Chapter VII: Part 7

‘This duke quitted the assembly, and, in the presence of all the people, entered the house of the pagan lady, the mistress of his heart, who was the handsomest woman of the country. A valiant man, named Phineas, roused by this insult to his God, stepped forth, and said, ‘I vow to God, that I will instantly avenge this offence.’ He departed without saying more, or having any commands from Moses, and having entered the lady’s house found her in dalliance with her lover, when, with a knife or dagger, he pierced their bodies through, and instantly put them to death. The twenty-four thousand adherents of the duke wished to revenge his death in battle, but, through God’s grace, they were the weaker, and were all slain.

‘This example of the valiant man Phineas is worthy of notice,—for he was so much enamoured with the love of God, and so grieved on seeing the daring insult offered to him, that he was regardless of exposing his own life to danger; nor did he wait for the orders of Moses to perform the act,—but he did it because he saw that the judges would not do their duty, some through neglect, others from fear of duke Zambry.

‘See what praise and recompense he received for this act, as it is written in the holy Scriptures: ‘Dixit Dominus ad Moysem, Phinees filius Heleazari filii Aaron sacerdotis avertit iram meam a filiis Israel, quia zelo meo commotus est contra eos ut non ipse delerem filios Israel in zelo meo idcirco loquere ad eum. Ecce do ei pacem fæderis mei et erit tam ipsi quam semini ejus pactum sacerdotii sempiternum: quia zelatus est pro Deo suo, et expiavit scelus filiorum Israel.’

‘That is to say, That the act he had done was so agreeable to God that he rewarded him, by ordaining that none but such as were of his blood should be anointed priests; and this is confirmed by the writings in the Old Testament: ‘Placuit et cessavit seditio, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam usque in sempiternum.’ Scribitur in Psalmo. Which means, That this action redounded to the honour, glory and praise of Phineas and his family for ever.

‘Thus it plainly appears, that concupiscence and disorderly lusts had so entangled the duke Zambry in their snares that he became an idolater, and worshiped idols.—Here concludes the third example of my second article.

‘Respecting the third article of my major, I must show from the authority of the Bible, which none dare contradict, that covetousness has made many become disloyal, and traitors to their sovereigns; but although I could produce numerous instances from the Scriptures and other writings, I shall confine my examples to three only.

‘OF LUCIFER.

‘The first instance is that of Lucifer, the most perfect of all the creatures God had made, of whom the prophet Isaiah says, ‘Quomodo cecidisti de cœlo Lucifer, qui mane orieberis: qui dicebas in corde tuo, conscendam supra astra Dei, exaltabo solium meum, ascendam supra altitudinem nubium et similis ero altissimo. Veruntamen ad infernum detraheris in profundum laci.’ Scrib. Is. xiv.

‘Lucifer, as the prophet writes, considering himself as the most perfect of creatures, said, within his own mind, ‘I will exert myself so greatly that I will place myself and my throne above the angels, and rival God;’ that is to say, he would have the same obedience paid to him. For this end, he deceived numbers of angels, and brought them over to his party, so that they were to do him homage and obedience, as to their sovereign lord, and be no way subject to GOD; and Lucifer was to hold his government in like manner to GOD, and independent of all subjection to him.

‘Thus he wished to deprive GOD, his Sovereign and Creator, of the greater part of his power, and attribute it to himself, being induced to it by covetousness, which had taken possession of his mind.

‘St Michael, on discovering his intentions, came to him, and said, that he was acting very wrong; and that, since GOD had formed him the most perfect of his creatures, he was bounden in gratitude to pay him greater reverence and obedience than all the others, for the gracious favours that had been shewn him. Lucifer replied, that he would do no such thing. St Michael answered, that neither himself nor the other angels would suffer him to act so injuriously to their Sovereign Lord and Creator. In short, a battle ensued between them,—and many of the angels took part on either side, but the greater number were for St Michael.

‘St Michael slew Lucifer with a perdurable death,—and he and his legions were cast out of heaven by force, and thrown into hell. Their sentence is in the xiith chap. of the Revelations: ‘Michael et angeli ejus preliabantur cum dracone, et draco pugnabat et angeli ejus cum eo;’ et paulum post,—‘et projectus est in terram draco ille, et angeli ejus missi sunt cum eo. Et audivi vocem magnam in cœlo dicentem, nunc facta est salus, et virtus, et regnum Deo nostro;’—which means, That St John saw in a vision this battle, and how Lucifer was cast with his angels from heaven into hell. When the battle was won, he heard a loud voice proclaiming through the heavens, ‘At present, peace is restored to our Lord God and to his saints.’—Thus ends the first example of the third article.

‘The second instance refers to the fair Absalon, son to David king of Jerusalem.—Absalon, considering that his father was become old and very feeble, practised a conspiracy against him, and had himself anointed king. He collected ten thousand fighting men, whom he marched toward Jerusalem, to put his father to death and take possession of the town.

‘King David received intelligence of what was intended, and in consequence fled from the city of Jerusalem, with some of his faithful friends, to a town beyond Jordan, whither he summoned his adherents. A battle was shortly proposed in the forest of Lendeue, whither Absalon came with a large force of men at arms, leading them as their prince. His constable and other knights advised him to remain within the forest, for it was strongly situated. This he did; but as he was one of the most expert knights in the world, he would himself form his army into three battalions: the first was put under the command of Joab, his constable; the second was given to Bisay, brother to Joab; and the third was commanded by Eschey, son to Jeth. When the battle took place, it was very severe and hard fought; but the party of Absalon was slain or put to flight.

