A Catholic Apology

When was the Catholic Apology written?

It was written in 1584, following the selection of Henry of Navarre as Henry III’s heir to the French throne following the death of the final Valois heir, the Duke of Anjou.

Who was the text written by?

It was written by Pierre de Belloy, a moderate Catholic politique who prioritised the unity and stability of the French nation over religious divisions.

Why was this text written?

• Defending Navarre’s Right to Rule: Belloy wrote to defend Henry of Navarre’s claim to the French throne, which faced fierce opposition from the Catholic nobility due to his Protestant faith and papal excommunication.

• Responding to the War of the Three Henries (1585–1589): Written during the outbreak of civil war between Henry of Navarre, Henry of Guise, and Henry III of France. Belloy aimed to counter the political crisis caused by Henry III’s renunciation of Navarre as his heir under Guise pressure (Treaty of Nemours).

• Opposing the Catholic League and Treaty of Joinville (1584): Responded to the Treaty of Joinville, in which the Catholic League allied with Spain to block Navarre’s succession and escalate religious conflict.

What key political and religious claims does Pierre de Belloy make in A Catholic Apology?

• Defence of Navarre’s Legitimacy:

  • Argues that kingship comes from God and is confirmed by Salic Law, not by papal approval or coronation or popular approval.

• Separation of Church and State:

  • Claims the Church has no right to interfere in political rule or succession.

• Obedience to Lawful Authority:

  • Promotes passive obedience, even to excommunicated rulers, as long as they are lawfully appointed.

• Unity over Division:

  • Emphasises the inseparability of king and state, calling for national unity to end confessional conflict.

How does Belloy conceive of kingship?

Belloy sees kingship as perpetual and inherent—the king exists continuously as part of the state. There is no gap or need for human confirmation; the king “lieth perpetually”, meaning his authority passes immediately and naturally by succession, without interruption or dependence on the people, ceremony, or Church.

How does Belloy’s idea of perpetual kingship shape how one becomes king?

Belloy’s view that kingship is perpetual means that a king’s authority is inherited automatically by divine and natural law at the moment of his predecessor’s death. There is no need for election, coronation, or Church approval—these are merely symbolic acts—”a token of honour on his behalf.” Kingship is a continuous office willed by God, not one dependent on human action.

How does Belloy’s conception of divine kingship influence his position of popular responsibility?

Belloy views the king and the state as fundamentally intertwined—the king “lieth perpetually,” meaning the state cannot exist without him. This leaves no room for a separate political body or for the people to elect or depose a ruler. Kingship is divinely and naturally conferred, not dependent on popular will. As a result, the people bear no political responsibility; their sole duty is passive obedience, regardless of the king’s character or religion.

What evidence does Belloy deploy to defend his theory of divine kingship?

He cites historical examples of monarchs—such as Louis the Meek and Lothaire—who were recognised as rulers before being crowned. He also traces the development of coronation rites, noting they began only with Pepin, showing they are not essential to legitimacy.

What does Belloy think of the universal headship of the Papacy?

Belloy is adamant that the Papacy has no power within the temporal real and must be subjected to the civil magistracy. “There be two kinds of jurisdictions: the one earthly committed into the hands of Kings and Princes… every one of whatsoever degree or calling, Spirituall or Temporall… ought to obey.”

What evidence does Belloy use to defend his rejection of Papal authority in temporal matters?

Belloy uses a mix of historical and scriptural evidence. He cites papal abuses, like Gregory IX’s seizure of Frederick II’s lands, to show the Pope’s unjust interference in political affairs. Scripturally, he draws on Christ’s refusal of kingship—“declaring his Kingdom was not of this world”—and Paul’s teaching that ministers should not “trouble themselves with the matters of this life.” He also cites early Church acceptance of royal authority over clergy, showing that temporal power belongs to kings, not the Pope.

What does Belloy say about the relationship between temporal authorities and ecclesiastical authorities?

