A Defence of the Right of Kings (1-5)

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.

THE first inconuenience growing (in the Cardinall his conceit) by entertaining the Article of the third Estate (whereby the Kings of France are declared to be indeposeable by any superiour power spirituall or temporall) is this: It offereth force to the conscience, vnder the penaltie of Anathema, to condemne a doctrine be- leeued and practised in the Church, in the continuall current of the last eleuen hun- dred yeeres. In these words he maketh a secret confession, that in the first flue hundred yeeres, the same doctrine was neither apprehended by faith, nor ap-

prooued by practise. Wherein, to my vnderstanding, the L. Cardinall volun- tarily giueth ouer the suite: For the Church in the time of the Apostles, their disciples, and successors, for 500. yeeres together, was no more ignorant what authoritie the Church is to challenge ouer Emperours and Kings, then at any time since in any succeeding aage; in which as pride hath still flowed to the height of a full Sea, so puritie of religion and manners hath kept for the most part at a lowe water marke. Which point is the rather to be considered, for that during the first 500. yeeres, the Church groned vnder the heauy burthen, both of heathen Emperours, and of hereticall Kings; the Visigot Kings in Spaine, and the Vandals in Africa. Of whose displeasure the Pope had small reason or cause to stand in any feare, beeing so remote from their dominions, and no way vnder the lee of their Soueraigntie.

But let vs come to see, what aide the L. Cardinall hath amassed and piled together out of latter histories: prouided wee still beare in mind, that our ques- tion is not of popular tumults, nor of the rebellion of subjects making insurrec- tions out of their owne discontented spirits and brainesicke humors, nor of law- full Excommunications, nor of Canonicall censures and reprehensions; but onely of a iuridicall sentence of deposition, pronounced by the Pope, as armed with ordinary and lawfull power to depose, against a Soueraigne Prince.

Now then, The L. Cardinall [*] sets on, and giues the first charge with Anasta- sius the Emperour, whom Euphemius Patriarke of Constantinople would neuer acknowledge for Emperour: (that is to say, would neuer consent he should be created Emperour by the helpe of his voice or suffrage) except he would first subscribe to the Chalcedon Creed: notwithstanding the great Empresse and Sen- ate sought by violent courses and practises to make him yeeld. And when after- ward the said Emperour, contrary to his oath taken, played the relaps by falling into his former heresie, and became a persecutor; he was first admonished, and then excommunicated by Symmachus Bishop of Rome. To this the L. Cardinall addes, that when the said Emperour was minded to choppe the poison of his hereticall assertions into the publique formes of diuine seruice, then the people of Constantinople made an vproare against Anastasius their Emperour; and one of his Commanders by force of armes, constrained him to call backe certaine Bishops whom he had sent into banishment before.

In this first example the L. Cardinall by his good leaue, neither comes close to the question, nor salutes it a farre off. Euphemius was not Bishop of Rome: Anastasius was not deposed by Euphemius; the Patriarch onely made no way to the creating of Anastasius. The suddaine commotion of the base multitude makes nothing, the rebellion of a Greeke Commaunder makes lesse, for the author- izing of the Pope to depose a Soueraigne Prince. The Greeke Emperour was ex- communicated by Pope Symmachus: who knowes whether that be trew or forged ? For the Pope himselfe is the onely witnesse here produced by the L.

Cardinall vpon the point: and who knowes not how false, how supposititious, the writings and Epistles of the auncient Popes are iustly esteemed ? But graunt it a trewth; yet Anastasius excommunicated by Pope Symmachus, is not Anastasius deposed by Pope Symmachus. And to make a full answere, I say further, that excommunication denounced by a forraine Bishop, against a party not beeing within the limits of his iurisdiction, or one of his owne flocke, was not any barre to the party from the communion of the Church, but onely a kind of publication, that he the said Bishop in his particular, would hold no further communion with any such party.

For proofe whereof, I produce the Canons of the Councils held at Carthage. In one of the said Canons it is thus prouided and ordained;[*] If any Bishop shall wilfully absent himselfe from the vsuall and accustomed Synodes, let him not be admitted to the communion of other Churches, but let him onely vfe the benefit and libertie of his owne Church. In an other of the same Canons thus; [*] If a Bishop shall insinuate himselfe to make a conueiance of his Monasterie, and the ordering thereof vnto a Monke of any other Cloister; let him be cut off, let him be sepa- rated from the communion with other Churches and content himselfe to liue in the communion of his owne flocke. In the same sense Hilarius Bishop of Poictiers excommunicated Liberius [*] Bishop of Rome, for subscribing to the Arrian Con- fession. In the same sense, Iohn Bishop of Antioch excommunicated Celestine of Rome, and Cyrill of Alexandria, Bishops; for proceeding to sentence against Nestorius, without staying his comming to answere in his owne cause. In the same sense likewise, Victor Bishop of Rome did cut off all the Bishops of the East, not from the communion of their owne flocke, but from communion with Victor and the Romane Church. What resemblance, what agreement, what propor- tion, betweene this course of excommunication, and that way of vniust fulmina- tion which the Popes of Rome haue vsurped against Kings, but yet certaine long courses of time after that auncient course ?

And this may stand for a full answere likewise to the example of Clotharius.[*] This ancient King of the French, fearing the censures of Pope Agapetus, erected the Territorie of Yuetot vnto the title of a Kingdome, by way of satisfaction for murdering of Gualter, Lord of Yuetot. For this example the L. Cardinall hath ransackt records of 900. yeares antiquitie and vpward; in which times it were no hard piece of worke to shew, that Popes would not haue any hand, nor so much as a finger in the affaires and acts of the French Kings. Gregorie of Tours that liued in the same aage, hath recorded many acts of excesse, and violent iniuries done against Bishops by their Kings, and namely against Praetextatus Bishop of Roan; for any of which iniurious prankes then played, the Bishop of

Rome durst not reprooue the said Kings with due remonstrance. But see heere the words of Gregorie himselfe to King Chilperic: If any of vs, 0 King, shall swarue from the path of Iustice, him hast thou power to punish: But in case thou shalt at any time transgresse the lines of equitie, who shall once touch thee with re- proofe ? To thee wee speake, but are neuer heeded and regarded, except it be thy pleasure: and bee thou not pleased, who shall challenge thy greatnesse, but hee that iustly challengeth to bee Iustice it selfe ? The good Bishop, notwithstanding these humble remonstrances, was but roughly entreated, and packt into exile, being banished into the Isle of Guernsay. But I am not minded to make any deepe search or inquisition, into the titles of the Lords of Yuetot; whose honourable priuiledges and titles are the most honourable badges and cognizances of their Ancestours, and of some remarkeable seruice done to the Crowne of France: so farre I take them to differ from a satisfaction for sinne: And for the purpose I onely affirme, that were the credit of this historie beyond all exception, yet makes it nothing to the present question, Wherein the power of deposing, and not of excommunicating supreme Kings, is debated. And suppose the King by Charter granted the said priuiledges for feare of Excommunication; how is it prooued thereby, that Pope Agapetus had lawfull and ordinary power to depriue him of his Crowne? Nay, doubtlesse it was rather a meanes to eleuate and aduance the dignitie of the Crowne of France, and to style the French King, a King of Kings, as one that was able to giue the qualitie of King, to all the rest of the Nobles and Gentry of his Kingdome. Doeth not some part of the Spanish Kings greatnesse, consist in creating of his, great ?

In the next place followeth Gregorie I.[*] who in the 10. Epistle of the 11. booke, confirming the priuiledges of the Hospitall at Augustodunum in Bourgongne, pro- hibiteth all Kings and Prelates whatsoeuer, to infringe or diminish the said priuiledges, in whole or in part. His formall and expresse words bee these: If any King, Prelate, Iudge, or any other Secular person, informed of this our Constuti- tion, shall presume to goe or doe contrary thereunto, let him bee cast downe from his power and dignitie. I answere; the Lord Cardinall heere wrongs himselfe very much, in taking imprecations for Decrees. Might not euen the meanest of the people vse the same tenour of words, and say ? If any shall touch the life, or the most sacred Maiestie of our Kings, be he Emperour, or be he Pope, let him bee accursed; let him fall from his eminent place of authoritie; let him lose his dignitie; let him tumble into beggerie, diseases, and all kindes of calamities ? I forbeare to shew how easie a matter it is for Monkes, to forge titles after their owne humour, and to their owne liking, for the vpholding and maintaining of their priuiledges. As for the purpose, the same Gregorie citeth in the end of his Epistles another priuiledge, of the like stuffe and stampe to the former, granted to the Abbey of S. Medard at Soissons: It is fenced with a like clause to the other; But of how great vntrewth, and of how little weight it is, the very date that it

beareth, makes manifest proofe: For it runs, Dated the yeere of our Lords In- carnation 593. the 11. Indiction; whereas the 10. Indiction agreeth to the yeere 593. Besides, it was not Gregories maner to date his Epistles, according to the yeere of the Lord. Againe, the said priuiledge was signed by the Bishops of Alexandria and Carthage, who neuer knew (as may well bee thought) whether any such Abbey of S. Medard, or citie of Soissions, was euer built in the world. Moreouer, they signed in the thickest of a crowd as it were of Italian Bishops. Lastly, hee that shall reade in this Gregories Epistles, with what spirit of reuerence and humilitie he speaketh of Emperours, will hardly beleeue that euer hee armed himselfe with authoritie to giue or to take away Kingdomes. Hee styles him- selfe [*]The Emperours vnworthie seruant: presuming to speake vnto his Lord, when he knowes himselfe to bee but dust and a very worme: Hee professeth subiection vnto the Emperours commands, euen to the publishing of a certaine Law of the Emperours which in his iudgement somewhat iarred and iustled with Gods Law; as elsewhere I haue spoken more at large.