‘It happened, as Absalon was flying on his mule after the defeat of his party, that he passed under an oak, whose spreading branches caught hold of his hair, and thus suspended him, while his mule galloped from under him. Absalon had that day taken off his helmet from his head, the more readily to escape,—and his hair was extremely thick and long, reaching to his girdle, and got twisted among the branches, so that he seemed to hang there miraculously, as a punishment for the disloyal treason he had formed against his father and sovereign.

‘Absalon was seen in this situation by one of the men at arms of Joab, constable to king David,—and he hastened to tell Joab of it, who replied, ‘When thou sawest him, why didst thou not kill him? and I would have given thee ten golden besants, and a handsome girdle.’ The man answered,—‘If thou wouldst have given me ten thousand besants, I should not have dared to have touched him, or done him the least evil; for I was present when the king commanded thee, and all his men at arms, saying, ‘Save me my child Absalon! Oh, save him from being slain!’’

‘Joab said, ‘that the commands of the king were contrary to his honour and safety; and that so long as Absalon should live, the king would be always in peril, and we shall not have peace in the kingdom. Lead me where Absalon is.’ And the man led him to where Absalon was hanging by his hair. Joab, on seeing him, thrust his lance thrice into his body, near to the place of his heart, and then had him thrown into a ditch and covered with stones; for according to the laws of God, all traitors against their fathers and sovereigns were to be put to death and covered with stones.

‘When David heard of the death of his son, he went into an upper chamber, and wept bitterly, uttering these words: ‘Fili mi Absalon, fili mi quis mihi tribuat ut ego moriar pro te Absalon fili mi[120].’

‘It was told to Joab and the other captains, that David was inconsolable for the loss of Absalon, which made them very indignant; and Joab went to David, and said,—‘Confudisti hodie vultus omnium servorum tuorum qui salvam fecerunt animam tuam. Diligis odientes te, et odio habes diligentes te, et ostendisti hodie quia non curas de ducibus tuis, et de servis tuis, et vere cognovi modo quod si Absalon viveret, et nos omnes occubuissemus tunc placeret tibi. Nunc igitur surge et precede et alloquens satisfac servis tuis: juro enim tibi per dominum, quod si non exieris, ne unus quidem remansurus sit tecum nocte hac; et pejus erit hoc tibi, quam omnia mala, quæ venerunt super te ab adolescentia tua usque in præsens.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xix.

‘That is to say, The good knight Joab went to the king, and said to him without disguising his sentiments, ‘Thou hatest those who love thee, and art fond of such as hate thee: thou wouldst that we, who have risked our lives in battle to save thee, had perished, so that Absalon had lived. Thy captains and people are so wroth against thee that, unless thou arise and seat thyself at thy gate to thank them cheerfully as they enter thereat, they will deprive thee of thy kingdom, and choose another king; and no greater misfortune will have befallen thee from thy youth to this day, unless thou dost as I have advised.’

‘The king, feeling the justice of what Joab had said, went and seated himself at the gate to thank his men at arms on their entrance, and made them good cheer.

‘In this example, it is to be noticed, that Joab killed Absalon contrary to the king’s express orders, because they were prejudicial to the honour of God, of the king, and of the people.

‘Notwithstanding that Joab slew Absalon, they had always been intimate friends, insomuch that Joab had made peace for him with his father David for a murder which he had committed on the eldest of the king’s sons, and for which Absalon had been a fugitive from the kingdom four years.

‘Some may, however, argue the contrary, because king David, when on his death-bed, charged his son Solomon, who was to succeed him, to punish Joab; but I am sure it was not for the above-mentioned act,—for although Joab, at the time he slew Absalon, was a good and loyal knight, he committed too great faults toward the end of his days. The first, when he killed a very good knight and man at arms, called Amasa,—and, secondly, by putting that excellent knight Abner to death treacherously, namely, by embracing him, and at the same time, thrusting a knife into his body; and as king David had not punished Joab for these two enormous crimes himself, he felt such compunctions of conscience for it on his death-bed, that he ordered king Solomon to have it done when he should be deceased, and punish him in this mortal life, that Joab might escape perpetual damnation, saying thus: ‘Tu scis quæ fecerit mihi Joab filius Sarviæ quæ fecerit duobus principibus exercitus Israel, Abner filio Ner, et Amasæ filio Jether, quos occidit, et effudit sanguinem belli in pace. Facias ergo juxta sapientiam tuam, et non deduces caniciem ejus pacifice ad infernos.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xi.

‘Which means, ‘That the two knights, chiefs of the chivalry of Israel, had been disloyally slain, when at peace with God and man. I am hurt in mind for having been too lenient towards him; and if thou dost not punish him for these two crimes, thou wilt cause the damnation of his soul.’

‘I must here remark, that there is no knight so perfect but who may commit a fault, and one indeed so great as to do away all his former good actions. And therefore men do not at justs and at battles cry out, ‘The brave for ever!’ (_Aux preux!_) but men always cry out, ‘The sons of the brave!’ (_Aux fils de preux!_) after the deaths of their fathers. For no knight can be judged _preux_ (valiant, or brave) till after his death[121].

‘My third instance shall be of Athalia, queen of Jerusalem, of whom the holy Scriptures say,—‘Athalia vero mater regis Ochosiæ, videns filium suum mortuum surrexit et interfecit omne semen regium. Tollens autem Josaba filia regis Joran et soror Ochosiæ Joas filium Ochosiæ furata est eum de medio filiorum regis qui interficiebantur et nutricem ejus de triclinio et abscondit eum a facie Athaliæ ut non interficeretur,’ &c. 4 Reg. xi.

