A Defence of the Right of Kings (1)

THE L. Cardinall euen in the first passage of his Oration, hath laid a firme foun- dation, That Ecclesiastics in France are more deepely obliged to the King, then the Nobilitie, and third Estate: His reason; Because the Clergie doe sweetly enioy their dignities and promotions, with all their infinite wealth, of the Kings meere grace, without all danger, and with faire immunities; whereas the other two Orders hold their offices by a chargeable and burdensome title or tenure, euen to the great expence of their blood, and of their substance. But see now, how loose and weake a frame he hath erected and pinned together, vpon his firme and solide foundation: Ergo, the third Estate is to lay all care to prouide remedies against apposted cut-throats, vpon the Clergy; and the said remedies (as he boldly affirms) must be deriued from the laws of conscience, which may carry an effectual acting or operatiue efficacie vpon the soule, and not from ciuil or temporall punishments. Now this consequence limpeth like a lame creple after the premises: For it is no vsuall and common matter, to see men that are deepest in obligation, performe their duties and couenants with most fidelity. Againe, were it graunted the Clergie had well hitherto demonstrated their carefull watch- ing ouer the life and honour of their Prince; yet is it not for spirituall punish- ments thundered by Ecclesiastics, to bind the hands of the ciuill Magistrate, nor to stop the current of temporall punishments: which ordinarily doe carrie a greater force and vertue to the bridling of the wicked, then the apprehension of Gods iudgement.

The third Estate therefore, by whom all the officers of France are properly represented, as to whom the administration of iustice and protection of the Kings rights and Honour doth appertaine, can deserue no blame in carrying so watch- full an eye, by their wholesome remedie to prouide for the safetie of the King, and for the dignitie of his Crowne. For if the Clergie shall not stand to their tackle, but shrinke when it commeth to the push of their duetie; who shall charge them- selves with carefull foresight and preuention of mischiefes ? Shall not the people? Now, haue not all the calamities, which the third Estate haue sought prouidently to preuent; haue they not all sprung from the Clergie, as from their proper and naturall fountaine ? From whence did the last ciuill warres, wherein a world of