The L. Cardinall next bringeth vpon the stage Iustinian II.[*] Hee, being in some choller with Sergius Bishop of Rome, because hee would not fauour the erroneous Synode of Constantinople, would haue caused the Bishop to bee ap- prehended by his Constable Zacharias. But by the Romane Militia, (that is, the troupes which the Emperour then had in Italie) Zacharias was repulsed and hindered from his deseigne, euen with opproborius and reproachfull termes. His Lordship must haue my shallownesse excused, if I reach not his intent by this Allegation; wherein I see not one word of deposing from the Empire, or of any sentence pronounced by the Pope.

Heere are now 712. yeeres expired after the birth of Iesus Christ: in all which long tract of time, the L. Cardinal hath not light vpon any instance, which might make for his purpose with neuer so little shew: For the example of the Emperor Philippicus[*]by the Cardinal alledged next in sequence, belongeth to the yeere 713. And thus lies the historie: This Emperour Philippicus Bardanes, was a professed enemie to the worshipping of Images, and commanded them to be broken in pieces. In that very time the Romane Empire was ouerthrowen in the West, and sore shaken by the Saracenes in the East. Besides those miseries, the Emperour was also incumbred with a ciuill and intestine warre. The greatest part of Italie was then seized by the Lombards, and the Emperour in Italie had nothing left saue onely the Exarchat of Rauenna, and the Dutchie of Rome, then halfe abandoned by reason of the Emperours want of forces. Pope Constantine gripes this occasion whereon to ground his greatnesse, and to shake off the yoke of the Emperour his Lord, Undertakes against Philippicus the cause of Images: by a Councel declares the Emperour Heretique: Prohibites his rescripts or coine

to bee receiued, and to goe current in Rome: Forbids his Imperiall statue to bee set vp in the Temple, according to ancient custome: The tumult groweth to a height: The Pope is principall promoter of the tumult: In the heate of the tumult the Exarche of Rauenna loseth his life. Here see now the mutinie of a subiect against his Prince, to pull from him by force and violence a citie of his Empire. But who seeth in all this any sentence of deposition from the Imperiall dignitie ? Nay, the Pope then missed the cushion, and was disappointed vtterly of his pur- pose: The citie of Rome stood firme, and continued still in their obedience to the Emperour.

About some 12. yeeres after, the Emperour Leo Isauricus [*] (whom the Lord of Perron calleth Iconoclast) falles'to fight it out at sharpe, and to prosecute worshippers of Images with all extremitie. Vpon this occasion, Pope Gregory 2. then treading in the steps of his predecessor, when he perceiued the citie of Rome to be but weakely prouided of men or munition, and the Emperour to haue his hands full in other places, found such meanes to make the citie rise in rebellious armes against the Emperour, that he made himselfe in short time master thereof. Thus farre the Lord Cardinall, whereunto my answere for satisfaction is; that degrading an Emperour from his Imperiall dignitie, and reducing a citie to reuolt against her Master, that a man at last may carry the piece himselfe, and make himselfe Lord thereof, are two seuerall actions of speciall difference. If the free- hold of the citie had beene conueied to some other by the Pope depriuing the Emperour, as proprietarie thereof, this example might haue challenged some credit at least in shew: but so to inuade the citie to his owne vse, and so to seize on the right and authority of another, what is it but open rebellion, and notorious ambition ? For it is farre from Ecclesiasticall censure, when the spirituall Pastor of soules forsooth, pulles the cloake of a poore sinner from his backe by violence, or cuts his purse, and thereby appropriates an other mans goods to his priuate vse. It is to be obserued withall, that when the Emperours were not of sufficient strength, and Popes had power to beard and to braue Emperours, then these Papall practises were first set on foot. This Emperour notwithstanding, turned head and peckt againe: his Lieutenant entred Rome, and Gregorie 3. successor to this Gregorie 2. was glad to honour the same Emperour with style and title of his Lord: witnesse two seuerall Epistles of the said Gregorie 3.[*] written to Boni- face, and subscribed in this forme: Dated the tenth Calends of December: In the raigne of our most pious and religious Lord, Augustus Leo, crowned of God, the great Emperour, in the tenth yeere of his raigne.

The L. Cardinall with no lesse abuse alleadgeth Pope Zacharie, by whom the French, as he affirmeth, were absolued of the oath of allegiance, wherein they stood bound to Childeric their King: And for this instance, he standeth vpon the testimonie of Paulus Aemilius, and du Tillet, a paire of late writers. But by

authors more neere that aage wherin Childeric raigned, it is more trewly testified, that it was a free and voluntarie act of the French, onely asking the aduise of Pope Zacharie, but requiring neither leaue nor absolution. Ado Bishop of Vienna, in his Chronicles hath it after this manner: The French, following the Counsell of Embassadors, and of Pope, Zachary elected Pepin their King, and established him in the Kingdome. Trithemius in his abridgement of Annals, thus: Childeric, as one vnfit for gouernement, was turned out of his Kingdome, with common consent of the Estates and Peeres of the Realme, so aduised by Zacharie Pope of Rome, God- fridus of Viterbe in the 17. part of his Chronicle; and Guauguin in the life of Pepin, affirme the same. And was it not an easie matter to worke Pepin by counsell to lay hold on the Kingdome, when he could not be hindered from fastening on the Crowne, and had already seizd it in effect, howsoeuer he had not yet attained to the name of King ? Moreouer, the rudenesse of that Nation, then wanting knowledge and Schooles either of divinitie, or of Academicall sciences, was a kind of spurre to make them runne for counsell ouer the mountaines: which neuerthelesse in a cause of such nature, they required not as necessary, but onely as decent and for fashion sake. The Pope also for his part was well appaied, by this meanes to draw Pepin vnto his part; as one that stood in some neede of his aide against the Lombards; and the more, because his Lord the Emperour of Constantinople was then brought so low, that hee was not able to send him suf- ficient aide, for the defence of his territories against his enemies. But had Zacha- rie (to deale plainely) not stood vpon the respect of his owne commodity, more then vpon the regard of Gods feare; he would neuer haue giuen counsell vnto the seruant, vnder the pretended colour of his Masters dull spirit, so to turne rebell against his Master. The Lawes prouide Gardians, or ouerseers, for such as are not well in their wits; they neuer depriue and spoile them of their estate: they punish crimes, but not diseases and infirmities by nature. Yea, in France it is a very auncient custome, when the King is troubled in his wits to establish a Regent, who for the time of the Kings disability, may beare the burden of the Kingdomes affaires. So was the practise of that State in the case of Charles 6. when hee fell into a phrensie; whom the Pope notwithstanding his most grieuous and sharpe fits, neuer offered to degrade. And to be short, what reason, what equity will beare the children to be punished for the fathers debilitie ? Yet such punishment was laid vpon Childerics whole race and house; who by this practise were all disinherited of the Kingdome. But shall wee now take some view, of the L. Cardinals excuse for this exemplarie fact ? The cause of Childerics[*] de- posing, (as the L. Cardinall saith) did neerely concerne and touch Religion: For Childerics imbecillity brought all France into danger, to suffer a most wofull shipwracke of Christian religion, vpon the barbarous and hostile inuasion of the Saracens. Admit now this reason had beene of iust weight and value, yet con- sideration should haue beene taken, whether some one or other of that Royall stemme, and of the Kings owne successors neerest of blood, was not of better capacity to rule and mannage that mighty State. The feare of vncertaine and accidentall mischiefe, should not haue driuen them to flie vnto the certaine mis- chiefe of actuall and effectuall deposition. They should rather haue set before their eies the example of Charles Martel, this Pepins father; who in a farre more eminent danger, when the Saracens had already mastered, and subdued a great part of France, valiantly encountred, and withall defeated the Saracens; ruled the Kingdome vnder the title of Steward of the Kings house, the principall Officer of the Crowne; without affecting or aspiring to the Throne for all that great step of aduantage, especially when the Saracens were quite broken, and no longer dreadfull to the French Nation.

In our owne Scotland, the sway of the Kingdome was in the hand of Walles, during the time of Bruse his imprisonment in England, who then was lawfull heire to the Crowne. This Walles or Vallas had the whole power of the King- dome at his becke and command. His Edicts and ordinances to this day stand in full force. By the deadly hatred of Bruse his mortall enemie, it may be con- iectured, that he might haue bene prouoked and inflamed with desire to trusse the Kingdome in his tallants. And notwithstanding all these incitements, he neuer assumed or vsurped other title to himselfe, then of Gouernour or Adminis- tratour of the Kingdome. The reason: Hee had not beene brought vp in this new doctrine and late discipline, whereby the Church is endowed with power to giue and to take away Crownes. But now (as the L. Cardinall would beare the world in hand) the state of Kings is brought to a very dead lift. The Pope for- sooth must send his Physicians, to know by way of inspection or some other course of Art, whether the Kings braine be cract or sound: and in case there be found any debilitie of wit and reason in the King, then the Pope must remooue and translate the Crowne, from the weaker braine to a stronger: and for the acting of the stratageme, the name of Religion must be pretended. Ho, these Heretikes be- gin to crawle in the Kingdome: order must bee taken they bee not suffered by their multitudes and swarmes, like locusts or caterpillers to pester and poison the whole Realme. Or in a case of Matrimony, thus: Ho, marriage is a Sacra- ment: touch the Order of Matrimonie, and Religion is wounded. By this deuice not onely the Kings vices, but likewise his naturall diseases and infirmities are fetcht into the circle of Religion; and the L. Cardinall hath not done himselfe right, in restraining the Popes power to depose Kings, vnto the cases of Heresie, Apostasie, and persecution of the Church.

