A FVLL SATISFACTION CONCERNING A DOVBLE ROMISH INIQVITIE; hainous Rebellion, and more then heathenish Aequiuocation. Containing three Parts: The two former belong to the Reply vpon the Moderate An­swerer; the first for Confirmation of the Discouerie in these two points, Treason and Aequiuocation: the second is a Iu­stification of Protestants, touching the same points. The third Part is a large Discourse confuting the Reasons and grounds of other Priests, both in the case of Rebellion, and Aequiuocation.

DEVT. 32. VERS. 32.

Their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter.

Published by Authoritie.

LONDON, Printed by Richard Field for Edmond Weauer. 1606.

TO THE PVISSANT AND MOST RENOVVMED PRINCE, OVR GRACIOVS SOVE­raigne, Iames by the grace of God King of great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Apostolike faith, &c.

IT is not long sithence (most gracious Soueraigne) that one inscribed A moderate Answer, did traduce before your Ma­iestie the late Discouerer of Ro­mish rebellious Positions for an iniurious and slanderous Pam­phleter: Now therefore Inno­cencie, which (Gen. 2. 25. though naked) was neuer ashamed, hath charged me to manifest my selfe vnto your Highnesse, and, together with my Aduersarie, to appeale vnto your incomparable wise­dome, which I do in so constant assurance of an vpright conscience, as that I shall willingly remit that iust ad­uantage, which the difference of comparison both be­tweene a legitimate or conformable subiect, and a per­son suspiciously degenerate; as also betweene a Minister of simple truth, and a professed Aequiuocator, doth offer vnto me: and to be contented onely with that respect which the equitie of my cause may allow. It hath plea­sed [Page] my Aduersarie thus to decipher me: Answer cap. 1. in initio. The Discoue­rer (saith he) is like to the espiall of king Alexander, who brought word that an army of enemies was approching, whē they were but a small companie of sillie Apes, imitating soul­diers in a march from the mountaines: thus he, as a man dis­tempered in his braine, and deluded in his fantasie, hath be­held our Catholike Priests, whom in euery page he calleth se­ditious and traiterous persons. This then onely was my error; I thought, indeed, that I had discouered a com­panie of men, but my Answerer telleth me they were but beastes: and I partly beleeue him, for what men could euer be so sauage, as (for so they haue professed concerning Protestants) to depriue men of the due re­spects of all humanitie? Notwithstanding though I had bene so much mistaken, as not to know that his Monks were but Munkies, and his Priests but Apes, yet sure I am (and he so acknowledgeth) that they were a compa­nie of creatures which did imitate souldiers on the moun­taines. This I then partly discouered, and now (God willing) will proue more plentifully in this Replie. The mountaines, from whence they march, be those Apoc. 17. 9. Seuen hils of Babylon, whereon the woman clothed in scarlet sit­teth: which (by the confession of two most learned Ribera & Viega in their commē ­taries vpon this place. Ie­suites) doth signifie Rome, as it must be in the dayes of An­tichrist. May it now please your sacred Maiestie, to see how exactly they imitate Souldiers in their march? Par­sons, teaching persecution against all Kings and States Protestant, doth propound for his imitation the exam­ple of Dauid in his conflict against Goliah; Allen the ex­ample of Eliah in calling, if it were possible, for fire from heauen to consume the messengers of Kings; Renalds the ex­ample of Iabel to knocke Generals on the head; Bellarmine [Page] the example of Iehoida and other Priestes for murthering of opposite Queenes; Sanders the example of Mattathias, who fought against King Antiochus; Simancha the exam­ple of Heathenish Scythians, who murthered their naturall King Scyles; Buchier the example of Sampson, to kill, if they can, a thousand, of his supposed Philistims with the iaw-bone of an Asse. These, and many such like be but his sillie Apes: which I should rather iudge to be of that kind whereof the prouerbe speaketh, [...], because they cannot be discerned but by euents. But this Moderate answerer may be referred to our faithfull Replie, wherein he will appeare often to haue betrayed his owne title, except some will call that moderation, which hath in it neither modum nor rationem. After the Replie is finished, there is presented to your Princely and most religious iudgement, a Confutation of the rea­sons of two of their more then vnreasonable positions; as namely, of hainous rebellions, and execrable aequi­uocations: both which are refelled (I hope) sufficiently by the testimonies of their owne most principall Do­ctors. A course which I professe in all disputes; knowing that by no better wisedome may this new Babylon be confounded, then wherwith God wrought the destru­ction of the old, euen Gen. 11. 7 & 9 The diuision of their tongues. In the first part of the Confutation is examined the ambi­tion of Romish prelacie, who would aduance their my­ters aboue scepters: which vsurpation the right honora­ble Earle of Northampton, at the arraignement of Gar­net, did, according to his singular learning formed and habited with sound iudgement, publikely conuince of palpable noueltie, and insolencie intollerable. In the last place is discouered the other mysterie of iniquitie, a [Page] booke which hath this inscription by the Author, A Treatise of Aequinocatiō, but thus altered by the Autho­riser thereof, A Treatise against lying and fraudulent dis­simulation. We reade of the idolatrous Iewes, who, wor­shipping a Exod. 32. 5. Golden calfe, did name their adoration of an abhominable idole, an holy day vnto the Lord. Plutarke maketh mention of certaine Apothecaries who painted vpon their boxes of poison the titles of Antidote or Pre­sernatiues against poison. Polydore obserueth, that the Popes a long time in their election had their names chā ­ged by Antiphrase, viz. the elected if he were by natu­rall disposition fearefull, was named Leo; if cruell, Cle­mens; if vnciuill Vrbanus; if wicked, P [...]s; if couetous, Bonifacius; if in all behauiours intollerable, Innocentius. So now this Popish Treatise of aequiuocation, the nota­blest Art of lying, & most bottomlesse dissimulatiō that euer the prince of darknesse did inuent, will be styled, A Treatise against lying and fraudulent dissimulation. Yet why may not a lying title best befit the doctrine of lying & dissimulation? Which kind of publike transfiguration of sinne into the habite of vertue, (as it were the Angell of darknesse into an Angell of light) S. Bernard often na­meth Daemon meridianus, The diuell at noone day. Not­withstanding lest that the publishing of this cursed Arte might in respect of the more carnally minded, aedificare ad gehennam: edifie vnto hell (as that reuerend Bishop of Chichester, & learned father of our Church hath said:) I haue so framed this dispute, that it may seeme (I hope) to be like Aristotle his bookes of naturall Philosophie, So published, as not published; because the clause of mentall Reseruation (the taile of this serpent, wherin the whole poyson lyeth) is alwayes deliuered in Latine phrase, to [Page] this end, that onely the guiltie partie by his sensible con­iecture may perceiue his error confuted, and yet the ig­norant, though desirous to touch pitch, may not be de­filed. Which doctrine because it is acknowledged by your Highnesse, in your admirable wisedome, to be in Religion most sacrilegious and detestable, in politike state most pernitious and intollerable, & in euery actor most banefull to the soule of man: it may please your excellent Maiestie to prouide in this behalfe for your faithfull and religious Subiects, that they neuer be so in­toxicated with this Antichristian spirit, as either to de­ceiue or be deceiued thereby. First not to be deceiued: but seeing that the authors of Aequiuocatiō are by it, as by a Gyges ring, made in a sort inuisible vnto Protestants to plot and practise against them what & when they wil, and Vlysses-like make a verie Polyphemus of your most noble State, that whensoeuer they be asked, who is the Traitor, licence themselues during life to answer (till they be cōuicted) by that aequiuocating [...]: that ther­fore against such as cannot hurt vs but by our creduli­tie, there may be enacted, (the onely refuge of Tullie) Lex non credendi; a law of not beleeuing them. Cōcerning deceiuing by the same policie more subtle then anie Machiauellisme, I would be a most humble suppliant to your gracious Highnesse, not to permit anie, of what condition soeuer, in the cure of the diseased bodie po­litike, (as it were driuing out poyson with poyson) in winding out these aequiuocators to aequinocate. For this purpose the counsell of S. Augustine is most soueraigne: August. cont. mendac. Non minùs pernitiosè mentitur Catholicus, vt haereticos capiat; quàm mentitur haeretiens, vt Catholicos lateat; nec cuiquam persuaderi potest hominem non mentiri, nè capiat; ur[Page] qui mentitur vt capiat. For it is certaine Ephes. 4. 11. We (to speake in the Apostles tenor) haue not so learned Christ as the truth in Iesus: by whom we are taught that the new man must crucisie the old man, and therefore not to seeke by such diuellish exorcisme to driue out Satan by Satan, but to mortifie ambition by humilitie, intemperance by so­brietie: in briefe, to conquer all euill by goodnesse, and therefore onely truth must catch and kill a lye. Let not your Maiestie be offended with my boldnesse in excee­ding the measure of an Epistle against my accustomed breuitie in all my labors: it is Psal. 116. 10. Credidi that begetteth Er­golocutus sum. Therfore speaking from the truth, I could not but speake for truth: and now, in high detestation both of idolatrous superstition, and hellish aequiuoca­tion, beseech the God of truth to make your name glo­rious in Christendome, in the zealous defence both of the true faith of Christ, and Christian faithfulnes: esta­blishing your Maiesties kingdome in peace, your per­son in safetie, your soule in grace, your Queene in mu­tuall ioy, your royall Succession in happie suc­cesse as long as the world endureth; and in the end of mortalitie to crowne you all with endlesse blessednes.

The vnworthie Minister of Christ, and your Maiesties most dutifull subiect, Thomas Morton.

TO THE SEDVCED Brethren, Grace and peace in Christ Iesus.

AFter that I had discouered vnto you (my Brethren) the hainous positions of your Priests, there arose some one, I thinke, of that priesthood, entituling himselfe A moderate answerer; and me A slanderous and lying libeller: And why? Because the testimonies alledged (saith he) are falsly applied. For proofe of this, scarce exa­mining one of twentie, he commonly returneth this answer: If this (saith he) be the opinion of these Authors, or if these Authors write thus &c. wilfully seating himselfe in the chaire of those Doctors, whom the Apostle hath descri­bed: 1. Tim. 1. 7. They will be Doctors, and yet vnderstand not what they say, nor whereof they affirme. To the mani­fold and manifest In the 1 and 2. part. proofes, I may now adde the In the third part Arguments of the same Priests for the defence of their discouered rebel­lious conclusions. By what reason then can my Moderate Answerer charge me as slanderously misreporting that to be the doctrine of those Priests, which the Priests themselues by Reasons labour to confirme? Wherfore I perswade my self his intent in answering was not to answer, that is, to satisfie the iudicious: but onely to be thought to haue answered, that is, to delude the too credulous: like the answer which the priests of the Synagogue did prescribe, for repressing the dis­couerie of the resurrection of Christ out of the sepulcher, say­ing: [Page] Whilest we slept his Disciples came and stole him away. Common sense might haue replied, How could you tell what was done when you were all asleepe? But minds enthral­led in the opinion of a neuer c [...]ing Priesthood (which confir­med that Answer) could not possibly but erre with their Priests. Such, alas, is the case of all them, whom (because they will not seeke or see the truth) God in his iustce 2. Thess. 2. 11 Deliueteth vp to beleeue lies, as idle and fabulous as fancies and dreames of men asleepe. Of which kind be many of your ly­ing Reuelations: as that of the Deliuerance of the soule of Traian out of the lowest hell. Many lying priuiledges, as that temporall Donation of Constantine: and the other Ecclesiasticall forged Canon for Appeales to Rome. Many lying Traditions, as that Bodily assumption of the blessed Virgin into heauen. Many lying Saints, as that of Saint Christopher (except in a picture) neuer seene. Many lying Sanctities, as that of S. Francis in harboring of alouse. Many lying Histories, as the Goldē Legend, an abstract of a leaden braine. Many lying reports, as of the now Miracles among the Indians: to omit many lying pro­phecies and reports; with infinite such other, which they call Piae fraudes, that is, godly cosinages: inuented to keepe the people in deuotion, and their priesthood in esti­mation. But that which excelleth all the rest in falshood, is their Aequiuocation, as being not onely alying Art, but also an Art of lying. This is now practised (as will be proued) in most detestable periuries for couert of the horrible treasons of their priesthood: teaching you to imitate the wisedome of the Ostrich; which bird, if she can but couer her head, thinketh all her bodie safe. Notwithstanding that Romish See, like to the Jud [...] v. 13. raging sea (when none sought to discouer it) fomed out her owne shame: especially in these two mischiefes [Page] which are noted as indiuiduall companions in holy writ, Psal. 5. 6. Speaker of lies, and the bloud-thirstie man; Prou. 6. 17. Lying tongues, and hands that shedde bloud; Esa. 59. 3. Hands defiled with bloud, and tongues that speake lies: Such are their hands of Treason, and tongues of Aequiuocation. But hear­ken a little, 2 Tim. 3. 4. In the last dayes (saith the Apostle) shall come perillous times, when men shall be voide of na­turall affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, Traitors. All which we proue to be the expresse characters of your Priests. O but it may be thought that the Apostle doth not describe any that do such things with any religious intent, but onely desperate and profane miscreants, who make no conscience of sinne: not so: for in the next words the Apostle describeth the colour of their cloake: 2 Tim. 3. 5. Hauing (saith he) a shew of godlinesse, but denie the power thereof. A pro­phesie plainely verified by your Priests in their godlesse pra­ctises and godly pretences. Wherefore you are exhorted in the words following, Turne away from such. You should haue had this Reply two moneths ago, but that I was to adde ano­ther discourse of greater importance, which is contained in the third part. You see Beloued, how vpon all occasions, as I am exhorted by the Spirit of God, I 2. Tim. 2. 25. cease not to instruct you, though contrarie minded, trying if at anie time God will grant you repentance, that you may acknow­ledge his truth. And now the God of truth and life illumi­nate and sanctifie your hearts in knowledge and obe­dience of his will, to the glorie of his sauing grace in Christ: In whom

Yours, T. M.
The firſt Part of th …

The first Part of this Reply, con­teining the Confirmation of the former Dis­couerie against the friuolous Cauils of the im­moderate Answerer.

CHAP. I.

The Discouerie of Romish Positions and Pra­ctises rebellious.

The first Reason.

THeir generall Assumption, whereupon all their rebellious Positions are founded, is this, that All Protestants are Heretikes and Excom­municate.

The Answerer. A moderate Answer to an iniurious and slan­derous Discouerie.

Answer cap. 2. § Wherefore. I answer, that this Position of the Discouerer, [All Prote­stants in the censure of Catholikes are Heretikes and Excom­municate,] is no generall assumption in Catholike Religion: from whence it will follow, that none of our Positions are to be iudged re­bellious; because he telleth vs that all these are builded vpon this Assumption.

A faithfull Reply.

By which answer I am chalenged to a double imployment: first, to confirme this my former Assumption, [All Protestants in the common censure of Papists (superarrogantly called Catho­likes) are esteemed as Heretikes and Excommunicate: the second, to improue this your illation and consequent, [If we iudge not [Page 2] Protestants Heretikes and excommunicate, it will follow that our Positions cannot be proued rebellious.] Our Assumption you im­pugne both by ample asseueration, and also (in your opinion) by learned proofes a [...]d demonstrations. Your Asseueration followeth.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer chap. 2. § VVherfore. I suppose that not one particular learned Catholike in this Kingdome (yet such can best iudge of our country cause) doth or will defend this opinion, that Protestants are Heretikes and excom­municate: for there is not one Protestant esteemed with vs to be in that case within the dominions of our Soueraigne, of condition whatsoeuer in my knowledge.

The Reply.

What is this? No Papist doth iudge any Protestant an Here­tike or excommunicate to your knowledge? As though you could instruct vs, how to know, when you speake from your knowledge: knowing that you professe your selfe to be one of that sect, who cannot possibly be knowne of vs, so long as you lurke in the hole of that Foxe, which you call Aequiuocation. And surely this your minsing Suppose giueth vs cause to suspect in you some such prodigious conceit: whereof Part. 3. hereafter. In the instant we may demand, why you, who fetch all practises and positions, as it were Dagges and their cases, from beyond the sea, shold now stand only to the iudgment of the Papists of This kingdome in this your Countrie case? Is the cause of vs Protestants the same, and shall we be subiect to contrarie Tri­bunals? Haue you 1. Reg. 12. 29. One God in Dan, and another in Bethel? Not, but that we wish that the same sea, which seuereth our country Region from Rome, might likewise distinguish your Reli­gion. But, to leaue your Suppose, we will examine your proofe.

CHAP. II.

Containing fiue of the Arguments of The moderate Answerer.

Answer chap. 2. § Fourthly. NO man doubting in faith, Ibid. § For first. & § Se­condly. But onely such as be obstinate; § Thirdly. No ignorant beleeuer, or, § For first. deceiued of Heretikes, but he to [Page 3] whom the truth hath bene made knowne; § Fiftly. None onely internally infected, but he that is a manifest professor, is subiect to the censure of Excommunication for Heresie. But Protestants (in our opinion) are of these conditions (implying that they be doubting, and not resolute; ignorant of the contrarie Romish faith, and not vn­derstanding; internally infected, and not outward Professors of their faith) Therefore (in our opinion) no Heretikes.

The Reply.

We may not be ignorant, first, that, seeing the nature of He­resie is such, that Malitia huius peccati in intel­lectu, non vo­luntate consum­matur. Vasques Iesuita dist. 126. cap 3. num. 6. It is a vice proper to the mind; it may denomi­nate the subiect whatsoeuer an Heretike without obstinacie, which is onely a peruerse obliquitie of the will: and therefore man may be an Heretike, though he be not obstinate. Se­condly, because Ecclesia non potest aliquid praecipere circa actus interiores aut punire: vt docent Schola­stici. Tolet. Jes. Instruct Sacer. lib. 1. cap. 19. The Church, consisting of men, doth only iudge of outward actions of men; we must consider that there is diffe­rence of the iudgement of an Heretike, Cuncrus lib. de Offic. Princ▪ pau­lò ante finem. Fori & poli, namely, of man iudging the outward act; & of God, who discerneth the inward thought. And may hereupon conclude, that Possit esse ali­quis occultè Haereticus, & tamen exterius ob metum, aut aliquod lucrum fidem profiteri. Bellar. Ies. & Car­dinal. lib. 3. de not. Eccl. cap. 10. There may be an internall Heretike, though not manifest vnto the Church. But because you do onely vnderstand outward Here­tikes subiect to the censure of men, I approach to the Que­stion, to disable both your Propositions by the generall and ordinarie, but (in some points) new and vnreasonable de­terminations of your owne schoole, By a threefold euidence: from a Popish

  • 1. Definition of an Heretike,
  • 2. Explication of a person excom­municate,
  • 3. Application of Romish censures to them both.

CHAP. III.

Popish definition of an Heretike.

Haec est Reli­gionis sola ra­tio, vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum at (que) loquendum, quemadmodū Romana Eccle­sia credendum esse docet ac praedicat. Cune­rus lib. de O [...], Princ. cap. 13. THat is onely true Religion (say your Romish Doctors) which is taught in the Romish Church. And therefore [Page 4] Qui intelli­gens aliquam sententiam ex­pressè ab Eccle­sia damnatam, eam retinueri [...], Haereticus per­tinax est censen dus. Alphons. de Castro lib. 1. de iusta punit. Hare. cap. 10. & Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Sa­ccrd. lib. 1. cap. 19 Whosoeuer maintaineth any doctrine condemned in that Church, must be accounted an obstinate Heretike. What, obstinate? It may be, some do but doubtingly defend it; what will you iudge of these? Qui volunta­riè de side du­bitat, censeiur verè & propriè Haereticus. Azor. Ies Inst. Moral. lib. 8. ca. 9. § Sexto. Eo­dem modo Tol [...]t. Instruct. Sacerd. Alphons. & alij. If he doubt thereof willingly, he is certainely an Heretike. But, it may be he is ignorant; will no ignorance excuse him? Ignorantia cras [...]a non ex­cusat aliquem à pertinacia. Tol. Ies. lib. 1. instruc. Saccrd. cap. 19. § Haeretici & Azor. Ies [...]nstit. Moral. pag 949. Affected ignorance doth argue him an obstinate Heretike. Yet it may be, he is no principal one to professe the supposed here­ticall doctrine, but onely to fauour the Doctors or professors thereof: In prima Ex­communicatio­ne Bull [...]coenae, ex communica­tio [...]ulminatur in omnes Haereticos & eorum credentes; nec tantùm in istos, sed etiam defensores & fautores. Tolet. instr. Sacerd lib 1. cap. 19. Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 7. Turrecrem. part. 2. lib 4. cap. 21. Azar. I [...]s. instit. lib. 8. cap. 15. Yet then doth the Bull of Excommunication, called Bul­la Coenae, thunder against them; and not only them, but also all wil­full defenders and fauourers. Of which kind all such, as Credentes, qui optant in eorum fide mori. Tolet. quo supra. Wish to die in their faith: Defensores, qui scientes opem illis praestant. [...]zor. les quo suprà. Harbour their persons: Fautores, qui verbis, scriptis, aut factis [...]os lau­d [...]nt vt bonos viros, & eorum causae patrocinantur. Tol [...]t. Ies. quo suprà. Commend their be­hauiours: Illi sunt intelligendi Haeretici manifesti, qui contra sidem Catholicam publicè praedicant aut profitentur, seu defen­dunt errorem. Alphons. de Castro. Or do either publikely preach or professe their doctrine, are to be accounted manifest Heretikes. In briefe, our countriman vpon this case of conscience. Contumax Haereticus est tam praesumptus quàm manifestus. Sayr. Casib. Consc. lib. 1. cap 9 § 3 [...]. An obstinate Heretike is as well he that is presumed so to be, as he that is manifest. Now let me be beholden vnto you for an Answer, whether that all Prote­stants of all conditions do not renounce your Romish Reli­gion? Do not Ministers preach publikely, and people also pro­fesse the contrarie? Doth not the King and whole state enact lawes, and Magistrates execute them to ruinate your Babel? What sort of people is there in England (Recusants excepted) which doth not either beleeue the doctrine of Protestants, or defend their persons, or reade their bookes? &c. Seeing ther­fore Iam supra lit. k. That (as your great Casuist hath said) euery one presumed to be an Heretike, is taken for an obstinate. What one is there a­mong all these kinds who can be free from your censures a­gainst Heretikes? For when your Leo Pope as Apolog. Taking eares to be hornes, shall iudge truths to be errors, what shall then be­come of innocents? But lest your inuisible modesty may denie this, it will be largely proued in the fift Chapter.

CHAP. IIII.

Concerning the second euidence by Romish Exposition of a person excommunicate.

The moderate Answerer in two other Arguments.

Cap. 2. § Sixtly. SIxtly, before Excommunication no communion is forbidden with any, whatsoeuer this Discouerer obiecteth from I [...]sia Rat. 4. Panor­mitanus, [that where the crime is notorious;] such as the man telleth vs heresie is, [There needeth not any declaration of Ex­communication.] For it is absolutely against the generall Coun­cell of Conc. Lateran. cap. 3. Haereti­corum. Cunerus de Offic. Princ. cap. 7. 8. Nauar. de Concil. Lateran, to the which consenteth Cunerus, and Nauarr. Ibid. § Se­uenthly. Seuenthly, no Protestant or Heretike not Excommunicate by name (as none in England is) lieth subiect to any penaltie pretended.

The Reply.

I haue iustly manifested your darknesse, and now also hold it necessarie to continue a Discouerer, when you make your selfe so notorious a couerer of so many palpable vntruths, which I must vnfold in euery passage. For the present three. 1. No communion forbid to any before Excommunication. 2. No Heretike, not excommunicate by name, is subiect to any penaltie. 3. No Protestant is excommunicate by name. The falshood of all which is discouered by the iudgement of your owne schoole. First, Panormitan, you know, defendeth that Iam supra lit. a When the here­sie is publikely knowne, there needeth no pronunciation of the sen­tence of Excommunication. But this is but as one swallow with you. Whatsoeuer (say you) the Discouerer obiecteth from Panor­mitan, &c. to make your Reader suspect, that I relyed onely vpon the iudgement of Panormitan for a point of so necessary consequent. Did I not alledge also your most famous Iesuite Gregorie of Valentia for confirmation thereof? though then indeed the exigence of time would not permit me to translate it, and my presumption of a Modest Answerer whomsoeuer (as of one that would vnderstand Latin) thought it also superflu­ous: [Page 6] yet now for your better information, and the Readers sa­tisfaction, I am constrained to English it. Crimen hae­refis, &c. Greg. Ʋalent. Vide R [...]. 4. If the guilt of here­sie be so notorious (saith he) as that by no euasion it can be concea­led, the partie doth incurre the penaltie thus farre, that his subiects may denie such a Lord all fealtie, yea before the sentence of iudge­ment.