‘Which, being translated, means, That the wicked Athalia, observing king Ochosias, her son, was dead, and had left but very young children to succeed him, through lust of governing the kingdom, slew all the king’s children excepting Joas, who, through the courage of a valiant lady, inspired thereto by the grace of God, was carried away from his cradle, and sent by her secretly to the high priest, who educated him until he was seven years old.

‘This wicked queen reigned tyrannically for seven years, when the high-priest had her put to death by those who lay in wait for the purpose. He then caused the young child to be anointed king, who, notwithstanding his youth, being only seven years of age, governed his kingdom excellently well, through the advice of the high-priest and other prudent counsellors. The holy Scriptures say, ‘Joas regnavit 40. annis in Hierusalem fecitque rectum coram Domino cunctis diebus quibus docuit eum Joiada sacerdos.’

‘Thus you have the third example, which shows how the concupiscence of vain honours is nothing more than a disorderly passion, to take by force the possessions of another. This it was that made queen Athalia a murderess, false and disloyal, and induced her to obtain, by a succession of crimes, the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem.

‘You have heard how she was privily slain by such as lay in wait for her, which is a lawful manner of slaying tyrants, and is the death which all such ought to suffer.—With this I conclude the third article of my major.

‘I come now to my fourth article; to which I propose adding eight facts, by way of conclusion, and eight others as corollaries, the stronger to lay my foundation for the justification of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy. I shall first lay it down as law, that any subject-vassal, who by an artful desire of obtaining the realm of his sovereign lord and king, shall employ any witchcraft, or other illegal means, against his corporal safety, sins most grievously, and commits the crime of high treason, in the first degree, and, consequently, is deserving a double death.

‘I secondly prove my proposition, by adding, that any subject-vassal who is an enemy to his sovereign lord sins mortally. My conclusion is therefore true,—and that he is a tyrant I shall prove by my lord St Gregory, who says:

‘Tyrannus est proprie qui non dominus reputatur.
Non juste principatur; aut non principatu decoratur.
Nam sicut regnum rectus principatus dicitur.
Sic dominium perversum tyrannis nuncupatur.’

‘It appears plain, that whoever commits the crime of high treason against the person of the prince is guilty of the highest possible offence, and is deserving of a double death. By the first death, I mean the separation of the body from the soul, which causes a perdurable damnation; for St John the evangelist says, ‘Qui vivit non morietur nec lædetur a morte secunda;’ that is to say, That every human creature who shall obtain a victory over Covetousness and her three daughters, need not be afraid of the second death, namely, eternal damnation.

‘The second fact is, that in cases where a subject-vassal has been guilty of this crime, he cannot be too severely or too speedily punished; but a man of rank is more deserving of punishment than a simple subject, a baron than a simple knight, a count than a baron, a duke than a count, the cousin to the king than a foreigner, the king’s brother than a cousin, the son to the king than his brother. Such is the first part of the second fact,—and I thus prove the second part; for as the obligation is greater, by many degrees, to desire to preserve the safety of the king’s person and the good of the state, so the punishment of those who act contrary increases according to their rank; and the consequence I draw from it will prove true, namely, that the son is more bounden than the brother, the brother than the cousin, a duke than a count, a count than a baron, a baron than a knight, &c. to guard and preserve the honour of the king and the welfare of the realm; for to each of these ranks and dignities is a certain corresponding duty attached,—and the higher the rank, the greater the obligation, for the larger the possessions, and the more noble the person, the more he is bounden, as St Gregory, before quoted, says, ‘Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum.’

‘To continue my argument: the nearer the person is to the king by blood or hereditary honours, should he commit such crimes, it is by far more scandalous than if they were done by others removed at a greater distance from royalty. It is more scandalous for a duke or a potent lord, nearly related to the king, to practise his death, in order to gain his kingdom, than it would be for a poor subject no way related to the king; and being more iniquitous, the more deserving punishment.

‘I shall, in the third place, prove my proposition by saying, Where there is greater danger there should be a greater degree of punishment; for the machinations of near relations to the king are of far more importance and more perilous than those of poor people. And as they are more dangerous, they are deserving of severer punishment to obviate the perils that may happen, and to check the desires that may arise in such as are so near to the crown, to gain possession of it. For this end, they may exert every influence, by force or otherwise, to grasp it, which a poorer subject would never think of doing, as he could not have any expectations of wearing it.

‘My third truth is, That it is lawful for any subject, without any particular orders from any one, but from divine, moral and natural law, to slay, or to cause to be slain, such disloyal traitors; I say it is not only lawful for any one to act thus in such cases, but it is also meritorious and highly honourable, particularly when the person is of such high rank that justice cannot be executed by the sovereign himself. I shall prove this truth by twelve reasons, in honour of the twelve Apostles.

‘The three first reasons are drawn from the authorities of three moral philosophers: three others are from three dogmas of sacred theology of St Augustin, who says, in the last part of the second book of sentences, ‘Quando aliquis dominium sibi per violentiam surripit nolentibus subditis, vel etiam ad consensum coactis: et non est recursus ad superiorem per quem de tali judicium posset fieri. Talis enim qui ad liberationem patriæ talem tirannum occidit, laudem et præmium accissit. Hic primum laudatur. Item debet laudari per quæ facit opus dignum laude. Idem licitum præmium et honorabile accipit, et idem debet accipere. Ille facit opus meritorium quia nullum opus est dignum, primo nisi fieret meritorium.’ To translate this briefly, the holy doctor declares, that a subject who shall put to death such a tyrant does a work deserving praise and remuneration.