In the next place followeth Leo III. who by setting the Imperial Crowne vpon the head of Charles, absolued all the Subiects in the West, of their obedience to the Greeke Emperours, if the L. of Perron might bee credited in this Example. But indeed it is crowded among the rest by a slie trick, and cleane contrary to the naked trewth of all histories: For it shall neuer be iustified by good historie, that so much as one single person or man (I say not one Countrey, or one people)

was then wrought or wonne by the Pope to change his copy and Lord, or from a subiect of the Greeke Emperours, to turne subiect vnto Charlemaine. Let me see but one Towne that Charlemaine recouered from the Greeke Emperours, by his right and title to his Empire in the West: No, the Greeke Emperours had taken their farewell of the West Empire long before: And therefore to nicke this vpon the tallie of Pope Leo his Acts, that he tooke away the West from the Greeke Emperour, it is euen as if one should say, that in this aage the Pope takes the Dukedome of Milan from the French Kings, or the citie of Rome from the Em- perours of Germanie, because their Predecessours in former aages had beene right Lords and gouernours of them both. It is one of the Popes ordinary and solemne practises to take away, much after the maner of his gluing. For as he giueth what he hath not in his right and power to giue, or bestoweth vpon others what is already their owne; euen so he taketh away from Kings and Emperors the possessions which they haue not in present hold and possession. After this maner he takes the West from the Greeke Emperors, when they hold nothing in the West, and lay no claime to any citie or towne of the West Empire. And what shall wee call this way of depriuation, but spoiling a naked man of his garments, and killing a man already dead ? Trew it is the Imperiall Crowne was then set on Charle- maines head by Leo the Pope: did Leo therefore giue him the Empire ? No more then a Bishop that crownes a King, at his Royall and solemne consecration, doeth giue him the Kingdome: For shall the Pope himselfe take the Popedome from the Bishop of Ostia as of his gift, because the crowning of the Pope is an Office of long time peculiar to the Ostian Bishop ? It was the custome of Emperours, to be crowned Kings of Italy by the hands of the Archbishop of Milan: did he therefore giue the Kingdome of Italy to the said Emperours ? And to returne vnto Charlemaine; If the Pope had conueyed the Empire to him by free and gracious donation, the Pope doubtlesse in the solemnitie of his coronation, would neuer haue perfourmed vnto his owne creature, an Emperour of his owne making the dueties of adoration, as Ado that liued in the same aage, hath left it on record: After the solemne prayses ended (saith Ado) the chiefe Bishop honoured him with adoration,[*] according to the custome of ancient Princes. The same is likewise put downe by Auentine,[*] in the 4. booke of his Annals of Bauaria. The like by the President Fauchet in his Antiquities: and by Monsieur Petau Counsellour in the Court of Parliament at Paris, in his Preface before the Chronicles of Eusebius, Hierome, and Sigebert.[*]It was therefore the people of Rome, that called this Charles the Great vnto the Imperiall dignitie, and cast on him the title of Em- perour. So testifieth Sigebert vpon the yeere 801. All the Romanes with one generall voice and consent, ring out acclamations of Imperiall praises to the Emperour, they crowne him by the hands of Leo the Pope, they giue him the style of Caesar and Augustus. Marianus Scotus[*] hath as much in effect: Charles was then called Augustus by the Romanes. And so Platina:[*] After the solemne seruice, Leo de- clareth and proclaimeth Charles Emperour, according to the publike Decree and gen- erall request of the people of Rome. Auentine,[*] and Sigonius in his 4. booke of the Kingdome of Italie witnesse the same. Neuerthelesse, to gratifie the L. Cardinall; Suppose Pope Leo dispossessed the Greeke Emperours of the West Empire: What was the cause? what infamous acte had they done? what prophane and irreli- gious crime had they committed ? Nicephorus and Irene, who reigned in the Greeke Empire in Charlemaines time, were not reputed by the Pope, or taken for Here- tikes. How then ? The L. Cardinall helpeth at a pinch, and putteth vs in minde, that Constantine and Leo, predecessours to the said Emperours, had beene poysoned with Heresie, and stained with persecution. Here then behold an Or- thodoxe Prince deposed: For what cause ? for Heresie forsooth, not in himselfe, but in some of his Predecessors long before. An admirable case: For I am of a contrary minde, that he was worthy of double honour, in restoring and setting vp the trewth againe, which vnder his predecessors had endured oppression, and suffered persecution. Doubtlesse Pope Siluester was greatly ouerseene, and played not well the Pope, when hee winked at Constantine the Great, and cast him not downe from his Imperiall Throne, for the strange infidelitie and Pagan- isme of Diocletian, of Maximian, and Maxentius, whom Constantine succeeded in the Empire.

From this example the L. of Perron passeth to Fulke Archbishop of Reims:[*] by whom Charles the Simple was threatned with Excommunication, and refusing to continue any longer in the fidelity and allegiance of a subject. To what pur- pose is this example ? For who can be ignorant, that all aages haue brought forth turbulent and stirring spirits, men altogether forgetfull of respect and obseruance towards their Kings, especially when the world finds them shallow and simple- witted, like vnto this Prince ? But in this example, where is there so much as one word of the Pope, or the deposing of Kings ?

Here the L. Cardinall chops in the example of Philip I.[*] King of France but mangled, and strangely disguised, as hereafter shall be shewed.

At last he leadeth vs to Gregory VII.[*] surnamed Hildebrand, the scourge of Emperours, the firebrand of warre, the scorne of his aage. This Pope, after he had (in the spirit of pride, and in the very height of all audaciousnesse) thundred the sentence of excommunication and deposition, against the Emperour Henry IIII, after he had enterprised this act without all precedent example: after he had filled all Europe with blood: this Pope, I say, sunke downe vnder the weight of his affaires, and died as a fugitiue at Salerne, ouerwhelmed with discontent

and sorrow of heart: Here lying at the point of giuing vp the ghoast, calling vnto him (as it is in Sigebert [*]) a certaine Cardinall whom he much fauoured, He con- fesseth to God, and Saint Peter, and the whole Church, that he had beene greatly de- fectiue in the Pastorall charge committed to his care; and that by the Deuils instiga- tion, he had kindled the fire of Gods wrath and hatred against mankind: Then hee sent his Confessor to the Emperour, and to the whole Church to pray for his pardon, because hee perceiued that his life was at an end. Likewise Cardinall Benno that liued in the said Gregories time, doth testifie, That so soone as he was risen out of his Chaire to excommunicate the Emperour from his Cathedrall seate: by the will of God the said Cathedrall seate, new made of strong board or plancke, did cracke and cleaue into many pieces or parts; to manifest how great and terrible Schismes had beene sowen against the Church of Christ, by an excommunication of so dangerous consequence, pronounced by the man that had sit Iudge therein. Now to bring and alleadge the example of such a man, who by attempting an act which neuer any man had the heart or face to attempt before, hath condemned all his predecessors of cowardise, or at least of ignorance, what is it else, but euen to send vs to the schoole of mightie robbers, and to seeke to correct and reforme ancient vertues by late vices ? Which Otho Frisingensis [*] calling into his owne priuate considera- tion, hee durst freely professe, that hee had not reade of any Emperour before this Henry the IIII. excommunicated or driuen out of his Imperiall Throne and King- dome by the chiefe Bishop of Rome. But if this quarrell may be tryed and fought out with weapons of examples, I leaue any indifferent reader to iudge what ex- amples ought in the cause to be of chiefest authority and weight; whether late examples of Kings deposed by Popes, for the most part neuer taking the intended effect; or auncient examples of Popes actually and effectually thrust out of their thrones by Emperours and Kings.

The Emperour Constantius expelled Liberius Bishop of Rome out of the citie: banished him as farre as Beroe, and placed Foelix in his roome.[*] Indeed Con- stantius was an Arrian, and therein vsed no lesse impious then vniust proceeding, Neuerthelesse, the auncient Fathers of the Church, doe not blame Constantius for his hard and sharpe dealing with a chiefe Bishop, ouer whom hee had no law- full power, but onely as an enemie to the Orthodoxe faith, and one that raged with extreame rigour of persecution against innocent beleeuers.

In the raigne of Valentinian the I.[*]4 and yeare of the Lord 367. the contention betweene Damasus and Vrcisinus competitors for the Bishopricke, filled the citie of Rome with a bloody sedition, in which were wickedly and cruelly murdered 137. persons. To meet with such turbulent actions, Honorius made a law extant in the Decreetalls,[*]5 the words whereof be these; If it shall happen henceforth by the temeritie of competitors, that any two Bishops be elected to the See, we straitly

charge and command that neither of both shall sit in the said See. By vertue of this Law, the same Honorius in the yeare 420. expelled Bonifacius and Eulalius,[*] com- petitors and Antipopes out of Rome, though not long after he reuoked Bonifacius and setled him in the Papall See. Theodoric the Goth King of Italy, sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Embassador to the Emperour Iustinian, called him home againe, and clapt him vp in the close prison, where he starved to death. By the same King, Peter Bishop of Altine was dispatched to Rome, to heare the cause and examine the processe of Pope Symmachus, then indited and accused of sundry crimes.[*]

King Theodatus about the yeare 537. had the seruice of Pope Agapetus, as his Embassadour to the Emperour Iustinian, vpon a treatie of peace. Agapetus dying in the time of that seruice, Syluerius is made Bishop by Theodatus. Not long after, Syluerius is driuen out by Belisarius the Emperour his Lieutenant, and sent into banishment. After Syluerius next succeedeth Vigilius, who with cur- rant coine purchased the Popedome of Belisarius. The Emperour Iustinian sends for Vigilius to Constantinpole, and receiues him there with great honour. Soone after, the Emperour takes offence at his freenesse in speaking his mind, commands him to bee beaten with stripes in manner to death, and with a roape about his necke to be drawne through the city like a thiefe, as Platina relates the historie. Nicephorus in his 26. booke, and 17. chapter, comes very neere the same relation.[*]

The Emperour Constantius, in the yeere 654. caused Pope Martin to be bound with chaines, and banished him into Chersonesus, where he ended his life. The Popes in that aage writing to the Emperours, vsed none but submissiue tearmes, by way of most humble supplications; made profession of bowing the knee be- fore their sacred Maiesties, and of executing their commaunds with entire obedi- ence; payed to the Emperours twenty pound weight of gold for their Inuestiture; which tribute was afterward released and remitted, by Constantine the Bearded, to Pope Agatho, in the yeere 679. as I haue obserued in an other place.[*]

Nay further, euen when the power and riches of the Popes was growne to great height, by the most profuse and immense munificence of Charlemayne and Lewis his sonne; the Emperours of the West did not relinquish and giue ouer the making and vnmaking of Popes, as they saw cause. Pope Adrian I. willingly submitted his necke to this yoke: and made this Law to be passed in a Councill, that in Charlemayne should rest a right and power for the Popes election, and for the gouernement of the Papall See. This Constitution is incerted in the De- cretals, Distinct. 63. Can.[*] Hadrianus, and was confirmed by the practise of many yeeres.