I did also alledge a third, namely, Bannes, a man famous a­mong your Doctors, and guarded in this point with the com­mon consent of the schoole. His words are these: In hoc Articu­lo, &c. Infra Rat 4. In this Arti­cle do Felinus and Caietan, and the more common opinion of the Scholers of Thomas concurre: prouing that the euidence of the fact is as effectuall in this caese, as a publike sentence in iudgement. I did furthermore (pardon me if I must discouer your partiall concealements) adde yet another Iesuite, your Father Cres­well, auouching that this opinion Hoc vniuersa Theologorum, &c. Infra Rat 4. Hath the vniuersall consent of Lawyers and Diuines. I might haue cited more witnesse to appeare, if I had thought it as necessarie for euidence to the cause, as I feared lest it should be tedious to the iudicious Reader.

But lest you or I may seeme to unisconstrue (because you name it) the Lateran Councell, giue your owne Doctors leaue to interprete it. Arma in Re­gem sumere, etiam ante latā Iudicis senten­tiam, vbi crimen est notorium, Bannes 2. 2. q. 12. docet. id (que) patet ex Conc. Lateranensi, [Si Princeps incidit in sententiam Canonis, incidit in poenam de­signatam citra nouū iudiciū.] Autor de Jast. Abdicat. pag. 352 & 357. It is euident (saith your Iesuite) from this De­cree of the Councell of Latèran; If the Prince fall into the sentence of the Canon, forthwith he falleth into the penaltie denounced, be­fore any further iudgement. Your next Author, whom you name, Manifestum est ex Concilio Lateranensi cō ­tra Haereticos decretum esse in haec verba: [Sub Anathe­mate prohibe­mus, ne quis eos in domo vel in terra fouere praesumat] Cunerus lib de Offic. Princ. c. 9. Cunerus, doth onely report the sentence of Anathe­ma: but that an Heretike is not to be exempted from all commu­nion before a iudiciall and personall sentence, he lendeth you no voice, but proueth the contrarie. Wherein I further maruell that you dare match the the Councell of Lateran, and your Author Cunerus in one consent, because if you follow that corrupt Councell, you must necessarily be disloyall: if you yeeld to Cunerus, there is hope you may proue a good sub­iect, as I [...]fra in the 3. Pa [...]. hereafter will appeare in due place.

Lastly, those others you onely would name, may not be compared to our witnesses which we haue expressely named, Panormitan, Bannes, Thomas and his Scholers, Creswell and the [Page 7] vniuersall voice of Schooles.

Those other also which (I say) I might haue cited, do now approach, as namely, your Cardinall, and sometime Iesuite, Tolet from the nature of iudiciall Excommunications in Coun­cels, Iuris Excom­municatio sem­per est genera­lis, non enim ponitur contra determinatam personam, sed determinatè contra facientes vel non facien­tes hoc vel il­lud. Tolet. Jes. instruct. lib. 1. cap. 5. The Excommunication of the law is generall, not directly against any determinate person. Which will appeare presently in the vse of Infra cap. 5. Anathema: so that (as saith your Iesuite Sà) Excommu­nicatio sine monitione ferè semper est in­ualida: Suffici [...] tamen in Ex­communicatio­ne generali ge­neralis monitio; & quidem ip­sum praeceptum generale pro­mulgatum mo­nitio est, & quaeuis prohibitio peccati futuri. Eman. Sd Aphor. Tit. Excommunicatio. A generall Admonition is sufficient to inferre a generall Excommu­nication; and that which is generally published containeth in it a generall Admonition. So generall, that your Iesuite Azo [...]ius doth wickedly extend the censure not onely to the namelesse, but also blamelesse sonnes of his supposed Heretikes. Poenam haeresis contrahunt filij Haereticorum, si filij sunt eorum, quos Haereticos esse constiterit, [...]ue per eui­dentiam facti, fiue per sententiam iudicis. Azor. Ies. instit. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 13. The sonnes of Heretikes (saith he) are subiect to the punishment of he­resie, if they be the sonnes of knowne Heretikes, whether knowne by euidence of their offence, or by sentence of the Iudge. And vpon this Assertion your Cardinall Allane is bold to conclude, Allan [...] in his booke against the executi [...] of English iustice, intituled, A modest Defence of English Ca­tholikes, pag. 87. The Canon lawes being Authenticall in all lawfull Tribu­nals, do make all Heretikes, not onely after they be named particularly, but ipso facto, as soone as they be Heretikes, de Iure, by lawe excommunicate for the same to be depri­ued. If this his (so intituled) Modest Defence be true, then doubtlesse in this your Moderate Answer (as you tearme it) your last Arguments you call Sixt-ly, and Seuenth-ly, must be taken as the sound of their last syllables do import. Hi­therto we haue confuted your onely exceptions of an He­retike, and an Excommunicate from your owne explicati­ons. We furthermore disproue them by

CHAP. V.

The third euidence from Popish Applications of Cen­sures proper to Heretikes.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 2. § Seuenthly, & § For first. NO Protestant in England is, in our opinion, excommunicate by name; and therefore lyeth not subiect to the penaltie pre­tended. Ergo The foundation of this Discouerer is ruinate.

The Reply.

This your Proposition, [None is excommunicate who is not excommunicate by name,] we haue discouered, by many wit­nesses, to be your proper forge and miserable refuge, which the desperatnesse of your cause did inforce you vnto. That no English Protestant is excommunicate by name, how can you warrant vs? If they be all excommunicate in the name of En­glish, or in the name of Caluinists, or in the name of Protestants, or in the name of Heretikes; are they not namely excommuni­cate? To expect that all Heretikes should be cited by their sir­names of Tesimond, Garnet, Blackwel, &c. is against the tenor of Councels in this word Anathema, as will appeare. Shall we thinke that the grand Heretikes, the Arrians, were thus for­mally denounced? This in those times, for their infinite num­ber, had bene impossible: much lesse can it be possible in these dayes, (though the Heretikes were but ten) because each par­tie by change and multiplication of names, may alter his sum­mons; as by your late example to be called The Proclama­tion against Gar­net. Garnet, aliâs Wal­ly, aliâs Darcey, aliâs Farmer, aliâs Philips: and so, like an Indi­uiduum vagum, in infinitum. But I dispute.

Those who both doctrinally and practically apply the lawes and censures of Excommunication, proper to obstinate He­retikes, vnto the professed Protestants of all conditions, do thereby manifest that all professed Protestants be, in their opi­nion, obstinate Heretikes. But all Romish Priests and Iesuites [Page 9] do apply the sentences and censures, which they hold to be proper to Heretikes, and truly excommunicate, against all sorts of professed Protestants. Ergo your former Suppose can be no sufficient repose for any Protestants to relye vpon.

The Minor proued by Popish

  • 1. Councels,
  • 2. Bulles,
  • 3. Doctors.

First, the Councell of Trent in their generall Anathema: for Maior Excō ­municatio mul­tis priuat bonis, eâque de causa absolutè dicitu [...] Excommunica­tio, & sole [...] let Graeco verbo exprimi, sc. A­nathema: quasi seorsim positus, & separatus a c [...]m [...]unione fidelium. Ad­uerte igitur quòd Anathe­ma non differt ab Excommu­nicatione ma­iori, quoad vin­culum, sed tan­tùm quoad so­lennitatem. Tole. Ies. instruct. Sace. lib. 1. cap. 5. Anathema (saith your Cardinall and Iesuite) is to be numbred in the great Excommunications: signifying a separation from the Communion of the faithfull. Whome did they intend to excom­municate in their some hundred Anathema's? Was it not the Protestants? Whereof there can be no better Interpreter then Vega, Fuit Vega vir eruditus, & in Primarijs Gonc. Tridentini The­ologis, Docto­rum iudicijs, nu­meratus, & in eius Conc. expositione studiosèversatus. Canis. Ies. Praef. in libro Veg [...] de Justificat. A man (as your Iesuite saith) very learned, and rec­kened among the chiefe Diuines in the Councell of Trent: who af­terwards performed good diligence in the expounding of that Councel. This Vega answering Cal [...]in in one point, saith, Non paucis vos omnes (Protestantes intelligi [...]) Synodus ferijt Anathematis. Vega lib. 15, de Iu­stif. cap. 23. The Councell of Trent hath pierced you all with many Anathema's.

Secondly, the Popes Buls.

The Bull of Pope Vrban against Protestants in this forme: Statuimus itaque sancientes vt Haeretici omnes quocunque nomine censeantur, v­bicunque per imperium damnati fuerint, animaduersione debita puniantur. Volentes vt de Im­peri, finibus haereticae labis germina modis omnibus deleantur. Constit. Vrban. 4. Cap. 2. § Statui­mus, & § Siverò. We decree that all Heretikes within the Empire, by what name soeuer they be called, be punished, and that by all meanes they be rooted out. The Bull of Pope Paulus 3. against King Henry the eight: the forme: Praeterea sub Excommunicationis poenamandamus, ne vllus Princeps Chri­stianus dicto Henrico Regi Angliae, eius nominis octauo, aut eius fautoribus, directe vel indi­rectè sub praetextu confederationum & obligationum quarumcunque etiam iuramento aut quauis alia firmitate roboratarum: quas omnes confoederationes atque obligationes factas ab­soluimus, & sanciendas sub eadem poena prohibemus. Insuper Principibus praedictis, alijsue quibuscunque personis in virtute sanctae obedientiae mandantes, vt aduersus Regem Henricum eiusue fautores, dum in erroribus praedictis permanserint, armis insurgant, eosue & eorum singulos persequantur, & ad obedientiam Sedis Apostolicae redire cogant, & nostris mandatis non obtemperantes, ex regnis & dominijs suis expellant; & vbicunque eos inuenerint, bona eo­rum mobilia immobiliáque quaecunque possint, capiant. Bulla Pauli tertij lib. Constit. Papal. de Pauli 3. Bulla cap. 2. We, vnder the paine of Excommunication, com­maund, [Page 10] that no Prince Christian entertaine any league or coue­nants with this King, or any of his followers, or fauourers whom­soeuer: but that euery one of any condition do take armes against them, thereby to compell them to the obedience of the see of Rome. What was their principall Error? Quia pestilen­tem Lutherano­rum haeresin amplectitur, & omni crudelita­tis genere in Catholicos bac­chatur, indura­tissimus Pharao. Petrus Math. Com. in eam Bul­lam. Because they embraced the Lutheran heresie. The third. The Bull of Pope Sixtus Quintus against all Protestants, whom, as though they differed in sub­stance of Religion in substantiall points, he therefore repea­teth in diuers names. The forme: Nos excom­municamus & anathematiza­mus quoscun­que Vssitas, Lu­theranos, Zwin­glianos, Hugo­nottos, & alios Haereticos quo­cunque nomine nuncupentur, ipsorumue re­ceptatores, & generaliter quoslibet de­fensores, & li­bros eorum [...]i­ne authoritate nostra scienter quomodolibet legentes a [...]t te­nentes, impri­mentes seuquo­modolibet de­fendentes, ex quauis causa publicè vel occultè quouis ingenio vel colore. Constit. Sixti quinti cap. 13. We excommunicate and ana­thematize all Hussits, Caluinists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Hugo­nots, and all other that receiue or fauoitr them, by what name soe­uer they be called; and generally whosoeuer shall either publikely or priuately reade, print, or defend their bookes not licenced first by our authoritie▪ This is the Bull; can any Protestant now escape his hornes? Nay, but that we may know that these are those Excommunications, which are à lure (as they tearme them) Excommunicatio a iure huiusmodi est quae perpetuo statuto lata est, quaeue semper valet, etiamsi admonitio nul­la praecedat. Felicianus Epis [...]. E [...]chir. de Censuris. cap. 9. Talem dicimus Bullam Coenae Domini, quae (vt patet ex forma ipsius Bullae) duratura [...]rat donec à Pontisice alio reuocaretur. Ibid. cap. 16. Forma eius huiusmodi fuit, Nos excommunicamus omnes & singulos Lutheranos & Cal­ninistas, &c. Ibid. cap. 14. Which is such a kind of Excōmunication as doth continue after the death of the maker, and is in force though there be no admonition thereof giuen. Such is the Bull called Bulla Coenae, excommunica­ting Lutherans, and Caluinists all and euery one. This Bull all Tolet. Ies. Instruct. lib. 1. cap. 19. Alphons. de Castro de punit. Haeret. lib▪ 1. cap. 7. Tu [...]recrem. lib. 4. part. 2. cap 21. Azor. Ies. Instit. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 15. Sayr de Casib. Consc. lib. 1. cap. 9. § 13. Cunerus de O [...]ic. Princ. cap. 9. Iesuites and Romish Priests haue alwaies inforced vpon all Protestants of their times. Seeing therefore that these Buls runne vpon Protestants so madly, as that (according to their tenor) they anathematize all Lutherans and Caluinists with all their fauourers whomsoeuer, to be subiect to censures due to He­retikes, whatsoeuer, and to be inflicted vpon them by meanes howsoeuer: can you secure All, or any one Protestant, that he is (in the opiniō of the Popes) no Heretike, or not excōmunicate? But because in modestie you would seeme to fauour his Maie­stie, as being no formall Heretike in your opinion; we must in­treate [Page 11] you to driue away three other Buls, which do violently assault him: Qui terminâ­runt quòd non solùm Insideles ad regnum sunt inhabiles, sed e­tiam Haeretico, e [...]si improptiè Haeretico sint: vt Greg 2. Clem. 5. Bomfacius 8. Isidor▪ Mosco [...]. de maiest. milit. Ec­cles. lib. 2. Part. 1. cap. 2. pag. 657. Three Popes ordaining, that no Heretike, though improperly an Heretike, shall be capable of a Crowne. From Pope we may descend to

Popish Doctors.

I may euince my former Assertion from the effects proper to persons excommunicate: which (as your Doctors do define) are of diuers kinds: wherein we must make bold with you to iustifie Protestants in despite of all Popish aduersaries.

The first.

The first censure is, Vna Haereti­corum poena est [...]a, vt Hae­retici appellen­tur. Az [...]. Ies. In­st [...]t lib. 8. cap. 13. § Septima. Infamie to be cal'ed Heretikes. But your Popes haue censured them * Heretikes: and your Popish Au­thors call them Rhemists vpon Ephes. 4. 29. An adulterous generation of Heretikes: and Rhemists vpon Joh. 2. 19. Ve­ry Antichrists, Haeretici, Ra­nae Aegyptiacae, incircumcisi Philistaei. Canis. I [...]s. Epist. ante lib. Vegae de Ius [...]i­ficat. Heretikes, Aegiptian frogges, and vncircumcised Philistims. And Gygantes [...]. F [...]uardent. lib. qui si [...] inscrib [...]r [...]. Gyants sighting against God. Audaces, astuti, factiosi Haeretici. Staplet. Com. in Act. Impudent, subtill, and sactious Heretikes: Nullus profectò Haereticus vnquam fuit, aut es [...]e possit, si illi non sunt Haeretici. Maldon. I [...]s. Com. in Mat. 13. For who is if these be not Heretikes? Quos Haereticos Ca­tholici nunc maiori odio, quàm Gentes, prosequuntur, quia periculosius est cum his quam cum Mahometanis agere. Maldon Ies. Com. in Ioh. 4. Which Heretikes all Catholikes now hate more then Infidels, hol­ding it more dangerous to dwell with them, then Mahometans. Bellarm [...]l olet. B [...]zius, Ʋalentia, Allane, Cres­well, &c. They are, &c. But a whole Volume would not serue me only to recompt the name Heretike, and Arch-heretike repeated almost thousands of times in most of the Volumes of Priests and Iesuits. But cease your blasphemies you sonnes of Shimei, and reuile not Protestant Princes the Annointed of God, for this is a certaine truth, Protestants are no Heretikes.

The second.

The second Censure is to be denounced Poena Haereticorum est dici Anathema, quae est separatio a communione fidelium. Toletus Iesuita instruct. lib. 1. cap. 5. Quae vox ( [...]t Hie [...]onymus exponi [...]) est maled [...]ctus. Vega lib. 15. de Iustificat. Anathema, signify­ing a separation from the faithfull communion by a spirituall curse. [Page 12] From which ariseth, Ab Haereticis non solùm quia excommunica­ti, sed quia Hae­retici, Sacramē ­ta recipere pro­hibemus: quia Haeretici omni iurisdictione ca­ [...]ent, vt docet Thomas. Azor. Ies. Inst. Mor. lib. 8. cap. 10. § Se­ptimò. Not admitting any communion in their Sa­craments: Haeretici a Sa­cramentis ar­centur. Al [...]hons. de punit. Haeret. lib. 1. & Azor. Instit. cap. 10. Nor permitting them ours: Ob Haeresin quilibet in re­bus diuinis eui­tandus est. Azor. idid. § Primò. But vtterly excluding them from all diuine Seruice: Et publicis Ec­clesiae precibus priuatur. T [...]let. lib. 1 Instruct. Saccrd. And depriuing them of the ayde of publike prayers. Hearken now therefore you Priests of Trent, Who haue p [...]erced Protestants with so many Anathema's: feare you the path of Balaam, and know that cursed are your curses a­gainst Protestants, as Heretikes, for this is a Catholike de­fence: Protestants are no Heretikes.

The third.

The third and last Poena Haere­ticorum est ca­pitis suppliciū. Azor. quosupra cap. 13. Is to put them to death: Poena Haere­ticorum est pri­ [...]atio sepulturae, specialiter in Haereticos constitut [...], posteà irrogata in omnes excommunicatos Azor. Ies. ibid. And after death to denie them Christian buriall, a punishment first ordained as pro­per to Heretikes. Wherefore you Conspirators, in that which you call in [...]ra. Holy league, Infra part. 2. Butchers of twenty thousand Protestants in one moneth: and you Officers ordained hereunto, namely, Inquisitors of Hereticall impietie; but impiously vrging one newly inuented Article of your Creed, Nostri Inquisitores haereticae prauitatis iurisdictionem suam, in Pon­tificum Decretis fundatam, crudelissimè exercent; non aliud quaerendo expostulantes, quàm si credat in Romanam Ecclesiam: quòdsi quis opinionem suam ex sacris Scripturis defendere conetur, cùm Haereticis (inquiunt) non Scripturis sed igne & fasciculis decertandum esse. Ma­ior erat Ecclesiae veteris mansuetudo, Haereticos per Scripturas conuincendi. Cornelius Agrippa lib. d [...] vanit. Scient. cap. 96. To beleeue (as saith your Doctor) in the Romish Church, answering them onely with fire and faggots, who maintaine their cause by (the fire of the ho­ly Ghost) the word of God; howle and crie in the foresight of Gods wrath, who will reuenge the bloud of his seruants: for this is a conclusion to be held of all Catholikes: Protestants are no Heretikes. But let vs (if it please you) conclude this point.

The Conclusion of the modest Answerer.

Cap. 2. § Thus I haue. Thus haue I proued at large, as my violent and distressed lea­sure would giue me allowance, that the chiefest building of all these slanders against vs is ruinate and ouerthrowne: that we do not e­steeme all Protestants for Heretikes, and excommunicate, as he pre­tendeth; neither that they are subiect to such penalties as he alled­geth.

The Reply.

Thus haue you prooued your selfe a distressed, or rather de­sperate Answerer; and such an one as may be thought rather vinolently then cōsideratly to haue vndertaken this taske. Not­withstanding as Caiphas A mente mala vera verba pro­phetiae protulit, ore eiu [...] vsa est gratia, cor con­taminatum non tetigit. August. Did deliuer a good sentence with an euill mind: yet must we thinke that the spirit of grace might vse his tongue, which neuer touched his corrupt heart, saith Saint Au­gustine. So you, though in your mind you gaine say that which with your pen you publish, yet will we acknowledge grace in your pen, and leaue the spirit of dissimulation to your equiuo­cating mind, and with good consciences concurre with you in this conclusion, Protestants are no Heretikes.

Thus haue we bene beholden vnto you for your answere, Protestants are no Heretikes: Not that we care to be called Heretikes of you, so long as we defending the Apostolike truth, are taught by the Apostle how to answere, [Act. 24. 14. After that way which you call heresie, so worship we God.] Yet because it is comfortable to the arraigned, when against many crying, Luc. 23. He is a seducer, crucifie him, one iudicially shall stand vp and say, vers. 4. I find no fault in the man, and stop the mouth of the blas­phemous and murdrous. Notwithstanding you are taught by this parenthesis of the Apostle [That which you call heresie] to acknowledge truly with your fellowes, that you call them Heretikes, whom so often you falsely call heretikes, yet one thing I mislike much in you.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere ibid. Thus is his chiefest building of sclanders against vs ruinate.

The Reply.

O (good Sir) you might haue learned this good by others late euils, to take heed you intermedle not in ruinating of buildings.

CHAP. VI.

Hitherto haue we only confirmed our Antecedent, namely, That Protestants in the common censure of Pa­pists, are esteemed Heretikes: It remaineth we now disable your consequent following.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere Cap. 2. initio. HIs Assumption being ruinate, that Protestants are not estee­med of vs Heretikes, or Excommunicate: it followeth, that no positions, which we maintaine, are rebellious; because he telleth vs that all such are built vpon this Assumption.

The Reply.

Which [It followeth] wanteth feet to follow, because there be two other reasons to prooue your doctrine rebellious. The first from the effects we see; the second from another principle of doctrine, which you generally maintaine.

The first. He that looketh vpon a goodly building, though he be deceiued in the foundation (which is the cause) whe­ther it be a rock, or artificiall worke; whether wooll or stone, because it is couered in the earth: yet can he not be ignorant in the building it selfe, which he beholdeth in the cleare sunne. Whether therefore I might mistake the cause of your rebelli­ons, as not to discerne whether it be in the Protestants scisme, or heresie, or in your selues (whereof I make no question) malice, couetousnes, or triple-crowned pride: yet when we shew these your positions, as it were turrets of your Babell: No Protestant may be elected a King, being inthronized must be excommunicate, and deposed, and being hopelesse to be reclaimed during life, must be violently cut off by sudden death. Neither this only, but All Protestant Magistrates and people, and their fauo­rers are subiect to like censures, their kingdome is to be inuaded, and themselues expelled: Reason teacheth vs to iudge from [Page 15] these doctrines of the effects to the doctrine of the cause, and iustly to esteeme them rebellious.

The second reason; though they be not yet excommunica­ted or censured Heretikes by your Pope, yet is this but durante beneplacito, or as in the Councell of Trent, [Concil. Trid. [...]ess. 15. Saluus conductus datus Protestantibus. &c. Pro hac vice saluus conductus:] Protestants shall haue safe conduct for this time. Marke here your Censurers, Only during the time of the Councell Protestants must be safe. Plainely signifying that they accounted Protestants heretikes before iudgement; and not that only, but before iudgement also (praeiudicium autem tollit iudicium) against common rule of iustice had resolued to ac­compt them Heretikes euer after. As our borderers to them they haue in deadly feud, if peraduenture they find them at their owne house, will giue kind entertainement, yea and de­fend them from violence, but after they be dismissed, saying, only for this time, do honestly giue them a watch-word euer after to looke to their owne safety. And this your selfe will tell vs, for Infra Cap. 13. His holinesse (say you) sent lately a iubet of obedience, and prohibet of disobedience in behalfe of our King, therein not obscurely confessing, that if the Pope shall turne his style of iubemus, then will you also turne your pikes of paremus; and what then but rebellion? Infra. Then no dutie to King, Magistrates, husbands, wiues, creditors, fathers, children; but among all condi­tions of Protestants hellish confusion. Thinke you so to babish the wisdome of our State, as not Ianus-wise to looke as well before them as behind? No, for when they remember what hath bene Vide suprae cap. 5. & Infra. Kings and Queenes English excōmunicate by the Pope, and assaulted by secret treasons, and open inuasions by his instiga­tions; they well know that there is no safe repose in an arbi­trary power of excommunication: but being warded by Gods hand from your last mischiefe, will so prouide, as not to lye open to a second terrible blow. And thus our building (if our former foundation should haue failed) by these two reasons might be sufficiently supported. Thus much in defence of our Assumption. We proceed to the confirmation of our seue­rall reasons.

CHAP. VII.

The discouery in the first Reason in the Maior.

THey who by their slanderous doctrine make all Prote­stants (in their common opinion Heretikes) so odious, as vnworthie of any ciuill or naturall societie, must necessarily be iudged seditious and intollerable amongst the Protestants.

The moderate Answerer.

Cap. 2. § Now will. My answere is absolute before, that no learned Catholike reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this Kingdome an Heretike.

The Reply.

And my Reply hath alreadie passed to incounter your An­swere, shewing that you by this your Answere haue made your greatest Doctors of all kinds Friers, Iesuites, Cardinals, Popes, yea Councels not only no learned Catholikes, but euen no Ca­tholikes; but (as they be) impious traducers, iniurers, mur­therers of Protestants, no heretikes, for heresie: for which An­swere made to vs how you may answere them, you may deli­berate.

The Discouerie in the Minor.

But the Romish Seminaries and Iesuites do brand all Pro­testants with detestable crimes, thereby to denie them of all ciuill, or naturall respects. Ergo

The Minor hath two parts, both proued,

  • Crimes slande­rously obiected.
  • All humane so­cietie detracted.

The first part proued.