Belloy argues that temporal and ecclesiastical authorities are distinct, but the clergy remains subject to the king in all earthly matters. While it “was never lawful for kings to execute the office of priests,” they are entrusted by God to govern society and maintain order, including punishing heresy. He insists that spiritual leaders, including bishops and popes, must obey secular rulers in temporal affairs, as confirmed by both scripture and early Church practice.

What does Belloy think of excommunication?

Belloy recognises excommunication as a valid form of spiritual discipline in which the individual is excluded from the fold of religion. However, he claims that it “hath no participation with worldly or temporal goods and means.”

How does Belloy use St Paul’s line “the armour of our wares are not carnal” to support his view on excommunication?

Belloy uses this verse to argue that spiritual and temporal realms are separate. Political authority is patrimonial—inherited and worldly—so it does not fall under the Church’s spiritual jurisdiction. Thus, excommunication does not strip a king of his crown. As Belloy puts it, “the declaration of the loss of the one, bringeth no consequence for the deprivation from the other”—losing Church communion does not mean losing temporal rule.

How else does Belloy show that excommunication is a purely spiritual penalty?

Belloy argues that excommunication is spiritual in nature, as shown by the fact that it is lifted only through religious penance and satisfaction, according to the ancient Councils of Ancira and Nice. This process concerns restoration to the Church, not loss or return of temporal goods or authority, proving that the Church’s jurisdiction does not extend to the political realm.

How does Belloy use historical examples to support his view on excommunication?

Belloy cites popes like Gregory VII and Innocent III to show that even in past excommunications, officers, servants, and subjects were not released from their duties to excommunicated rulers. He argues that the bond between king and people is natural and “civil”, not spiritual, and therefore unchanged by excommunication.

Does Belloy appeal to nature to defend this understanding?

Yes, Belloy describes individual households as “little Commonwealths” where the king is the “father and defender” of the household. Just like a father does not stop being a father if he is cruel, nor does a king if he is excommunicated as he is still king by virtue of nature. 

How does Belloy’s understanding of excommunication relate to the matter of resistance to Navarre’s election?

Belloy argues that excommunication does not sever the natural and civil bond between ruler and subject, meaning Navarre’s spiritual status has no bearing on his right to rule. Resistance to his election, based on his excommunication, is therefore unjustified. Belloy defends Navarre’s succession as lawful under Salic Law, insisting that temporal legitimacy cannot be undermined by spiritual penalties.

How does Belloy use Salic Law to defend Navarre’s succession/

Belloy presents Salic Law as a foundational principle of French kingship, stating it confirms Navarre’s legitimate claim—“The Salic Law of this flourishing crown which is the kinghold of the sceptre.” He argues that even Catholics must acknowledge Navarre’s right under this law, framing his succession as rooted in French legal tradition, not Protestant ideology. In doing so, Belloy deconfessionalises kingship and reasserts the authority of national law over religious division.

Who was Belloy’s text addressed towards?

It seems that his attempt to convince his readers of the limitations of the Pope’s authority reveals that it was primarily addressed towards his fellow Catholics. His intent was not to neglect them, but to convince them that Navarre’s election was entirely consistent with Christian orthodoxy.

How does Belloy’s use of scripture differ from that of Calvin or Vermigli?

Unlike Calvin and Vermigli, who rely heavily on Old Testament examples of godly kingship, Belloy draws on the New Testament, especially Christ’s refusal of temporal authority. For Belloy, Christ’s example proves that Christianity does not depend on political power, countering arguments for a papal monarchy and supporting the separation of spiritual and civil authority.

How does Belloy’s text differ from other authors?

There is a striking difference in the way that Belloy views the importance of the coronation ceremony; Hotman and Boucher viewed it as the moment the monarch became the monarch. Furthermore, in Francogallia, the VCT and Boucher’s text, the people occupy space within the political ecosystem to voice their own opinions—in Belloy’s Apology, the king and the state are inseparable, leaving no room for popular election. Finally, resistance is not encouraged by Belloy.

How does his text echo the sentiments of John Jewel?

Both were responding to the excommunication of their selected leaders and both rejected the authority of the Pope and the ability for subjects to resist their monarch.