In the yeere of the Lord 963. the Emperour Otho tooke away the Popedome from Iohn 13. and placed Leo 8. in his roume. In like maner, Iohn 14. Gregory 5. and Siluester 2. were seated in the Papall Throne by the Othos.

The Emperour Henrie 2. in the yeere 1007. deposed three Popes, namely, Bendict 9. Siluester 3. and Gregorie 6. whom Platina doeth not sticke to call, three most detestable and vile monsters.[*] This custome continued, this practise stood in force for diuers aages, euen vntill the times of Gregorie 7. by whom the whole West was tossed and turmoiled with lamentable warres, which plagued the world, and the Empire by name with intolerable troubles and mischiefes. For after the said Gregorian warres, the Empire fell from bad to worse, and so went on to decay, till Emperours at last were driuen to beg, and receiue the Imperiall Crowne of the Pope.

The Kingdome of France met not with so rude entreatie, but was dealt withall by courses of a milder temper. Gregorie 4. about the yeere of the Lord, 832, was the first Pope that perswaded himselfe to vse the censure of Excommunication against a King of France. This Pope hauing a hand in the troublesome factions of the Realme, was nothing backward to side with the sonnes of Lewis surnamed the Courteous, by wicked conspiracie entring into a desperate course and complot against Lewis their owne father; as witnesseth Sigebert in these words, Pope Gregorie comming into France, ioyned himselfe to the sonnes against the Emperour their Father. But Annals [*] of the very same times, and hee that furbushed Aimo- nius, a Religious of S. Benedicts Order, doe testifie, that all the Bishops of France fell vpon this resolution; by no means to rest in the Popes pleasure, or to giue any place vnto his designe: and contrariwise, In case the Pope should proceed to Excommunication of their King, hee should returne out of France to Rome an ex- communicate person himselfe. The Chronicle of S. Denis hath words in this forme: The Lord Apostolicall returned answere, that hee was not come into France, for any other purpose, but onely to excommunicate the King and his Bishops, if they would bee in any sort opposite vnto the sonnes of Lewis, or disobedient vnto the will and pleasure of his Holinesse: The Prelates enformed heereof, made answere, that in this case they would neuer yeeld obedience to the Excommiuncation of the said Bishops; because it was contrary to the authoritie and aduise of the ancient Canons.

After these times, Pope Nicolas I. depriued King Lotharius of Communion (for in those times not a word of deposing) to make him repudiate or quit Val- drada, and to resume or take againe Thetherga his former wife. The Articles framed by the French vpon this point, are to bee found in the writing of Hincma- rus, Archibishop of Reims, and are of this purport; that in the iudgement of men both learned and wise, it is an ouerruled case, that as the King whatsoeuer hee shall doe, ought not by his owne Bishops to be excommunicated, euen so no for- reine Bishop hath power to sit for his Iudge: because the King is to be subject onely vnto God, and his Imperiall authoritie, who alone had the all-sufficient

power to settle him in his Kingdome. Moreouer, the Clergie addressed letters of answere vnto the same Pope, full of stinging and bitter termes, with speaches of great scorne and contempt, as they are set downe by Auentine,[*] in his Annals of Bauaria, not forbearing to call him thiefe, wolfe, and tyrant.

When Pope Hadrian tooke vpon him like a Lord, to command Charles the Bald vpon paine of interdiction, that hee should suffer the Kingdome of Lotharius to bee fully and entirely conueyed and conferred vpon Lewis his sonne; the same Hincmarus, a man of great authoritie and estimation in that aage, sent his letters conteining sundry remonstrances touching that subject: Among other matters thus he writeth, The Ecclesiastics and Seculars of the Kingdome assembled at Reims, haue affirmed and now doe affirme by way of reproach, vpbraiding, and ex- probation, that neuer was the like Mandate sent before from the See of Rome to any of our predecessours. And a little after: The chiefe Bishops of the Apostolike See, or any other Bishops of the greatest authoritie and holinesse, neuer withdrew them- selues from the presence, from the reuerend salutation, or from the conference of Emperours and Kings, whether Heretikes, or Schismatikes and Tyrants: as Con- stantius the Arrian, Iulianus the Apostata, and Maximus the Tyrant. And yet a little after; Wherefore if the Apostolike Lord bee minded to seeke peace, let him seeke it so, that he stirre no brawles, and breed no quarrels: For we are no such babes to beleeue, that we can or euer shall attaine to Gods Kingdome, unlesse wee receiue him for our King in earth, whom God himself recommendeth to vs from heauen. It is added by Hincmarus in the same place, that by the said Bishops and Lords Tem- porall, such threatning words were blowen forth, as hee is afraid once to speake and vtter. As for the King himselfe, what reckoning hee made of the Popes mandates, it appeareth by the Kings owne letters addressed to Pope Hadrianus, as we may reade euery where in the Epistles of Hincmarus. For there, after King Charles hath taxed and challenged the Pope of pride, and hit him in the teeth with a spirit of vsurpation, hee breaketh out into these words: What Hell hath cast vp this law so crosse and preposterous ? what infernal gulph hath disgorged this law out of the darkest and obscurest dennes ? a law quite contrary, and altogether repugnant vnto the beaten way shewed vs in the holy Scriptures, &c. Yea, he flatly and peremptorily forbids the Pope, except he meane or desire to be recompensed with dishonour and contempt, to send any more the like Mandates, either to himselfe, or to his Bishops.

Vnder the reigne of Hugo Capetus and Robert his sonne, a Councell now extant in all mens hands, was held and celebrated at Reims by the Kings authoritie. There Arnulphus Bishop of Orleans, then Prolocutor and Speaker of the Councel, calls the Pope Antichrist, and lets not also to paint him forth like a monster: as well for the deformed and vgly vices of that vnholy See, which then were in their exaltation, as also because the Pope then wonne with presents, and namely with certaine goodly horses, then presented to his Holinesse, tooke part against

the King, with Arnulphus Bishop of Reims, then dispossessed of his Pastorall charge.

When Philip I. had repudiated his wife Bertha, daughter to the Earle of Hol- land; and in her place had also taken to wife Bertrade the wife of Fulco Earle of Aniou yet being aliue; hee was excommunicated, and his Kingdome interdicted by Vrbanus then Pope, (though he was then bearded with an Antipope) as the L. Cardinal here giueth vs to vnderstand. But his Lordship hath skipt ouer two principall points recorded in the historie. The first is, that Philip, was not de- posed by the Pope: whereupon it is to be inferred, that in this passage there is nothing materiall to make for the Popes power against a Kings Throne and Scep- ter. The other point is, that by the censures of the Pope, the course of obedience due to the King before was not interrupted, nor the King disauowed, refused, or disclaimed: but on the contrary, that Iuo of Charytres taking Pope Vrbanus part, was punished for his presumption, dispoyled of his estate, and kept in prison: whereof he makes complaint himselfe in his 19. and 20. Epistles. The L. Cardinall besides, in my vnderstanding for his Masters honour, should haue made no words of interdicting the whole Kingdome. For when the Pope, to giue a King chastise- ment, doeth interdict his Kingdome, hee makes the people to beare the punish- ment of the Kings offence: For during the time of interdiction, the Church doores through the whole Kingdome are kept continually shut and lockt vp: publike service is intermitted in all places: bels euery where silent: Sacraments not ad- ministred to the people: bodies of the dead so prostituted and abandoned, that none dares burie the said bodies in holy ground. More, it is beleeued, that a man dying vnder the curse of the interdict (without some speciall indulgence or priui- ledge) is for euer damned and adiudged to eternall punishments, as one that dyeth out of the communion of the Church. Put case then the interdict holdeth and continueth for many yeares together; alas, how many millions of poore soules are damned, and goe to hell for an others offence ? For what can, or what may the faltlesse and innocent people doe withall, if the King will repudiate his wife, and she yet liuing, ioyne himselfe in matrimonie to an other ?

