; that is to say, open war and not clandestine and secret 〈…〉 and conspiracies. For there always remaineth in them a certain habitude to the dignity Royal, & as it were a mark of a politic character, that discerneth them from simple particulars: and when the obstacle and impediment is taken away, that is, when they come to amend themselves, and to give satisfaction, it restoreth them to the lawful use and exercise of their regality.  
And therefore we see, that in so many controversies that the Popes have had with temporal Princes, never any Pope went so far as to counsel, or to assent to the murdering of Princes. Contrariwise if any calumniators laboured to impute it unto them, they have ever justified themselves, even with the horror and abomination of such acts, remembering themselves of these words of S. Gregory, when the Lombard's made war upon him: If I would have meddled with the death of men, 
Greg. lib. 7. epist. 1.  the Nation of the Lombard's should at this day have had neither King non governors: But because I stand in fear of God, I will not have to meddle, or deal with the death of any person.  
And touching the other point of the last Inconvenience, which is, that this medley maketh the remedies, that they would bring to the danger of the Kings, to be not only unprofitable, but also pernicious and damageable, there needeth not much eloquence to persuade it. For if those who made the attempts upon the lives of our Kings, were moved to those horrible parricides by a false imagination which they conceived, to wit, that our Kings did something in prejudice of religion, how much more would they have thought they had a greater & better pretext, if they had believed, that our Kings had abused their authority by the bringing in of schism, and the overthrowing of Religion, and that they had seen themselves in schism, & separated from the communion of the Sea Apostolic, and cut off from the other parts of the Church?  
And more than this, who understandeth not, that there cannot happen any thing of more and greater danger for the life and authority of Kings, then intestine and civil wars, which schisms do ordinarily draw after them?  
Moreover who knoweth not, that the contempt and indifferency of Religion, which must needs follow upon schisms, engendereth and occasioneth Impiety and Atheism, and taketh quite away all the respect that men are wont to carry to Kings for the love of God, and for the reverence of Religion, which is the strongest corpse 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 upon the persons of Kings, then by force, and by fear of the temporal pains, and therefore when they think they may do it, without being punished, or that they contemn and make no reckoning of the temporal pains, they have no more bridle to contain them, or to hold them in.  
Finally, who seethe not, that there can be nothing worse for the safety of the persons, and of the estate of Kings, then to stir up, and draw upon them, by an overture of a new schism, and division from the Church, 
Psal. 75.  the wrath of him, who taketh away the spirits of Princes from out of the earth?  
And here, Gentlemen, I will not with you use more reasons and arguments, but will pass over to exhortations and entreaties; and will conjure you to remember, that you are French men, and that you are also Christians and Catholics, and that in treating touching the securing of Kings, you must not only cast your eyes upon the earth, but also lift them up to Heaven; and you must not remedy their temporal safety in causing them to forego and lose the everlasting, nor provide for your bodily part which is France, by destroying and ruining the spiritual part, which is the Church.  
The Pope tolerateth and endureth for the good of the Church's peace, that the Frenchmen, that is to say some of them hold & maintain in this point, Doctrine contrary to his own, and to that of all the rest of the Church, so they hold it only as problematical, 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 God's word, impious and detestable. And though in the cases before specified, there be ten Countries against but a part of one, an hundred Doctors against one, ten councils against none: yet whether it be that these councils do not therein express their intention by form of decision of faith, but by form & manner of supposition, or for some other causes, he is contented to hold the Doctrine contained in them for true, without binding us to hold it for necessary, as matter of faith; he is contented to hold the contrary opinion for erroneous, without binding us to hold it for Heretical, and not to excommunicate them, as Heretics, that hold it.  
And wherefore then should we now go about to break the Church's communion, & to divide the unity of Christ's body, by turning into matter of faith, a doctrine, which doth not only make the remedies, which they would bring for the security of Kings, unprofitable, but further, maketh them pernicious, both to their persons, and to their Kingdom?  
There is no time wherein schisms be not most damageable, and prejudicial to religion and to State, but they be most of all ruinous and pernicious to the one and the other, when the times be already infected with heresy. For as the Physicians say, that in the time of pestilence all sorts of fevers end in the plague: so in the time of Heresy all schisms have their ending in Heresy. And therefore Heresy having now at this day so great part in France, if we proceed to bring in a schism among Catholics, who doubteth but that the fruit of this division, will be the enfeebling and weakening of the Church, and the strengthening of Heresy? And if Heresy even when she is weakest hath so much ado to keep herself quick, how will she continue in peace when she shall once come to an equality? And if we break it, how shall she be able to disturb the peace of Religion, without troubling therewithal the King, and the State also?  