‘My second authority is as follows: ‘Salisberiensie, sacræ theologiæ eximii doctoris in libro suo Policratici, li. ii. cap. 15. Sic dicit; amico adulari non licet; sed aurem tiranni mulcere licitum est, ei namque scilicet tiranno licet adulari quem licet occidere;’ that is to say, It is unlawful to flatter a friend, but not so to deceive by fair words the ears of a tyrant; for since it is lawful to put him to death, it is allowable to cheat him by flattering speeches.

‘My third authority is from several doctors, whom I class together, not to exceed the number of three, namely, ‘Ricardi de media villa, Alexandri de Hallis et Astensis, in summa qui conclusionem præfatam ponunt in iii. efforum;’ adding, for higher authority, the confirmation of St Peter the apostle, who says, ‘Subditi estote regi quasi præcellenti sive ducibus, tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, audem vero bonorum, quia sic est voluntas Dei.’ Scribitur primæ Pet. ii. That is to say, It is the will of God that all should obey the king, as sovereign lord over his kingdom; and the duke, as being sent by the king to punish those who have done ill, and remunerate the good.

‘Hence it follows, that dukes are obliged, to the utmost of their power, to avenge the injuries that are done, or may be intended against the king’s person, and to oppose all such attempts as may come to their knowledge.

‘I now proceed to the authorities from moral philosophers, the first of which is,—‘Ante forum principis pluribus locis cuilibet subditorum licitum est occidere tyrannum, et non solum licitum immo laudabile.’ That is to say, It is lawful for any subject to destroy a tyrant, and not only lawful, but even honourable and worthy of praise.

‘Cicero, in libro de Officiis, ‘Laudatis illos qui illum Cæsarem interfecerunt quamvis esset sibi familiarium amicus eo quod jura imperii quasi tyrannus usurpaverat.’ That is, Tully writes, in his noble book on morality, That those who killed Julius Cæsar are praiseworthy, because Julius had usurped the government of Rome as a tyrant.

‘My third authority is from Boccacio, who, in his book ‘de Casibus virorum illustrium, s. lib. ii. cap. 15. contra filios tyrannorum,’ in speaking of the tyrant, says, ‘Shall I call him king? shall I call him prince? shall I preserve my allegiance to him? Oh no: he is an enemy to the public welfare. May I employ conspiracies and open force against him? It is very proper and necessary so to do,—for there is not a more agreeable sacrifice than the blood of a tyrant, and it is insupportable to receive blame for having done good.’

‘I come now to my three authorities from the civilians. As I am no lawyer, it will suffice if I mention the judgments that have been given without producing them; for in my life I never studied the canon nor civil law more than two years, and twenty years have passed since that time, so that what little I may have learnt I have quite forgotten since the period of my studies.

‘The first authority of the civil law is, That any one may put to death deserters from the laws of chivalry; and who can be a greater deserter from chivalry than him who deserts the person of his king, the fountain of chivalry, and without whom it cannot long exist?

‘Secondly, It is lawful for every one to kill thieves and robbers, who infest forests and rob on the highways,—because they are particularly the enemies of the public weal, and consequently plotting to destroy all travellers: consequently, it is lawful to kill a tyrant, who is continually practising against his king, the sovereign lord, and against the public good.

‘Thirdly, If it be lawful for any one by the civil and imperial law to put to death a thief found by night in a house, it is much more so to slay a tyrant, who day and night devises the death of his sovereign lord. This consequence clearly follows, and will be apparent to any man of sound understanding, if he consider it, and the antecedent texts from holy writ.

‘Before I touch on the three examples from the holy Scriptures, I wish to reply to some objections that may be made to what I say, in arguing thus: All murder is forbidden by every law, divine, natural, moral and civil. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I shall prove it from Scripture: ‘Non occides,’ in Joh. xx. is one of the divine commandments, which forbids any kind of murder. That it is forbidden by the natural law, I prove by this quotation,—‘Natura enim inter homines quandam cognationem constituit qua hominem homini insidiari nefas est.’

‘I prove it forbidden by the moral law, from ‘Quia per id: hoc non facias aliis quod tibi non vis fieri: alterum non lædere; jus suum unicuique tribuere: hoc est morale, insuper et de naturali jure.’

‘That the civil and imperial laws forbid murder, those laws shall prove, ‘Qui hominem occidit capite puniatur, non habita differentia sexus vel conditionis. Item omne bellum omnis usus armorum vitiosus præcipue prohibitus est: nam qui vitio præcipue bellum gerit, læsæ majestatis reus est. Item regis proprium furta cohibere, adulteria punire, ipsos de terra perdere: qui enim talia sibi appropriat aut usurpat, principem injuriatur et lædit: quoniam ut dicit lex judiciorum vigor: juris et publica tutela in medio constituta est, ne quis de aliquo quantumcunque sceleribus implicito assumere valeat ultionem.’

‘To reply to the above arguments: It should be known that theologians and jurists use diversely this word _homicidium_; but, notwithstanding, they agree in the same opinion respecting the thing. The theologians say, that to kill a man lawfully is not homicide, for the word _homicidium_ carries with it ‘quod sit justum propter hoc dicunt quod Moyses, Phinees, et Mathathias non commiserunt homicidia quia juste occiderunt;’ but some jurists say, that killing of a man, just or unjust, is homicide,—while others deny it, saying there are two modes of homicide, legal and illegal; and for justifiable homicide no man ought to be punished.

‘I answer, therefore, with the theologians, that the killing of a tyrant is not homicide, inasmuch as it is just and legal. According to the general law, I confess it would be homicide; but if there be shewn justifiable cause for it, no punishment, but remuneration, should follow.

