Certain general reasons, prouing the lawfulnesse of the Oath of allegiance, written by R.S. priest, to his priuat friend. Whereunto is added, the treatise of that learned man, M. William Barclay, concerning the temporall power of the pope. And with these is ioyned the sermon of M. Theophilus Higgons, preached at Pauls Crosse the third of March last, because it containeth something of like argument

CHAP. XXIII.

THere remaines the last Argument, which he pro∣pounds by way of a subtle and captious question in this manner.

To conclude, why may not a faithfull People, be freed from the yoke of an vnfaithfull King and drawing to Infideli∣tie, if a belieuing wife bee free from the Obligation of staying with an vnbeleeuing husband: when he will not stay with his Christian wife, without intur•••• to the faith, as he plainly deduceth out of Paul 1. ad Cor. 7. Innoc. 3. Cap. Gaudemus, extra de diuortijs? for the power of the husband ouer the wise is no l••sse, then of the King ouer the subiects, but indeed somewhat more.

There is nothing more frequent in the mouthes of all the Monarchomachi, then this Argument: because they doe easily deceiue very many thereby, for it is such a one, as nothing doth mooue more vehemently at the first sight, and being looked into and vnderstood doth vrge more weakely. Therefore I answere to it, that these two points be very diuers and vnlike,

To be deliuered from some mans yoke; and

To be deliuered from the Obligation of remaining with some man.

and therefore, that they are not rightly compounded and compared together, seeing that the husband himselfe, to whom the Obligation of remaining with an other is re∣mitted,

is not by this at all deliuered from her yoke, from whom he departs. Whereof the Church yeelds vs exam∣ples euery day, which freeth and absolueth maried Per∣sons, for diuers Causes, for Bed and Boord, as they say, (that is) for conuersation and obligation of Continuance one with the other, the Mariage bond neuer the lesse re∣maining, which is a Sacrament of Christ and the Church. Wherefore the force of such an Argument drawen from maried persons is nothing, vnlesse he proceed from the Matrimoniall yoke, to the Regall yoke, as if he had said:

Why may not a faithfull People be freed from the yoke of a King faithlesse, and drawing others to Infidelitie, if a belieuing wife be free from the yoke of an vnbelieuing husband.

Now if it please the Reuerend Bellarmine to turne that his Argument into this, that it may haue more moment and weight, then I will answere the same after an other man∣ner. And thus. That either he speakes of those maried persons who contracted Mariage, when they both were beleeuers, and one of them fell into heresie or infidelitie afterwards: or of heathen and infidell Couples, of whom the one conuerted to the faith, the other continuing ob∣stinately in his Pagan superstition. If he vnderstand his argument of the former, he doth slander his Author In∣nocentius, who speakes neuer a word of such a Matrimo∣nie in the said Cap. Gandemus: and besides it should bee false, which he obtrudes to vs for an argument, that the beleeuing husband is free from the yoke of his vnbelee∣uing wife, when he will not continue with his Christian wife, without iniurie to the faith, as the same Innocentius expresly teacheth, in cap. Quanto. §. si verò. extra de Di∣uort.

But if saith he, one of the beleeuing maried persons, either fall into Heresie, or passe ouer into the error of Gentili∣tie, we doe not thinke that in this case the partie that is left, may flie to any second mariage, while the other liues,

although in this case the Contumelie seemeth the greater which is offered to the Creator.

And againe the same Innocentius in Cap. exparte extra, De conuers. coningat. rescribeth to the same purpose: That Matrimonie contracted between lawfull persons, and consum∣mate by carnall Copulation,

In no case can be dissolued, although one of the beleeuers, between whom this Mariage is ratified, should prooue an Heretike, and would not continue with the other, without Contumslie to the Creator.

Behold the argument drawen from maried Persons, doth not onely not strengthen these mens Opinion, but also weakneth, and euen oppugneth the same, as if a man should in this manner propound the argument 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by way of interrogation.