blood was not more profusely then prodigiously and vnnaturally spilt, and wherein the parricide of King Henrie III. was impiously and abominably committed; from whence did those bloodie warres proceed, but from the deposing of the said King by the Head of the Church ? Were they not Prelats, Curats, and Confessours; were they not Ecclesiastics, who partly by seditious preachments, and partly by secret confessions, powred many a iarre of oyle vpon this flame ? Was not he that killed the forenamed King, was not he one of the Clergie ? Was not Guignard a Iesuite ? Was not Iohn Chastel brought vp in the same schoole? Did not Rauaillac that monster of men, vpon interrogatories made at his examination; among the rest, by whom he had beene so diabolically tempted and stirred vp to his most execrable attempt and act of extreme horror: did not he referre his examiners to the Sermons made the Lent next before, where they might be satis- fied concerning the causes of his abominable vndertaking and execution ? Are not Bellarmine, Eudaemonoiohannes, Suarez, Becanus, Mariana, with such other monsters, who teach the doctrine of parricides, vphold the craft of Ianus-like Equiuocations in Courts of Iustice, and in secret confessions: are they not all Clerics ? are not all their bookes approoued and allowed, as it were by a corpora- tion or grosse companie of Doctors, with their signes manuel to the said bookes ? What were the heads, the chiefe promoters, the complices of the powder-con- spiracie in my Kingdome ? were they not Ecclesiastics ? Hath not Faux by name, a confederate of the same damned crew; hath not he stoutly stood to the gun- ners part, which then he was to act in that most dolefull Tragedie, with asseuera- tion of a conscience well assured and setled, touching the lawfulnesse of his enter- prise? Did he not yeild this reason? to wit, because he had bin armed with instruction of musket proofe in the case, before he made passage ouer from the Low Countries ? Is it not also the generall beleefe of that Order, that Clerics are exempted from the condition of Subiects to the King ? Nay, is it not confessed by the L. Cardinall[*] himselfe, that King-killers haue ingaged themselues to vndertake the detestable act of parricide vnder a false credence of Religion, as beeing instructed by their schoolemasters in Religion ? And who were they but Ecclesiasticall persons ? All this presupposed as matter of trewth, I draw this conclusion: Howsoeuer no small number of the French Clergie may perhaps beare the affection of louing Subiects to their King, and may not suffer the Cleri- call character to deface the impression of naturall allegiance; yet, for so much as the Order of Clerics is dipped in a deeper die, and beareth a worse tincture of daungerous practises then the other Orders; the third Estate had beene greatly wanting to their excellent prouidence and wisedome, if they should haue relin- quished and transferred the care of designements and proiects for the life of their King, and the safety of his Crowne, to the Clergie alone. Moreouer, the Clergie standeth bound to referre the iudgement of all matters of controuersie, to the sentence of the Pope, in this cause beeing a partie, and one that pretendeth Crownes to depend vpon his Mitre. What hope then might the third Estate conceiue, that his Holinesse would passe against his owne cause, when his iudge- ment of the controuersie had beene sundrie times before published and testified to the world ? And whereas the plot or modell of remedies proiected by the third Estate, and the Kings Officers, hath not prooued sortable in the euent: was it because the said remedies were not good and lawfull ? No verily: but because the Clergie refused to become contributors of their duty and meanes to the grand seruice. Likewise, for that after the burning of bookes, addressed to iustifie re- bellious people, traytors, and parricides of Kings; neuerthelesse the authors of the said bookes are winked at, and backt with fauour. Lastly, for that some wretched parricides drinke off the cuppe of publike iustice; whereas to the fire- brands of sedition, the sowers of this abominable doctrine, no man saith so much as blacke is their eye.

It sufficiently appeareth, as I supose, by the former passage, that his Lordship exhorting the third Estate to referre the whole care of this Regall cause vnto the Clergie, hath tacked his frame of weake ioynts and tenons to a very worthy but wrong foundations. Howbeit, he laboureth[*] to fortifie his exhortation with a more weake and feeble reason: For to make good his proiect he affirmes, that matters and maximes out of all doubt and question may not be shuffled together with points in controueresie. Now his rules indubitable are two: The first, It is not lawfull to murther Kings for any cause whatsoeuer: This he confirmeth by the example of Saul (as he saith) deposed from his Throne, whose life or limbs Dauid neuerthelesse durst not once hurt or wrong for his life: Likewise he confirmes the same by a Decree of the Councill held at Constance: [*] His other point indu- bitable; The Kings of France are Soueraignes in all Temporall Soueraigntie, within the French Kingdome, and hold not by fealtie either of the Pope, as hau- ing received or obliged their Crownes vpon such tenure and condition, or of any other Prince in the whole world; Which point, neuerthelesse he takes not for certaine and indubitable, but onely according to humane and historicall certain- tie. Now a third point he makes to be so full of controuersie, and so farre within the circle of disputable questions, as it may not be drawne into the ranke of classicall and authenticall points, for feare of making a certaine point doubtfull, by shuffling and iumbling therewith some point in controuersie. Now the ques- tion so disputable, as he pretendeth, is this: A Christian Prince breaks his oath solemnely taken to God, both to liue and to die in the Catholique Religion: Say this Prince turnes Arrian, or Mahometan, fals to proclaime open warre, and to wage battell with Iesus Christ: Whether may such a Prince be declared to haue lost his Kingdome, and who shall declare the Subjects of such a Prince to be quit of their oath of allegiance ? The L. Cardinall holds the affirmatiue, and makes no bones to maintaine, that all other parts of the Catholique Church, yea the French Church, euen from the first birth of her Theologicall Schooles, to