‘With regard to that part of the argument which says, ‘Quod hominem homini insidiari nefas est, et quæ magis insidiatur homini,’ &c. it alludes to a tyrant who is continually practising the death of his king and sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas.’ As for him who slays a man, by watching a proper opportunity for it, to save the life of his king, and preserve him from mortal peril, he does no ‘nefas,’ but acquits himself of his duty toward his sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas;’ and therefore he who kills such an one, by watching a proper opportunity, does it to save the life of his king.

‘In regard to that passage which says, ‘Non facias aliis, &c. alterum non lædere,’ &c. I reply, that it makes against the tyrant, and in favour of him who slays him; for he (the tyrant) does against his king that which he would not have to be done against himself, ‘et ipsum regem injuriatur et lædit.’ For which reason, he who has put to death such a person, according to his deserts, has done nothing contrary to the laws, but has preserved the meaning of them, namely, true equity and loyalty towards his king and sovereign lord.

‘To the other quotation from the laws that says, ‘Hominem occidere, capitale esse omnis usus armorum,’ &c. I answer, that there are no laws nor usages so very general but that there may be some exceptions made from them. I say, that the case of killing a tyrant is exempted, more especially when he is guilty of the crimes before mentioned. How can any greater cause of exemption be shewn than that, when the murder is done through necessity, to save the king from being put to death?

‘Even when conspiracies against his royal person have been so far carried by witchcraft and otherwise, that he is disabled from administering justice; and the tyrant being found deserving of that punishment, the king, from weakness of intellect, cannot, or will not, punish him, the killing of him, in such cases, is not against the law, properly speaking, for all laws have two meanings: the first is the textual signification, the other is the ‘quo animo,’—the person committing a crime has done it, and the law, as intended by those who made it, is to be explained according to the intent of its framers, and not always according to the literal sense.

‘Thus the philosopher brings forward the example of citizens who made a law for the defence of their city, that no one, under pain of death, should mount the ramparts, because their city was besieged; and they were afraid, should strangers mount the walls with the inhabitants, there might arise danger to them, from these strangers, at a proper opportunity, joining their enemies, or at least making them signs to show where they might the more easily attack the town.

‘It happened, that this town was attacked at several places,—when the strangers and pilgrims who were within it, observing the enemy were much superior to the inhabitants, armed themselves and mounted the walls at the weaker parts, when they repulsed the enemy, and saved the town. The philosopher then asks, Since these pilgrims have mounted the walls contrary to the express words of the law, they have infringed it, and should they not be punished? I say no; for although they have acted contrary to the literal text of the law, they have not disobeyed the spirit of it, which was the saving of the town,—for had they not mounted the walls in its defence, it must have been taken.

‘As to the laws which declare, that none ought to administer justice but the prince, nor do any deeds of arms without his licence,—I maintain, that these laws were made for the preservation of the king’s honour and person, and for the public good.

‘Should there exist a tyrant of great power and authority, who is continually practising, by witchcraft and other means, the death of the king, and to deprive him of his kingdom,—and should that king, from weakness of intellect or want of force, be unable to punish him, and should he permit him to go on in his wickedness,—I should disregard, in this case, the law that forbids me to bear arms without the king’s licence, or to take the authority into my own hands in a general sense only. What have I to do with the literal sense of it? Am I to leave my king in such peril? By no means. I am bound to defend my king, and put to death the tyrant; for should I, by thus acting, do contrary to the text of the law, I follow the spirit of it, and the object it was directed to, namely, the preservation of the honour and life of my king; and I should think myself more deserving of praise than if I had suffered the tyrant to live on in his wickedness. I ought therefore to be rewarded, and not punished, for having done a meritorious deed, tending to a good purpose, for which end all laws were made.

‘St Paul says, ‘Littera occidit, charitas autem ædificat;’ which means, that to follow the literal sense of the holy Scriptures is death to the soul, but that we ought to obey the true meaning in all charity,—that is to say, to mark and accomplish the end for which the divine laws were made. Spiritual edification is a goodly thing.

‘Item, the laws divine, natural and human, give me authority for so doing, and by so doing I am a minister of the divine law; and it is plain, that the objections I have started, as probably to be made against what I have said, are not of any weight.

‘I come now to my three instances from the holy Scriptures, to confirm the truth of my third fact. In the first place, Moses, without any authority whatever, slew the Egyptian who tyrannised over the Israelites.

‘At this period, Moses had no authority to judge the people of Israel, for this power was not given to him until forty years after the perpetration of this act. Moses, however, was much praised for having done it. ‘Ut patet auctoritate, Exodi ij. quia tanquam minister legis hoc facit. Ita in proposito in hoc faciendo ego ero minister legis.’

‘The second instance is that of Phineas, who, without any orders, slew the duke Zambry, as has been related. Phineas was not punished for this, but on the contrary praised, and greatly requited in affection, honour and riches. In the affection that God shewed him, greater than before. In honour, ‘Quia reputatum est ei ad justiciam,’ &c. In riches, ‘Quia per hoc acquisivit actum sacerdotii sempiternum non tantum pro se, sed pro tota tribu sua.’

‘The third instance is that of St Michael the archangel, who, without waiting for any commands from GOD, or others, but solely from his natural love, killed the disloyal traitor to his God and Sovereign Lord,—because Lucifer was conspiring to invade the sovereignty and honour of GOD. St Michael was rewarded for his action in love, honour and wealth. In love, in that GOD had a stronger affection for him than any other, and confirmed him in his love and grace. In honour, ‘Quia fecit eum militiæ cœlestis principum in æternum.’ That is to say, He made him the prince of his angelic chivalry for ever. In wealth, for he gave him riches and glory to his satisfaction: ‘Tantum quantum erat capax, de quibus loquitur. O altitudo divitiarum sapientiæ et scientiæ Dei, quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viæ ejus.’ Ad. Rom. xi.