It is certain, Gentlemen, the scope and intention of them that first moved this stone of scandal, was not to provide for the security of the State, and the person of our Kings: Their drift and intention was to cast the seeds of division in the Church of France, and to assay either to separate it from the other parts of the Church, or to divide it within itself.  
I say not this to tax you. I honour you all, as persons of singular wisdom, and merit, and most affected to the Catholic Religion. But I know you are not the first authors and inventors of this Article. I know that it hath been craftily thrust into some of your seats, It is not long time since they have menaced and threatened us with this apple of discord. These be those that be already severed from us, and have by this means thought to sow some sparkles of division amongst us; and for this end they have served themselves of men, who carry the name of Catholics, and more than that, of Ecclesiastical persons, and for the undermining & beguiling of the ingenuity, good disposition, and simplicity of others, under the title of service to the King.  
The pretext they have taken, is fair, it is specious, it is over shadowed with the name of the King, but under this cover, is hiden schism and the design of making a division in the Church. These be the Vlissesses fight under Achilles his buckler,  
When julian the Apostata meant to draw the Christians to the adoration of the false Gods, he caused the Idols of jupiter, Venus, and Mercury to be intermixed, and put in company with his own pictures, to the end, that when they should present his own Images to the Christians to adore (as it was the custom then, for the people to adore the Images of their Emperor) the Christians either refusing to do it, should be accused of high treason, as having refused to adore the emperors Image, or in doing it be constrained jointly with the Image of the Emperor to adore Idols. These men have here done the very same, having intermeddled in one and the same Article, a decree of the securing of Kings, together with an introduction of schism, to the end that those who shall refuse this oath, should put themselves in danger, either to be esteemed little affectioned to the service of Kings, or to be thought culpable of schism.  
And therefore you must not suffer yourselves to be beguiled by this first bait. It is of honey, but yet of honey, that hath been made by drone bees, that have gone from one flower of hemlock to another, that is to say, by souls that have tasted and sucked the venom of schism.  
Aristotle writeth, that we must behold pleasures not before, but behind, not when they are coming, but when they are gone & passed. 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 sequel and success.  
This Oath resembleth Horace his Monster, which hath the head of a fair and beautiful woman, that is, the pretence of the service and safety of Kings; but it hath a fishes tail, that is the tail of Schism, and of division in Religion. And indeed it may well be said to have a fishes tail, seeing it is come swimming by sea from England. For it is the very same Oath of England (saving that of England is yet more sweet, and more modest & moderate.) I will not prosecute this point for fear to offend the most Renowned King of Great Britain. I am (setting aside religion) his most humble and most affectionate servant. I do in a most high degree, esteem, & honour his learning, his eminent moral virtues, and his excellent natural conditions, and I find nothing to be desired by me in him, that might express, not a feigned Image made at pleasure, as that of Cyrus by Xenophon, but the true and real image of a perfect, and complete Prince, the title of Catholic only excepted.  
He hath bound in general all men of learning unto him, having made the Muses to sit in his Royal throne, and he hath obliged me in particular, for having pleased to take the pains, to enter with me into the lists of dispute of Divinity, & not to do as did Alexander, who disdained to enter into the Olympian race, if he were not to run his course against Kings.  
I therefore touch not this string, for fear of offending. I know that holding the religion he doth, he thinketh to do what he ought, when he assayeth to bring in a Schism, and division in ours. But shall it be said, that what the King of Great Britain doth in England against the Catholics, doth serve us for a law, and an example to do the same in our Catholic Country? Shall it be said, that France, that hath for so many ages been honoured with the name of a most Christian Realm, 
Hier. contra Vigil.  and in which S. Hierome said, there were no monsters, is brought to this, that it permitteth not Catholic religion, but with the same conditions, and servitudes that be imposed upon it in England? Shall it be said, that Ecclesiastical persons be not suffered to live in France, but under the stipulations, & conditions under which it is permitted them to live in England? Shall it be said, that the Catholics of France, and especially the Clergy, enjoying security and freedom, shall be enforced to swear and bind themselves to believe the same thing, which with groaning and sighs, thereby to gain some little breath, is done by Catholics in England? And if there be found in England Catholics constant enough to suffer all sorts of punishments, rather than to consent unto it; shall there not be found those in France to do the same, rather than to subscribe, & to swear an article, that putteth the reins of the faith into the hands of the laity, and bringeth a division and Schism into the Church? Yes certainly, Gentlemen, such will be found in France. And all we who are Bishops will rather go to martyrdom, then give our consents to the dividing of Christ's body, 
Apud Euseb. Eccl. hist. lib. 6. cap. 37.  remembering this saying of S. Dionysius of Alexandria; That the martyrdoms that men suffer for the hindering of the Church's division, be no less glorious, then be those that men endure for abstaining from sacrificing to Idols.  