First a Stranger saith, that Protestantes articulum om­ninò nullum te­nent symboli Apostolici Au­draeas Iurgi [...]ici­ [...] lib. III. Euang. quinti Proses [...]o­res. Protestants beleeue not one article of the Apostles Creed. Our countryman more strangely: VVright in his late booke of Ar­ticles. Pro­testants [Page 17] haue no faith, no Religion, no Christ, but are meere Infi­dels. The Master of the Seminarie at Rhemes writeth, and entituleth his booke En Caluini Turcismum, & plane Maho­metismum. Rei­nald. in lib qui inscribitur, Cal­uinoturci [...]mus. Caluinish Turcisme, and pla [...]e Mahome­tisme. Which booke Deane Gifford doth no lesse impudently then impotently maintaine, saying, that Calui [...] pseu­do euangelium Alcorano esle in nullo melius, in multis te [...]iu [...] & flagitiosius. D Gifford Decā. D. Petri, pr [...]f. in lib. D. Keinaldi. Caluins doctrine is worse then the Alcoran of the Turks. The Iesuit Institu [...] Prote­stantium Athe­ismos explica­te &c. Possiuin. Ies. li­b [...]llo de Atheis­mis Protest. Possiuinus with the same spirit of blasphemie doth compile a booke, wherein he calleth Protestants doctrines, concerning Christ, meere Atheismes. And all to this end, that all humane societie with Protestants may be vtterly dissolued.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere Cap. 2. § Therefore. This is no more then other Protestants charge Caluine, and such like with: as first the Deane and Colledge of Tubinge, wri­ting a booke of this subiect, giueth it for a title, Fundamentorum Caluinianae sectae cum veteribus Arianis & Nestorianis com­munium detectio.

The Reply.

That which they did in the spirit of opposition, and con­tention, is not much to be regarded; especially, seeing (as it may seeme by their obiections) their iudgement hath beene depraued by your malignant Doctors. For first concerning Arianisme, Heresin Aria­norum Calui­nus docet, vbi dicit Patrem es­se per excellen­tiam Deus. Bel­lar. lib. de notis Eccles. Cap. 6. § Ariani & pref. contro. de Chri­sto. § Sed iam. Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de Vnitate & Trin. Cap. 9. Armand [...]s Ies. epist. ad Cami [...]. Possiuinus Ies. de notis diuini verbi. lib. 3. pag. 78. Caluine (saith your Iesuites) doth plainely teach Arianisme, saying, that the Father is by a kinde of excellencie God. Whereas both the speach and sence is most orthodoxall, and agreeing with the tenor of holy writ, and iudgement of all ancient Fathers, as your owne learned Iesuits confesse. For the words of our Sauiour are plaine, Apud Ioh. 14. [Pater maior est me.] Quidam ratione diuini­tatis Pat [...] dici censent, non ratione substantiae, sed ratione originis: & hanc expositionem sequuntur illustres Doctores, inter quos Athanas. Nazianz Hilar Orig. Tollet▪ Ies. Com. in Ioh. 14. Etiam Epiphanius, Leont. Cyrill. Theoph. Euthym. Maldonat. Ies. in eundem locum. Ioh. 14. [My Father is greater then I:] in the true sence, Is, (say your Iesuits, and truly) The Father is greater not in substance and being, but by reason of Birth & begetting. For their Authority they produce an inquest of Fathers of free Caluine in this point: who was so far from [Page 18] Arianisme, that your own Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Arianos Cal­uinus impugna­uit Bellar. lib. de not Eccles. Cap. 9. § Primum erro­ [...]em. Vid [...] plenius sp [...]su [...] Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. Cap. 31. Caluine did impugne the doctrine of the Arians. Your Iesuites likewise impute Bellar. lib. de no­tis Eccles. Cap 9. Valent Ies. Tom. 4▪ Disp. 1. q 2. punct. 2. Nestorianisme: whereof Caluine doth free himselfe saying, Procul abigé­dus est Nestorij error, qui Christi naturam distra­here potius, q [...]m distingue­ [...]e volebat, Script [...]râ clarâ voce reclaman­te &c. Caluin [...] I [...]st [...]t. de [...]oc arti­culo, [Natus ex Virgine] Vide de hoc plura A­polog. Cath part. 1. Cap. 43. We must therefore abandon the heresie of Ne­storious, who rather distracted then distinguished the nature of Christ, against the doctrine of the holy Ghost in Scripture. It would therefore become your modestie, to haue omitted these impu­tations: but we shall find your moderation immoderate in this kind.

The moderate Answerer.

In the place a­boue. § I will. I will next bring in Master Hugh Broughton, a man greatly commended by Master Willet, who telleth the Bishops of England that their translation of the Scripture is corrupt; and that Christi­anitie is denyed here in England.

The Reply.

Master Broughton (which I am able truly to witnes) was as greatly commended and reuerenced for his learning among your greatest Iesuits at Mentz, and the Bishop elector there, yet he neuer allowed your Translation, but debaseth it more then any other: neither did he euer go to Italy or Spaine to learne Christianitie there. How you ought to esteeme of our Translation, I haue made it elsewhere euident from your owne Vide Apolog. Cathol. part. 2. lib. 1. Cap 14. Romish censures, who haue giuen the translation of Treme­lius as good an approbation, as any Protestant would require. Where also may appeare, by confession of your most learned Iesuites and others, the Ibid. Cap. 10. & deinceps. manifold deprauations of your vulgar, falsely intituled Ibid. Cap 8. & deinceps. S. Hieromes Translation. But what modestie can this be in you, to obiect vnto vs a man, whom you know to be sequestred from vs rather by impotencie of passion, then any difference of Religion; liuing now among them who main­taine both the same profession, and the same Latine Transla­tion? so immoderate in speech (to confesse that which all, that know him, can witnesse) that the least error he heareth he na­meth heresie, and the least opposition to his opinion, infide­litie. [Page 19] This is but the language of passion, which no moderate Answerer may mention to preiudice the moderate.

The very moderate Answerer.

Cap. 2. § The Admonition. The Admonition to the Parliament, written with no small con­sent, vseth these words; That no man, in whom there is any sparke of grace, or conscience, can liue in the Church of England, whose inhabitants be all Infidels, going to the Churches of Bishops, and Arch-bishops, whose gouernement is Antichristian and diuelish.

The Reply.

This writer and you may both ioyne fellowship: You de­dicate your booke to the King, he to the Parliament. He pre­tendeth the consent of a thousand; you [No Catholike will say Protestants are Heretikes,] implie a thousand thousand: He with all his consent is not many; and you (for ought you well pretend) but one, both inuisible and namelesse, neither of both able to make vp any great consent, except you multiplie the name of forenamed Aliâs A, aliâs B. &c. You see what is themaladie of this Admonitor, namely, to condemne our Re­ligion only because of Bishops, as, in his illiterate braine, an order Popish, and therefore Antichristian. Say now, do you thinke his Admonition tollerable? then must you (who do de­fend that Bishop of Rome) conclude your selfe an Infidell, and an Antichristian hireling. Do you thinke it immoderate? then are you no moderate Answerer to condemne vs by that Admonition, which your selfe doth condemne. Let vs heare something else which may proue Protestants guilty of the im­putation of Turcismes and Atheismes.

The very moderate Answerer.

Cap. 2. § Ther­fore first. The deniall of Christ to be God, which Master Willet and Doctor Fulke do, denying Christ to haue receiued the substance [Page 20] of his Father; or that he is Deus de Deo; God of God: as the first generall Councels defined.

The Reply.

Deny Christ to be God? God forbid: but to be God of God only in a particular sence, this indeed they do; but can you finde no more Protestants of this opinion? Your Campian. Ies. lesuite reckneth vp Caluin and Beza; and I thinke he saith truly: I would either he or you did as truly vnderstand them. But yet we wish to heare what your Doctors thinke of this Prote­stants opinion: your Campion calleth it Portentum. Rat. 8. § Mox. monstrous: your Haeresis vt re­fert Bellar. lib. 2. d [...] Christo. Cap. 19 Genebrard, Lindan, Canisius name it Heresie: your Nefaria haere­sis. Staplet. Prompt f [...]r. 3. post Domin. Pass. Staple­ton and Feuardentius do aggrauate it by an epithet, Heinous heresie: your Caluini Athe­ismus. Possiuin. Ies. lib. 3. de notis verbi Dei. ca. 74. Possiuinus noteth it of Atheisme: and your Blasphemie. Annot. in Joh. 1. vers. 1. Col­ledge at Rhemes of Blasphemie. And now, belike, this is that doctrine which deserueth your generall clamors, which be­ing examined with the eye not ouercast with the web of pre­iudice, Dum rem ip­sam excutio, non facilè au­deo pronuncia­re illos in erro­re fuisse: quia non videntur velle negare fi­lium esse à Pa­ [...] sed essen­tiam genitam esse negant. Quae sententia non video cur Catholica di­cenda non sit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Christo. Cap. 19. Doth (in the iudgement of your famous Bellarmine) seeme Catholicall: because they denie not the Sonne to be from the Father; but they denie the essence of the godhead to haue any ge­neration. This likewise is not the part of common modestie, to blind-fold your selfe, and strike you know not whom.

To the former inuectiues I must adde another of the same die, euen deepe black mallice: Speculamini Angliam, non iam Catholicorum, sed Anthropophagorum, & immanium Cyclopum Insulam reperietis nulla n [...] minima quidem vestigia his terrarum partibus fidei Catholicae superesse. Lodouic. de Orleanc. pag. 48. Looke vpon England (saith your french Rabsacah) and you shal find it to be an Ile of men, who cate mens flesh, and who haue not among them (yet they professe Iesus Christ and the Apostles creed) the least footstep to Catho­like Religion. This we see written, which giueth vs cause to be­leeue that which is reported by our Trauellers, who affirming, that in our last Embassage into Spaine, the people there gazed vpon our English Nobles and Gentlemen with that eye which Pope Gregory a thousand yeares since beheld them, when they were Pagans; and admiring the comely feature of their personages, and the fairenes of their complexions, asked [Page 21] Quaerens cu­iates essent ne­gotiatores qui­dam Britanni, & audiens Anglos fuisse: Bene, in­quit, Angli, quasi Angeli; sed proh dolor quàm splendi­das facies Prin­ceps tenebrarū nunc possidet! Who they were, and hearing they were named English, they may well be called Anglish, (quoth he) as it were Angels But, alas, what faire faces doth the vgly feend and Prince of darknesse now possesse? Thus the vulgar in Spaine are said in their Christian charitie to haue bewailed the miserie of the English, Alas, that these men haue not the knowledge of Christ! Being perswa­ded by their Monkes that we worship the diuels, which is more probable by their writings, as, Caluinistae fu­rentes detestantur Christum Dominum nostrum. Pintus in cap. 3. Dan. Caluinists are Heretikes detesting our Lord Christ. Caluiniana haeresis est Sarecenismo & Paganismo detestabilior. Reinaldus in Rosaus. Caluinish heresie is more detestable then the Religion of Turkes and Paganes. What is this else then to dissolue all communion with Protestants?

CHAP. VIII.

The Discouerie in the second part of the Minor.

1. In Neigbors.

Haereticis lici­tum est auferri quae habent; melius tamen est quòd autho­ritate Iudicis fiat. Decretum Papale apud Gratian. Caus. 15 q. Glossa. NEighbors, if Heretikes, may lawfully be spoiled of their goods (by force:) though it be better to be taken from them by au­thority.

2. In Parishioners.

Where the question is concerning paying of Tithes, it is resolued: Non est du­bium quin po­pulus Catholi­cus iure posset haereticos Pa­stores Decimis defraudare. Alanus Card. & Parsonus. Parishioners may lawfully defraud Protestant Mini­sters of their Tithes.

3. In Debtors, and whosoeuer haue any matter of trust committed vnto them.

Is apud quem Haereticus aliquid deposuerit non tene­bitur post manifestam haeresin rem depositam illi reddere. Simancha Instit. Cathol. Tit. 46. Sect. 73. Such are not bound to restore that which they haue receiued, or to satisfie their Creditors, who are Heretikes. Non tenentur reddere rem verbis contractam. Tolet. Jes. instruct. Sacerd. de Excom. They are not bound thereunto. Si iuraui me soluturum alicui pecuniam, qui excommunicatur, non teneor exsoluere: quia qua­litercunque possumus debemus venare malos, vt cessent à malo. Apud Grat. Caus. 15. q. 6. Glossa. This is an ancient Decree.

4. In Seruants.

Custodes ar­cium, & caeteri Vasalli eâdem constitutione li­berati sunt à vinculo Sacra­menti, quo Do­minis sidelitaté promiserant. Simancha Episc. quo supra sect. 74. Also keepers of forts, and all other vassals and slaues are freed from the oath of subiection to their Lords.

5. In Wiues.

Quinetiam vxor Catholica viro haeretico debitum redde­re non tenetur. Simancha in in­stit Greg. 13. dicatis, & eius iussu Romae im­pressis. Wiues are not bound to render due beneuolence to their Hus­bands, if Heretikes.

6. In Parents.

Pater, qui filiū habet haereticū, qui conuerti nō velit, si pater li­ber & sui iuris esset ad dispo­nendum de bo­nis suis vt vellet, tenetur exhae­reditare filium talem. Huc ad­iunge. Parentes mortaliter pec­cant tradendo filias matrimonio Haereticis Card. Allanus. The father must disinherite his sonne, if he will be a Prote­stant.

7. In Children.

Sacerdos in Angliam reuersus, & rogatus de parentibus, qui sunt Haeretici, respondere possit & veraciter negare eos sibi esse pa­rentes, intelligendo quales habere debeat: quia Patres solent respuere filios propter Religionē & silij Parentes. Allanus & Parsonus. A Priest returning into England, if his father be a Prote­stant, he may denie him to be his father: meaning that he is not such an one, as he ought to acknowledge his father. Nam propter haeresin patris filij sunt sui iuris. Simancha quo supra. Tit. 46 Sect. 74. For by the heresie of the father the child is freed from obedience.

8. In all Kindred.

Haeretici filij vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed iuxta Legem, Sit manus tua super cos, vt sundas sanguinem ipsorum. Apud Grat. Glos. in Decret. lib. 5. ex Greg. 9. Ca [...]s. 23. q. 8. Cap. Legi. Heretikes may not be termed either Children or Kindred, but according to the old law, Thy hand must be against them to spill their bloud.

9. In Natiues.

Si Ciuitas tota, vel maior pars sit haeretica, potest ille negare hanc esse suam patriam [...]intelligendo, quòd haereticam non habeat loco patriae. Card, Alan. & Parsonus. If any find his natiue Citie to be most part infected with here­sie, he may denie it to be his Countrey.

Finally, by Iuxta Constitutiones Greg. 9 Haereticus priuatur omni dominio naturali, ciuili, politico. Simā ­cha Jastit. Tit. 46 Sect. 74. Pope Gregorie his Constitutions; By heresie a man is depriued of all his iurisdiction, whether naturall, ciuill, or poli­tike. So that the tenor of the oath of the Leaguers in Fraunce is this: Si vnquam ad Haereticorum partes deflexero, [...]i amicitiam, si foedus, si matrimonium cum ijs faxo, si opem fidemue do, si Aue, si Vale dixero, illa die fulmine ferito. Ledouicus de Orleance Part. 29. If euer I make mariage, vse trafficke, yeeld ayde, hold friendship, giue credence vnto Heretikes, or once salute them; then let God confound me. Shall we call this Religion which dissol­ueth [Page 23] the dutie of Seruants, Subiects, Debitors, and strangleth the vitall spirits of humane societie? and by not acknowledge­ment of naturall duties of Wedlocke, naturall Parents, natural Children, naturall Countrey, doth bowell vp nature, as it were, and depriue men of humanitie it selfe? O Babylon! to proue this in all particulars were needlesse; one kind may satisfie.

Practise.

The Papists in France did libell against Henricum 3. haereticum, ho­micidam, &c. Lib. de iusta Ab­d [...]cat. Henr. 3. Henry the third as hereticall, a manslayer: so likewise against this Henry the fourth, callinghim a Henricum 4. Culinarē canē, pogonarum lu­lianum, bipedū nequissimum, foetidum Satanae stercus. Lod. de Orleance. Kitchin-dogge, long-bearded Iulian, most heathe­nish Apostate, and the very excrement of Satan. No lesse was the rank or of our Cardinall Poole against his Soueraigne, Si Caesarem intellexerim cùm omn [...] sua classe aduersus Turcam cursum dirigere, acsi iam Hellespon­ti fauces tenen­tem conspicerē, nunquam ac­quiescerem do­nec conuenitē, & in haec verba apud eum pro­rumperem: Cae­sar, quò par [...]? quid cogitas? Si amor Reip. Christianae te mouet, vt Rego Turcarum, an­tiquum Chri­stians nominis hostem aggre­diare annon vn­de maius peri­culum Reip. Christianae im­minet, & vbi nou [...]s hostis vi­get, multò quàm Turea infestior, eò potiùs cursum conuertere oportet? viz in Angliam, cu [...]us semen adulterinum vix à Turcaico internosci possit? Card. Poole ad Henric. 8. pro vnit. Eccles. de­fens. lib. 3. pag. 384. Desi­rous to diuert the Emperors forces from the Pagans, and to inforce them vpon Henry the 8. as vpon an enemie more pernicious then the Turke.

The modest Answerer.

Cap. 2. § The rest. Those penalties this Author alledgeth as belonging to the Ex­communicate, and such Heretikes, as spoiling them of their goods, denying Tithes; I answer, that these Societies of neighbors wiues, and such like are not to be denied to the Protestants in England, because we do not esteeme them in the case of Heretikes; againe, we performe these communications and respects aswell to our Country Protestants, as they themselues. Lastly, I answer that those penal­ties mentioned were not of purpose ordained against Protestants, but Decrees against Heretikes of those times, and not now in vse in France, Heluetia, Sweueland, Denmarke, and most part of Ger­manie. And if the penall Constitutions of the Councell of Trent are not yet after 40. yeares continuance receiued into those recited Prouinces and Kingdomes; there is not so great feare that those Pa­pall paines will euer giue to this man so much cause of so outragious exclamations.

The Reply.

If all your Sect would allow your Answer, we should need [Page 24] no clamor: for first your answer de iure, Protestants are not to be demed these duties: secondly, de facto, that You do not deny them: for confirmation of the right you inferre: that These punish­ments were not ordained against Protestants; and auouching the fact, you instance in other countries, where these penalties are not in vse. Concerning the fact, let vs admit that these are per­formed, yet the Apostle distinguisheth of performance of du­tie, & propter Iram, & propter Conscientiam; one for feare of ciuill power, the other for conscience sake. Whether bond doth tye you to obedience the subsequents will manifest. We do likewise acknowledge that some part of those penalties were more aunciently ordained against others, and not against Pro­testants; What then? if they be now extended against Prote­stants? For thus dealt the Iewes against our Lord Christ, 1. Pet. 2. We haue a lawe, and by that lawe he ought to die, because he hath spo­ken blasphemie. The law they had, was, Holy, iust, and good: but the application was their owne, vngodly, furious, and murde­rous; we may herein compare Christs blasphemie, and Prote­stants heresie. And if your late penall Decrees of Trent be not of force in other countries, you haue giuen vs a reason, Quia vires desunt: because they want outward force. Otherwise I haue shewed that those penalties, as non-payment of Tithes, are by your Iohn 19. 7. Allane extended against Protestant Ministers; of Debts, by your Insra. Tolet; against Protestant Creditors; of due beneuolence, by your Supra. Simancha against Protestant husbands; of due reuerence and acknowledgement, by your * Parsons, a­gainst Protestant fathers; of allegeance, by your * Simancha a­gainst Protestant Kings and Magistrates. And for further eui­dence,

CHAP. IX.

I adde a Supplement to your former Positions.

His admonition to the Nobilitie and people of En­gland. Anno 1588. pag. 41. IT is cleare (saith Allane) that what people and person soeuer be declared to be opposite to Gods Church, by what obligation soe­uer, either of kindred, friendship, loyaltie, or subiection I be bound vnto them; I may, or rather must take armes against them: and then [Page 25] must we take them for Heretikes, when our lawfull Popes adiudge them so to be. A litle after he striketh an Alarme, Pag. 53. Now there­fore my Lords and deare Countrimen fight, &c. In the whole booke the English Clearke exhorteth now (since the Councel of Trent) the English gentrie to take armes against their En­glish Soueraigne. Say now (moderate Answerer) will your modestie giue your face leaue to blush at this doctrine of your Cardinall? The like trumpet of rebellion against German Pro­testants, after the Councell of Trent, did Frier Alphonse sound alowd: Licitum est Haereticos bello oppugnare, postquam de corum perti­nacia constite­rit, bona enim intentio est fidē Catholicam ex­altare: quae fuit intentio Caroli Caesaris in bello suo aduersus, Protestantes, Germanos. Al­phons. de Castro. It is lawfull to ouercome Heretikes by force of armes. As long then as we heare of such Proclamations, sounding no­thing but Arma virum (que): there may be reason giuen of our ex­clamations. But you insist.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 2. pag. 12. § The rest. We haue not now another Queene Marie inheretrix to the Crowne, to be ioyned in mariage with a potent Prince, symbolizing with husband, conformitie in countrie discipline: to breed scruples in this behalfe.

The Reply.

This Answer giueth vs no more securitie, then the Cat doth the Mouse, when she seemeth but to play with it: for though you haue not a Maria, yet may your Dolman haue an Infanta, or your Catesby and his Complices an Elizabetha to match, and to ouermatch also at their pleasure, making her but as a garland of flowers in a May-game, to flourish for a day or two, and then to wither and perish. And before him your Wat­son saw no metaphysicall he or she to succeed. But though there be no such heire apparant, yet a man by troubling the water, may thinke peraduenture to catch an Eele, and AEsop. in Apol. The little Flie hath power enough to set the Eagles nest on fire. I leaue the confirmation of my Discouerie, and come to the confutation of those denyed duties. It is written, Rom. 13. 8. Owe nothing to any man, but loue one another. And therefore that debt of Tithes which Ioseph (as due vnto them) payed to the Aegyptian [Page 26] Priests: of Debtes and due beneuolence, which was neuer de­nied to Infidels: of Allegeiance and Homage, which Saint Ambrose did performe to an Apostate: may not be denied to any, though in case of heresie, much lesse then to Protestants. But to conclude with your owne words, Those duties are not to be denied vnto Protestants. It were well if either you writ as you thought, or that your Doctors did thinke as you write: and so should we haue lesse cause of scruples, to feare either you or them. Let vs proceed to the second Reason.

CHAP. X.

The Discouerie in the second Reason.

MAior. Whosoeuer do professe any ciuill power soue­raigne, whether directly or indirectly, are to be accoun­ted seditious. Minor. But all Popish Priests do professe a dou­ble prerogatiue ouer Kings, Democraticall and Monarchical, namely, both of people and Pope. Both which are proued by the Positions.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 3. in initio. To the Maior. I would wish him to except the Emperor of Germanie, and such as be subiect to the Empire, and such cases: I say Transeat Maior for Christendome.

The Reply.

Why Transeat? Do you then make all Kings in Christendome subiect to the Emperor? I know you dare not proclaime this in Quae regna Regibus suis contenta, nullius dominio vnquā paruerunt. Fran­cisc. de Victor. Relect France or Spaine. Dare you, (who thus insinuate your selfe into grace with his Maiestie: Epist. Dedic. to his Maiestie. § Therefore. I, one of your Highnesse obedient subiects) subiect your Soueraigne to a forreine State? as namely, to the Emperor, so farre from Imperiall, that (as one Iesuite confesseth) Romanum Imperium iam ferè deletū est. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. It is almost ruinate: Yea, considered as it is called Romane Empire, Imperium il­lud Romanum iamdiu euersum est. Salmeron Ies. Com. in 2. Thess. 2. Disp. 2. § Caeterùm. It is (as another Iesuite ac­knowledgeth) long ago (an vnfallible note of the prophecied time of Vide 2. Thess. 2 Antichrist) vtterly extinct. Cui vix Ger­mani ipsi ob­temperant. Co­sterus. Whereunto (saith your [Page 27] Costerus) scarce the Germans (whom you obiect) do obey. Which is very true; for, in the tenor and forme of Election and Coronation of the Emperor, you may find, as I remember, this power ascribed to the Prince Palatine Elector, that he (as being Steward rather to the Empire, then Emperor) may cite the Emperor to the diet of the State, and constraine him in some case to yeeld satisfaction. And therefore my Maior may still re­cide in Christendome.

To the Minor Proposition.

The moderate Answer is of two kinds,

  • 1. Recriminatiō against Protestants.
  • 2. Apology and defence for his owne Priests.

1. Recrimination or Accusation.

Answer ibid. And thus I frame my Minor. But all Protestant Writers do ordinarily teach, and practise this doctrine, as I shall proue.

The Reply.