The Lord Cardinall after Philip the I. produceth Philippus Augustus,[*] who hauing renounced his wife Ingeberga daughter to the King of Denmarke, and marrying with Agnes daughter to the Duke of Morauia, was by Pope Innocent the third interdicted himselfe and his whole Kingdome. But his Lordshippe was not pleased to insert withall, what is auerred in the Chronicle of Saint Denis: that Pope Caelestinus 3. sent forth two Legats at once vpon this errand: [*] Who being come into the assemblie and generall Council of all the French Prelats, became like dumbe dogs that can not barke, so as they could not bring the seruice which they had undertaken to any good passe, because they stood in a bodily feare of their owne hydes. Not long after, the Cardinall of Capua was in the like taking: For hee durst nor bring the Realme within the limits of the interdict, before hee was got out of the

limits of the Kingdome. The King herewith incensed, thrust all the Prelates that had giuen consent vnto these proceedings out of their Sees, confiscated their goods, &c. To the same effect is that which wee reade in Matthew Paris. After the Pope had giuen his Maiestie to vnderstand by the Cardinal of Anagnia, that his kingdome should be interdicted, vnlesse he would be reconciled to the King of England; the King returned the Pope this answere, that he was not in any sort afraid of the Popes sentence, for as much as it could not be grounded vpon any equitie of the cause: and added withall, that it did no way appertaine vnto the Church of Rome to sentence Kings, especially the King of France. And this was done, saith Iohannes Tilius Register in Court of Parliament of Paris, by the counsell of the French Barons.

Most notable is the example of Philip the faire, and hits the bird in the right eye. In the yeere 1032. the Pope dispatched the Archbishop of Narbona with mandates into France, commanding the King to release the Bishop of Apamia then detained in prison, for contumelious words tending to the Kings defamation, and spoken to the Kings owne head. In very deed this Pope had conceiued a secret grudge, and no light displeasure against King Philip before: namely, be- cause the King had taken vpon him the collation of Benefices, and other Eccle- siastical dignities. Vpon which occasion the Pope sent letters to the King of this tenour and style: Feare God, and keepe his Commandements: Wee would haue thee know, that in Spirituall and Temporall causes thou art subiect vnto our selfe: that collating of Benefices and Prebends, doeth not in any sort appertaine to thy office and place: that, in case as keeper of the Spiritualties, thou haue the custodie of Benefices and Prebends in thy hand when they become voyd, thou shalt by sequestra- tion reserue the fruits of the same, to the vse and benefit of the next Incumbents and successors: and in case thou hast heretofore collated any, we ordaine the said colla- tions to be meerely void: and so farre as herein thou hast proceeded to the fact, we reuoke the said collations. We hold them for hereticks whosoeuer are not of this beliefe. A Legate comes to Paris, and brings these brauing letters: By some of the Kings faithfull seruants they are violently snatched and pulled out of the Legates hands: by the Earle of Artois they are cast into the fire. The good King answeres the Pope, and payes him in as good coyne as he had sent. Philip by the grace of God King of the French, to Boniface calling and bearing himselfe the Soueraigne Bishop, little greeting or none at all. May thy exceeding sottishnesse vnderstand, that in Temporall causes we are not subiect vnto any mortall and earthly creature: that collating of Benefices and Prebends, by Regall right appertaineth to our office and place: that appropriating their fruits when they become void, belongeth to our selfe alone during their vacancie: that all collations by vs heretofore made, or to bee made hereafter, shall stand in force: that in the validitie and vertue of the said collations, wee will euer couragiously defend and maintaine, all Incumbents and possessors of Benefices and Prebends so by vs collated. We hold them all for sots and senselesse, whosoeuer are not of this beliefe. The Pope incensed herewith, excom-

municates the King: but no man dares publish that censure, or become bearer thereof. The King notwithstanding the said proceedings of the Pope, assembles his Prelates, Barons, and Knights at Paris: askes the whole assembly, of whom they hold their Fees, with al other the Temporalties of the Church. They make answere with one voice, that in the said matters they disclaime the Pope, and know none other Lord beside his Maiestie. Meane while the Pope worketh with Germainie and the Low Countreis, to stirre them vp against France. But Philip sendeth William of Nogaret into Italy. William by the direction and aide of Sciarra Columnensis, takes the Pope at Anagnia, mounts him vpon a leane ill- fauoured iade, caries him prisoner to Rome; where ouercome with choller, anguish and great indignation, he takes his last leaue of the Popedome and his life. All this notwithstanding, the King presently after, from the successours of Boniface receiues very ample and gratious Bulls, in which the memorie of all the former passages and actions is vtterly abolished. Witnesse the Epistle of Clement 5.[*] wherein this King is honoured with praises, for a pious and religious Prince, and his Kingdome is restored to the former estate. In that aage the French Nobilitie caried other maner of spirits, then the moderne and present Nobilitie doe: I meane those by whom the L. Cardinal was applauded and assisted in his Oration. Yea, in those former times the Prelates of the Realme stood better affected towards their King, then the L. Cardinal himselfe now standeth: who could finde none other way to daily with, and to shift off this pregnant example, but by plaine glosing, that heresie and Apostasie was no ground of that question, or subiect of that controuersie. Wherein hee not onely condemnes the Pope, as one that proceeded against Philip without a iust cause & good ground, but likewise giues the Pope the Lie, who in his goodly letters but a little aboue recited, hath enrowled Philip, in the list of heretiques. Hee saith moreouer, that indeed the knot of the question was touching the Popes pretence, in challenging to himselfe the temporall Soueraigntie of France, that is to say, in qualifying himselfe King of France: But indeed and indeed no such matter to be found. His whole pre- tence was the collating of Benefices, and to pearch aboue the King, to crow ouer his Crowne in Temporall causes. At which pretence his Holinesse yet aimeth, still attributing and challenging to himselfe plenarie power to depose the King. Now if the L. Cardinal shall yet proceed to cauill, that Boniface the eighth was taken by the French for an vsurper, and no lawfull Pope, but for one that crept into the Papacie by fraud and symonie; he must be pleased to set downe positiuely who was Pope, seeing that Boniface then sate not in the Papall chaire. To conclude, If hee that creepeth and stealeth into the Papacie by symonie, by canuases or labouring of suffrages vnder hand, or by bribery, be not lawfull Pope; I dare be bold to professe, there will hardly be found two lawfull Popes in the three last aages.

Pope Benedict in the yeere 1408. being in choller with Charles the sixt,[*] be- cause Charles had bridled and curbed the gainefull exactions and extorsions of the Popes Court, by which the Realme of France had bene exhausted of their treasure, sent an excommunicatorie Bull into France, against Charles the King, and all his Princes. The Vnuiersitie of Paris made request or motion that his Bull might be mangled, and Pope Benedict himselfe, by some called Petrus de Luna, might be declared heretike, schismatike, and perturber of the peace. The said Bull[*] was mangled and rent in pieces, according to the petition of the Vniuersitie, by Decree of Court vpon the tenth of Iune, 1408. Tenne dayes after, the Court rising at eleuen in the morning, two Bul-bearers of the said excommunicatorie censure vnderwent ignominious punishment vpon the Palace or great Hal staires. From thence were led to the Louure in such maner as they had bene brought from thence before: drawne in two tumbrels, clad in coates of painted linnen, wore paper-mytres on their heads, were proclaimed with sound of Trumpet, and euery where disgraced with publike derision: So litle reckoning was made of the Popes thundering canons in those dayes. And what would they haue done, if the said Buls had imported sentence of deposition against King Charles?

The French Church assembled at Tours in the yeere 1510. decreed that Lewis XII. might with safe conscience contemne the abusiue Bulls, and vniust censures of Pope Iulius the II. and by armes might withstand the Popes vsurpations, in case hee should proceed to excommunicate or depose the King. More, by a Councill holden at Pisa, this Lewis declared the Pope to bee fallen from the Pope- dome, and coyned crownes with a stampe of this inscription, I will destroy the name of Babylon. To this the L. of Perron makes answere, that all this was done by the French, as acknowledging these iars to haue sprung not from the fountaine of Religion, but from passion of state. Wherein he condemneth Pope Iulius, for gluing so great scope vnto his publike censures, as to serue his ambition, and not rather to aduance Religion. He secretly teacheth vs besides, that when the Pope vndertakes to depose the King of France, then the French are to sit as Iudges concerning the lawfulnesse or vnlawfulnesse of the cause; and in case they shall finde the cause to be vnlawfull, then to disanull his iudgements, and to scoffe at his thunderbolts. Iohn d'Albret King of Nauarre, whose Realme was giuen by the foresaid Pope to Ferdinand King of Arragon, was also wrapped and entangled with strict bands of deposition. Now if the French had bene touched with no better feeling of affection to their King, then the subiects of Nauarre were to the Nauarrois; doubtlesse France had sought a new Lord, by vertue of the Popes (as the L. Car- dinall himselfe doeth acknowledge and confesse) vniust sentence. But behold, to make the said sentence against Iohn d'Albret seeme the lesse contrary to equitie,

the L. Cardinall pretends, the Popes donation was not indeed the principall cause,[*] howsoeuer Ferdinand himselfe made it his pretence. But his Lo. giues this for the principall cause: that Iohn d'Albret had quitted his alliance made with con- dition; that in case the Kings of Nauarre should infringe the said alliance, and breake the league, then the kingdome of Nauarre should returne to the Crowne of Arragon. This condition, betweene Kings neuer made, and without all shew of probabilitie, serueth to none other purpose from the Cardinals mouth, but onely to insinuate and worke a perswasion in his King, that he hath no right nor lawfull pretension to the Crowne of Nauarre: and whatsoeuer hee now holdeth in the said kingdome of Nauarre, is none of his owne, but by vsurpation and vn- lawfull possession. Thus his Lordship French-borne, makes himselfe an Aduo- cate for the Spanish King, against his owne King, and King of the French: who shalbe faine, as hee ought (if this Aduocats plea may take place) to draw his title and style of King of Nauarre out of his Royall titles, and to acknowledge that all the great endeuours of his predecessors to recouer the said Kingdome, were dis- honourable and vniust. Is it possible, that in the very heart and head Citie of France, a spirit and tongue so licentious can be brooked ? What, shall so great blasphemie (as it were) of the Kings freehold, bee powred foorth in so honourable an assembly, without punishment or fine ? What, without any contradiction for the Kings right, and on the Kings behalfe ? I may perhaps confesse the indignitie might bee the better borne, and the pretence alledged might passe for a poore excuse, if it serued his purpose neuer so little. For how doeth all this touch or come neere the question ? in which the Popes vsurpation in the deposing of Kings, and the resolution of the French in resisting this tyrannicall practise, is the proper issue of the cause: both which points are neuer a whit more of the lesse consequence and inportance, howsoeuer Ferdinand in his owne iustification stood vpon the foresaid pretence. Thus much is confessed, and wee aske no more: Pope Iulius tooke the Kingdome from the one, and gaue it vnto the other: the French thereupon resisted the Pope, and declared him to be fallen from the Papacie.