‘Thus my third fact has been proven by twelve reasons. The fourth is, That it is more meritorious, honourable and legal, that a tyrant should be slain by one of the king’s relations than by a stranger no way connected with him by blood,—by a duke than by a count,—by a baron than by a simple knight, and by a knight than by a common subject.

‘I thus prove my proposition. He who is related to the king has an interest to guard his honour and life against every injurious attempt, and is bounden so to do more than any stranger, and, in like manner, descending from those of high rank to the common subject. Should he fail in this his duty, the more deserving is he of punishment, while, on the contrary, by performing it, he gains the greater honour and renown. ‘Item in hoc magis relucent amor et obedientia occisoris, vel occidere præcipientis ad principem et dominum suum quia est magis honorabile si fuerit præpotens dux vel comes. Item in hoc magis relucet potentia regis quod est honorabile et quanto occisor vel dictæ occisionis præceptor non fuerit vilior et potentior tanto magis,’ &c.

‘In regard to alliances, oaths, promises and confederations, made between one knight and another, in whatever manner they be, should they be intended to the prejudice of the prince or his children, or the public welfare, no one is bound to keep them; for, in so doing, he would act contrary to the laws, moral, natural and divine. I shall now prove the truth of this: ‘Arguendo sic. Bonam æquitatem (dictamen rectaæ rationis) et legem divinam boni principes in persona publica servare, et utilitatem reipublicæ debent præferre, et præsupponere in omnibus talibus promissionibus, juramentis, et confederationibus: immo excipiuntur implicite secundum dictamen rectæ rationis: bonam æquitatem et charitatis ordinem quia alias esset licitum non obedire principi immo rebellare contra principes, quod est expresse contra sacram Scripturam quæ sic dicit: ‘Obedite principibus vestris, licet etiam discolis et alibi. Subjecti estote regi præcellenti, sive judicibus tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum.’ 1 Pet. iij. ut sup. allegatum est.

‘‘Ex illo arguitur sic. Quandocunque occurunt duæ obligationes ad invicem contrariæ major tenenda est, et minor dissolvenda quantum adhoc, sed in casu nostro concurrunt duæ obligationes. Et cum obligatio ad principem sit major, et alia minor obligatio ad principem tenenda est, et alia non in tali casu. Item arguendo eandem quæstionem, quandocunque aliquis facit quod est melius quamvis juravit se id non facturum, non est perjurium, sed perjurio contrarium: ut expresse ponit magister sententiarum ultima dicti tertii: sed in casu nostro melius est tyrannum in præfato casu occidere quamvis juravit se non occisurum quam presentem vivere ut tactum est superius: ergo occidere tyrannum in præfato casu quamvis juravit se non occisurum, non perjurium facit, sed perjurio contrarium. Et consequenter Isidorus in libro de summo bono sic dicit: id non est observandum sacramentum et juramentum quo malum incaute remititur, sed in casu nostro male et incaute promititur. Sed non tenent promissiones jurata vel confæderationes contra principem, uxorem principis, liberos, vel reipublicæ utilitatem.’

‘Seventhly, If any of the above confederations and alliances should turn out to the prejudice of the person so engaging, of his wife or his children, he is not obliged to abide by them. ‘Patet hic veritas per rationes tactas prius et cum hoc probatur sic, quia observare in illo casu confæderationes contra legem charitatis qua quis magis sibiipsi, uxori propriæ vel liberis quam posset obligari cuicunque alteri virtute talis promissionis et omnia præcepta et consimilia in ordine ad charitatem patent per apostolum sic dicentem. Finis præcepti est charitas, quia in omnibus casibus et promissionibus intelligitur hoc, si in fide observaverit juxta illud frangenti fidem, &c. Item, subintelligitur si domino placuerit sed certum est quod non placeret Deo cum foret contra legem charitatis, ideo,’ &c.

‘In regard to the seventh proposition, namely, that it is lawful and meritorious for any subject to put to death a traitor that is disloyal to his king, by waylaying him, and whether it be lawful for him to dissemble his purposes,—I shall prove it first by the authority of that moral philosopher Boccacio, already quoted, in his second book ‘De Casibus Virorum illustrium,’ who, in speaking of a tyrant, says, ‘Shall I honour him as prince? shall I preserve my faith to him as my lord? By no means: he is an enemy, and I may employ arms and spies against him.’ This act of courage is holy and necessary; for there cannot be a more agreeable sacrifice to God than the blood of a tyrant.

‘I prove this from holy writ, in the instance of Jehu: ‘Occident te sacerdotes et cultores Baal, ut habetur primo reg. ex. ubi sic dicitur, Jehu Acab parum coluit Baal, ego autem colam eum amplius. Et paululum post; porro Jehu licet incidiose ut disperdat cultores Baal, dicit, sanctificate diem solennem Baal, &c. et laudatur de hoc. Item de Athalia regina vidente filium suum mortuum surrexit, et interfecit omne semen regium, ut regnaret, et Joyadas summus sacerdos insidiose fecit eam occidi. Et de hoc laudatur ut superius tactum est ad longum. Item, Judith occidit Holofernem per insidias. Et etiam de hoc laudatur pater familias quod ad zizaniæ eradicationem non voluit expectare tempus messis ne triticum simul cum zizaniis eradicaretur, &c. Quod intelligitur in occisione tyrannorum per insidias sed et bonam cautelam et debet expectari loci et temporis opportunitas et expleri ne boni eradicentur,’ &c.