This kind of Answer of retorting, which you call returning the Argument vpon Protestants, you vse in euery Answer: if tru­ly, you shall proue your sinne to haue bene more common, which cannot iustifie your selues; If vniustly, you shall but slan­der them and multiply your wickednesse. Which will be pro­ued, when we come to giue the Ʋide infra in the second part. Iustification of Protestants in answering your blindfold exceptions.

The moderate Answerer in Apologizing for his fellowes.

His second Proposition is this, [But all Popish Priests do pro­fesse a double prerogatiue ouer Kings, Democraticall or Mo­narchicall, namely, both people or Pope. Ergo) This his con­ceit fighteth with his owne Assertion, and present Position of the Popes Monarchicall prerogatiue ouer Kings: for where there is a Monarchicall power and gouernment in one, there is an vnpossibi­litie of a Democracie and Democratical power and regencie in the people: and yet this simple Disputer doth thus argue.

The Reply.

Simple I confesse, professing also that simplicitie in Christ, as neuer either in word or writing to aequiuocate. Notwithstan­ding your simple Disputer wisheth that he had met with so subtill an Answerer as could haue distinguished betwixt men­tiri, and mendacium dicere: to lye, and to report a lye. Say: this proposition, The Pope is taught to haue a Monarchicall power o­uer Kings, and people Democraticall, doth it imply contradi­ction? Seeing then I onely shew, in this present reason, that your Iesuites defend both, it is an vnreasonable modestie to fauor the Autors, and inueigh against me the reporter: which I haue done iustly in both, as will appeare in due order. Be not idle, but conforme your selfe to the lawes of dispute.

The Discouerie. First, of the peoples power.

Parsons. Parsons in his Dolman. The Common-wealth hath authoritie to chuse a King, and to limit him lawes at their pleasure. The French Iesuite sheweth a Reason. Maiestas re­gni est in popu­lo potius, quam in persona Re­gis. Ies. lib. de i [...] ­s [...]a Abdicat. pag. 36. For Maiestie (saith he) is rather seated in the Kingdome, then in the King. Like to Stapleton his Glosse. Non populus in Principum gratiam factus; sed Principes in populi gratiam creati. Didymus pag. 261. Stapl. People are not ordained for the Prince; but the Prince for the peo­ple. But more finely Reinalds. Rex humana creatura est, quia ab homi­mbus constitu­ta. Reinald d [...]i [...] ▪ s [...]a authorit. pag. 8 A King is but a creature of mans creation.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 3. § But let. People were in the beginning without Kings, and made Ele­ction of diuers kinds of Regiments, as they thought meete and most secure for their defence: for as I haue made demonstration, and his Maiesties words in the Parliament do conclude: Although a King­dome and people be relata, yet can he be no King if he want people and subiects.

The Reply.

This Position, People, as subiects, were before their Gouernor, doth tast too much of Machiauellisme: for in nature the birth [Page 29] is called prodigious, which is deliuered with heeles forward, from whence some haue receiued their names to be called Agrippa: such is this politike curse which you fancie, but remember that though, as you trulie affirme, King and sub­iect be relatiues, euen as Father and Sonne: yet consider them in the nature, in the reall foundation as things, and not of accidentall relation; and then (I hope) you will suf­fer the Father to goe before the Sonne. And so Adam, as an Oecumenicall King, was before his familie; after his decease, alwayes the right of gouernement was inuested in the first-borne, as a birth-right: so God did signifie to Caine, [Gen. 4. 7. l Baldus lib. ex iure D. de just. Andr Hostensis, Pet. Ancoranus, Card. Florenti­nus, Panorm. Olradus, Albe­ricus, Angelus, Felinus, Paulus Castrens. Bar­batius, Fran. Curtius, Card. Alex Phil. Fran­cus, Iason, Phi­lippus decimus, Carolus Ruinus, Anton▪ Corset­ta, Ripa, Caldri­ue, Al [...]iat. As I finde them cited by M. Haywood in his answere a­gainst Dolman. Pag. 17. And thou Caine shalt rule (meaning Abel) ouer him. And that Kingdomes haue bene successiue by lawe of nations in the first-borne, is confirmed by a grand inquest of your owne [...] Lawyers: not that wee denie Election of people to haue bene vpon necessitie vsuall; but so to magnifie the power of a people electing, as to continue still Soueraigne ouer the Prince elected, this is that which we call a position re­bellious: the very intent of your forenamed Authors, ma­king regall power to be from the common-wealth, but as Parsons in his Dolman. pag. 73. Potest as vicaria & delegata: delegate and by commission; to this end, that establishing the peoples dominion, they may vse them at their assignement for the subuersion of the King, as their places alledged do manifest, and is yet more am­plie auouched by another Iesuite, saying, that Si quis Rex fieret Christianus, & Catholicus, & postea fiat haereticus, aut Apostata; ratio ex­igit vt inter Catholicos populos a regni administratione re [...]ou [...]atur: & hoc iure, quia prote­stas prius in populo est quàm in rege; & a populo in Regem deriuatur. Salm. les. in epist. Pauli, in Gen. Disp. 12. § [...]a [...] de. If any King Catholike shall prooue an Heretike, it is reason for the people to depose him: because this power is in the people, which is de­riued vnto the King from the people. This is that position which we called rebellious, and yet behold Abyssus abys­sum inuocat; one depth of rebellious disloyaltie, in de­posing, doth drawe one another of crueltie, in murthe­ring their Kings, where the French yeeldeth them In populo est potestas vitae & necis, Autor de iu [...]a Abdicat. pag. 33. Power of life and death ouer their Soueraigne. To ouerthrow this ma­ny-headed beast, by weapons borowed from your owne men.

The Confutation.

There is one honest Frier that dare aduenture to light a candle to discouer the murderous: for speaking of the power of and by Election, Nemo potest [...]e Regem face­re. sed populus Regem eligit; sed Rex iam fa­ctus & constitu­tus, non potest populus iugum à cer [...]ce sua re­pellere: populi voluntas in ne­cessitatem con­ue [...]titur. Roiar­dus Dominic. 1. Adu nt. Though there be (saith he) in the people a freedome of Election, yet after they haue chosen their King, they haue no more power to remoue the yoke, but stand in necessitie of subiection. This man was but a Frier, and therefore peraduen­ture in your Synods may not haue any definitiue sentence, Bellar. which (you say) is proper to Bishops. Here is therefore (one of this order) Bishop Cunerus, who from the holie writ doth mainely impugne your former assertion, Quidam pu­tant Regum autoritatem, so­lùm explac [...]to & cōsensu pen­dere subditorū, qui Principes eligunt, vel re [...]i­piunt: caeterum B. Apostoli, qui spiritu scrutaba­tur profunda Dei, longè altiùs potestatis eo­rum originem ac fundametum er [...]nt. &c. Cu­ne [...]us lib. de Ossic. Princip. Cap. 5. Some there be (saith he) who imagine that the authoritie of Princes dependeth vpon the courtesie of people, as to thinke that they, who gaue consent to choose Kings, haue likewise now a power to depose them: But the blessed Apostles, who by the holie Ghost were inabled to search the myste­ries of God, haue more profoundly enquired into the foundation of the state and autoritie of Kings. * Saint Peter (saith he) entering into this argument, doth thus admonish Christians. Be ye subiect vnto the ordinance of man, whether to the King, as to the more ex­cellent, or his messengers sent from him; to the punishment of wic­ked, and praise of the godly: so is the will of God as free, and not as hauing libertie as a cloake of maliciousnes, but as the seruants of God. And S. Paul, 1. Pet. 2. There is no power but of God; and whosoeuer resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God &c. From whence he inferreth, Though all meanes whereby Kings come to the Crownes be not commanded of God, yet whatsoeuer meanes they vse, whether by Election, Succession, or inuasion, whensoe­uer they are by consent of the Kingdome once established, this is the ordinance of God: and henceforth he, as sent from God, is to rule, and people to obey; the Apostle saying of the people, Rom. 13. 1. It is ne­cessary to be subiect. This witnesse your selfe called for, saying, [Ans [...] [...]r supra Cap. 4. As saith Cu [...]erus,] so I, thus saith Cunerus. You may not in equitie refuse him. For this was iustice in the Gouernor, when S. Paule said, [Act. 25. vers. 11. and 12. I appeale to Caesar, to answere, And to Caesar shalt thou goe. Yet if he be not sufficient, behold a Iesuite will [Page 31] pleade our cause, Quāuis Princi­pes subinde non admodum boni sunt, & humanis saepè medijs vel artibus princi­patum obtine­ant, nihil tamen horū Apostoli Christianos at­tendere volue­runt, sed ordina­tionem Dei, per quam potesta­tem habēt, non quod semper media, quibus facti sunt reges, à Deo fiant, sed quòd à Deo or dinentur: ita vt­quicun (que) subli­miori potestate praefulget, huic ex voluntate & ordinatione Dei competit auto­ritas, qua subdi­tis potest impe­rare, & cui sub­diti parere te­nentur. vt licet medijs huma­nis, nempè, con­tractibus vel e­lectione, vel po­stulatione, vel successione, vel quacun (que) regni consensione, vel iure belli, vel si­mili ratione Princeps fiat, Principi tamen nunc facto haec diuinitùs potestas adest, & competit autoritas, quasi ipso Deo regnum & potestatem illi dante, & populū illi subjiciente, vnde de Ieroboam 2. Reg. 12. Te assumam & regnabis. Et 3. Reg. 11. Dedi te ducem super popul [...]. Et 3. Reg 14. Scidi regnum domus Dauid, & dedi tibi illud: Sicut apud Daniel. 4. Dominatur excelsus in regno hominum, & cuicun (que) voluerit dabit illud postquam constitutus est rex, tùm dicit Apostolus de populo, [Necesse est subijci.] Rursus. Qui velit concludere à Barbaris imperium esse eripiendum, quia sunt imperiti & compara [...] ad parendum, eadem ratione consiciet, à foemina aut adolescente, vbi regnat, posse per vim extorqueri dominatum, itémque à Rege imperito regnum, à Praesule indocto Pontificatum: Aliud est enim quid faciendum est ex ratione & secundùm naturam; aliud quid, si fiat, infe­ctum sieri nequeat Iure igitur Sapientiorés regnant, sed reipsa imperitus & barbarus si regnet, iniuria est de regno hunc pellere: alioqui rapinae & caedi res mortalium omnes expositas es­se opo [...]tebit. Haec Ioseph. Acosta Iesuita lib. 2. de Indorum salute. Cap. 5. * 1. Pet. 3. 1. Though it be better to haue a more wise King, then a simple; yet when he, whom we haue is but sillie, then may he no more be depriued of his Kingdome, then an vnlearned Pre­late of his Bishoprick: otherwise the state of mortall men should be exposed to rapines and bloodshed. But to returne to the Oracles of God, S. Peter called mans entrance into the kingdome by consent of people, mans creation; vpon this ground, it may be, your Reinolds did descant, where he called the King, mens creature: as though he could see in mans election nothing but man, whereas S. Peter in the same place saith to man creating, Be ye subiect vnto the creation of man, Propter Deum, for the Lords sake, in the creature beholding God: Why? S. Paule will satisfie, Because the powers that are, be ordeined of God. Rom. 13. So that mans creation is but the bodie of souerain­tie, Gods ordinance in that meanes is the very soule thereof, and ought in all Christians to be the life of loyall subiection.

The Answer retorted.

In the last place I must make bold to strike you with your owne sword: There is no King to rule (say you) where there is no people to be ruled: for King and people be Relata. All this is most true: Well now our Question is, whether after the peoples election of a King the power to depose a King re­mainestill in the people; you affirme, we denie it, strengthned by this your Argument frō relation originall, thus. The power of gouernment resteth rather in the Ruler, then in the partie to be ruled. But a King is elected to rule the people. Ergo the rule remaineth not in the people, but in the King. In coniu­gall societie before the contract the woman is free, but after contract (à relatis) now his wife: there followeth a necessitie of subiection, not to be dissolued: * Let the wife be subiect. Notwithstanding in your conclusion you bewray this mode­stie, to exact Learning in your Accuser, and shew none in your Answere. Thus much of your people, now we proceed or­derlie to the Pope.

CHAP. XI.

The Discouery. Secondly of the Pope.

TO auouch his preeminence, these men goe beyond the Moone: as first Bozius. Pontisicem esse Caput to­tius Ecclesiae, & habere potesta­tem etiam cir­ca omnia tem­poralia, proba­mus ex Theo­logis & Cano­nistis. Bezius de Eccles. Monarch. Tempor. Epist. Dedicat. ad Cle­ment. 8. Pontif. The Pope, the head of the Church, hath power in all temporall causes and States.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere Cap. 2. § But it. It will be obiected from the second Reason, that Catholikes hold the Pope head of the Church in ciuill power; and also ouer Kings, & circa omnia temporalia: Therefore he may depose Prin­ces, and command Subiects to take armes against them once excom­municate. First I answere.

The Reply.

But first I aske, why would you answere this in discourse of the first Reason, and omit it here in this second, where (being his proper place) you had reason to answere. I should thinke it was for loue of breuitie; but that your manifold superfluous repetitions doe except against it: yet I rather thinke it was your modestie, least that my accusation and your Answere (as different colors) iointly examined, might one illustrate the other; that, to be constant and iust; this, a meere fugitiue. But (be not offended) we must compare them, seeking your An­swere where it is, seeing we cannot find it where it should be: your first and second and third must be discouered in the reason following. What say you to the present point? Haue Popes [Page 33] prerogatiue ouer Kings in causes temporall, as of autority to depose them?

The very moderate Answerer.

Answer Cap. 2. § Secondly. I answere for all Catholikes in generall to the maine Obiection, that Henricus, Victor, Iohannes de Turrecremata, Couor [...]ius, & the common opinion of Schooles do teach, that there is no such tem­porallor regall power in Popes ouer Princes in ciuill affaires. And againe: Ibid. § Sixtly. These Autors do not say that this ciuill power is simplie and absolutely subiect to the Papall autoritie. And yet againe, Ibid. § There­fore. The discouerer cannot sinde any such power soueraigne ouer Kings challenged by Popes, against which he so much inueigheth.

The Reply.

The summe of your Answere is, that the generall doctrine of Papists is to denie all temporall and ciuill power absolutely ouer Kings; and that no Pope did euer challenge it. And yet behold, before your eyes, in this Reason to which you now would answere, your owne Doctor Bozius produced against you, who in his booke inscribed, De Tempora­li Ecclesiae Mo­narchia. Cle­menti 8. Pontifici Opt. Max. Franciscus Bozius. Of the temporall monarchie of the Church, and dedicated to the last Pope Clement the 8. is so absolute for this absolute temporall iurisdiction of the Pope aboue all estates whatsoeuer, that he extendeth it throughout the vniuersall world, euen Etiam Eth­nici, quoad temporalia Ec­clesiae, adeóque summo Pastori eius Romano Pontifici subij­ciuntur, vt do­cent Innocen­tius, Iohan. Andraeas, Hostiensis, Syluester, S. Antoninus, caeterique Doctores Canonistae, c­osque puniri posse affirmant poenà etiam temporali. Bezius in codem libro. Ouer all Infidels, to punish them for some causes with corporall punishments. And he challengeth herein the consent of Andraeas, Syluester, Antoni­nus, and other Doctors Canonists; yea also (which you denied, that it can be showen) Pope Iam infra. Innocentius doth challenge it. A doctrine so common, that Bellarmine doth confesse, that Affirmant hoc Aluarez, Syluester & multi alij. Bellar. Aluarez, Syluester, and many others do affirme it. Furthermore (because you say, Your Discouerer cannot show &c.) I must yet [Page 34] discouer a greater and grosser consent amongst your Schoole in this point. Alexander Carerius Patauinus of late hath writ; the title of his booke is this, De potestate Romani Ponti­sicis aduersus impios Politi­cos, & huius temporis haere­ticos Libri istius inscriptio. Concerning the power of the Pope of Rome against all wicked Polititians and heretikes of this time. This sure will be something to the purpose: say on. Hanc opinio­nem, [Sum­mum Pontisi­cem iure diui­no habere ple­nissimam pote­statem in vni­uersum orbem terrarum tùm in rebus Eccle­siasticis tum in politicis,] se­quendam cen­seo, quam com­munis Theolo­gorum schola secuta est: Tho­mas, S. Antoni­nus; cui opini­oni subscripse­runt (enumerat vigi [...]i duos, inter alios verò) Franciscus Mayronus, cognomento Doctor illuminatus, nuperrimè verè Celsus Mancinus, qui in Tractatu de luribus Principatuum. lib. 3. Cap. 1. & 2. ita scriptum reliquit: In sum­mo Pontifice est vtrauis potestas, seu iurisdictio spiritualis, & temporalis: & vti omnium est eminentissimus in spirituali potestate, ita etiam in temporali; ita vt liceat de Pontifi­ce Romano illud similitudine quadam asseuerare, quod Plato in Timaeo, quidnam esset Deus respondit, Non est homo, non coelum, non bonum, sed quid? praestantius. Roget quis an summus Pontifex sit Dux, an Rex, an non Imperator; caute respondebit, si ne­gando asserat, esse quid praestantius, quiduè eminentius. Haec ille. Et ex illo haec Carerius lib 1 de Potest. Rom. Pont. Cap 9. This opinion, namely, that the Pope by the lawe of God hath most full power throughout the world euen in all temporall or ciuill cau­ses, I defend: and hereunto the common Schooles of Diuines do subscribe. He numbreth two and twentie Authors, and among others one called The illuminated Doctor, and an other called Celsus, by interpretation, High or Aloft; and therfore insignes him with Verè Celsus, as truly so named, and so truly he may be, if we iudge him by the loftinesse of his style and cōclusion, which only this Carerius doth therfore expresse, as being more eminent then any other. Such and so great is the spirituall and ciuill power of the Pope (saith Celsus) that as Plato to one asking what God was, answered, he is not man, not heauen, not good, but what? more excellent: so if any shall demaund what the Pope is; by a kind of resemblance one may warily answere, he is no Duke, no King, nor Emperour, but more excellent. What can this be else (seeing God only is for excellencie called 1. Tim. 6. 15. King of Kings, and Lord of Lords) but an other God? Warily answered, but wickedly. Next he assumeth for autoritie of his defence Eadem opinion probatur ex Canonistarum, testimonio, qui sic adhaeserunt decreto desumpto ex C. per venerabilem: qui filij legitimi: vt infinitum sit illos enumerare. Carerius ibid. Cap. 9. & 10. The common iudgement of Canonists, all building this opinion vpon the Decrees of Popes. As if they should say, if we be deceiued in our opinion cōcerning the Popes iurisdiction, then the Popes haue deceiued vs. What is that which Pope Innocentius de­creed? [Page 35] Secunda Ca­nonistarum o­stensio sumitur ex C. Solitae de maior. & obed. vbi Innocentius tertius ait: De­us creauit duo luminatia in coelo, solem & lunam; id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt, Pō [...]ficalis, & Regalis: ha­rum quae prae­est diebus, spiri­tualibus, scz. maior est, & dignior eà quae temporalibus praeficitur; vt quanta est inter solem & lunam, tanta inter Pa­pam & Impe­ratorem cognoscatur differentia. Optimè explicat summus Pontifex hac decretali Pontificiae dignitatis eminentiam. Carerius ibid. Cap. 12. That God created two great lights, the Sunne to rule the day, and the Moone to gouerne the night: signifying two dignities, the spirituall, which is the Papall, and the temporall, belonging to to the Emperour like the Moone. Yet so, that there is as great dif­ference of excellencie betwixt the Emperour and the Pope, as be­twixt the Moone, and the Sunne. What can you inferre from hence? Vndè sic formo rationem; Ea est proportio inter Pontificem & Imperatorem, quae est inter Solem & Lunam; sed sol est praestantior lunâ, quae ab illo mutuat splendorem ac lucem: Igitur Imperatoris potestas à summo Pontifice pendet. Carcrius ibidem. That as the Moone hath no light, but that it borroweth of the Sunne: so the Emperour hath no power, which is not depen­ding of the Pope. Thus Pope and popish by too much gazing on the Moone, are become lunatike, who by a spirit of pride carnally peruert the literall sence of the holie Ghost, as it is Vide Apolog. Catholicam. Part. 2. lib. 5. Cap. 17. Proued. And the whole doctrine will be plainely confuted in the Infra part 3. Confutation. Wherefore seeing that this temporall vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope, some Papists with great consent, euen from Popes, haue proclaimed, all which you haue vnlearnedlie denied, which will yet be further confir­med in the next Chapter: learne henceforth a necessarie point of modestie, not to auouch a negatiue, No one Papist saith so, till you haue read sufficiently what they say. Thus much of the temporall power popish, considered directly: Now must we enquire how it may concerne him indirectly.

CHAP. XII.

The discouerie of the common doctrine of the Iesuitically opinionated.

THat the Pope hath power in temporall causes. Habet tamen indirectè in or­dine ad bonum spirituale. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 6. & 7. This is true (saith Bellarmine) vnderstood vndirectly, as it may auaile for the spirituall good. In briefe, Stapleton in his English Coun­terblast against Master Horne. This supremacie of the Pope (saith Stapleton) is a doctrine to be holden of all Christi­ans vpon paine of damnation, and separation from the Church of God.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere qu [...] supra Cap. 2. § Secondly. But Catholikes defend only a spirituall, as that is which they claime in temporals, in ordine ad Deum▪ (that is, for Gods cause) and is not to vse the Disputers words, A ciuill power [Soueraigne ouer Kings directly:] but only a spirituall preheminence.

The Reply.

Vse my words, but abuse not my meaning, to make the Rea­der thinke I only intreated of the power temporall ouer Kings directly: whereas in the Discouerie there is expresse mention of the temporall iurisdiction challenged of Papists both di­rectly, and also indirectly, both which are hereafter confuted. Here only we are to explaine them, and to shew, how both of them challenge a power in the Pope at his discretion to de­pose Kings. This hath bene manifested in the former, now it will appeare in the second, which you, forsooth, Answere in his Epist. § There­fore. His Maie­sties most loyall Subiect, do now mainteine, namely, A power spi­rituall (say you) in temporall causes, as it may be behoofull for Gods cause. And how that is meant, your Bellarmine doth in­terpret. Altera senten­tia in altero ex­tremo posita est, Pontisicem non habere po­testatem aliquā temporalem iure diuino, nec pos [...]e vllo mo­do (Ex ciuili autoritate) im­perare Princi­pibus seculari­bus, nedum eos [...]egno & princi­patu priuare, etiamsi alioqui priu [...]ri merean­t [...]r: non habet ha [...]e potestate directe, sed in­directe in ordi­ne ad b [...] spi [...], habet potestatem e­á [...] (que) sum [...]m in tempo ali­bus. Hoc modo possit Reges deponere, regna transferre, vni auferre, alteri conferre, tan­ [...]m sum [...]us Pontifex. Hanc sententiam Protestantes negant; quam communis Catholi­co [...]ū scho [...] defendit. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pent. Cap. 1. & 6. Protestants denie (saith he) that the Pope hath any temporall or politike iurisdiction and power ouer Kings by the law of God, as to be able to command Kings, much lesse to depose them from their thrones, and dispose of their Kingdomes. But the com­mon consent of Catholike Diuines is, that indirectly and mediatly, that is▪ so farre as it may concerne the spirituall good of the Church, the Pope hath a supreme power euen in temporall causes, to put downe Kings, and bestow their Kingdomes. And yet you denie, Superest vt demōstremus Papa non habere directe vllam temporalem iurisdictione iure diuino. Bellar. ibid. Cap. 4. That he hath directly any temporall gouernment by the lawe of God. A spirituall cosenage, as is proued by arguments in the Infra part. 3. Consutation, & only in this place to be exemplified. You may peraduēture remember that King, whose name I haue forgot, who being desirous to decree something cōtrary to that lawe [Page 37] whereunto he was sworne, required counsell in this case: Sir (saith his counseller) the Lawe directly forbids you this; yet there is another law which permits the King to do what he list. A dangerous State, where the Kings lust is his law. Now how is it in this your controuersie? to say the Pope can directly iudge and depose Kings. O no, you will not, For (say you) we de­nie: This opinion (saith Bellar.) is the first extremitie, as though you would acknowledge that to be directly a ground of trea­son: yet you hold it lawfull, When the Pope shall thinke it be [...]oo­full for the spirituall good, then he may iudge, depose, and kill. Herein giuing vs a speciall argument of your singular mode­stie; whereas being ashamed to giue the Pope Direct Soue­raigntie ouer Kings, haue closely conueyed vnto him the same power by the other tearme, called Indirectly. It were to be wished you would leaue that subtill modestie, and learne ho­nest simplicitie. It may be we shall perceiue some dragme thereof in your fourth-ly.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 2. § Fourthly. Fourthly, the maintainers of this doctrine do not vrge greater indignitie, or defend any sentence more offensiue (in equall iudge­ment) to any Pralate, sheepe, or shepheard; then to the chiefest Shep­heard vnder Christ the Pope himselfe: for they all with one consent affirme, that in case of heresie (now in question) he is either actually and really deposed, or to be deposed; The Canonists do hold, that he is ipso facto deposed, if he fall into heresie; with whom Turrecrem. Castr [...], and others do consent.