Caluins time and teaching, haue professed that such a Prince may bee lawfully remooued from his Throne by the Pope, and by the Councill: and suppose the contrarie doctrine were the very Quintessence or spirit of trewth, yet might it not in case of faith be vrged and pressed otherwise then by way of problematicall disceptation. That is the summe of his Lordships ample discourse: The refuting whereof I am constrained to put off, and referre vnto an other place; because he hath serued vs with the same dishes ouer and ouer againe. There we shall see the L. Cardinall maketh way to the dispatching of Kings after deposition: that Saul was not deposed, as he hath presumed: that in the Councill of Constance there is nothing to the purpose of murthering Soueraigne Princes: that his Lord- ship, supposing the French King may be depriued of his Crowne by a superiour power, doth not hold his liege Lord to be Soueraine in France: that by the posi- tion of the French Church from aage to aage, the Kings of France are not subiect vnto any censure of deposition by the Pope: that his Holinesse hath no iust and lawfull pretence to produce, that any Christian King holds of him by fealtie, or is obliged to doe the Pope homage for his Crowne.

Well then, for the purpose; he dwelleth onely vpon the third point pretended questionable, and this hee affirmeth: If any shall condemne, or wrappe vnder the solemne curse, the abettours of the Popes power to vn-king lawfull and Soueraigne Kings; the same shall runne vpon four dangerous rocks of apparent incongruities and absurdities.

First, he shall offer to force and entangle the consciences of many deuout per- sons: For he shall binde them to beleeue and sweare that doctrine, the contrary whereof is beleeued of the whole Church, and hath bene beleeued by their Predecessors.[*]

Secondly, he shall ouerturne from top to bottome the sacred authoritie of holy Church, and shall set open a gate vnto all sorts of heresie, by allowing Lay- persons a bold libertie to be iudges in causes of Religion and Faith: For what is that degree of boldnesse, but open vsurping of the Priesthood; what is it but putting of prophane hands vpon the Arke; what is it but laying of vnholy fingers vpon the holy Censor for perfumes ?

Thirdly, hee shall make way to a Schisme, not possible to bee put by and auoyded by any humane prouidence. For this doctrine beeing held and pro- fessed by all other Catholiques; how can we declare it repugnant vnto Gods word; how can wee hold it impious; how can wee account it detestable, but wee shall renounce communion with the Head and other members of the Church; yea, we shall confesse the Church in all aages to haue bene the Synagogue of Satan, and the spouse of the Deuill ?

Lastly, by working the establishment of this Article, which worketh an estab- lishment of Kings Crownes; He shall not onely worke the intended remedy for the danger of Kings, out of all the vertue and efficacie thereof, by weakening of

doctrine out of all controuersie, in packing it vp with a disputable question; but likewise in stead of securing the life and estate of Kings, he shall draw both into farre greater hazards, by the traine or sequence of warres, and other calamities, which vsually waite and attend on Schismes.