Why should a beleeuing People be freed from the yoke of a King vnbeleeuing or hereticall, endeuouring to draw his subiects to his sect, if a maried person beleeuing bee not free from the yoke of the other Mate vnbeleeuing, al∣though he will not continue with the beleeuing yoke-fellow, without inturie to the faith and contumelie to the Creator.

As Innocentius III. openly teacheth, in cap. Quanto. §. si¦vero. De Diuort. & in cap. ex parte. De conuers. coniu∣gat. adeo vt Panorm. in illum. §. Si verò. doth say, out of the reason there laid, That the Church cannot dis∣solue such a Mariage, and free the beleeuing yoke-fellow from the yoke of the vnbeleeuing, when as notwithstan∣ding a beleeuing yoke-mate may much more easily be peruerted by a yoke-mate vnbeleeuing, then the whole people by a King. But the bond of the subiection, where∣by the people is tied to the King, since it proceeds both from naturall and diuine Law, seemeth much more hard to be dissolued, then that of maried Persons between themselues: that from thence a man may easily prooue, that the Church can doe no more in one then in the other.

But if he vnderstand his argument of the later maried per∣sons, the answer is easie, out of the same Decretall Epistle of Innocent, to wit. That betweene such couples the Mariage is not good, as much as appertaines to the indissoluble bonds of Matrimony. And therefore such kind of ma∣ried parsons haue full liberty to dissolue the matrimony, that they may depart either with consent and good likeing, or with mislike and displeasure, and the one of them, euen against the liking of the other, may by refusall and diuorse at his pleasure dissolue that knot of mariage: for the wo∣man may as wel send letters of diuorse to the man as the man to the wife.

For (saith he) although the Matrimony among Infidels be true (because they goe together according to the com∣mandement of the lawes) yet it is not firme. But amongst the beleeuers it is both true and firme, because the Sacra∣ment of faith being once admitted is neuer lost, but makes firme the Sacrament of mariage, that it continues in the maried persons, while that continueth.

It is no wonder then if the maried persons brought to the faith, be free from the fellowship and power of his fel∣low, remayning in Infidelity, when as although both had continued in Infidelity, it had beene euen as free for each of them to depart from the other, & by diuorse to dissolue mariage because in the beginning there passed no forme and rate bond of Obligation betweene them. And there∣fore the Apostle doth not command but aduise, that the beleeuing wife should not depart from the vnbeleeuing husband if he be willing to stay with hir, as S. Augustine teacheth learnedly and eloquently lib. 1. De adulterinis Coni••giis, and the holy Canons taken from thence doe admonish vs d.

Which matters since they stand thus, surely it followeth, that the aduersaries do to small purpose fetch an argument from maried persons to shew that people may be freed from the Regall yoake, whether they regard the mariages of the

Beleeuers, or of the vnbeleeuers: Because they are coupled with a most straight and indissoluble knot of society, whose band cannot be broken, no not by the Church it selfe, neither for Infidelity nor Heresie of the one part. So as from hence he doth furnish vs with an argument ten∣ding rather to maintaine the strength and perpetuity of Regall authority, then to dissolue and destroy the same; And these are tyed by no necessity of Obligation in the face of the Church, but the husband conuerted to the faith if his fellow will not follow without scandall, may at his pleasure take to him another: And againe, the woman brought to the faith, if the husband refuse may in Christ marry with whom shee will. Seeing therefore there is no firme mariage betweene these and the politike subiection, and Kingly domination and rule, is ratified and approued amongst all Nations, and in euery law, as well by diuine as humane power, what can be more vnreasonable or fond then to compare and sute them together, and to deduce any argument from the society and yoake of vnbeleeuing maried persons, which may be shaken of at pleasure, to breake the yoake of Regall power and authority, and to make the same iudgement of them both, as if they were as like as might be.

Notes

• This is ac∣cording to Cardi. Bellar. own doctrine in his Lib. 1. de matrimoni. cap. 12.
• d

  28. q. 1. C••n. 8 & 9.