The Reply.

Wherein I dare appeale to any equall, or almost any vne­quall iudgement of my greatest aduersaries, to determine whe­ther this your answer be not absurdly false in two degrees.

First: Answer cap. 3. § Secondly. Those (you say) who vrge this opinion, of deposing Prin­ces in case of heresie, offer no more indignitie to any sheepe, then to the chiefe shepheard vnder Christ the Pope: and yet [Page 38] in the same Chapter, I Answer (say you) if any man hold that o­pinion of such power ouer Princes in Popes, yet they will pleade it more tolerable in the authoritie of one supreme Pastor in the Church, whereof Princes be sheepe, &c. The argument then of these men, as you confesse, and Infra Part 3. is hereafter shewed, is this, As the shepheard to the sheepe, so the Pope to Kings: but shep­heards haue power ouer sheepe, and not sheepe ouer shepheards. Er­go Popes may depose Princes, and Princes may not remoue Popes. This is your Popish and (as it is In the third part. after proued) your sheepish conclusion: wherein whether there be not offered greater in­dignitie to Princes, then to Popes, let the equall Reader iudge.

Secondly, the Authors of the doctrine of deposing of Kings in case of heresie, do professe concerning Popes, Bellar. Ies. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. ca. 2. Greg. Valent. Ies. Analys. lib. 8. cap. 3. Salmeron Jes. Com. in Gal. 2. Disp. 24. Canus loc. T [...]ol. lib. 6. cap. 8. Staplet. Doctr. Princ li. 6 Cos [...]erus Enchir. Tract. de Pontif. That they cannot possibly be Heretikes, as Popes, and consequently cannot be deposed: Not (saith Bellarm. in [...]ra. Bellarmine) by any power whether Ecclesia­sticall or temporall, no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell. Not though (saith Ibidem. Carerius) he should do any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall stat [...] of the Church: Not though (saith Ibidem. Azo­rius) he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall, or peruert the lawes of Kings: Not though (saith your Ibidem. Gratianus Glosse) he should carrie infinite multitudes of soules headlong with him into hell. And these forenamed Authors do auouch for the confir­mation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Di­uines, and Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares. Whe­ther therefore to affirme, that Kings may be Heretikes, and for that cause deposed, and that Popes cannot be deposed, be­cause as Popes they cannot be Heretikes, be equall indignitie to Popes and Kings, let (if you will) your vnequall Reader iudge. And now (not to stand vpon other transparent absur­dities of these Authors) your modestie is to be put in mind, not to appeale vnto equall iudgement in that, wherein you ma­nifest your totall eclypse of iudgement. Hitherto haue we dis­puted of the power of people and of the Pope, considered as it were intensiuely. Now we approach to examine both of them in their extent and execution.

CHAP. XIII.

The Discouerie in the third Reason.

WHosoeuer vpon any pretended supremacie, whether of Pope or people, do denie the necessarie right of Election. or of succession of Protestant Princes; are to be holden amongst all Protestants seditious: But all Popish Priests do vtterly abolish the title of Succession in all Protestant Princes, by pretended preroga­tiue of Pope and people. Ergo: The Minor proued by their Positi­ons.

In Election.

1. The Romish Cardinall: Nulla est Im­peratonis aut Regis electio, si cum eligitur, excommunica­tus sit. Tolet▪ Ies. & Cardinal. lib. 1 instruct. cap. 13. § Aduett. au­tem. There is no election, whether of King or Emperor, of any force, if he that is elect (such as they e­steeme all Protestants) be excommunicate.

In Succession.

Reinalds: Ius ad regna Christianorum maius est in Re­ligione, quàm in Successione: maius in vltio­ne haeresis (lo­quitur de Prote­stantibus) quàm in cognatione sanguinis. De­bent igitur Christiani om­nem tali spem praescindere, ne ad eam celfita­tem aspiret▪ Rei­nald Anglus in suo Ros [...]us pag▪ 649 & pag. 670. The right of Kings Christian must depend rather vpon their Religion, then vpon order of Succession: and therefore all Christians are bound to cut off all hope, lest that any such (spea­king of Protestants) may aspire to the throne. Qui contra facit, Deum ho­mini postpone­re, carnem spi­ritui anteponere dicendus est. Staplet▪ in suo Did [...]m. pag. 122. Otherwise (saith Stapleton) what do people else but euen preferre man before God. Hereupon doth Simancha conclude, that Regnum Hae­retici defuncti ad filium Catholicum pertinet: quòd si filius & consanguinei eius haeretici fuerint, Regnum Catholicum possit Regem orthodoxum eligere: si verò Regnum haereticum fuerit, Electio Re­gis Catholici ad summum Pontificem pertinet: sed & r [...]gnum illud possit a Catholicis occu­pari. The Kingdome of an Heretike departed doth lineally descend vpon his sonne: but if the sonne in the race Royall be hereticall, the Catholike Common­weale may chuse him a Prince: but if also the Kingdome be here­ticall, then the choice of the King belongeth to the Pope: and so the Kingdome may be taken by Catholikes. And lest, peraduenture, any should consent to the lawfull Succession, father Parsons doth pronounce sentence. Parsons in his Dolman. pag. 216. Whosoeuer shall consent to the suc­cession of a Protestant, is a most grie [...]ous and damnable sinner. Thus farre of the Position. Now behold their

Practise.

[Page 40] 1. In France. Reinalds doth forewarne the French. Vultis in Re­gno Galliae Christianissimo Regem procla­mare Nauarraeū Caluinistam? eadem opera hominibus im­perare iubetis canem; templū Dei viuentis prostituitis Sa­tanae, & in vi­neam Domini immittitis tru­culentum aprū, qui illam vastet & depascatur. Reinald in suo Rosaeus. pag. 466. Will you proclaime Nauarre a Caluinist King of Fraunce? What is this else then to aduance a dogge to be Soueraigne ouer men? Illi nè clament Viue Rex, quē ne salutare pos­sint, nec in do­mum suam re­cipere? Ibid pag. 476. Shall Catholikes pray, God saue that King, whom they may not admit in­to their houses? Dicit fortassis Nauarraeus, Ego saniorem Reli­gionē induco, sed hoc ad rem nullo modo pertinet; tene­tur enim Reli­gionem Roma­nam defendere. Creswellus in suo Philopater. For suppose (saith Father Creswell) that he pro­fesse to bring in a more sound Religion; what is this to the purpose? he is bound to defend the Romish faith. From France we will re­turne home, where father Parsons busieth himselfe to disable the title of Succession of our most dread Soueraigne King Iames: Parsons in his bocke called, A Conserence cō ­cerning the next succession of the crowne of England. with intent to aduance the Infanta of Spaine thereun­to. Thus much of Successors, now of Possessors.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 4. § I Answer. Let all be true which he citeth, and that they so teach: yet if fiue particular men could make a generall Councell, and their sen­tence be tearmed a publike Position: yet they speake onely of a Prince excommunicate before his Election; which case is not now in rerum natura, much lesse in England, as this vniust Accuser would proue.

The Reply.

Ʋniust? not so, your selfe will acquit me: I haue instanced in sixe of your Priests and Iesuites, whereof foure be our owne countrimen, and therefore, by your owne iudgement, Best able to iudge of our country cause. And you answer, Let all be true which he citeth, when you could not answer that one testimo­nie was vntrue. Secondly, you start backe; If (say you) fiue par­ticular men could make a Councell, or their sentences be tearmed a publike Position: as if we may not rather vnderstand your pub­like Positions by these fiue your best learned Clearkes, then by onely you, who by that your [Yet if] would onely seeme to take exception vnto fiue, and bring instance to the contrarie from none. In all which you testifie that I am not an vniust Accuser, but that you are now an idle Disputer.

But if these fiue should be thought priuate, whose bookes are priuiledged with the most publike and ordinarie approba­tion [Page 41] of your Church; I could adde fiue score moe of your side conspiring in these Positions belonging to conspiracie. Third­ly, They speake (say you) of a Prince excommunicate, which is not our English case at this present. Good, Now at this present: namely, when you writ, and yet peraduenture whilest I replie the case is presently altered, or at the Popes pleasure may be. And is not this a safe case for our Soueraigne, trow ye? Wher­of more in the next Section.

The most moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra. His Maiestie was not excommunicate before his Election, neither is he now, but is both elected and setled in his throne both without any contradiction of the Pope, and with his Iubet of all o­bedience, and Prohibet of deniall thereof. All the Catholikes of this Kingdome applauded it as much as Protestants, and his vnion and league with Catholike Princes and people abroad is sufficient Answer, that this is a malitious slaunder of holy Priesthood, and proueth Catholikes innocent, Protestants guiltie, and this man an vniust Accuser.

The Reply.

If his Maiestie was not excommunicate by the Pope before his Election, (which you should rather call Succession) then was he vniustly (that I may so say) excommuned by the Pope before his Election: but your Superior Garnet confes­sed, that he had receiued two Breues from the Pope, to make vse of, whensoeuer our late Queene Elizabeth should depart out of this mortalitie. The content of those Breues was this: that Quampri­mùm contige­rit miseram illa foeminam ex hac vita disce­dere, &c. Garnet bis Com­fession at the Barre. None should be acknowledged King of England, but such as was a professed and resolute Catholike: Nulli, quantâcunque sanguinis propinquitate nitantur: that is, No other, though neuer so nigh in bloud. Which Breues, he (perceiuing the generall applause of people yeelding to the right of Succession according to neare­nesse in bloud) burnt. Thus we see if the Popes power had not bene disappointed by want of force, his Maiesty, though nea­rest [Page 42] in bloud, might not haue entred but with bloud. Now therefore what a case am I in? If I shall denie my fonner asser­tion, then your superior Priest Garnet will accuse me for a liar; for his Maiesties case was not different from others, seeing The Pope gaue contradiction to his succession: if I still defend it, then your Priestship doth accuse me for a Slanderer of holy Priest­hood.

The very moderate Answerer.

Lam supra. Because the Pope gaue a Iubet of all obedience, and prohibet restraint of disobedience.

The Reply.

Yea, Iubet of obedience? Iubet? what is that? Euery child can expound it literally to signifie To commaund, but by Popish Glosse may happily signifie to forbid: for we must not be igno­rant of your like glozing in the publike Decrees of Popes. Whereas your Canon is Grat. dist. 4. col. 2. § Statuimus. Statuimus, We decree: that is, (saith your Expositor) We abrogate, or disallow. Is it not as easie for you to turne Iubet, to an id est, prohibet? Howsoeuer we per­ceiue your subiection stands still vpon the Popes Iubet, that (as it is recorded of the French) Arnold. in Orat. [...]uers. Jes. If he shall commaund to kill the King, you must be his subiects. Lastly, there is but one of these Authors aboue mentioned, who speaketh expresly of the ex­communicate: and there is not one of them, but iudgeth a pu­blike professed Protestant in the state of an Vide supra. chap. 2. & 3. &c. Excommunicate. To conclude therefore, be you admonished not to preiudice your modestie so much, as to taxe any for an Vniust Accuser, a­gainst whom you can shew no iust exception. Yet there re­maineth two other mysteries to be vnfolded, the first is yours, the second is your Superiors.

CHAP. XIIII.

The new deuice of our moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 6. § But first. TThere is at this present a great difference betweene the Em­peror, who is created by the Popes lawes, and with his so­lemnities [Page 43] from whence he receiueth his sword; and a King that is absolute, and not so created or depending for power or iurisdiction, such as our Soueraigne in England: for the Emperor is the Popes Minister, as saith Molina.

The Reply.

We might peraduenture be beholden vnto you for this di­stinction, if we could presume you knew what you said: being guiltie herein of a double falshood, first, to thinke, That the Emperor hath no power, but from the Pope: the second, to say you thinke, That other Kings haue not any power, which is not from the Pope. The former is confuted Infra part [...] hereafter: the other now in this place. For your Carerius, making vnction by Ro­mish Bishops in Coronation of Kings to be essentiall to royal­tie, without which they be no Kings, saith: Notissimum est Reges Gal­liae, Angliae, Scotiae, Daniae, Suethiae, nisi vn­gerentur ab E­piscopis, non fuisle pro Regi­bus habitos: vt aperuit Tho­mas Bozius, &c. Carerius lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 17. That this is a do­ctrine most commonly knowne of all, that the Kings of France, En­gland, Scotland, &c. were neuer esteemed Kings before their Vn­ction: Parsons in his Dolman pag▪ 132 No more (saith your Parsons) in the rigor of iustice before (Popish) Coronation, then the Maior of London can be called Ma­ior before his oath. Qui non sinit [...]e à Sacerdoti­bus vt Regem vngi in eum fi­nem vt Religi­onem Christia­nam defendat, nullo iure pos­sit Christianos in Baptismo vnctos regere. Reinald. in Rosaeus pag▪ 535. Which Ʋnction whosoeuer shall refuse (saith Reinalds) can haue no right to gouerne Christians annointed in Baptisme. In briefe: Allane in his Admoni­tion. pag. 31. None is lawfull King or Queene of En­gland (saith your Cardinall) without the approbation of the See Apostolike. All grosly false: for first: In Francia Reges, qui iure haereditario succedunt, ante solennem inauguratio­nem & coronationem, vt ex amplissimi ordinis decreto constitutum est, pro consecrato & in­augurato habentur Barclaius lib. 3. contra Monarchomach. cap 2. In France (saith your Bar­clay) Kings who are to succeed by inheritance, are iudged as con­secrate and inaugurate before they be solemnely annointed. And shall we thinke the French Kings to exceed our English here­i [...]? No, I haue heard Lawyers say, The King of England neuer dyeth. I thinke they speake not without booke; otherwise Q. Mary could neuer haue iustified her act, when she beheaded the Duke of Northumberland, some moneths before her Co­ronation, for high treason against her royall person, I returne [Page 44] to your argument. Si Imperator saltem honore & dignitate cunctis Regi­bus in Ecclesia excellentior re­putatur, à Papa demum repro­bari possit, mul­tò magis caeteri Principes à Pa­pa punientur: nam, vt aiunt, qui eminentem Aquilam do­mat, facilè Ac­cipitres compri­met. Carerius quo supra. lib. 1. cap. 3. If the Emperor (saith your Carerius) who is held more eminent, at least in dignitie, then any King, may be reie­cted by the Popes: then much more other Kings may be punished by the Popes authoritie. For he that can tame an Eagle, may much more command Hawkes. Here we obserue your spirits of contra­diction: you from comparison of disparitie betweene the Em­peror and other Kings, would seeme to free Kings, and inthral the Emperor: your Doctor Carerius from the contrarie dispa­ritie would bring all Kings into subiection. But know, that howsoeuer now the Eagle be entangled, whom you esteeme no better then the Popes vassall, yet Non facile Accipitri rete sternitur. And that neither Emperor nor King are lawfully sub­iect to this yoke, is afterward made manifest.

A second new deuice.

Garnet publik­ly at his Arraign­ment. His Maistie is not in the case of Excommunication, as other relapsed Protestants, because he was borne in that faith which he professeth.

The Reply.

And yet the now Henry 4. King of France sucking Prote­stants doctrine from his nurce, was excluded from his birth-right of the Crowne, till he was reconciled vnto the Pope. And this same father Garnet had a Breue from the Pope to barre our Soueraigne from Succession, except he should be found absolutely a Romish Catholike. If then the Borne Pro­testants be free from Excommunication, why did the Pope ex­clude the King of France, or by his Breue to you, except a­gainst the King of England? If the case be otherwise, what Quacksaluers be you to offer a salue which cannot possibly cure the sore? I haue digressed a little, but I hope not trans­gressed; for this point was, you see, pertinent. I returne to you our moderate Answerer, and we will now ioyne issue in the next Reason.

CHAP. XV.

The Discouerie in the fourth Reason.

WHen the King is established in his throne by the common consent of the Kingdome; whosoeuer shall manackle the hands of his subiects, detracting all obedience, may iustly by order of lawe be challenged and condemned for a disordred and rebellious person. But all popish priests do dissolue the oath of obedience to all Protestant Gouernors. Ergo. The Minor proued by

Their Positions.

First one of their Bishops resolueth, that Quampri­mum Reges Christiani facti sunt heretici, protenùs eorū Subiecti ab il­lorū Dominio liberantur. Si­mancha Episc. Instit. lit. 23. sect. 11. As soone as a Christian King becomes hereticall, forthwith people are freed from subiection.

Secondly their Cardinall. Durante ex­communicatio­ne qui obnoxij erant vinculo fidelitatis vel iuramenti tali vinculo libera­buntur. Tollet. Ies & Card. In­struct. Saccrd. lib. 1. Cap. 13. As long as the Prince continueth excommunicate, the subiect is freed from the oath of subiection. By whom are they freed? Non videtur negandū, posse Rom. Pontificem se & alios soluere à iurisiurandi religione & lege, modò iusta causa subsit. Azor. Ies. Instit. Mor. Cap. 15. § Sextò quae­ritur. By the Pope (saith the lesuit) who vpon iust cause hath iust power to absolue from oathes both him­selfe and all others. Sometime the Prince is personallie excom­municate, what then? Postquam per Pontificem (nominati [...]) excommunicantur, extunc Vasalli ab eius fi­delitate denunciantur absoluti: Et terra eius exponitur Catholicis occupanda, qui eam, exter­minatis hereticis, abs (que) vlla contradictione possideant Massonius Iuriscons de Maiest. milit. Eccl. par. 2. lib. 4. de Imperijs pag. 676. Then (saith their Lawyer) Subiects are freed from their allegiance: and all his hereticall Assistants to be rooted out, and their land to be exposed to be possessed of (Strangers) Catholikes. But how if he be not excommuni­cate by name? yea, what though not excommunicate? Cùm est crimen notorium, nullâ est opus declaratione sentē ­tiae excommunicationis Panormitan. Cap. Cum in homine extra de iudicijs. If (saith an other) his heresie be publikely knowne, there needeth no pronunciation of the sentence of Excommunication. Crimen heresis, si fit notorium, vt nullâ possit tergiuersatione caelari, etiam ante Iudicis sententiam, incurritur (ex parte) poena praedicta: nimirùm, eatenùs, vt subditi licitè possint tali Domino negare obse­quium. Valent. [...]. 3. in Thom. Disp. 1. q. 12. punct. 2. pag. 463. § Nunc. So that (saith the Iesuite) Subiects may lawfullie denie him obedience. [...] [Page 44] [...] [Page 45] [Page 46] How so? In hoc articu­lo [...]u [...]t [...]chnus & C [...]jetanus, & communior sente [...] ap [...]d [...]ulos D. Thomae, & pro­bant, quia ia hac causa adest [...]emper volu [...] ­tas interpreta­t [...] Pontisi [...]s, qui obtinet vim s [...]ntentiae, atque euidentia [...]acti habet vim sen­tentiae. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 12 Act. 2. Con [...]lus. 2. For the euidence of the crime (saith their whole schoole) doth inferre a sentence of condemnation, because (as the more common opinion defineth) there must we vnderstand the Pope his will is to haue him excommunicate, whom vpon the know­led [...]e of his fault he would excommunicate. Say, Father Creswell, is this true? Hoc vniuersa Theologorum & lurisconsul­torum Schola tenēt, & est cer­tum, & deside. Cresa [...]llus I [...]s. in suo Philopater. pag. 194. It is certaine and of faith auouched by the vniuer­sall voice of Schooles. Satisfie vs yet in one question more: Sup­pose that the Protestant Prince haue a iust quarrell, what then? In the coppie of a letter sent by Card. Allen to Sir VVilli [...]m Stanley. pag. 10. No warre can be lawfullie denounced or waged by the Queene (being excommunicate by name) though otherwise in it se [...]fe it were most iust, because her power is vnlawfull.

The very moderate Answerer.

The Answer cap. 5. in initio. This is the first Proposition I grant vnto; but how false and standerous his Assumption is, I haue proued before. Secondly all his Autorities he bringeth are priuate men, not able to make a dogma­ticall principle, or publike position; againe they intreate of such as be nominatim excommunicate: of which sort there is no Protestant Prince; neither can there be any iust feare of the Popes generall proceeding herein: except any Protestant Prince should be incited by some such vnchristian spirits, as this Discouerer seemeth to be possessed with, to exceede all others in persecuting Catholikes, and offering indignities to the Church of God.

The Reply.

It seemeth you were now in your naturall choller, because in this one Answere you do vilifie your friends, threaten your Soueraigne, traduce your Aduersarie, and in conclusion con­demne your owne ghostlie fathers.

Your friends: to call these your Doctors, Cardinall Tollet, Reinolds, Symancha, Creswell, Stapleton, Azorius, Panor­mitan, Greg of Valentia, Bannes, and such like, and the most of them most publike and eminent Doctors your late Romish Church did glorie in, and autorized with the common consent of Ordinaries, priuileges of Collegies, and your vniuersall [Page 47] schoole; to call, I say, such like priuate men, and not be able to oppose one priuate man of that sect against them, doth argue a spirit of rare modestie, and singular insufficiencie.

Your Soueraigne: If he shall offer, as you misconster it, to persecute, and to cut off the most capitall enemies to his state, and gangrenes of their countrey, then The Pope &c. O sir, [...]e­member your selfe, One of his Maiesties loyall Subiects &c. This is not modestie, but hypocrisie.

Your Aduersarie, The Discouerer, forsooth, an vnchristian spirit: who doth discouer only the hooke, of treason, whereby sillie soules are catched; and herein not chargeable with misie­porting his Autors, desirous to recall you to the ancient truth of Christian subiection, and (if it be possible) to sauing health; And yet is thus censured as an inciter of his Maiestie against Romish Priests, whom their owne positions and practises do proclaime publikely to be persons seditious.

Your Fathers: for this proposition, Whosoeuer shall manacle the hands of Subiects, denying obedience to their established Kings, must be iudged a rebellious person, you say you Grant: now it hath bene proued, that not only these aboue named Iesuites, but also your Popes haue bene principals in these kinds of Treasons both against the Emperour Henry the fourth, and also the mirror of all princely wisedome, Elizabeth our late Soueraigne. And therefore in your conclusion you infold your Popes in the roote of these rebellions. These Popes we haue discouered by their practises, as for example.

CHAP. XVI.

The Discouerer in the Practise.

FIrst, Pope Gregorie the seauenth, alias Hildebrand, begin­neth his pageant Nos eos, qui Excommunica­tis fidelitate & sacramēto cen­stricti sunt, Apo­stolicà autorita­te [...]ramento absoluimus. Greg. 7. Pont. ap [...]d Grat. Caus. [...]5. q. 6. We by Apostolicall autoritie do absol [...]e all from their oathes, which they haue giuen to persons excommuni­cate. And another Gregorie vseth the like tenor, Nos excommunicamus vniuersos haereticos, vt absolutos se nouerint omni fidelitatis de­bito, qui ijs iuramento tenebantur astricti. Greg. 9. Pont. lib. 5. D [...]cr [...]t. tit. 7. Cap. 5. Glossa. We ab­solue, &c. in the same case. Lastly, Pius Quintus, their suc­cessor [Page 48] in place, but superior in malice: Volumus & iubemus &c. & absoluimus subditos vincu­lo iuramenti, quo Reginae Elizabethae cō ­stricti teneban­tur. Pius 5. Pon­tifex in Bulla. We command all Sub­iects (saith he) &c. and absolue them from the faith they haue plight with Elizabeth their Queene.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer Cap. 5. § And first. First to Gregorie the seauenth, who, as this man vrgeth, ab­solued all from obedience to Excommunicates: I answere for all Catholikes in generall, that this nothing concerned Protestants, neither any heretikes; but only such as he had other quarrels and contentions against.

The Reply.

True, the histories of those times shew, that the Popes were after some 600. yeares after Christ alwayes quarrellous; and according to that proper name of Gregory the seauenth (now mentioned) called Hildebrand, the very firebrands of Christendome. But how do you satisfie for Hildebrand? I grant (say you) that he that dissolueth the obedience of Subiects to their Soueraignes, is iustlie accompted seditious: Here you cannot denie, but that Pope Gregorie the seauenth absolued all from obedience to excommunicates. You know what followeth: Ergo, the Pope is condemned as one guiltie of high treason: This is commendable modestie, which is voide of partialitie. To the second example you answere.

The moderate Answere.

Answer Cap. 5. § But he. But he vrgeth the Glosse of Gregorie the ninth, and citeth the Decret where there is no such matter, or any thing like vnto it.

I commend your diligence, and wish you were as modest to acknowledge all my other truths, as I am to confesse this my only escape: which the importunitie of the time, and not the exigence of examples did occasion. For besides other ex­amples, I might haue insisted vpon that Bull of Paulus the 3. against King Henry the 8. which differeth not from the tenor [Page 49] of the decree alledged Supra. Wee commaund the Nobles of England by force of armes to expell Henry the 8. out of that Kingdome. This then was an error of mistaking my Autor, not by [...]eigning of false matter, which is proued by so many witnesses. But I thanke you for your taxation of this default, trusting that your modestie will condescend to that point of lawe, He that excepteth in some doth yeeld to the rest.