But we are not, God be thanked, under a King who maketh martyrs, he leaveth the souls of his subjects free, and if he doth it to those of his Subjects, that be strayed from the Church, how much more will he do it to those souls of his Catholic subjects? we live the one and the other, under the shadow of the Edicts of peace, in liberty of conscience. And wherefore then should we be constrained to swear that, which we forbear to make others to swear?  
There is not one only Synod of Ministers who would have subscribed to that article, which they would bind us to swear. There is not one Consistory of others, but believeth that they are discharged of their Oath of fidelity towards Catholic Princes, when they shallbe forced by them in their consciences. Of this come those modifications that they have so oft in their mouth, Provided, that the King forceth us not in our conscience. Of this come these exceptions in their profession of faith, So the Sovereign Empire of God abide in his own integrity. Of this came the taking of arms so many times against the Kings, when they would take from them the liberty of religion. Of this came their insurrections and rebellions, both in Flanders against the King of Spain, & Sweden against the Catholic King of Polonia, whom they spoilt of the Realm of Sweden his lawful inheritance, and therein established Duke Charles a Protestant.  
Neither yet do they restrain these exceptions to the only case of religion, & of conscience, but they further extend them to secular matters. The writings of Buchanan, Bruse, and infinite others give testimony, who will, that if the Kings fail in temporal conventions and accord, which they have made with their subjects, their subjects be free to revolt from them.  
Not considering that there is great difference, as we have already declared, between failing in a simple accord, made by Oath, and destroying the Oath, by the which the accord was made. For when a Prince doth of frailty, or of human passion commit some injustice, he doth indeed against the Oath he hath made to his people, to do them justice; yet he doth not thereby destroy his Oath.  
But if he make a contrary Oath, that is to say, instead of what he hath publicly and solemnly sworn to his people, which was to do them justice (to wit, as far as humane frailty will permit) he should swear and bind himself by another public and solemn Oath, that he would never render them justice, but rather swear, that he will minister nothing but injustice; he should then destroy his Oath, & renounce his own Royalty, in renouncing by a contrary Oath the clauses and conditions of his former oath, for which, and by means and occasion whereof his Royalty was instituted.  
And therefore Barckley the Achilles of the doctrine of your Article, hath had most just cause to reprehend, and find fault with the aforesaid authors, but in reprehending them, he hath reserved an exception of two cases, which make much more to the prejudice of Kings, then do the Church's censures from which he would exempt them. For he affirmeth expressly, that in two cases the people may shake off the yoke of Kings, 
Guil. Barcl. lib. 4. cont. Monarchomach c. 16.  & arm themselves against them. Behold his words. What then? Can there not occur any cases in which the people may rise, & take arms by their own authority, and assail a King insolently reigning? None indeed, so long as he continueth King: For this commandment of God contradicteth it always; Honour the King etc. who resisteth power, risisteth God. The people then (addeth he) cannot have by any other means power over him, but when he doth some thing, by which he ceaseth of right to be King. For then, for as much as he spoileth and depriveth himself of his principality, and maketh himself a private person, the people remaineth free, and becometh superior. And these two cases, as he saith, be when a Prince laboureth, and hath intention to exterminate and overthrow the Kingdom & common wealth, as Nero and Caligula did; or when he will make his Kingdom feudatary to another. 
Ibidem.  I find (saith he) two cases in which a King by fact maketh himself of a King no King, and depriveth himself of his royal dignity and of power over his subjects. The one is, if he goeth about to exterminate the Realm & Common wealth, that is to say, if he hath a design and intention to destroy the Realm, as it is recorded of Nero, that he had a deliberation to exterminate the Senate, and the people of Rome etc. And the other, if the King hath a will to put himself under the clientele and protection of some other.  