This noble spirit and courage of the French, in maintayning the dignitie and honour of their Kings Crownes, bred those ancient customes, which in the se- quence of many aages haue bene obserued and kept in vse. This for one: That no Legate of the Pope, nor any of his rescripts nor mandates,[*] are admitted and receiued in France, without licence from the King: and vnlesse the Legate impart his faculties to the Kings Atturney Generall, to be perused and verified in Court of Parliament: where they are to be tyed by certaine modifications and restrictions, vnto such points as are not derogatorie from the Kings right, from the liberties of the Church, and from the ordinances of the Kingdome. When Cardinal Balua,[*] contrary to this ancient forme, entred France in the yeere 1484. and there

without leaue of the King did execute the office, & speed certaine Acts of the Popes Legate; the Court vpon motion made by the Kings Atturney Generall, decreed a Commission, to be informed against him by two Councellors of the the said Court, and inhibited his further proceeding to vse any facultie or power of the Popes Legate, vpon paine of beeing proclamied rebell.

In the yeere 1561. Iohannes Tanquerellus Batchelour in Diuinitie, by order of the Court was condemned to make open confession, that hee had indiscreetly and rashly[*] without consideration defended this proposition, The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, a Monarke that hath power both Spirituall and Secular, and he may depriue Princes, which rebell against his commandements, of their dignities. Which pro- position, howsoeuer he protested that he had propounded the same onely to be argued, and not iudicially to be determined[*] in the affirmatiue, Tanquerellus neuer- thelesse was compelled openly to recant. Here the L. Cardinall answeres; The historie of Tanquerellus is from the matter, because his proposition treateth neither of Heresie nor of Infidelitie: but I answere, The said proposition treateth of both, forasmuch as it maketh mention of disobedience to the Pope. For I suppose hee will not denie, that whosoeuer shall stand out in Heresie, contrary to the Popes monitorie proceedings, he shal shew but poore and simple obedience to the Pope. Moreouer, the case is cleare by the former examples, that no Pope will suffer his power to cast downe Kings, to be restrained vnto the cause of Heresie and Infidelitie.

In the heate of the last warres, raised by that holy-prophane League, admoni- tory Bulls were sent by Pope Gregorie 14. from Rome, Anno 1591. By these Bulls King Henrie 4. as an Heretike and relapse, was declared incapable of the Crowne of France, and his Kingdome was exposed to hauocke and spoile. The Court of Parliament being assembled at Tours the 5. of August, decreed the said admoni- torie Bulls to bee cancelled, torne in pieces, and cast into a great fire by the hand of the publike executioner. The Arrest it selfe or Decree is of this tenour: The Court duely pondering and approoying the concluding and unanswerable reasons of Kings Attorney Generall, hath declared, and by these present doeth declare, the ad- monitorie Bulls giuen at Rome the 1. of March 1591. to be of no validitie, abusiue, seditious, damnable, full of impietie and impostures, contrary to the holy decrees, rights, franchises, and liberties of the French Church: doeth ordeine the Copies of the said Bulls, sealed with the seale of Marsilius Landrianus, and signed Septilius Lamprius, to bee rent in pieces by the publike executioner, and by him to be burnt in a great fire to be made for such purpose, before the great gates of the common Hall or Palace, &c. Then, euen then the L. of Perron was firme for the better part, and stood for his King against Gregorie the Pope, notwithstanding the crime of heresie pretended against Henrie his Lord.

All the former examples by vs alledged, are drawen out of the times after Schooles of Diuinitie were established in France: For I thought good to bound my

selfe within those dooles and limits of time, which the L. Cardinal himselfe hath set. Who goeth not sincerely to worke and in good earnest, where he telleth vs there be three instances (as if wee had no more) obiected against Papall power, to remooue Kings out of their chaires of State: by name, the example of Philip the Faire,[*] of Lewis XII. and of Tanquerellus: For in very trewth all the former examples by vs produced, are no lesse pregnant and euident, howsoeuer the L. Cardinall hath bene pleased to conceale them all for feare of hurting his cause.

Nay, France euen in the dayes of her sorest seruitude, was neuer vnfurnished of great Diuines, by whom this vsurped power of the Pope, ouer the Temporalties and Crownes of Kings, hath beene vtterly misliked and condemned. Robert Earle of Flanders was commanded by Pope Paschal [*]. to persecute with fire and sword the Clergie of Liege, who then adhered and stood to the cause of the Emperour Henrie 4. whom the Pope had ignominiously deposed. Robert by the Popes order and command, was to handle the Clergie of Liege in like sort as before hee had serued the Clergie of Cambray, who by the said Earle had beene cruelly stript both of goods and life: The Pope promised the said Earle and his army pardon of their sinnes for the said execution. The Clergie of Liege addressed answere to the Pope at large: They cried out vpon the Church of Rome, and called her Babylon: Told the Pope home, that God had commanded to giue vnto Caesar that which is Caesars: that euery soule must bee subiect vnto the superiour powers: that no man is exempted out of this precept: and that euery oath of alleagiance is to be kept inuiolable; yea, that hereof they themselues are not ignorant, in as much as they by a new Schisme, and new traditions, making a separation and rent of the Priesthood from the Kingdome, doe promise to absolue of periurie, such as haue perfidiously forsworne themselues against their King. And whereas by way of despight and in opprobrious maner, they were excom- municated by the Pope, they gaue his Holinesse to vnderstand, that Dauids heart had vttered a good matter, but Paschals heart had spewed vp sordid and railing words, like old bawdes and spinsters or websters of linnen, when they scold and brawle one with another. Finally, they reiected his Papal excommunication, as a sentence giuen without discretion. This was the voyce and free speach of that Clergie, in the life time of their noble Emperour: But after hee was thrust out of the Em- pire by the rebellion of his owne sonne, instigated and stirred vp thereunto by the Popes perswasion and practise, and was brought vnto a miserable death; it is no matter of wonder, that for the safegard of their life, the said Clergie were driuen to sue vnto the Pope for their pardon. Hildebert2 Bishop of Caenomanum vpon the riuer of Sartre, liuing vnder the reigne of King Philip the first, affirmeth in his Epistles 40. and 75. that Kings are to bee admonished and instructed, rather then punished: to be dealt with by counsell rather then by command, by doctrine and instruction, rather then by correction: For no such sword belongeth to the Church, because the sword of the Church is Ec-

clesisticall discipline, and nothing else. Bernard[*] writeth to Pope Eugenius after this manner: Whosoeuer they bee that are of this mind and opinion, shall neuer be able to make proofe, that anyone of the Apostles did euer sit in qualitie of Iudge or Diuider of lands. I reade where they haue stood to bee iudged, but neuer where they sate downe to giue iudgement. Againe, Your authoritie stretcheth vnto crimes, not vnto possessions: because you haue receiued the keies of the kingdome of heauen, not in regard of possessions, but of crimes, to keepe all that pleade by couin or collu- sion, and not lawfull possessors, out of the heauenly kingdome. A little after: These base things of the earth are iudged by the Kings and Princes of this world: wherefore doe you thrust your sickle into an others haruest? wherefore doe you incroach and intrude vpon an others limits? Elsewhere: The Apostles are directly forbid to make themselues Lords and rulers. Goe thou then, and beeing a Lord vsurpe Apostleship, or beeing an Apostle vsurpe Lordship. If thou needs wilt haue both, doubtlesse thou shalt haue neither.[*]

Iohannes Maior Doctor of Paris: [*] The Soueraugne Bishop hath no temporall authoritie ouer Kings. The reason: Because it followes (the contrarie being once granted) that Kings are the Popes vassals. Now let other men iudge, whether he that hath power to dispossesse Kings of all their Temporalties, hath not like- wise authoritie ouer their Temporalties.

The same Author:[*] The Pope hath no manner of title ouer the French or Spanish Kings in temporall matters. Where it is further added, That Pope Innocent 3. hath beene pleased to testifie, that Kings of France in Temporall causes doe acknowledge no superiour: For so the Pope excused himselfe to a certaine Lord of Montpellier, who in stead of suing to the King, had petitioned to the Pope for a dispensation for his bastard. But perhaps (as he speaketh) it will be alledged out of the glosse, that hee acknowledgeth no superiour by fact, and yet ought by right. But I tell you the glosse is an Aurelian glosse, which marres the text. Amongst other arguments, Maior brings this for one: This opinion ministreth matter vnto Popes, to take away an others Empire by force and violence: which the Pope shall neuer bring to passe, as we reade of Boniface 8. against Philip the Faire: Saith besides, That from hence proceede warres, in time of which many outragious mischiefes are done, and that Gerson calls them egregious flatterers by whom such opinion is main- tained. In the same place Maior denies that Childeric was deposed by Pope Zacharie: The word, Hee deposed, saith Maior, is not so to bee understood, as it is taken at the first blush or sight; but hee deposed, is thus expounded in the glosse, Hee gaue his consent vnto those by whom he was deposed.