The moderate Answerer.

Ibid. § Lastly. Lastlie he bringeth in the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth: but I answere, that many graue and learned men haue thought the information of the case of Queene Eliza­beth to the See Apostolike, whereupon the censure of Excom­munication was awarded against her, to haue bene vntrue: and Pius Quintus, an holie man, himselfe after bewailed the procee­dings vpon such suggestion.

The Reply.

In this Answere (I confesse) you shew some arte, as namely, to deplore the state past, that you may more easily delude the present. Touching the first. Say, was the information a­gainst the Queene vntrue? and did Graue men so iudge of it? Take heed what you say; This answere will more preiudice the two principall prerogatiues of that your Romish See, then you are aware of; as namely, the power of canonizing Saints, and excommunicating of Princely sinners, which both are ca­ses reserued as proper to the Pope, and both proceeding (as you say) from the De Apostoli­cae autoritatis plenitudine de­claramus &c. T [...]nor Bullarum Papalium. fulnesse of Apostolike authoritie.

The truth of canonizing Saints; as for example, Thomas Becket, dependeth vpon true information: so (by your owne confession) the truth of excommunication, (as of Queene Eli­zabeth,) must relie vpon a iust suggestion. Now then did your Pope Pius erre in excommunicating, and so in condemning e Canus locis Theolog. & Bel­lar. lib de Cultu Sanctorum. an innocent? and might he not likewise erre in canonizing an Offendor?

[Page 50] The second prerogatiue which that See doth challenge is, Appeales to Rome: but seeing a lying fame (like a rowled snowball) the further it moueth the more increaseth in her fals­hood: we must learne wisedome from that ancient Councell of Carthage (whereunto Saint Augustine did subscribe) which thought it necessarie, for feare of false information, to haue all causes iudged in their owne Countries: and therefore did ex­preslie decree against the See of Rome, that none should make appeale beyond the Sea.

But because this practise of Pius in excommunicating our late gracious Soueraigne, doth liuely exemplifie all popish positions in our late Discouerie, we must desire your patience to be informed in the true circumstances which concerne this excommunication, not by the witnesse of your imagined Graue men, who, if they euer were, yet now happilie be dead in their graues: but by those monuments which make the acts of dead men immortall, such as the tenor of the Bull of Pius doth purport.

Pius &c. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

The Bull of Summa Con­stitutionum summotum Pontificum à Greg. 9. vsque ad Sixtū Quin­tum: Per Pe­trum Mathaeum collecta & com­mentarijs illa­strata. PIVS QVINTVS, with the prin­cipall circumstances and interpretation thereof: written by Petrus Mathaeus, and dedicated to Sixtus Quintus then Pope.

The Bull.

Pius &c. Cùm impij multi a­lios pessimis doctrinis cor­rumpentes ad Angliae Regi­nam, veluti ad Asylum, omniū infestissimi per­suger [...]t: vbi il­la supremi Ec­clesiae Capitis locum in omni Anglia, [...]i [...] que praecipuam au­toritatem atque iurisdictionem monstrosè vsurpans, amplexis haereticotum erroribus, Reg­num illud obscuris hominibus haereticis comple [...]it, Catholicae fide [...] cultores oppresset, Mi [...]ae sacrificium, ieiunia, delectum ciborum, coelibatum, ritú que Catholicos aboleuit, impia mysteria & instituta ad Caluini praescriptum à se suscepta & obseruata, etiam à subditis seruari mandauit▪ Catholicos Episcopos & Ecclesiarum Rectores suis Ecclesijs dejicere, in homines haereticos disponere, déque Ecclesiae causis disponere ausa; Clero & populo ne Romanam Ecclesiam agnoscerent, neuè eius sanctionibus Canonicis obtemperarent, interdixit, seque solam in temporalibus & spiritualibus Dominam agnoscere, iureiurando co [...]git; poenas in [...]os, qui non essent audientes, imposuit; Catholicos Antistites in vincula co [...]t: quae omnia cum apud omnes nationes perspicua & notoria sunt, grauissimóque quam plunmorum te­stimonio ita comprobata, vt nullus omnino locus excusationis relinquatur; quo [...]am animum eius ita obfirmatum intelligimus, vt ne huius quidem sedis nuncios in Angliam trajicere per­miserit: De Apostolicae sedis plenitudine declaramus praedictam Elizabetham Reginam hae­reticam, & haereticorum [...]autricem, eique adhaerentes in praedictam Anathematis sententiam incurrisse, esseque à Christi corpore praecisos: quinetiam ipsam quocunque dominio ac dig­nitate priuatam, & item Proceres, & subditos dicti regni, & caeteros omnes, qui illi quomo­docunque iurauerit, à iuramento huiusmodi, & omni prorsus dominij, fidelitatis, & obsequij debito perpetuo absolutos. Eulla Pij Quinti. BEcause the Queene of England hath filled her Countrie with Heretikes, oppressing the Catholikes, translating the Byshopricks of Catholike Prelates vpon Heretikes, not acknow­ledging the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, but making her selfe head in all causes within her Dominions; Wee from the ful­nesse of our Apostolicall power doe pronounce Elizabeth an He­reticall Queene, and a fauourer of Heretikes, and denounce A­nathema to all that shall adheere vnto her; and also depriue her [Page 51] of all rule and dignitie, Absoluing all the subiects of the land, of what condition soeuer, from the oath of their Subiection, and from all manner of obedience. This is the summe of the Bull of Ex­communication. Now heare

The Interpretation thereof.

Propter huius Apostolici scri­pti publicatio­nem vnus aut alter maiori ze­lo praediti mox Londini, vbi ip­sius pseudoepis­copi valuis af­fixum fuit, extremum supplicium laesae maiestatis condemnati constanter subierunt. Hoc scriptum, Pio Quinto mortuo, à Successore suo renouatum ac confirmatum fuit: quòd hae­retici palam, vt puerorum terriculamenta, ita se prorsus contemnere simulabant, licet reuer à de rei euentu vehementer dubitantes, dicerentur secretò Romae, per quosdam magnos vi [...]os de sententiae reuocationè plurimum, sed frustra, laborasle. Petrus Matthaeus infra Bullam. Et Elizabetha Regina haeretica etiam fuit & est. Ibid. in margine Bullae. This Bull after the death of Pius Quintus, was confirmed by his Successor; which the Heretikes themselues, doubting the dan­ger of the euent, did labour (as it is said) secretly by great men to haue this sentence of Excommunication repealed: But all in vaine. The Queene was and is an Heretike.

By this Bull, and interpretation thereof, your whole mo­derate Answer is conuinced of extreme impudencie.

[Page 52] First, Answer supra Cap. 1. No Protestants are by any Catholikes accounted He­retikes: yet heere, he whom you named the chiefe Shepheard, hath named our Queene and her Subiects sixe times Supra. He­retikes. We dispute of Buls, and Buls haue hornes: I must therefore encounter you with a Dilemma, which the Lo­gitians call an Horned argument; thus, If that no Catholikes can call Protestants Heretikes, then was not Pius Quintus and his Successor (both Bishops of Rome) Catholikes; who haue numbred Protestants in the catalogue of Heretikes: If Protestants be to be iudged Heretikes, then this your An­swere is blasted, Protestants are no Heretikes. You are then in these straites, either to recant your Answere, or to renounce your ghostly father.

Secondly, the horned syllogisme doth assault you the se­cond time, thus: If the excommunication of our Queene by your Pius was iust, why was it The Answere supra. Bewayled? If it were vniust, why was it Matthaeus supra. not repealed? This is a second straite, either to confesse your Answere to haue bene inconsiderate, or else your Popes Bull to haue runne mad: and so it did: for Prou. 17. 15. To condemne the innocent, and iustifie the vngodly both are abhomi­nable to the Lord.

Thirdly, the horned Argument doth againe tume vpon you, thus, Either you Priests will take an oath of constant obedience, without the Popes arbitrary pleasure, or you will not; If so, then the pretended power Papall indirectly ouer Kings, must be directly renounced: If not, then, for me to affirme, that Euery Priest Romish doth denie the oath of obedi­ence, is no Slander. This is an other straite, and doth con­straine you to acquit me as no slanderer, or else to confesse your Pope an vsurper.

Lastly, your Pope Pius did Bewaile the proceedings of that Bull, and so we verily thinke, but so as your Guido Faux im­mediatly after his apprehension, sorrowed for the proceeding of his stratageme, namely, Because it did not proceed. For (as your Interpreter complaineth) Regina, post­quam Bulla pu­blicata est, ma­ioti molestia Catholicos affe­cit Mat. quo sup. The Queene after that time did more grieuously afflict the Romish. Wherefore we wish the Article verified of your excommunicating Bulles, which is [Page 53] vulgarly common in the like kind, viz. To haue alwaies short [...]ornes. This of the acts past.

CHAP. XVII.

Concerning the State present.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra in fine. IF the case was such betwixt the Popes and deceased Princes: yet I cannot conceiue how any equall minded Protestant can thinke that the Pope so strictly commanding obedience of all Catho­likes to his Maiestie, will or can be so contrarie to himselfe, to pu­blish a contrary command against a King, offering in publike Par­liament to meete with the Romish Church, all nouelties taken a­way, (we wish no more) and in the meane time acknowledge the same Romane Church to be our Mother. Church, and that his mind was to free vs from persecution for matters of Conscience. Of such a King Bellarmine himselfe, cited against vs, will be witnesse, that he thinketh the Pope cannot proceed against him.

The Reply.

Conceiue but how strictly the Pope hath commaunded obedi­ence; and then you will easily vnderstand how largely you may become trecherous.

First, the Popes Bull of Excommunication against our late Queene, Supra cap. 1 6. lit. [...]. was nailed publikely vpon the Bishop of Londons gate: but this gentle Bul of obedience doth without any voice range secretly, we know not where, (it may be as the Popes Breue, in Garnets pocket) and named to be, by them, who are not, because they do equiuocate.

Secondly, the Popes Bull of obedience is so strictly com­maunded, as alwaies limited within the crooked hookes of this Parenthesis (Vide infr [...] Rat. 8. Rebus sic stantibus) or (Vide infra Rat. [...]. in prect. Donec vires habe­ant) that is, (Till there be oportunitie,) or (Vide supr [...] cap. 6. Pro hac vice, for this [Page 54] time.) Whereof our English State hath had too large expe­rience. For to insist onely vpon the present: when the oportu­nitie of surprizing the King, Queene, and Prince, was plotted by the Disciple of Machiauell; then the Pope hath two Priests (Watson and Clearke) to dissolue that knot of obedience: when after the oportunitie of that Sudden blow, against the whole State, had possessed the malignant; then there is presently at hand a Prouinciall and his Priest subordinates to kindle the minds of their Agents, hellishly to consume and swallow vp both obedience, and all the persons to be obeyed.

That his Maiestie so gratiously wished there might be some meanes of compounding dissentions, and an vniuersall mari­age betwixt temporall peace and truth of Religion, proceeded from his most Christian heart: teaching rather what you shold, then what you will do, who deny to remit any Romish super­stition, though it sauour of meere noueltie. As is apparant in the Oration of Gasper in the Councel of Trent: where question was concerning the vse of the Sacrament in both kinds, ac­cording to the institution of our Sauiour Christ, and the vse Ecclesiasticall for a thousand yeares in Gods Church; did re­solue notwithstanding, no: but why? Ne errasse videa­mur.

His Maiestie saith, All nouelties taken away; you say, We wish no more. But if you would haue bene correspondent to his Maiesties wish, you should haue answered, We wish no lesse. But your modestie would neuer yet grant, that there were any nouelties in that Church, where notwithstanding there is nothing else but daily brewing new liquor, hopped with Wormwood.

His Maiestie hath expressed his meaning, to call the Ro­mish Church our Mother Church; as that Church Romish may now call Hierusalem: but when both mothers will be par­ricides, to murther their children which speake against Idola­trie their spirituall adulterie, they may be called mothers in name, in deede monsters.

[Page 55] You cite Bellarmine and omit this his sentence: Non licet to­lerate Regem haereticum co­nantem pertra­here subditos ad suam opinionē. At iudicare an Rex pertrahat suos subditos ad haeresin nec ne, pertinet ad Pontificem. Bellar. lib. 5 de Rom Pont. cap. 7. § Tertia. It is not law­full to suffer a King who is an Heretike, when he shall labour to draw his people to heresie. To iudge hereof whether he draw his subiects to heresie or no, is the proper office of the Pope. I suppose there is no Infidell in the world, endued with any opinion of God, but he would labor to draw his subiects to his opinion. Now then the cause of our King persisting to be a Protestant is no better then his Predecessor; for it is yeelded to the Pope both to iudge who is an Heretike, and when he shall so iudge, then, according to his Libet to send from Rome, comes a Non licet tolerare Regem. Will your modestie neuer leaue deluding vs by pretended allegations of Iesuites? as here to that purpose to giue hope of reconciliation, whereas onely by the insolen­cie of Iesuites all such hope is debarred. As is plaine by this forecited Iesuite: for whereas that most graue and learned Cassander, honored of two Emperors for his singular learning and pietie, did teach, that Debent Prin­cipes inuenire rationem pacis inter Catholi­cos, Lutheranos, Caluinistas, qui omnes, dum Symbolum te­nent Apostoli­cum, vera sunt membra Eccle­siae, licèt a nobis in particulari­bus dissentiant. Cassander lib. de Officio [...] viri. Emperors should indeuour a reco [...]ion betwixt Papists and Protestants: because (saith he) Prote­stants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, although they dissent from vs in some particular opinions. The grand Iesuite doth answer, that Falsa est haec sententia Cas­sandri, non pos­sunt [...]n Catho­lici reconcilia­ri cum Haereti­cis. Bellar. lib. 3. de [...]aicis cap. 19. This iudgement of Cas­sander is false: for Catholikes cannot be reconciled with Heretikes, heretically meaning Protestants.

CHAP. XVIII.

The Discouerie.

VVE haue alreadie vnderstood, how they forbid to Kings: now will we also examine how they inforce violence. And in this case we argue thus:

The fift Reason.

Whosoeuer suggesteth a doctrine of forcible deposing of Princes from their thrones, are therein manifestly rebellious: But all Popish Priests defend violent deposing of Kings and [Page 56] Emperors. Ergo

Their Positions.

Costerus. Penes Roma­nos Pontifices semper fuit po­testas ad tollen­da incommoda Ecclesiae, & damna anima­tum, Reges re­gnis, & Impera­tores imperijs priuandi. Costerus I. s. Apol. pro part. 1. Enchirid. pag. 64. This power (saith he) of deposing Kings of their Crownes, and Emperors of their dignities, in behalfe of the good of the Church, was alwaies peculiar to the Pope: Non enim minus authori­tatis á Christo collatum est Vicario suo ad ouium tutelam & commodū, quam à Villico datur Mercena­rio, qui pecora pascit. Ih. pag. 64 who hath no lesse authoritie, as Christs Ʋicar ouer Christians, then the hireling hath ouer his beasts. Depositio Im­peratoris ex iu­sta causa perti­net ad summum Pontificem: quia Imperator est tanq [...]am Minister summi Pontificem, gladium Iurisdictionis temporalis ad nutum summi Pontificis exercens. Molina Ies. Tract. 2. de iustitia disp. [...]9. [...]d [...]. pag. 149. So the Pope hath authoritie ouer the Emperor (saith Molina) because the Fmperor is but the Popes minister, and is to vse his temporall sword onely at his becke. But what if Kings will not inthrall themselues to the Popes authoritie? Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum, si co [...]t [...]r pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresin. Bellar. [...]es. & Cardinal. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 6. 7. & 4. It is not lawfull for Christians (saith the Cardinall) to tolerate any King, who draweth his Subiects vnto heresie. Sed debent Subditi operam dare, vt in eius locum alius quamprimùm surrogetur. Sanderus Theolog. Pro [...]essor. devis [...]. Monarch lib. 2. cap. 4. § [...]us autem pag. 70. But subiects ought (saith Sanders) to indeuour to set vp another in his place. Debent illum, tanquam Christi h [...]stem, ex hominum Christianorum dominatu [...]i▪ cere: quae est virorum doctis [...]imo­rum ind [...]tata sententia, doctrinae Apostolicae conformis. Creswel. les. in suo Philopater pag. 194. Yea, they ought (saith Creswell) to expell him out of his king­dome, as the enemie of Christ. An vndoubted doctrine among the learned, and agreable to Apostolicall truth. Yea which is more: Etiam [...]i Pontifex toleraret Regem Apostatam, tamen Resp. Christiana possit illum pellere è regno quoniam Pontifex sine ratione permittit illum impunitum. Dom. Bannes 2. 2. quest. 12. A [...]. 2. Although the Pope (saith Bannes) should tolerate an hereticall King, yet may the Commonwealth remoue him. And yet behold a greater mysterie of this iniquitie then all these: for suppose that the King deposed shall be willing to be reconciled to the Church, Nec [...] hoc recuperabunt, quamuis poste [...] reconcilientur Ecclesiae. Simancha Instit. Ca­thol. [...]it. 33. Sect. 11. Yet notwithstanding (saith Simancha) he may not re­couer his Crowne.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer in his Chap 6. Let vs grant this Proposition, Whosoeuer, &c.

The Reply.

Let vs grant? We know not by this whether you grant it by [Page 57] Asseueration, to allow it; or onely by way of Concession, for disputation sake, as not to grant it. This your Art of answering would be discouered for of one Maior Proposition in your 4. Chapter you say, For this present I grant this Maior, and yet af­ter in the fift Chapter of another Maior, This is the first Propo­sition I grant vnto. Wherefore sophisticating in this manner [Let vs grant:] & deluding a Propositiō, which discouereth so manifestly a doctrine rebellious, will somewhat impeach your moderation of a guiltie disposition. To the matter.

The moderate Answerer.

Ibidem. Not one of these particular Authors defend violent deposing of Kings.

The Reply.

Though I know your deuotion can dispence with lying, if with an Insra. intent to couer the leprosie of your Sect, yet me thin­keth, your discretion might haue taught you, to vse that Art where it should not be so transparent as that any one of small reading might easily conuince you. For what? not one of your sect teach violence? First, your Frenchman Vt Ichu leza­belem. Lib. de iusta Abdicat. pag. 57. So Lodo­uic. de Orleance. The Nobles must de­pose the King, as Iehu did Iezabell: there was violence. Your Par­sons, Parsons in his Dolman. pag 33. As Dauid did Goliah: violence. Your Card. Allane. Allane in his Admonition. pag. 33. & 53. in the place forceited My Lords and deare Countrimen, for Gods loue fight against the Queene to depose her, as the Priests did Athalia: violence. Your Reinolds: Reinalds in his Rosaeus in the plowfurniture. Reuenge and roote out as Iudith did Holofernes: vio­lence. Your Costerus: Vt Villicus pecora Costerus locis citatis. As an heardsman his cattell: violence. Your Bellarmine. Non licet sub­ditis tolerare Regem haereti­cum, sed expel­lere eum debit, vt Pastor [...]upū. Bellar. lib 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. It is not lawfull to suffer a King hereticall, but to expell him, as the shepheard doth a Wolfe: violence. Your Creswell. Creswell in Philopater. Subiects ought to expulse such a King out of his do­minion: violence. Your Simancha. Vide infra. As the Scythians, who mur­thered their King: violence. Your Bannes: Tenentur An­glivi Reginam suam deijcere. Infra. The English ought to depose their Queene by force, all which is violence. We hanc also alledged exāples of many Popes, who vsed all open vio­lence. To which might be added Azorius, Salmeron, Bristow, Stapleton and others, all crying Adarma. And yet you say, Not one. What impudent modestie is this, to denie before the [Page 58] Reader, that which none who readeth can denie: idlely con­ceiting a power to depose without violence, (in your opinions Heretikes obstinate) that is, such as cannot be deposed with­out violence. Your comparison of the Emperor with our King is but a shadow, which Vide supra. vanisheth in this Treatise following.

CHAP. XIX.

The Discouerie.

Let vs now see this family of Corah.

WE will omit Henries, Frederickes, Othoes, and like Em­perors and Kings of former times: call but to mind that which hath bene visible in our dayes, the late Henry of Fraunce, concerning whom their owne Prophet hath publi­shed a Treatise, the scope thereof is this: Henricam di­g [...] regia excid [...]sse, Gal­losue securâ conscient [...]â in cum, vt publicae sidei violatore bella [...]le. Lib. de iasta Abdicat. Henr. 3. pag. 370 The French haue with good conscience borne armes against K. Henry the third, and depriued him of his Crowne. Returne home, there we see a Co­met. The Rebell Oneale is vp in armes against his Queene: the Colledge of Salamane bring pitch to quench this flame, and resolue thus: Eos omnes Catholicos pec­care mortaliter, qui Anglorum castra contra Augonem O­neale sequun­tur, nec posse [...]os aeternam salutem conse­qui, nec ab vllo Sacerdote àpec­catis absolui, ni­si priusquam re­sipiscant, & Ca­stra Anglorum deserant. Deter­minatio Ʋniuer­sitatis Salaman­cae. Anno 1602. Whatsoeuer Catholikes shall not for sake the defence of the English, and follow Oneale, doth sinne mortally, and cannot obtaine life euerlasting, except he desist. Shall we thinke that o­ther Priests can haue more loyall spirits? Impossible, as long as they receiue their breath from that Maister, who commendeth the former Positions against the foresaid King of Fraunce. Theologi illi [...]ecerunt quod Consultorum, Conse [...]ariorū, Doctorum [...]uit. X [...]stus Quintus Papa, vt habetur lib. de iust. Abdi [...]. Henr. 3. pag. 370. Those Diuines (saith Pope Xistus) haue done the parts of good Lawyers, Confessors, and Doctors. His Successor (this rancor growing by Succession inueterate) Pope Pius against our late Soueraigne: Volumus & iubemus, vt ad­uersus Elizabe­tham Angliae subditi arma capessant. Bulla Pij Quinti Pen. Max. We will and command the Subiects of England to take armes against Elizabeth their Queene.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 6. § Now let. Now let vs heare this the supposed publike practise in this [Page 59] point: I answer, he alledgeth three authorities onely of priuate men, which do not pronounce the iudgement to be publike.

The Reply.

You contest for all Catholikes, and teach vs to answer, that this your Answer is but the writing of a priuate man: but you haue publike approbation from your Superior, & they frō ma­ny are publikely authorized. And yet againe remember your selfe. Answer cap. 2. § Lastly, let. Not aboue foure or fiue examples (say you) can be giuen in the whole Christian world, for the space of 1500. yeares of Popes of Rome, who haue translated titles to depose Princes. Well then you grant fiue; your Bellarmine doth vrge Bellar. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. Seuen, as from pu­blike Records: a notable contradiction. You But foure or fiue, willing to substract, as one ashamed of the number of your Fa­thers of Rebellions: but he alledgeth Seauen or eight, desirous to multiply, to make the pride of Romish Prelacie more glo­rious. Whether But seauen, or But foure, what can this auaile for answer? As much as a fellon accustomed to steale, he ca­reth not how many horses: yet indited for seauen, shall answer, I had but foure or fiue: which commendeth the want of that he would, not his will to want. Pope Paulus tertius Papa Principi­bus ac Ducibus Angliae caeteris­que Nobilibus praecepit, vt vi & armis se Hē ­rico opponant, illumue è Re­gni sinibus eij­ceren tantur, vt pate [...] in hac Bu la Pauli 3. qui sic incipit: Paulus Episco­pus Seruus ser­uotum, ad fu­turam rei me­moriam, &c. Petrus Matthaeus Comment [...]n illa Bullam. Paulus teruus did ex­communicate Henry the 8. King of England, commaunding his Nobles to beare armes against him. Your Pope Pius Quintus, now alledged, Did excommunicate Queene Elizabeth, dissol­uing all her subiects from their obedience. And yet he that is The King of Kings, maintained their Scepters, not to suffer them to be deposed by those Popes, notwithstanding their good wils were manifested by their acts, their acts condemned by the euents, which examples none can denie but were publike. You further adde.

The moderate Answerer.

Quo supra. § I answer. But his Maiesties case is different, except this Discouerer will inrolle him in the number of Excommunicate, which is most iniu­rious to his Highnesse: for who seeth not that the Queene was Excommunicate?

The Reply.

Why iniurious? what euill can ensue? for you seeme by this Answer to portend some mischiefe, if it should happen his Ma­iestie should be excommunicate: say, what euill? is it spirituall, as onely to be excommunicate by the Pope? Why, this is no­thing, because your Tolet saith truly, Excommuni­catio iniusta est inuallida. Tolet. I [...]s. in instruct. & Azor▪ Je [...]. Justit. Moral. An vniust Excommu­nication (such as we know the Popish is) doth not endanger the soule. Is it bodily? belike his Maiestie shall find you a good Subiect, howsoeuer (your spirituall being accompanied with violence in this his different case) you teach his highnesse to prouide a corporall preuention, lest (as in the defect of our lawe sometime it happened, that a man might haue bene out-lawed, and not haue knowne of it, and so subiected to the ex­tremitie of that lawe) your Excommunication of Bulla Coenae vpon your Maundie Thursday by some Faux did a­uouch the Maun­die Excommuni­cation for bi [...] warrant. Guido be closely exe­cuted before his Maiestie be aware.