But who seethe not, that this is a thing tooto unworthy for a Christian to admit these exceptions, in case of the destruction of a Common wealth, and not in case of the destruction of Religion? and otherwise the judgement which the people may make of the one is much more perilous to Princes, than that which the universal Church may form of the other. And yet these be at this day the writers whom they celebrate, extol, and whom they have in their eyes; For so an author say something against the Pope, and that he put as much as he please the safety of Kings under the people's feet, him they embrace, applaud, and adore.  
And of this we need not any better proof, than the edition of Gerson, which they who have been the first authors of the Article that is now proposed unto us, have caused to be imprinted eight years since, with inscriptions, pictures, and eulogies, or testifications of his praises, because he seemeth unto them to have written against the Pope. For in his sermon made in the presence of King Charles the 7. in the name of the University of Paris, 
Gers. serm. ad Regem Fran. nomine universit. Paris.  after he had made Sedition to speak, which wills, that use without exception and indifferently be made of this rule of Seneca: There is not a sacrifice more pleasing unto God, than the kill of Tyrants, and that it is to be put in ure against all sorts of persons accused of Tyranny, and upon all manner of suspicions, and of defamatory libels; and Dissimulation, that wills on the contrary, that we never use it, but that we endure all Tyrants: he bringeth in Discretion that teacheth when it is to be used in these words: 
Gers. ibid.  We conclude further, that if the head, or any other member of the Common wealth should incur such an inconvenience, as he would swallow up the deadly poison of Tyranny, every member in his place should oppose himself by all his possibility by expedient means; & such as should not make the matter worse, seeing it were to small it purpose when the head acheth, that the hand should strike it, but rather folly. For neither is it necesary to cut it off by & by, & to separate it from the rest of the body, but we must cure it sweetly, aswell by good words, as otherwise, like prudent & wise Physicians. There could not be any thing more against reason, & of greater cruelty, than Tyranny by a sedition. I call sedition a rebellion of the people, without cause, and without reason, which is oft times worse than tyranny etc. There needeth great & singular discretion, prudence, and temperance about the expulsion & thrusting out of tyranny, and therefore we must hear, and give credit to wise Philosophers. Lawyers, Divines, to men of good life, of good and natural prudence, & of great experience, of whom it is said, In old men is found experience. For though a Prince and Lord sin in many cases, yet he must not for that be presently censured a Tyrant. So he there.  
And in his work of ten Considerations against the flatterers of Kings, where he recapitulateth a part of the discourse of his Sermon, 
Gerson Considerate 7. contra adulat.  he saith: It is an error to believe, that a terrene Prince is not bound in any thing, during his reign, to his subjects. For according to divine right and natural equity, and the end of true government, as the subjects own fidelity, aid, succour and service to their Lord: So the Lord oweth again faith and protection to his subjects. And if the Prince manifestly pursue and persecute them, and with obstinacy in injury, and by fact, than this natural rule (It is lawful to repel force by force: and this saying of Seneca, There cannot be a more acceptable Sacrifice immolated and made to God, then by taking away of a Tyrant) taketh place.  
And notwithstanding this which is more strange, those who have caused this to be reprinted, have not vouchsafed to add, either in the beginning of his works, or in the margin of these words, any observation, or note for the censuring of them, or for advertisement of the Reader to take heed. But indeed, how could they have done it without condemning themselves: Themselves (I say) who during the fury of these last troubles had been ensign-bearers, or rather had carried the burning torches of this pernicious doctrine, and had maintained and published it against King Henry the third, by propositions disputed and printed? For these be their words: It is most certain, that by right, both divine and natural, the Estates be above Kings. And again: It was lawful for all the people of France most justly to take arms against the Tyrant: that is to say, against King Henry the third. And a little after: They, who consider matters attentively and diligently, will judge that the eternal enemies of the Religion, and of the Country ought to be pursued not only by public arms, but also by the sword, and plots of particular persons. And that james Clement the Dominican, was not put forwards by any other desire, then by the love of the Laws of his Country, and of the zeal of Ecclesiastical discipline, by which this restorer of our Liberty, hath put upon his own head grace, and upon our neck a collar of gold, and the heavenly collars of the Church. Thus there.  