Iohn of Paris: [*] Were it graunted that Christ was armed with Temporall power, yet he committed no such power to Peter. A little after: The power of Kings is the highest power vpon earth: in Temporall causes it hath no superiour power aboue it selfe, no more then the Pope hath in spirituall matters. This author saith indeede,

the Pope hath power to excommunicate the King; but he speaketh not of any power in the Pope to put downe the King from his regall dignity and authority: He onely saith, When a Prince is once excommunicated, hee may accidentally or by occasion be deposed: because his precedent excommunication, incites the people to disarme him of all secular dignity and power. The same Iohn on the other side holdeth opinion; that in the Emperour there is inuested a power to de- pose the Pope, in case the Pope shall abuse his power.

Almainus[*] Doctor of the Sorbonic schoole: It is essentiall in the Lay-power to inflict ciuill punishment, as death, banishment, and priuation or losse of goods. But according to diuine institution, the power Ecclesiasticall can lay no such punish- ment vpon delinquents: nay more, not lay in prison, as to some Doctors it seemeth probable: but stretcheth and reacheth onely to spirituall punishment, as namely to excommunication: all other punishments inflicted by the spirituall power, are meerely by the Lawe positiue.[*] If then Ecclesiasticall power by Gods Lawe hath no au- thoritie to depriue any priuate man of his goods; how dares the Pope and his flatterers build their power to depriue Kings of their scepters vpon the word of God ?

The same author in an other place:[*] Bee it graunted that Constantine had power to giue the Empire vnto the Pope; yet is it not hereupon to bee inferred, that Popes haue authority ouer the Kingdome of France, because that Kingdome was neuer subiect vnto Constantine: For the King of France neuer had any superiour in Tem- porall matters. A little after: It is not in any place to bee found, that God hath giuen the Pope power to make and vnmake Temporall Kings.

He maintaineth elsewhere,[*] that Zacharie did not depose Childeric, but onely consented to his deposing; and so deposed him not as by authoritie. In the same booke,[*] taking vp the words of Occam, whom he styles the Doctor: The Em- perour is the Popes Lord in things Temporall, and the Pope calls him Lord, as it is witnessed in the body of the Text.[*] The Lord Cardinall hath dissembled and con- cealed these words of Doctor Almainus, with many like places: and hath beene pleased to alledge Almainus reciting Occams authoritie, in stead of quoting Al- mainus himselfe in those passages, where he speaketh as out of his owne opinion, and in his owne words. A notable piece of slie and cunning conueiance: For what heresie may not be fathered and fastened vpon S. Augustine, or S. Hierome, if they should be deemed to approoue all the passages which they alledge out of other authors ? And that is the reason wherefore the L. Cardinall doeth not al- ledge his testimonies whole and perfect, as they are couched in their proper texts, but clipt and curtaild. Thus he dealeth euen in the first passage or testimonie of

Almainus; he brings it in mangled and pared: he hides and conceales the words added by Almainus, to contradict and crosse the words going before: For Al- mainus makes this addition and supply; Howsoeuer some other Doctors doe stand for the negatiue, and teach the Pope hath power onely to declare that Kings and Princes are to be deposed. And so much appeareth by this reason; because this ample and Soueraigne power of the Pope, might giue him occasion to be puft vp with great pride, and the same fulnesse of power might prooue extremely hurtfull to the subiects, &c.

The same Almainus [*] brings in Occams opinion in expresse tearmes deciding the question, and there ioynes his owne opinion with Occams. The Doctors opin- ion, saith Almainus, doeth simply carrie the most probabilitie; that a Pope hath no power, neither by excommunication, nor by any other meanes, to depose a Prince from his Imperiall and Royall dignitie. And a little before [*] hauing maintained the Greeke Empire was neuer transported by the Pope to the Germaines, and that when the Pope crownes the Emperour, he doeth not giue him the Empire, no more then the Archbishop of Reims when he crownes the king of France, doth giue him the kingdome; he drawes this conclusion according to Occams opinion: I denie that an Emperour is bound by oath to promise the Pope allegiance. On the other side, if the Pope hold any Temporall possessions, hee is bound to sweare alle- giance vnto the Emperour, and to pay him tribute. The said Occam alledged by Almainus doeth further auerre, that Iustinian was acknowledged by the Pope for his superiour in Temporall causes: for as much as diuers Lawes which the Pope is bound to keepe and obserue, were enacted by Iustinian; as by name the Law of prescription for an hundred yeeres: which Law standeth yet in force against the Bishop of Rome. And to the end that all men may clearely see, how great distance there is betweene Occams opinion and the L. Cardinals, who to- wards the end of his Oration, exhorts his hearers at no hand to dissent from the Pope; take you here a view of Occams owne words, as they are alledged by Al- mainus: [*] The Doctor assoyles the arguments of Pope Innocent, by which the Pope would prooue out of these words of CHRIST, Whatsoeuer thou shalt binde, &c. that fulnesse of power in Temporall matters, belongeth to the Soueraigne Bishop: For Innocent saith, Whatsoeuer, excepteth nothing: But Occam assoyles Innocents authoritie, as not onely false, but also hereticall; and saith withall, that many things are spoken by Innocent, which by his leaue sauour and smell of heresie, &c.

The L. Cardinall [*] with lesse fidelitie alledgeth two places out of Thomas his Summe. The first, in the second of his second, Quest. 10. Art. 10. in the body of the Article; In which place (let it bee narrowly examined) Thomas will easily bee found to speake, not of the subiection of beleeuing Subiects vnder Infidel Kings, as the Lord Cardinall pretendeth, but of beleeuing seruants that liue vnder Mas- ters, whether Iewes or Infidels: As when a Iew keepeth seruants which professe

Iesus Christ; or as when some of the faithfull kept in Caesars house; who are not considered by Thomas as they were subiects of the Empire, but as they were seruants of the family. The other place is taken out of Quest. 1. and 2. Art. in the body of the article: where no such matter as the L. Cardinal alledgeth can be found.

With like fidelitie he taketh Gerson in hand:[*] who indeed in his booke of Ec- clesiasticall power, and 12. Consider. doeth affirme, When the abuse of Secular power redoundeth to manifest impugning of the faith, and blaspheming of the Creator, then shall it not bee amisse to haue recourse vnto the last branch of this 12. Con- sider. where, in such case as aforesaid, a certaine regitiue, directiue, regulative, and ordainatiue authoritie is committed to the Ecclesiasticall power. His very words: which make no mention at all of deposing, or of any compulsiue power ouer Soueraigne Princes: For that forme of rule and gouernment whereof Gerson speaketh, is exercised by Ecclesiasticall censures and excommunications; not by losse of goods, of Kingdomes, or of Empires. This place then is wrested by the L. Cardinall to a contrary sense. Neither should his Lordship haue omitted, that Gerson, in the question of Kings subiection in Temporall matters, or of the dependance of their Crownes vpon the Popes power, excepteth alwayes the King of France: witnesse that which Gerson a little before the place alleadged by the Cardinall, hath plainely affirmed: Now since Peters time, saith Gerson, all Im- periall, Regall, and Secular power is not immediatly to draw vertue and strength from the Soueraigne Bishop: as in this maner the most Christian King of France hath no Superiour, nor acknowledgeth any such vpon the face of the earth. Now here need no great sharpenesse of wit for the searching out of this deepe mysterie; that if the Pope hath power to giue or take away Crowns for any cause or any pretended occasion whatsoeuer, the Crowne of France must needs depend vpon the Pope.

But for as much as we are now hit in with Gerson, we will examine the L. Cardi- nals allegations [*] towards the end of his Oration, taken out of Gersons famous Oration made before Charles the 6. for the Vniuersitie of Paris: where he brings in Gerson to affirme, That killing a Tyrant is a sacrifice acceptable to God. But Gerson (let it be diligently noted) there speaketh not in his owne person: he there brings in sedition speaking the words: Of which wordes vttered by sedition, and other like speeches, you shall now heare what iudgement Gerson himselfe hath giuen. When sedition had spoken with such a furious voyce, I turned away my face as if I had bene smitten with death, to shew that I was not able to endure her madnesse any longer. And indeed when dissimulation on the one side, and sedition on the other, had suggested the deuises of two contrary extremes, hee brings foorth Discretion as a Iudge, keeping the meane betweene both extremes, and vttering those words which the L. Cardinall alledgeth against himselfe. If the head, (saith

Gerson) or some other member of the ciuill body, should grow to so desperate a passe, that it would gulpe and swallow downe the deadly poyson of tyrannie; euery member in his place, with all power possible for him to raise by expedient meanes, and such as might preuent a greater inconuenience, should set himselfe against so madde a purpose, and so deadly practise: For if the head be grieued with some light paine; it is not fit for the hand to smite the head: no that were but afoolish and a mad part: Nor is the hand forthwith to chop off or separate the head from the body, but rather to cure the head with good speach and other meanes, like a skilfull and wise Physitian: Yea nothing would be more cruel or more voyd of reason, then to seeke to stop the strong and violent streame of tyrannie by sedition. These words, me thinke, doe make very strongly and expresly against butchering euen of Tyrannical Kings. And whereas a little after the said passage, he teacheth to expell Tyrannie, he hath not a word of expelling the Tyrant, but onely of breaking and shaking off the yoke of Tyrannie. Yet for all that, he would not haue the remedies for the repressing of Tyrannie, to be fetcht from the Pope, who presumeth to degrade Kings, but from Philosophers, Lawyers, Diuines, and personages of good conuersation. It appeareth now by all that hath bin said before, that whereas Gerson in the 7. Considerat. against Flatterers, doeth affirme: Whensoeuer the Prince doeth manifestly pursue and prosecute his naturall subiects, and shew himselfe obstinately bent with notorious iniustice, to vexe them of set purpose, and with full consent, so farre as to the fact; then this rule and law of Nature doeth take place, It is lawfull to resist and repell force by force; and the sentence of Seneca, There is no sacrifice more acceptable to God, then a tyrant offered in sacrifice; the words, doeth take place, are so to be vnderstood, as he speaketh in another passage, to wit, with or amongst seditious persons. Or else the words, doeth take place, doe onely signifie, is put in practise. And so Gerson there speaketh not as out of his owne iudgement.