CHAP. XX.

The Discouerie.

HItherto hath bene manifested only their violence against the dignitie of Princes: now heare of the violating of their sacred persons in conspiring their deaths.

The sixt Reason.

Whosoeuer doth intend, designe, or practise the murther of Princes, must necessarily be holden for desperate Traitors: But all Popish Priests are guiltie in some of these kinds. Ergo. The Minor proued by their Positions.

They professe all, that it is lawfull to take armes against their Kings, as we haue proued: from whence we may argue against them, as he against a seditious one, Cicero pro Li­gario. Quis sensus armorum? what other meaning can armes haue but onely bloud? But not [Page 61] to dispute from our suppositions, but their Positions, by these degrees. First, the french defence saith, that Anie man may lawfullie murther Tyrannū oc­cidere honestū est, quod cuiuis impunè facere pe [...], q [...] consensu di [...]o. [...]a Abd [...]cat. H [...]n. 3. pag. 262. [...] 270. Tyrant: which I defend (saith he) by common consent. Now Facilè constat eum, qui quam­cumque tuetur haeresin, apud Chustianos non minùs propri [...] perfecte (que) Ty­rannum effici; quim qui apud Philosophos, spretâ ciuitatum conseruatione, omnia in republica stupris, rapinis, & hominum caedibus im­plet. Reinald. in suo Rosaeus. pag. 157. It is euident (saith our Reinolds) That euerie Heretike Prince is most proper lie and perfectlie a Tyrant: which is supposed by the Spanish Iesuite, speaking of this point, That if (saith he) they may be bereaued of their liues, then much more of their liuings and Crownes. And, which is the height of furie, Imo grauiori paena digni sunt Principes haeretici, quàm priuati homines: lure igitur et meritó Scy­thae Regem suum Scylen occiderunt propter externos ritus, quia in Bacchanalibus sacris ini­tiatus erat. Simancha Inst. Cath. tit. 23. Sect. 12. & 13. Hereticall Kings (saith Simancha) de­serue more grieuous punishment then priuate men: therefore the Scythians (as he well deserued) did put to death their King Scylen, for violating their Bacchanals. Scythia a most barba­rous Nation is the fittest glasse that these Priests can finde to looke their faces in. Well, shew vs then your Scythian and heathenish practises: But first, let vs heare your answere to these positions. c Vita priuari possint; tum multó magis ommbus alijs bonis, atque adeó etiam praelatione in alios. Greg. Valent: som. 3. disp. 1 qu. 11. punct. 2.

The very moderate Answerer.

Ansvver, cap. 7. §. But against. I answere, that the late Lord Treasurer was thought in his dayes a man not second to manie in politicall wisedome: And yet he telleth vs in the booke entituled, [The Execution of Eng­lish iustice,] that many Catholike Priests and Byshops also in this Kingdome, which although they were depriued of their dignities, and also imprisoned by Queene Elizabeth; yet are they dig­nified by that wise Councellor, with these titles of faithfull and quiet subiects, inclined to dutifulnesse to the Queenes Maiestie.

Reply.

Nay, that honorable Treasurer was not second to any in his [Page 62] time, so worthie a Counsellor both for policie and sound Reli­gion, that you may be thought vnworthie to commend him: whose wisedome as it was most excellent, so euen in this question will proue as sufficient to display your fellie. For his most commendable Treatise, of the Execution of English iustice, did defend the proceedings of the Queenes Maiestie; whom for the same iustice your Pope did (if our Lord Treasurer in his singular wisedome knew iustice) vniustlie excommunicate. Yet he then commended many graue and learned Bishops and Clarkes on your side for their faithfull subiection. What though they then in the Orient of her Maiesties dayes were faithfull? (peraduenture because they then wanted force) yet after, toward the Sunne-set of her years were otherwise affe­cted. This the Reason of that honorable and sage Counsel­lor doth shew, bringing the examples of the former more moderate Romish Clarks by comparison to condemne the insolencie of the later brood. This you modestly conceale: But father Creswell will deale plainely, who speaking to the Lord Burleigh (whom for honor sake I often mention) hath these words: Si seditionem intelligis (no­biliss. D. The­saurarium al­loquitur) de qua Christus, [Non veni pa­cem in terram mittere, sed gla­dium] sanè in­telligis; fateor, Sacerdotes no­stros tibi ino­bedientes esse & sore semper. [...] in Phi­lop [...]er pag. 298. & 300. If you by sedition (saith the Iesuite) vnderstand that whereof Christ spake, saying, (an holie text wickedly per­uerted) [I came not to send peace into the world, but the sword,] which you (indeed) do so vnderstand; I confesse that we Priests both are and alwayes will be seditious. Now then the question will be, whether your moderate, or his impudent answere be more dangerous.

The moderate Answerer.

[...]pra. § [...]. The sentencer discursseth, as though armes had no other mea­ning but blood. But against Catholikes, who knowe both offensiue and [...] fensiue warre, this mans bloodie iudgement can giue no deadly wound.

The Reply.

Neither was your Sentencer ignorant of that distinction, which he learned long since from the very Heathen, who [Page 63] were illuminated with this truth, saying, that Contra Reges sumendum esse scutum, non gladium. Iucius. Against Kings we may vse a shield, but not a sword. But it was spoken accor­ding to the meaning of your Authors applying it to them, who both by position and practises haue giuen sufficient tokens that their armes were most cruelly and cursedly offen­siue, which agreeth with your positions, as the discourse fol­lowing will demonstrate. Yet againe you insist.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere quo supra. § Seeing. The Discouerer bringeth the Author de Iusta Abdicat. to say of Henry the third, that it is an act honest to kill a Tyrant. Well then, King Iames by his iudgement is a Tyrant: otherwise both he and the Author be iudges against himselfe, for that Writer ex­presly nameth a Tyrant.

The Reply.

And the next Author doth interpret the meaning of the first, That euery King, who defendeth heresie, is properly a Ty­rant. This said your Reinolds, intreating of Protestant Prin­ces, defining them to be properly Heretikes: whereunto your Iesuite Gregory de Valentia did assent. Whence I, ac­cording to the true and infallible lawe of Schooles, conclude, that Romish Priests would haue all Protestant Kings, as Ty­rants, censured with death. Where is now your iudgement? to make me guilty of that inference, which I noted to be most detestable in your sect? King Iames or our late Queene Tyrants? No, but they that say so be Traytors, who cannot discerne betwixt a most gratious Prince, and a barbarous Ty­rant; but by their monstrous mischiefes haue turned extreme clemencie into iust extremitie.

CHAP. XXI.

Discouerie in the Practise.

LEt vs trauell (but in our thoughts) into India, Arnoldas in Synodo Parisi­ensi omné Ty­annidem His­panorum apud Indos solis Iesui­tis ascribit. Gal­ [...] belgic. tom. 2. lib 10. where (as your Arnoldus in his publike Oration in the Vniuersitie of Paris did contest) the generall clamor of the poore people wās, that Iesuits were the causes of all tyrannie which was exercised amongst them. Passe homeward through Germanie, there we see Rodolphus Comes contra Henricū 4. (ful­mine Greg. Pō ­t [...]sicis percussā) bellū gessir, &c. Abbas Vrspurg. Cranzius, & alij in suis Cronicis. Duke Rodolph persecuting the Emperour his King by force of armes, tho­rough instigation of the Pope. From thence we come to France, where Clemens the Monke, as a bloudie patricide, did murther Henrie his King. Lastly to arriue at home, where after the Bull of Pius Quintus few yeares passed without desperate attempts against their Soueraigne, that Bull bellowing thus. Iubemus vt aduersus Regi­nā Angliae Sub­diti arma cape­ssant. Bulla Pij Quinti. We will and commaund Subiects to take armes against their Queene. Which breath possessed all those late conspirators, Arden, Someruile, Parrie, Cullen, Squire, Lopez with others: all by instigation of Priests sought the death of our and their Soueraigne. And now at this present behold, and be astonished: A so [...]ace prouided to consume at once, not onely the King, but also (because an absolute state assembled) the whole kingdome. Du [...]st these En­giners do anie such thing without direction from their priests? First they conspire by oath vnder the seale of the Sacrament, (here is probably a Priest.) Secondly G. Faux. he that was to put fire to it, runneth once againe to the Seminarie at Doway, doubt­lesse, to consult with that Priestly Oracle. Thirdly, he will not bewray his complices, except he may be warranted by a Priest. And that this is their Priestly function, will appeare in the sub­sequents.

The moderate Answerer.

A [...]. §. For prac [...]. For practise in this point, he onely alledgeth three authorities, besides this vnhappie Stratageme.

The Reply.

Your selfe knowes, that I might haue brought in threescore of that kind, if I had bene bent to haue bene as tedious in Alle­gations, [Page 65] as you are in repetitions: yet besides your late Strata­geme I gaue you examples of diuers Conspirators English, for whom your modestie durst not, or your wisedome would not yeeld any other answer then dumbe silence.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer qu [...] supra. It is knowne that Arnoldus was an enemie to the Societie, con­futed by Montanus: and Gallo-Belgicus is not without his hyper­bolicall locutions.

The Reply.

You know, that Arnold was the choice Orator and mouth of the Vniuersitie of Paris elected to pleade against the Iesuites Society, whose iudgement the State and Parliament of France did iustifie by their publike act of expulsing the whole Socie­tie of Loyalists out of the Kingdome. Gallobelgicus indeed was more then hyperbolical, but it was in magnifying the Ro­mish faction. But what say you generally for Priests?

The most moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. [...]. § First. I answer concerning Priests most maligned in this matter, that the Canon lawe it selfe is to the contrarie: that neither Bishops nor any Clearkes may take armes either by their owne authoritie or by the authoritie of the Pope of Rome: and reasons be added there, au­thorized by De Episcopis verò vel quibus­libet Clericis, quod nec suâ nec authoritate Rom. Pontificis arma suscipere valeant, facilè probatur. Deer. 2. caus. 23 q. 8. de Episcopis. Gregorie the 13. alledged against vs in this Trea­tise. And therefore all of that Order are absolutely freed from that iealousie, and may answer with Saint Ambrose against Au­xentius, saying for his defence: My teares are mine armour, for such are the defence of Priests; otherwise I neither ought nor can resist.

The Reply.

The force of your Answer is this: There is a Canon con­trarie to them that shall say, Priests may take armes: Ergo, [Page 66] Priests haue no Positions contrarie to the Canon; or else is not your Order freed from all iealousie in this point. It will be therefore first materiall to shew the doctrine of your Priests concerning this militarie discipline of Priests. Was not the Ie­suite and Author of the Booke, De iusta Abdicat. a Priest? and yet he admonisheth Sacc [...]dotes primi ab op­pressore religi­one discedant, & animos in­ [...]ictos induant, Eliā imitantes, qui quadraginta Psendoprophe­tas interfecit. De iusta Abdicat. 57. Priests to be the first of them that for­sake the Oppressor of Religion, imitating Elias zeale, when he killed the false Prophets. Was not your Reinolds a Priest? and yet he would perswade Postunt viri sanctissimi Mo­nachi quoque haeretico Regi vim pro side in­ferente, viribus quoque resiste­re, vbi probabi­lis est defensio­nis oportunitas: & qui hoc san­ctissimo certa­mine cum Ca­tholicis Episco­pis contra Hae­ren [...]um Regē moriuntur, ij sunt Marty [...]s, & a Deo, non vt perduelles pa­triae vel Regis, poenam, sed vt. Martyres Christi praemia coelo aeterna reportabunt. In his Rosaeus pag. 638. 639 & Rursu [...]. That holymen, euen Priests may resist by force Kings oppressing Religion, whensoeuer oportunitie will serue: and that dying in such a quarrell they are not to be accomp­ted Traitors, but Martyrs, not deseruing punishment of God here­in: but, as the souldiers of Christ, an eternall reward in heauen. Adding further, Graeci Sacerdotes optimi Imperatoribus suis armata manu resistere nunquam putârunt esse peccatum; aut laesae Maiestatis crimen: sed contra potiùs scelus piacu­lare sese non opponere. Pag. 560. As the Priests of Greece resisting their Empe­rours, (* A presumption absolutely false) by force of armes, thought it not a sinne of treason, but rather iudged it an hainous crime not to resist. Your Cardinall Allane was a Priest, and yet he wickedly and falsely defendeth, that Allen in his booke intituled, A true and modest Defence of English Catholikes, pag. 107. The auncient Bi­shops might haue excommunicated Arian Emperours, and haue defended themselues against them by force, but they did not (saith he) by reason of the greater forces of the Persecutors. This An­swer he calleth A true and modest defence of English Catho­tholikes: which in his Admonition [...]e indeuoureth to proue from the example of Gods Priest Allen in his Admonition to the nobilitie. pag. 31. Against Athalia. And againe, in behalfe of the Pope, whome you esteeme as High Priest, he saith: Allen in his true Defence. pag. 143. In truth if it be lawfull for the Pope to occupie his forces, which God hath giuen him, against the Heathen; much more may he employ them against those, whom he accompteth Re­bels against the Catholike Church, which be properly vnder his correction. Yet all this is nothing to the resolution of your San­ders [Page 67] a Priest also: Ad Episcopos spectat tum vt Regem ipsum pronuntient haereticum, tum vt Subditos eius declarent ab omni dein­ceps obedien­tia illi praestan­da liberos esle, ipsos (que) operam dare debete, vt alius in eius lo­cum quam pri­mum surroge­tur. Quod si nec subditi hac in re officio suo con­sulat, Pastorum est quacun (que) ra­tione possint, prou [...]dere, vt non regnet in Ecclesia. Dei. Sander. lib. 2. de visib. Monarch. Cap. 4. § Hac igitur. It belongeth vnto Bishops (saith he) both to pronounce the King an Heretike, and the Subiects, freed from their obedience, ought to indeuour to place another instantly in his throne: but if the Subiects shall faile in this their dutie, then it is the office of Pastors (Priests) to prouide (Kings must looke to the Priests mixed Chalices, perfumed gloues, priuie sheaths) by what means soeuer, that such a King raigne not in the Church of God.

Againe, who was it that would haue killed the now Ioh. Castile. vide Orat. Ar­nold. King of Fraunce with a knife? was he not a Nouice deuoted to be a Priest? And he that killed your last King Henry the third, I meane your Monke Clemens, had he no affinitie with a Priest? Such an one was that Monachus quidam Iohan­nem Regem Angliae veneno interfecerat. Barck'a [...]us co [...] ­tra Monarchom. lib. 6. cap [...]. De hoc fa [...]o Clementis. Monke, who poisoned Iohn King of England. And who (I pray you) did commend and magnifie that your Clemens his desperate exploite? You know who, Pope Xistus Quintus your high Priest. A fact also highly commended by your French Iesuite, (sure one of your Priest­hood) saying, Aeglonem Moabitam alter Ahod, imo etiam sortior, in abdomine trai [...]cit, vocife­ratur laesum se Tyrannus: nihil iam est quod Iudithae Holophernem, aut Dauidis Goliam ob­truncan [...]s, aut Samsonem maxillâ Asini mille [...]iros interficientis, historias [...]remur; quia ma­iora his vidimus, qui clamaremerito debemus, Dextra Domini fecit virtutem: dextra Domini exaltauit nos. Author de ius [...]a Abdicat. That he is worthie to bee esteemed another Ahod, who killed Aeglon the Moabite; yea more forcible then Ahod, for he (the Monke) stabbed the King through the guttes: so that we need not now to wonder at former histories, where we reade how Iudith killed Holofernes; Dauid, Goliah; Samson a thousand men with the iawbone of an Asse, this act is farre more maruellous. These be thy Priests, O Babylon: who boasting falsely of a real vnbloudie sacrifice of Christ to be offered to God: Now in la­ter times by rebellions haue offered sacrifice to their Moloch the man of Rome in bloud.

Secondly, to this your consequent, Therefore all of this Or­der are absolutely freed from iealousie of Rebellion. As though in warre onely the figh [...]ing souldiers were enemies: doth not Reason in the Apologue teach you the contrarie? For there AEso'us in Ap [...]l. qui s [...]c incipit, [...] The Trumpeter that gaue the Alarme to excite men to warre, [Page 68] was taken of his enemies: and to free himselfe, O good Sirs, (saith he) kill not me, for I would neuer haue slaine any of you: alas, you see I haue no weapon, the onely instrument I possesse is this trumpet: to whome they answered: [...], therefore thou shalt rather die, because, when thou canst not fight thy selfe, yet doest thou incite and encourage others to fight. Your Order will make the morall: for in Fraunce your Reinolds did sound his trumpet for the battell thus: Vniuersa eo pertinent, vt mi­lites, praefecti, daces, & eccle­siastici omnes, qui haec castra sequuntur, per­suasissimum ha­beant haec esle bella Domini. Reinaldus in Ro­saeus. pag. 155. All that we haue spoken are to this end, to perswade Generals, Captaines, and all Ecclesiasticall men, who follow the battell, that these are the warres of the Lord. Hearken another trumpet sounding so loude, that it is heard from Rome into Ireland, the Pope (a Priest) Dilecte vir sa­lutem, &c. Tibi caeteris (que) qui sunt hodiè vnanimes & pro fidei Catholicae pro­pagatione adhae­rent, nostram & Apostolicam benedictionem impertimur. Literae Cle­mentis. 8. ad Ty­ronem. Anno. 1601. Promising his blessing to Tyrone and all his adherents, who should fight for the Catholike cause against their Queene. And another in the same Ireland of the Colledge of Priests in Age. &c. Nam ei bello fauen­tes sanctis [...]imis Pontifex multis gratijs prosequi­tur. Colleg. Sala­man. in Determ. Anno. 1602. Salamane, resounding Benediction of the same Pope to encourage the O [...]eale in the same warres. Listen yet againe, and you shall heare another terrible sound in England for the ioyning with the Spanish Armado, in that their expected inuasion Anno 1588. Cardinall Allane (a Priest) Allane in his Admonition to the Nobilitie of England. Anno 1588. pag. 53. Now therefore Lords, Nobles, and deare Countrimen for the honor of Knighthood fight. And lest we should be too deafe in sense, not to heare, or dull in heart, not to beleeue, that Priests secular were interested in these affaires: Parsons a Priest doth proclaime against the Seculars, (who would seeme herein to be onely excusable) saying, Parsons in his booke called A Manifestation of folly against the Important Considerations. pag. 24. Was not Doctor Storie, Doctor Lewis secular Doctors, who are knowne principally to haue furthered the action of Sir Thomas Stukesl [...]y for Ireland? were not Ballard, Gifford, and Gartly secular Priests? And of all Priests in generall. Si hant Seditionem vocas, gladium iu terram mittere, & nou pac [...]m; fateor Sacerdotes nostros tibi in­obedientes esse, & fore semper, &c. Cresw [...]l in Philopater. pag. 300. This holy sedition, (if you call it so) which is to send warre into the world, I confesse our Priests do and will teach. These are the phrases of Baals Priests, except it be that those launced themselues, these let others bloud. These are their a­larmes against Protestants, neither can we reade of any one of note among them, who by publike writing did euer sound a [Page 69] retraite. A question materiall: for if Popes were not pleased with all these abouenamed Positions and practises, shew vs where euer he did condemne seditious Priests. Can you then apply the sentence of holy Ambrose to this order? Is this to pray for vs, and not to prey altogether vpon vs? Wherein also I cannot but maruell at your modestie, who bring in an old Canon, teaching not to fight, to the end you may cloake their shame who openly professe they must fight: which is to couer a bald head with a Chrystall glasse. There is yet another point you would satisfie.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer Chap [...] § Lastly & § For practise. Lastly, he addeth the late vnhappie Stratageme and conspira­cie against the house of Parliament: but I trust that all Priests will be innocent in so vile a practise against our present Soueraigne.

The Reply.

If, as S. Gregorie calling the first transgression of mankind Greg. Magn [...]s. foelix facinus, an happy mischiefe: because of the euent, Quia talem meruerit habere Saluatorem: because it begat so gracious a Sauiour; you likewise may call this, vnhappie Stratageme, be­cause therby your mischiefe was preuented, & malice discoue­red; then you are no better then a painted sepulcher out­wardly presenting vs with hieroglyphicall showes of fel­lowship, and inwardly full (through your hatefull wishes) of dead mens bones. Yet I thinke you may presume that not any Priest will be found innocent in so vile an act: meaning till he be found: but many are found and conuicted: God, who hunteth out the vniust person, maruellously by the diuersitie or rather contrarietie of their languages, confounding them, as in the dissolution of Babell, each one of them impeaching another, A iust presumption, that scarce any Priest is innocent.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer ibid. And it is certaine it serueth not to his purpose to proue all [Page 70] Priests to intend such things. For first, the chiefest Priest the Pope had absolutely forbidden all disobedience to his Maiestie by these words: Quia Papa iubet, the obedience; and prohibet, the disobe­dience: which the chiefe Superior of Priests in England in spiritual things, as the Arch-priest, had receiued and promulged the same commaund long since in August last. And vpon this first notice of this pretended wickednesse condemned it by his particular letters, for an intollerable and desperate fact against the order of holy Church, against the prescript of generall Councell, against the com­maundement of the Pope. Then if the Priests of England will ac­knowledge the Archpriest for their Superior at home, or the Pope at Rome, as all both regular and other must do: neither all the Priests of this nation, nor any one, except disobedient to his Supe­rior, was guiltie of this Conspiracie.

The Reply.

And yet behold your Superior a Iesuiticall Priest is found guiltie of this Conspiracie, but the frame of your Argument doth infold in it a Sorites, thus: The inferior Priests are subiect to their Superior the Anchpriest; this Archpriest is subiect to the (what is there a Chiefe aboue Arch-?) chiefe Priest the Pope. But the Pope hath commaunded dutifull subiection to the Arch-priest, to commaund subiection to the inferior Priests. Ergo all in­ferior Priests (except they will be disobedient to their Superior) will be faithfull Subiects. Wherein first I do obserue that in this gradation of your obedience to Kings the highest staire is the Pope. But the true Disciples of Saint Peter did soare higher, [Propter Dominum] to God and his word. And in the descent the last degree you make is a Priest: as though you would suf­fer Laymen in a blind zeale, with an intent to aduantage the Catholike cause, to practise any vile act, and you stand to giue ayme: that in the successe you may cry, Well shot; but when they misse, the Actors may perish, and you cry out: O an vn­happie fact! Otherwise by this series causarum it must as proba­bly follow, that the Pope and Archpriest, and other inferior Priests are guiltie of this vile practise, viz. Euery Romish Ca­tholike [Page 71] doth acknowledge a spirituall subiection to their Priests, euery Priest to his Superior, the Superior to his Gene­rall the Pope. But many of the most deu [...]ute Romish haue bin found guiltie of this gracelesse attempt, Ergo the Priests, ergo the Superior, ergo the Pope. Or else the Pope failed to giue his proh [...]bet and restraint of disobedience to the Archp [...]iest; or the Archpriest neglected to giue commaund to the inferior Priests; or your other Priests foreslowed to forewarne the Laymen; or (which is the truth) you are but spirituall Politi­tians, bearing the world in hand, that none of your mischiefes can be proued by vs, till, by the vpshot, they be proued vpon vs. And then those Priests and traitors, whom you now call vnhappie, Watson and Clearke will be of better esteeme. Thus hath your modestie made good gradation for the break-necke of your cause.

CHAP. XXII.

The Discouerie in the seuenth Reason.

SEeing Nihil interest faueá [...]ne s [...]ele [...]i, a [...] [...]llud facias. Seneca. It is in a maner all one to commit a villanie and to com­mend it: we may argue, that whosoeuer shall iustifie acts of treasons and parricides, are not vnguiltie of the same crimes: but all Priests do iustifie such hainous paricides, Ergo.

The Minor proued by their Positions practicall.