‘This is the proper death for tyrants: they ought to be slain by waylaying, or other means improper to be used toward good men; and for this reason, we are bound, in many instances, to preserve our faith to our capital enemy, but not to tyrants. As the reasons for this, urged by doctors, are common, and of some length, I shall pass them over.

‘AS TO WITCHCRAFT.

‘Eighthly, Any subject and vassal who shall imagine and practise against the health of his king and sovereign lord, to put him to death by a languishing disorder, through covetousness to gain his crown and kingdom,—any one who shall cause to be consecrated, or, more properly speaking, to be directed against him swords, daggers, knives, golden rods or rings, dedicated, by means of necromancy, to the devils, or shall make invocations with characters, sorceries, charms, after having thrust sharp instruments into the bodies of dead men hung on a gibbet, and then into the mouths of such malefactors, leaving them there for the space of several days, to the horror of all who detest these abominable practices; and, beside these arts, shall wear near their bodies a piece of cloth, containing the powder of some of the bones of malefactors, sewed up, or tied, with the hair from the secret parts: I say, such as shall commit any crimes similar to the above, are not only guilty of human high treason, in the first degree, but are disloyal traitors to God their Creator, and to their king.

‘As idolaters, and false to the catholic faith, they are worthy of the double death, here and in the world to come, even when such sorceries and witchcraft shall fail of their intended effect on the king’s person. ‘Quia dicit dominus Bonaventura, lib. ii. d. 6. Diabolus nunquam satisfacit voluntati talium, nisi antequam infidelitas idolatriæ immisceatur, sicut enim ad divina miracula plurimum facit fides, &c. Et ideo experiencia de effectu prædictarum superstitionum secuta in personam præfati regis probat clare ibi fuisse idolatriam et fidem perversam. Item diabolus nihil faceret ad voluntatem talium in tali casu nisi exhiberetur ei dominium quod multum affectat nec se exhibet ad tales invocationes ipsis invocantibus eum, nisi ipsum adorent et sacrificia et oblationes offerant, aut pacta cum ipsis dæmonibus faciant. Item, doctor sanctus secunda secundæ in xi. articulo secundo dicit quod tales invocationes nunquam sortiuntur effectum nisi fuerit falsa corruptio fidei idolatria et pactio cum dæmonibus. Ejusdem opinionis videtur esse Alexander de Hallis, Ricardus de Media-villa et Astensis in summa. Et communiter omnes doctores qui de hac materia locuti sunt, et sicut falsarii monetæ et pecuniarum regis,’ &c.

‘I thus perceive that all the doctors in theology agree in saying, that such sorceries, charms and witchcraft can only succeed by the work of the devil, or by his false means;—and that these sorceries, and suchlike superstitions, have not of themselves the power of hurting any one, but that the devils have the ability to injure any person so far only as shall be permitted them by God.

‘The devils will not do any thing for those that call on them, unless they perform three things, namely, pay them divine honour, which ought solely to be paid to God, by offering them homage and adoration, proving themselves false to the holy catholic faith,—and the doing of which makes them guilty of the crime of high treason.

‘_Primum Corrolarium._ Should it happen, that for the circumstances above stated, any of these invocators of the devil, idolaters, and traitors to the king, should be confined in prison, and that during the time that their process is carried to judgment, any accomplice of their crimes should deliver or cause them to be delivered from prison, he shall be punished just as these idolaters would have been, as guilty of the crime of high treason in the first and fourth degree.

‘_Secundum Corrolarium._ If any subject who shall give, or promise to give, a large sum of money to another for poisoning the king his sovereign lord, and the bargain be proven and the poisons laid, although they may fail to produce their effects, through the interference of the providence of God or other means,—those who have committed this crime are guilty of being traitors and disloyal to their sovereign, and shall suffer the double death for high treason in the first degree.

‘_Tertium Corrolarium._ Any subject who, by treachery and hypocrisy, shall during any mummeries, through malice aforethought, procure dresses for his king, and, having clothed him in such dresses, shall cause them to be set on fire, with the intent that the king his sovereign may be burnt in them, so that he may obtain his kingdom, commits high treason in the first degree, is a tyrant and disloyal to his king, and is deserving of the double death, even should his sovereign escape, for the noble and valiant persons who may have been burnt to death in exquisite pain through his means.

‘_Quartum Corrolarium est_: When any subject and vassal to the king shall make alliances with those who are mortal enemies to his sovereign and kingdom, he cannot exculpate himself from being guilty of treason; more especially when he shall send advice to the men at arms of the enemy not to surrender any forts they may have gained in the kingdom,—for that when he shall be employed against them he will afford them succour. And beside, when he not only shall prevent the march of any armies against such enemies, but shall encourage them by secret and underhand means, he is a traitor to his king and country, and is deserving of the double death.

‘_Quintum Corrolarium est_: If any subject or vassal shall, through deceit and false information, sow the seeds of dissention between the king and queen, by telling the latter that the king hates her so mortally he is determined on having her and her children put to death, and that she has no other remedy to prevent this but flying out of the kingdom with her children; advising her strongly at the same time, to put this plan into execution, and offering to conduct her out of the realm to any castle she may please, adding with much subtilty, and by way of caution, that the queen must keep this advice very secret, lest she may be prevented from following it; and if, in order to accomplish this plan, he propose to the queen that she should undertake different pilgrimages until she be in a place of safety, intending by this means to confine her and her children in some of his prisons, and to gloss it over to the king, so that he may succeed him in his crown and kingdom. Any subject guilty of such a crime commits high treason in the second, third and fourth degrees. This is such an apparent truth that should I wish to prove it, ‘esset adjuvare cœlum facibus.’