The L. Cardinall spends his whole discourse in confirmation of these foure heads, which wee now intend to sift in order, and demonstratiuely to prooue that all the said inconueniences are meere nullities, matters of imagination, and built vpon false presuppositions. But before wee come to the maine, the reader is to be enformed and aduertised, that his Lordship setteth a false glosse vpon the question; and propounds the case not onely contrary to the treweth of the sub- iect in controuersie, but also to the Popes owne minde and meaning: For he restraines the Popes power to depose Kings, onely to cases of Heresie, Apostasie, and persecuting of the Church; whereas Popes extend their power to a further distance. They depose Princes for infringing, or in any sort diminishing the Priuiledges of Monasteries: witnesse Gregorie the first in the pretended Charter granted to the Abbey of S. Medard at Soissons; the said Charter beeing annexed to his Epistles in the rere. The same hee testifieth in his Epistle to Senator, by name the tenth of the eleuenth booke. They depose for naturall dulnesse and lacke of capacitie, wether in-bred and trew indeed, or onely pretended and imag- ined: witnesse the glorious vaunt of Gregory VII. that Childeric King of France was hoysted out of his Throne by Pope Zachary,[*] Not so much for his wicked life, as for his vnablenesse to beare the weightie burden of so great a Kingdome. They depose for collating of Benefices and Prebends: witnesse the great quarrels and sore contentions betweene Pope Innocent III. and Iohn King of England: as also between Philip the Faire and Boniface VIII. They depose for adulteries and Matrimoniall suites: witnes Philip I. for the repudiating or casting off his law- full wife Bertha, and marrying in her place with Bertrade wife to the Earle of Aniou. Finally, faine would I learne into what Heresie or degree of Apostasie, either Henry IV. or Frederic Barbarossa, or Frederic II. Emperours were fallen, when they were smitten with Papall fulminations, euen to the depriuation of their Imperiall Thrones.[*] What ? was it for Heresie or Apostasie, that Pope Martin IV. bare so hard a hand against Peter King of Arragon, that he acquitted and released the Aragonnois from their oath of Alleagiance to Peter their lawfull King ? Was it for Heresie or Apostasie, for Arrianisme or Mahumetisme, that Lewis XII. so good a King and Father of his Countrey, was put downe by Iulius the II ? Was it for Heresie or Apostasie, that Sixtus V. vsurped a power against Henrie III. euen so farr as to denounce him unkingd; the issue whereof was the parricide of that good King, and the most woefull desolation of a most flourish- ing Kingdome ? But his Lordship best liked to worke vpon that ground, which to the outward shew and appearance, is the most beautifull cause that can be al- leaged for the dishonouring of Kings by the weapon of deposition: making him-

selfe to beleeue that he acted the part of an Orator before personages not much acquainted with ancient and moderne histories, and such as little vnderstood the state of the question then in hand. It had therefore beene a good warrant for his Lordship, to haue brought some authenticall instrument from the Pope, whereby the French might haue beene secured, that his Holinesse renounceth all other causes auouchable for the degrading of Kings; and that he will henceforth rest in the case of Heresie, for the turning of Kings out of their Free-hold: as also that his Holinesse by the same or like instrument might haue certified his pleasure, that hee will not hereafter make himselfe Iudge, whether Kings bee tainted with damnable Heresie, or free from Hereticall infection. For that were to make him selfe both Iudge and Plaintiffe, that it might be in his power to call that doctrine Hereticall, which is pure Orthodoxe: and all for this end, to make himselfe master of the Kingdome, and there to settle a Successour, who receiuing the Crowne of the Popes free gift and grant, might be tyed thereby to depend altogether vpon his Holinesse. Hath not Pope Boniface VIII. declared in his proud Letters all those to be Heretiques, that dare vndertake to afirme, the collating of Prebends apperteineth to the King ? It was that Popes grosse errour, not in the fact, but in the right. The like crime forsooth was by Popes imputed to the vnhappy Em- perour Henrie IV. And what was the issue of the said imputation? The sonne is instigated thereby to rebell against his father, and to impeach the interrement of his dead corps, who neuer in his life had beate his braines to trouble the sweet waters of Theologicall fountaines. It is recorded by Auentine,[*] that Bishop Virgilius was declared Heretique, for teaching the Position of Antipodes. The Bull Exurge,[*] marching in the rere of the last Lateran Councel, sets downe this Position for one of Luthers heresies, A new life is the best repentance.[*]Among the crimes which the Councel of Constance [*] charged Pope Iohn XXIII. withall, one was this, that hee denied the immortalitie of the soule, and that so much was pub- liquely, manifestly, and notoriously knowen. Now if the Pope shall be caried by the streame of these or the like errours, and in his Hereticall prauitie shall de- pose a King of the contrary opinion, I shall hardly bee perswaded, the said King is lawfully deposed.