His Lordship also should not haue balked and left out Sigebertus, who with more reason might haue passed for French, then Thomas and Occam, whom hee putteth vpon vs for French. Sigebertus in his Chronicle vpon the yeere 1088. speaking of the Emperours deposing by the Pope, hath words of this tenour: This Heresie was not crept out of the shell in those dayes, that his Priests, who hath said to the King Apostata, and maketh an hypocrite to rule for the sinnes of the people, should teach the people they owe no subiection vnto wicked Kings, nor any alleagiance, notwithstanding they haue taken the oath of alleagiance.

Now after the L. Cardinall hath coursed in this maner through the histories of the last aages (which in case they all made for his purpose, doe lacke the weight of authority) in stead of searching the will of God in the sacred Oracles of his word and standing vpon examples of the ancient Church; at last, leauing the troupe of his owne allegations, he betakes himselfe to the sharpening and rebating of the points of his aduersaries weapons.

For the purpose, he brings in his aduersaries, the champions of Kings Crownes, & makes them to speake out of his own mouth (for his Lordship saith it will be

obiected) after this manner:[*] It may come to passe, that Popes either caried with passion, or misled by sinister information, may without iust cause fasten vpon Kings the imputation of heresie or apostasie. Then for King-deposers he frames this answere: That by heresie they vnderstand notorious heresie, and formerly condemned by sentence of the Church. Moreouer, in case the Pope hath erred in the fact, it is the Clergies part adhering to their King, to make remonstrances vnto the Pope, and to require the cause may be referred to the iudgement of afull Councel, the French Church then and there being present. Now in this answere, the L. Cardinall is of another mind then Bellarmine his brother Cardinall: For hee goes thus farre,[*] That a Prince condemned by vniust sentence of the Pope, ought neuerthelesse to quit his Kingdome, and that his Pastors vniust sentence shall not redound to his detriment; prouided that hee giue way to the said sentence, and shew himselfe not refractarie, but stay the time in patience, vntil the holy Father shall renounce his error, and reuoke his foresaid vniust sentence. In which case these two material points are to be presupposed: The one, That he who now hath seized the kingdome of the Prince displaced, wil forthwith (if the Pope shall sollicit and intercede) returne the Kingdome to the hand of the late possessor: The other, That in the interim the Prince vniustly deposed, shall not need to feare the bloody murderers mercilesse blade and weapon. But on the other side, the Popes power of so large a size, as Bellarmine hath shaped, is no whit pleasing to the L. Cardi- nals eye. For in case the King should be vniustly deposed by the Pope not well informed, he is not of the minde the Kingdome should stoupe to the Popes behests, but will rather haue the Kingdome to deale by remonstrance, and to referre the cause unto the Council: Wherein he makes the Council to be of more absolute and supreme authority then the Pope; a straine to which the holy father will neuer lend his eare. And yet doubtlesse, the Council required in this case must be vniuersall; wherein the French, for so much as they stand firme for the King and his cause, can be no Iudges: and in that regard the L. Cardinal requireth onely the presence of the French Church. Who seeth not here into what pickle the French cause is brought by this meanes ? The Bishops of Italie forsooth, of Spaine, of Sicilie, of Germanie, the subiects of Soueraignes many times at pro- fessed or priuie enemitie with France, shall haue the cause compremitted and referred to their iudgement, whether the Kingdome of France shall driue out her Kings, and shall kindle the flames of seditious troubles, in the very heart and bowels of the Realme. But is it not possible, that a King may lacke the loue of his owne subiects, and they taking the vantage of that occasion, may put him to his trumps in his owne Kingdome ? Is it not possible, that calumniations whereby a credulous Pope hath beene seduced, may in like maner deceiue some part of a credulous people ? Is it not possible that one part of the people may cleaue to the Popes Faction, another may hold and stand out for the Kings rightfull cause, and ciuill warres may be kindled by the splene of these two sides ? Is it not possible, that his Holinesse will not rest in the remonstrances of the French, and will no further pursue his cause ? And whereas now a dayes a Generall Councill cannot be held, except it be called and assembled by the Popes authority; is it credible, the Pope will take order for the conuocation of a Council, by whom he shall be iudged ? And how can the Pope be President in a Councill, where himselfe is the party impleaded ? and to whom the sifting of his owne sentence is referred, as it were to Committies, to examine whether it was denounced according to Law, or against Iustice ? But in the meane time, whilest all these remonstrances and addresses of the Council are on foot; behold, the Royall Maiestie of the King hangeth as it were by loose gimmals, and must stay the iudgement of the Council to whom it is referred. Well: what if the Councill should happe to be two or three yeeres in assembling, and to continue or hold eighteene yeeres, like the Councill of Trent; should not poore France, I beseech you, be reduced to a very bad plight ? should she not be in a very wise and warme taking ? To be short; His Lordships whole speach for the vntying of this knot, not onely sur- mounteth possiblitie, but is stuft with ridiculous toyes. This I make manifest by his addition in the same passage. If the Pope deceiued in fact, shall rashly and vniustly declare the King to be an heretike; then the Popes declaration shall not be seconded with actual deposition, vnles the Realme shall consent vnto the Kings depos- ing. What needes any man to bee instructed in this doctrine ? Who doth not knowe, that a King, so long as he is vpheld and maintained in his Kingdome by his people, cannot actually and effectually be deposed from his Throne ? Hee that speaketh such language and phrase, in effect saith, and saith no more then this: A King is neuer depriued of his Crowne, so long as he can keepe his Crowne on his head: a King is neuer turned and stript naked, so long as he can keepe his cloathes on his backe: a King is neuer deposed, so long as he can make the stronger partie and side against his enemies: in briefe, a King is King, and shall still remaine King, so long as he can hold the possession of his Kingdome, and sit fast in his Chaire of Estate. Howbeit, let vs here by the way, take notice of these words vttered by his Lordship: Thatfor the deposing of a King, the consent of the people must be obtained: For by these words the people are exalted aboue the King, and are made the Iudges of the Kings deposing.

But here is yet a greater matter: For that Popes may erre in faith, it is ac- knowledged by Popes themselues:[*] For some of them haue condemned Pope Honorius for a Monothelite: S. Hierome, and S. Hilarius, and S. Athanasius doe testifie, that Pope Liberius started aside, and subscribed to Arrianisme: Pope Iohn 23. was condemned in the Councill of Constance, for maintaining there is neither hell not heauen: Diuerse other Popes haue been tainted with errour in faith. If therefore any Pope hereticall in himselfe, shall depose an Orthodoxe King for heresie; can it be imagined, that he which boasts himselfe to beare all

diuine and humane lawes in the priuy coffer or casket of his breast,[*] will stoope to the remonstrances of the French, and vayle to the reasons which they shall pro- pound, though neuer so justifiable, and of neuer so great validitie ? And how can he, that may be infected with damnable heresie (when himselfe is not alwayes free from heresie) be a iudge of heresie in a King ? In this question some are of opinion, that as a man, the Pope may fall into error, but not as Pope. Very good: I demand then vpon the matter, wherefore the Pope doth not instruct and re- forme the man ? or wherefore the man doth not require the Popes instructions ? But whether a King be deposed by that man the Pope, or by that Pope the man, is it not all one ? is he not deposed ? Others affirme, the Pope may erre in a ques- tion of the fact, but not in a question of the right. An egregious gullery and im- posture: For if he may be ignorant whether Iesus Christ died for our sinnes, doubtles he may also be to seeke, whether we should repose all our trust and assured confidence in the death of Christ. Consider with me the Prophets of olde: They were all inspired and taught of God, to admonish and reprooue the Kings of Iudah and Israel: they neither erred in matter of fact, nor in point of right: they were as farre from being blinded and fetcht ouer by deceitfull calum- niations, as from beeing seduced by the painted shew of corrupt and false doctrine: As they neuer trode awry in matter of faith: so they neuer whetted the edge of their tongue or style against the faultlesse. Had it not beene a trimme deuice in their times, to say, that as Esay and as Daniel they might haue sunke into heresie, but not as Prophets ? For doubtlesse in this case, that Esay would haue taken councell of the Prophet which was himselfe. To be short; If Kings are onely so long to be taken for Kings, vntill they shall be declared heretikes, and shall be deposed by the Pope; they continually stand in extreame danger, to vndergoe a very heauy and vniust sentence. Their safeth way were to know nothing, and to beleeue by proxie; least, if they should happen to talke of God, or to thinke of religion, they should be drawne for heretikes into the Popes Inquisition.

All the examples hitherto produced by the Lord Cardinall on a rowe, are of a latter date, they lacke weight, are drawne from the time of bondage, and make the Popes themselues witnesses in their owne cause: They descant not vpon the point of deposition, but onely strike out and sound the notes of excommunication and interdiction, which make nothing at all to the musicke of the question. And therefore hee telleth vs (in kindnesse as I take it) more oftentimes then once or twice, that hee speaketh onely of the fact; as one that doeth acknowledge him- selfe to bee out of the right: Hee relates things done, but neuer what should bee done: which, as the Iudicious know, is to teach nothing.