‘_Sextum Corrolarium est_: If any subject or vassal, through ambition to obtain a crown and kingdom, shall visit the pope, and impose on him, by imputing falsely and wickedly crimes and vices against his king and sovereign lord, which would be blots in his royal issue, concluding thence that such a king is unworthy to reign, and his children unfit to succeed him, and requiring most urgently of the pope that he would issue a declaration to the effect of depriving the king and his children of the crown; and likewise declaring, that the kingdom had devolved to him and his race, requesting that the pope would grant absolution to all the vassals of the realm who should adhere to him, giving them a dispensation for the oaths of fidelity that all subjects are obliged to take to their king,—such as may commit the above crime are disloyal traitors to their sovereign, and guilty of high treason in the first and second degrees.

‘_Septimum Corrolarium est_: If any disloyal subject shall hinder (‘animo deliberato’) the union of the church, and counteract the conclusions formed by the king and clergy of this realm for the welfare and security of the holy church, and shall use, among other means, that of force, to induce the pope to incline to his iniquitous way of thinking,—such subject is a traitor to his God, to the holy church, to his king and sovereign lord, and ought to be reputed a schismatic and obstinate heretic. He is worthy of the disgraceful death, insomuch that the earth ought to open under him and swallow him up, like to Coran, Nathan and Abiran, as we read in the Bible, ‘Aperta est terra sub pedibus eorum, et aperiens os suum devoravit eos cum tabernaculis suis, descenderuntque viri eorum in infernum operti humo.’ Num. xvi. Psal. ‘Aperta est terra et deglutivit Dathan,’ &c.

‘_Octavum Corrolarium est_: Any subject or vassal who shall, through ambition to obtain the crown, practise the death of his sovereign and his children by secret means, such as the poisoning their food, is guilty of high treason in the first and third degrees.

‘_Nonum et ultimum Corrolarium est_: Every subject or vassal who shall raise a body of men at arms, who do nothing but pillage and devour the substance of the people, rob and murder whom they please, and force women, and whose captains are posted in the strong places, castles, passes, and fords and bridges of the said kingdom, and shall moreover impose heavy taxes on the people under the pretext of carrying on the war against a foreign enemy, and, when these taxes have been raised and paid into the king’s treasury, shall seize on them by force, and distribute the amount among the enemies and illwishers to the king and kingdom, in order to strengthen himself that he may obtain his damnable ends, namely, the crown and kingdom,—every subject who thus acts ought to be punished as a false and disloyal traitor to the king and realm, and as guilty of high treason in the first and fourth degrees, and deserving of the double death.

‘Thus ends the first part of my justification of my good lord of Burgundy.

‘SEQUITUR MINOR.

‘I come now to declare and prove my minor, in which I shall show, that the late Louis duke of Orleans was devoured with covetousness of vain honours and worldly riches: that to obtain for himself and his family the kingdom and crown of France, by depriving our king of them, he studied all sorts of sorcery and witchcraft, and practised various means of destroying the person of the king, our sovereign lord, and his children.

‘So greatly had ambition and covetousness, and the temptation of the hellish adversary, possessed themselves of him that, as a tyrant to his king and liege lord, he committed the crime of divine and human high treason, in every manner and degree noticed in my major; that is to say, in the first, second, third and fourth degrees.

‘In regard to the divine high treason, as that concerns the Sovereign Judge in the heavens, I shall not lay any great stress upon this article, but shall touch upon it incidentally, when I speak of human high treason. I shall therefore enumerate, article by article, how he has committed human high treason in the four degrees above stated, and shall consequently divide my minor into four heads.

‘Respecting the first charge I make, of his having committed high treason in the first degree,—that is, when the offence has been done directly against the person of the king,—it may be done two ways: the first by imagining and practising the death and destruction of the prince, his sovereign lord, which may be divided into several heads, but I shall content myself with three.

‘The first by practising the death of the prince by sorcery, charms and witchcraft; the second, by poisons, venoms and intoxication; the third, by killing or causing the prince to be killed by arms, water, fire, and other violent injections.

‘That he is guilty of the first charge, I prove thus: To cause the king our lord to die of a disorder so languishing, and so slow, that no one should divine the cause of it,—by dint of money, he bribed four persons, one of whom was an apostate monk, the others a knight, an esquire, and a varlet, to whom he gave his own sword, his dagger and a ring, for them to consecrate to, or, more properly speaking, to make use of, in the name of the devils.

‘As suchlike sorceries can only be performed in solitude, and far from the world, these persons took up their abode for many days in the tower of Mont-Jay, near Laigny-sur-Marne. The aforesaid apostate monk, who was the principal in this diabolical work, made there several invocations to the devil, and at different times, the whole of which took place between Easter and Ascension-day; and one grand invocation on a Sunday, very early and before sun-rise, on a mountain near to the tower of Mont-jay.

‘The monk performed many superstitious acts near a bush, with invocations to the devil; and while doing these, he stripped himself naked to his shirt and kneeled down: he then stuck the points of the sword and dagger into the ground, and placed the ring near them. Having uttered many invocations to the devils, two of them appeared to him, in the shape of two men, clothed in brownish green, one of whom was called Hermias, and the other Estramain. He paid them such honours and reverence as were due to God our Saviour, after which he withdrew behind the bush.