This I say not to scandalise them (for I conceal their names) nor to reproach them with that, that the bounty, and clemency of the King hath buried up and forgotten; but to show, that they should be content to attend the rest of their days, to the canceling and washing away of their offence with their tears, and not to meddle themselves with the making of lessons, of the service of Kings, to them, who always well and faithfully served them, even then when they persecuted them.  
But these are violent spirits, who being transported to one extreme, and not being of power to hold the mean, thought that the best means, for the justifying of themselves was to pass over to the other extreme, and to put their hand to pen, to write and fight against the Pope. Wherein as they are found conform, or at least very like unto the Church's enemies, they have been so set on, and plied by those our enemies, and by some that dissembled with them, as they have been induced & thrust on, under a pretence of the kings service, to sow the seeds of schism.  
But, Sirs, the King desireth not to be served after this sort: his will is not that provision be made for his safety by schism, and by the Church's division: In the ruins whereof is comprehended the ruin and overthrow of his own safety, spiritual and temporal: he is a Catholic, and the eldest child of the Catholic Church; he is the first Catholic of all the Kings, and the first King of all the Catholics. He feareth not to fall into Heresy, and standeth not in doubt of the Pope's censures, nor dreadeth the Church's threats against Heretics. He is the prime and principal protect our of the one and the other. He is the heir both of the Crown, and of the name, and of the faith of that glorious S. Lewis, who was the Churches support and pillar, and the Pope's defence, & retreat. He is descended from a mother no less Catholic, pious, and Religious than his own: he is inseparable & indivisible from the union and amity of the Sea Apostolic, & doth seek by all manner of reasons, both spiritual and temporal, to maintain it.  
In the person of Elizabeth Queen of England, the interests of Estate fought against those of conscience, and bound her, to continue severed from the communion of the Pope. But all the interests aswell of State as of Religion, bind the gratitude of our King, to conserve himself in intelligence, correspondence, union and amity with the Pope: he is beside the Titles his predecessors have gained him, a child of the Sea Apostolic in many sorts. Pope Clement the Eight received the deceased King Henry the Great his Father into the Church's bosom and lap, he resolved, and established his marriage with the most Christian Queen Mary de Medici's, to whose prudence, virtue, and bounty, we own the prosperity of our new reign, and the memory of whose most happy Regency, all the ages of posterity will extol and bless. Out of this Marriage, is come the Sacred bud of our lilies, which Solomon did not match with all his glory: I mean the King who now reigneth. Pope Paul who sitteth at this day in the Sea of Peter was his good Father, and as his second Father, hath employed himself by all manner of cares and good offices, to procure before God, and before Men, the conservation of his person, and of his Realm.  
And wherefore then should we disturb or trouble this concord, by Laws not only of State, but also of Religion, and of conscience, which our Fathers have not known? Cast your eyes upon the histories of France, and you shall find, that always when our Kings have been in union, concord and correspondence with the Sea Apostolic, and that the Spouse (to use the terms of Scripture) hath fed among the lilies; all sorts of graces and benedictions temporal and spiritual have rained, and come down upon them, and their people; you shall find that as when the Ark of Covenant stayed and continued in the house of Obededom, there was not any kind of felicity wanting even so, as long as the Communion of the Sea Apostolic hath been amongst us, & that we have had the assistance of the Vicar of him, who is the true Ark of Covenant, we have had our share in all sorts of prosperities: the name of Frenchmen hath dispersed itself from one end of the world to the other, and our lilies have extended and reached themselves to the furthest remote corners of the earth.  
Contrariwise at what time our Kings were severed from the communion of the Sea Apostolic, the Lilies hath been amidst the thorns, and all sorts of afflictions, and of adversities have besieged us. Renew within yourselves the memory of those things, and therehence draw consequences for the time to come. Remember how many calamities and miseries we have suffered in time of Schisms, or apprehension of Schisms; how many Churches ruined, how many Altars pulled down, how many cities saccaged and spoiled. Represent to your eyes the State of your passed life, the time that our deceased King was deprived of the Communion of the Apostolic Sea, and with how many vows, and tears both he and you have desired his restitution. But above all, lay again before your eyes the state of the life to come, from which the authors and favourers of Schism be excluded, and whereunto none can possibly come, if he be not placed, not only in the faith, but also in the unity, and in the communion of the Catholic Church.  
FINIS.