The famous Cardinall and publike Reader in Rome saith, Multi Ponti­fices Principes multos authori­tate suà regiâ meritò priuâ­runt: vt Leonem 3. Fredericum 1. O [...]honem 5. Childe [...]icum Regē Francie. Card. B [...]llar. lib. 5. de Rom▪ Pont. cap. 6. & 7. Many Popes haue iustly deposed many Princes. Our Count [...]i­man In the Copie of his letter to Sir VVilliam Stan­ley. Card. Alane, [...]eina [...]n Ro­saeus cap. [...]. Reinolds, In his Dolman part. 1. pag. 62. Parsons, inciting subiects to armes against their Prince, do perswade by examples merely rebellious, as resisting of K. Iohn, of Edward the se­cond, of Richard the second, of Henry the sixt, as presidents to be followed. The Author of the booke of Gratias agimus Deo immortali, qui operis huius fructum (nimir [...]m parricidium Monachi) tam benè anteuerterit. Lib. de iusta Abdic. He [...]r. 3. Deposing Henry King of Fraunce, doth sing a Gaudeamus for his death. And a­gaine, Allane approueth the perfidious rendring vp In his letter to Sir VVilliam Stanley Anno. 1587. Douen­tore, and encourageth the English Mal-contents to ioyne their [Page 72] forces with the A Booke inti­tuled, An admo­nition to the Nobiliue and people of En­gland. The i [...] ­scriptio [...]: G [...]liel­mus miserati one d [...]i [...]. S. R. E. Tit. S. Marti­ni in montibus Cardinalis, cun­ctis regni An­gliae & Hiber­niae proceribus. Spanish inuasion. So the Colledge of the Ie­suites at Salamane approued the insurrection of See aboue Rat. 6. lit. i. Tyrone. And do not the most of that sort canonize in their conceits all such Popish ones, as haue bene executed for treasons?

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 8. I grant the Maior, and denie his Minor, [That all Popish Priests, &c.] And haue proued that all such assertions are most false and slanderous.

The Reply.

And I haue proued from your owne Authors, that they are the doctrines, which you (granting the Maior) must confesse to be truly rebellious, and now further confirme it by many examples. Answer them in order, and because in the most you haue bene extrauagant, be intreated in this seuenth Reason to be regular.

The very moderate Answerer.

Answer ib. § But he. He will maintaine his sentence, because Bellarmine saith, [Many Popes haue worthily depriued many Princes of their regall authoritie.] The examples be in Leo 3. Fred. 1. in Otho 5. and Childericke King of France: to the which I haue answered before; and sincere dealing would haue alledged the true causes, which knowne, proue a flat disparitie in the matter.

The Replie.

Whatsoeuer cause there was to wish any wicked Emperor to be deposed, yet was there neuer cause to authorize the Pope to depose him, which is plentifully Infra part. 3. proued.

But Popes (you will say) did formerly depose Emperors: as though from a case de facto, that is, of an act of deposing, you would conclude a case ex iure, that is, inferre a right to depose. This would be a welcome plea to malefactors of all kinds, and in this kind not a little preiudice your Popes: because Bel­larmine [Page 73] being vrged with examples of many Christiani Im­peratores iudi­carunt & depo­suerunt summos Pontifices▪ haec quidem facta [...]unt, sed quo iu­re ipsi vide [...]int. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. [...]9. § Argumen­tum quintum. Emperors who did iudge and depose Popes; doth returne this answer: These Em­perors indeed, did so, but by what right let them shew. So we dri­uing out one naile with another, oppose acts to acts, and say; But by what right Popes haue vnthronized Emperors let vs know? For we shall hereafter shew, that they had from God no such authoritie. Where is now your moderation to require of vs acknowledgement of iust causes of Popes acts, who (you know) proue that no cause can iustifie such proceedings? If you yet insist, and vrge to know the causes, why Popes did so insult vpon Emperors, moderate your appetite a while, till we come to the confutation: where I doubt not but you will at least satisfie your selfe, if not surfet. For the interim, it will con­tent the Reader to vnderstand that which your Barckley pro­ueth, namely, In veris anti­quitatis historijs exemplum nul­lum legimus cuiusquam Im­perato [...] is, qui, propter haeres [...], per populum exactus abie [...] ­tus (que) fuit. Bar [...]k­laiu [...] contra M [...] ­narchom. lib. 6. cap. 12. That in true historie it cannot be found, that euer heresie was a cause of abrogating the authoritie of Emperors.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere Cap. 8. § He accuseth He accuseth Cardinall Allane for approuing of the rendring vp of Douentore vnto the hands of the King of Spaine the true ow­ner: by which he condemneth himselfe to be within the compasse of his owne conclusion of Rebellion: for all the world can witnesse, that towne truly to belong to that King.

The Reply.

Was the King of Spaine the true owner? Who are you, I pray you, that can thus define? if you will be a true Diuine, then learne from our Sauiour, [ [...]uc. 12. 14. Who made me a Iudge ouer you to diuide inheritances among you?] If you will be (according to your State-style) a Statesman to iustifie that the King of Spaine was then the true owner of Do [...]entore, and for confirma­tion call all the world to witnesse; we shall not greatly maruell at this in you, being of the Order of them, who would make that King the Monarch of all the world. How the case might stand I may be lawfully ignorant, excepting onely, that howsoeuer Sir William Stanley, being no subiect to either parties, but [Page 74] onely a substitute to the States, and subiect to his Queene, from whose command he had receiued that charge, he is ther­in intolerably perfidious: for if the right were doubtfull, then it is a conclusion, which your Iesuite cannot denie, but that In dubijs Sub­ditus parere de­bet praefecti sui mandato; possit miles suo Regi, Duci, vel Reip. in bello, obedire, vbi dubitat sit­nè Principis bellum, quod aduersus alte­rum gerit, iustū: in tali dubietate non est quod dubitet, Princi­pis mandato esse parendum, et hoc modo dubium remo­uendum. Azori­us Ies. Iust lib. 2. cap. 19. § Nono quaeritur. When the souldiers shall doubt whether the warre (and so the possession he holdeth) which his Prince maketh be lawfull: in all such doubts he ought to obey his Prince, for euen to obey doth re­moue the doubt.

Secondly, if the case were plaine, yet many things are law­full to be done, which are not lawfull for this man or that man to do: for our Lawe saith, A man (as he that shall go to his neighbours house, and take twenty pound he lent his neigh­bour) may be hanged for taking his owne: and is there no iu­stice against him, who will render vp that which is not his owne? But what his intent was he hath discouered to all the world: who, as he then, in violating his Princes repose, fled from her subiection, so in the inuasion in 88. was bent to re­turne, not as a good subiect, but as a mortall enemie against his Soueraigne.

Lastly, for the States in this point, suppose their getting of Deuentore were vniust, yet another Iesuite (though I should condemne it) would defend their possession, who in like case thus resolueth: Quidam spe­cie forte pietatis grauit [...]r errant, [...]us regium vo­cantes in du­bium, quaeren­te [...]interdam quoiure & titu­lo Hispani do­minentur Indis; num haereditario iure ad nos deuoluti fiunt, an bello iusto nobis subiecti [...] ego existimo nullam aliam subtiliorem petendam esse causae euictionem, quàm quod vt demus maximum peccat [...]m esse in vsurpatione dominatus Indici: tamen ne (que) restitui iam potest; cui enim, & quibus modis? ne (que) si maxime posset, fidei susceptae euidens ini [...]ia & periculum id vell [...] modo pateretur. Ioseph. Acosta Iesuit. Lib. 2. de Indorum salute. Cap. 11. Admit (saith he) that it was a great sinne for the Spaniards to vsurpe the Kingdomes and possessions of the In­dian people: yet can they not (For they are due to the posteritie of the Nation. O Confessors!) now be restored; for to whom and how can this be performed? nay though it could, yet will not the danger of decay of (O Religion!) Religion permit re­stitution. Yet there remaineth another example to be satisfied of you, which is this.

CHAP. XXIII.

The Discouerie.

An example of a notable Patron of high Treason.

Xisti Quinti Pont. Max. de Henrici tertij morte Oratio habita in Con­sistorio Pa­trum. 2. Septem­bris Anno Do­mini 1589. XIstus Quintus maketh a publike Oratiō in his Consisto­rie of Cardinals: the subiect matter he sheweth is this: Mortuus est Rex Francorum per manus mo­nachi. pag. 3. The King of France is slaine by the hand of a Monke. And what of this? Rarum & me­morabile faci­nus. This (saith he) is a notable, rare, and memorable act. But why? Occidit Monachus re­gem non pic­tum aut fictum in Chartâ aut pariete, sed Re­gem Franco­rum in medio exercitus. Because he slue not (saith he) a King painted in paper, or grauen in stone, but the King of Fraunce in the middest of his hoast. Is it a wonder any should wonder that a Monke could murther a mortall King; seeing Popish histories do record, that Hadrianus Pontifex excō ­municationem Henrico 2 de­nuntians, ipse à Deo maledictus, à musca suffocatus est. Nauclerus general. 137. Pope Hadrian being guiltie of the like seditious practise against the Emperor Henry the second, was choaked with a Flie? Nay, but if the Monke had killed a painted Image, that had bene an act farremore memorable, and lesse intolerable: notwithstanding no fact is good, because great; but therefore great, because good. Say then what is to be thought of the worthinesse of the fact? Facinus non sine Dei Opt. Max. particulari prouidentia & dispositione, (pag. 5) non sine expressa eius voluntate, (pag. 4.) & succursu perpetratum. It was a fact done by the admirable prouidence, will, and succour of Almightie God. How? by Gods will counselling and approuing it? Nota quam insignis est historia illa sanctae mulieris Iudith, quae vt obsessam ciuitatem suam, & populum Dei liberatet, caepit consilium; Deo (que) sine controuersia suggerente, de interimendo Holopherne hostilis exercitus principe, quod & perfecit. &c. pag. 8. Holy Iudith is famous (saith he) for the slaying of Holophernes, which she did not without the suggestion of Gods Spi­rit. Hic verò Religiosus aggressus est & rem confecit longè maiorem non sine Dei con­cursu. pag. 10. But this religious man hath done a farre more maruellous worke. O maruellous Relgio [...]! Yet so it is in this sinne of par­ricide, where A Monke doth murther a King. The best word the Pope affoordeth the murdred is, Rex infelix, & in peccato mortuus. pag. 3 & pag 9. An vnhappie King, and one perishing in his sinne. The worst he doth bestow vpon the mur­therer, is: Vir Religiosus pag. 9. & 10. Religious man. And thus in not condemning, but [Page 76] rather commending, one Traitor, he hath made vp two. Last­ly, this Henry (a note very materiall) was a Papist; onely he fauoured the Protestants, and especially Prince Nauarre (be­cause a Protestant) excommunicate. By this Pope this was his crime, vpon which ensued, This fact (to paraphrase truly of the Popes words) rare for the attempt; not able for the wicked­nesse; memorable for the shame of the Sect.

The moderate And most modest Answerer. The Reply.

What nothing? not one word in behalfe of Pope Sixtus? Sixtus; who Principum Catholicorum faedera in exci­dium haereticae prauitatis pro­hauit: & Ro­dulpho Impera tori per literas significauit Re­gem Nauarrae­um, & Princi­pem Condaeum [...]ede Apostoli­câ excommuni­catos & pros­criptos esse, vt p [...]m B [...]llis huius Pont. Pe­trus Matth. cu [...] Sum. Constit. Rom. Pont in Arg. ante const. Sixti. Quinti. First did confirme the league in France for the vtter destruction of Protestants? Sixtus; who Did excommunicate (in that name) the King Nauarre and Prince of Condie? Neither onely them, but expresly Nos excommunicamus at anathematizamus omnes Lutheranos & Caluinistas. Const. Sixti Quinti. Cap. 13. All Lutherans and Caluinists: pro­claiming a Iubilaeum omnibus Christi fidelibus, qui in Ecclesijs regni Galliae pro selici contra haereticosvictoria &c. Orauerint cum facultate eligendi confessores, qui á de­lictis & criminibus etiam in bulla Caenae Domini contentis absoluant. Ibid cap. 16. Iubilie and indulgence for all in Fraunce who should pray for the successe of the Leaguers against the Protestants? One to whom you ascribe power of absoluing you from all your sinnes, and yet not one syllable to free him from the suspition of (but one sinne) patronizing a most brutish parricide? Could you not answer that his speech was onely an admiration and no approbation; or that he did declaime onely and not deter­mine; taking vpon him the person of an Orator, and not of a Pastor; or that he spake as a priuate Doctor, and not as a Pope? Nay, all such answers (you know) had bene friuolous, for he vseth examples of commendation, arguments of asseue­ration, and the Oration was not pronounced in his priuate closet, but in the publike Consistorie and Conuent of his Car­dinals. And therefore herein onely you haue giuen vs a token of your extraordinarie modestie, who not finding one ragge [Page 77] to couer your Fathers shamefull nakednesse, you shut your eyes, as loth to behold it. God grant you grace truly to detest it. But we find (as in all Societies) in your Synagogue men of diuers foreheads. For the Sixtus Quin­tus supra. Pope and his Bucherus li. de Iusta Abdic. su­pra. vide cap. 21. Acolythus do extoll the Monke for an Excellent instrument of God: whom your Lawyer doth decipher to be a Scelerati Mo­nachi Cl: atrox & perfidiolum, ce [...] monstri te­terrmi, facinus haereticis occa­sionem dedit calumniandi non hominem, sed ordinem vniuersum Monachorum. Barclaius lib. 6. conta Mo­narchom. cap. 28. & deinceps. Wicked, faithlesse Monke, [...]nd a most hateful monster. He depresseth that King as One most im­pious and sacrilegious; whome your Lawyers vpon better intel­ligence, do commend (if this be a commendation) Fuit mihi cum Patre Mathaeo antiqua olim amicitia, & intima familiaritas qui Regem illum Henricum 3. siquis alius intus, vt aiunt, & in cute nouerat, qui de Regis moribus sic mihi satisfecit: vis (inquit) vt dicam tibi quis Rex fuit? vir bonus fuit, sed non perinde Rex, quia nimium religiosus esse studuit, qui deuotioni ac precibus deditus Reg­ni curam nonnihil negligere videbatur, Barclaius ibidem. As one that was too deuout and religious. But you (as it becometh a moderate Answerer) answer nothing; and thus in saying nothing bewray what you would, or rather, what you would not say.

CHAP. XXIIII.

The discouerie in the eight Reason.

THose Snakes that do naturally sting, as soone as they get warmth, may not be harboured in the bosome of the Cō ­monwealth: but all Popish Priests professe rebellions, as soone as they can presume of their strength, Ergo, &c. The Minor proued by

Their Positions. The Discouerie.

Bannes maintaineth this as a necessarie Parenthesis: Sit haec tertia Conclusio: vbi euidens adest no­titia criminis, ante declaratori­am Pontificis sententiam licet (si modo vires [...]i suppetunt) Regem deponere. Domin. Bannes in Thom. 2, 2. q. 12. Art. 2. Sub­iects before sentence of Excommunication (if they haue sufficient force) may then depose their King. This Father Creswell addeth as a war [...]e caution: Sit haec cautio adhibenda, vt vires habeant ad hoc idoneas subditi: alioqui in Religionis Catholicae praeiudicium cederet. Cr [...]swel in suo Philopater. pag. 198. & 199. Let subiects take heed (saith he) that they haue competent strength in such a case: otherwise it may preiudice [Page 78] the Catholike cause. And lest any taking an Antidote against their poyson, should obiect the condition of the Church of Christ primitiue, and of the glorious Christians of those times, who intended not killing of Kings the enemies of the Gospel; but to be willingly killed for the profession of the holy faith: marke with what vntemperate morter those men daube vp the consciences of Christians, Quasi verò ea­dem instituen­dae Ecclesiae ratio at (que) insti­tutae esse, cre­denda sit; adde quòd id tum non licuit, dum impiorum mul­titudo superior esset: sed ne (que) illi Christum professi erant, vt cogi in verba eius mortis sup­plicio possent; sed tum de­mum, silicet, id datum est, cum impletum fuit id Prophetae, (Esa. 49. [...]3.) Reges erunt nutri [...] tui, & in quae tempora venimus. Lib. deiusta addicat. Regis Henric. 3. p g. [...]78. Then (saith the French De­fence) the Christians did onely suffer, because the Church was not yet perfect, and because their enemies were more in number. A­gaine, Illud non moueat quemquam; id laudabile est quum resistere nequeas. Lib. de iu­sta [...]ag. 371. It is commendable to suffer when thou canst not resist. Which is the last miserable refuge of their desperate cause. Whereunto notwithstanding their grand-Cardinall is glad to betake himselfe. Quòdsi Christiani olim non deposuerunt Diocletianum, lulianum, Valen­tem ad s [...]t, qu [...]a de [...]rant vires temporales Christianis. Bell. lib. 5. [...] Ro. Pont. cap. 6. & 7. & 4. I answer (saith he) that Christians in auncient times did not beare armes and seeke to depose Emperors and Kings, enemies to the Catholike faith; because they wanted power. Wher­by the now Romish faith doth seeke to make wicked men ex­cusable. Ex hac secunda conclusione sequitur, excusandos esse Anglos, quia non se eximunt ex supe­riorum potestate nec belium contra eos gerunt▪ quia non suppetunt illis vires, ob sequentia pe­ [...]la, D. B [...]s in 2. 2. Thom. quaest. 12. Art. 2. By this second conclusion (saith Bannes) the English Ca­tholikes, who now do not take armes against the Protestants, are excused, because they want sufficient power. Hence we may per­ceiue, that as long as Protestants liue safe, they must acknow­ledge themselues beholden to the Popish faction, because they haue no power to hurt them: otherwise they may heare of them before they can see them, peraduenture in such a man­ner, as to The letter of Tresham to the L. Monte [...]gl [...]. Receiue a terrible blow, and yet not know who did them the hurt. Yea, they must perish, for Po­pulus Christianus obsistere tenetur conscientiae vinculo arctissimo, & extremo ani [...]um periculo, si prastate rem possit. Creswell in suo Philopater. pag. 201. Christian people (saith Creswell) are bound in conscience and hazard of their soules, to resist whensoeuer they can make resistance.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 91 § Thus he. To the first Proposition I say, Concedo.

The Reply.

Concedo, that is in English, I grant it: wo then, and thrice woe to all your Priests, who fall violently vpon it, thereby to be conuinced rebellious. Is it not so?

The moderate Answerer.

Ibidem. To the second Proposition I answer, that if this be the opinion of Bannes, he speaketh ignorantly in this case.

The Reply.

Bannes an Author easily to be had of all men: I deliuer his name, I cite the place, I expresse his words, apparantly signify­ing that this was Bannes opinion: and yet your Answer is (to speake moderately) too moderate: If this be (say you) the opinion of Bannes. I alledge for the same opinion your English Iesuite Creswell, your French Iesuite De iusta Abdicatione, your Ro­mish Iesuite Bellarmine, al of the opinion of Bannes, teaching, Then and not before, to take armes, as soone as they haue strength. And you answer to one onely saying: If this be the opinion of Bannes. Is this modestie? This opinion (say you) is false: this is honestie: but then are your greatest Clearkes Blind, and leaders of the blind: as namely, Creswell, Felinus, Caietan, Tolet, Sà, Alane, Bellarmine, Saire, and the present currant of Romish Schooles, Supra. as hath bene proued. This doctrine therefore being false, which the supposed lights of your Religion do auerre, I may well take vp the complaint of our Sauiour against your Church: Matth. 6. 23. If the light that is in thee be darknes, ô how great is that darknes! In the last place you name Gregorie the 13. for the contrarie, but (all you could do) only name him; opposing names to expresse writings, shadowes to things. O moderato­rem! These are but Positions. Now followeth

CHAP. XXV.

Their Practise.

The Discouerie.

IN the yeare 1580. when Campion and Parsons came into England, they procured a dispensation from the Pope, that al Papists in England, notwithstāding the Excōmunication of the Queen, might professe a large obedience in al tēporal cau­ses: but with this addition, (Rebus sic stantibus) i. the case thus standing: that is, (as the sequele did interpret) till you waxe stronger. For in the yeare 1588. when the Spanish Armado was a sloate, when by doubling their strength they might pre­sume the better, then our Countriman Alane doth write an Admonition to the Nobilitie of England, making his booke the Popes Nuncio, to expound his former Parenthesis: In his booke of Admonition. Though the Pope (saith he) hath tolerated obedience vnto the Queene in temporall conditions: yet now our holy Father Xistus Quintus doth discharge all men of their faith and loyaltie vnto her. This is the Popes common guise, when he doubteth his faction shall be ouermatched, then to inioyne obedience: but it is onely in po­licie to gaine his souldiers a breathing; as Clement the late Pope dispensed with the Irish for their fidelity to the Queene, till that he had some confidence of Tyrones successe. For then in the 20. of Ianuarie the yeare 1601. he writ a letter for in­couragement: Clemens Oc­tauus. Fili dilecte, nobilis vir salutem, &c. My deare sonne all health, &c. After he calleth the Rebellion Sacrum foe­dus, an holy league; promising in the way of blessing an happy successe: Deus pugnabit provobis, conteret inimicos suos ante fa­ciem vestram. i. God will fight for you, and tread his enemies vn­der your feet. But he (God be thanked) proued a false Prophet.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra cap. 9. § But where. I answer, that Cardinall Alane, better acquainted with these affaires then any Protestant Writer, relateth the Popes declaration [Page 81] for Catholike obedience to Queene Elizabeth, without any re­straint or limitation: neither doth this man discouer where he fin­deth any such restricting clause.

The Reply.

It seemeth you are not acquainted with Cardinall Alane: shall he be brought to auerre a Commission of subiection without restraint of, [Rebus sic stantibus, the case so standing:] who, Rebus sic non stantibus, Anno 1588 raised English Recusants against the Queene, prouoking them to Supra. fight? I did not indeed dis­couer where I find any such restraining clause. Here is one onely little clause, Rebus sic stantibus, that wanteth the Author; and I must be suspected for a coyner: you in all your Answers scarce alledge the expresse sentence of any one, and yet challenge credit. Such are the times which are fallen vpon vs, and the oddes which by mens wilfull infatuation, you haue obtained. But I must produce my Author, for your pleasure: whō though I perswade you, yet (a grieuous case) will you not be perswa­ded. Notwithstanding hearken to your Father Creswel, who telleth you that, Quae quidem moderatio id exposuit, Sub­ditos Angli­canos, non ob­stante primo Ecclesiae man­dato, Subiecti­onem obedien­tiam (que) suam, sicut antea Reginae, exhi­bere in rebus omnibus ciuili­bus, saluâ con­scientiâ, [pro praesenti terum statu:] modó in rebus Eccle­siasticis summā obedientiam summo Pastori deferant. Cres­vvell. [...]n his Phi­lopater. pag. 204. That moderation concerning obedience vnto the Queene, was comprised within. these lists, [For the present state and condition of things.] Here your clause and your expectation is satisfied: I pray you satisfie me in the next example.

The very moderate and modest Answerer.

The case of the Earle of Tyrone, whatsoeuer it was, is not now imputed against him, as his libertie and fauour in England since then be witnesses: therfore it might be better suppressed, then vrged by this Discouerer.

The Reply.

That is, The Earle of Tyrone his offence hath bene pardoned by the King: Ergo, it might better be suppressed, then that the Pope the patron of his Rebellión, should be discouered. None can find fault with the modestie of this Answer, wherin you seeme [Page 82] to be ashamed of the Popes blessing; and there is hope in the end, you will be ashamed of your owne answer. To the next Reason.

CHAP. XXVI.

The Discouerie in the ninth Reason.

WHosoeuer doth perfidiously either denie or violate, with men of diuers Religion, an oath, the most sacred bond that Ier. 4. 4. God hath allotted vnto men, as the most secure H [...]b. 6. 16. Confirmation of all fidelitie with men, and * End of all conten­tion, must necessarily be esteemed of them as a person perfidi­ous and trecherous: But Popish Priests are guiltie of such per­fidie, Ergo, &c. The Minor will appeare in these three: 1. in the manner of disallowing: 2. of deluding: 3. of dissoluing of a necessarie oath.

The moderate Answerer.

Answere. cap. 10. In his Maior Proposition the Discouerer must needs make some exceptions: or else, &c.

The Reply.

Let vs descend to the seuerall Propositions, and after shew your instances.

The Discouerie. From the manner of denying a requisite oath, we reason:

Whatsoeuer seruant being demanded of his maister, to say or sweare, whether if he saw his master assalted by his professed enemies he would defend or betray him, would either dislike the article, or deferre the answer, he should euidently bewray a trecherous disposition: But all Popish Priests in like articles concerning loy all subiection to Protestant Kings, are in like manner affected. Ergo, all their other kind of Matth. 26. Haile Maister, is but to kisse and betray. The Minor proued by

Their Positions and Practises.

When as it is demanded of Priests (a necessarie Article in ciuill States) what if the Pope should autorize the Queenes [Page 83] subiects to rebell, or other forraine Princes to inuade her Realme; whether they would take part with the Queene or her enemies? First, they dislike this Interrogatorie. Alane calleth it Allen in his booke intituled, A true Defence pag. 68. 70. An vnlawfull, vnnaturall, & intolerable search of mens conscien­ces. This kind of examination which Princes make for preser­uation of the liues of themselues and subiects, Creswell tear­meth Examen iniu­stissimum, & postulata san­guinaria. Cres­well. in s [...]o Phi­lopater. pag. 350. & 351. Ʋniust and bloudie demaunds. And these questions Sta­pleton nameth Nouae & captiosae, in quibus inest in­auditum quod­dam nequissi­mae impietatis, & barbarae cal­liditatis exem­plum. Sapl [...]ton▪ in suo Didymus. pag. 205. 206. Captious questions, wicked, and full of all impious subtiltie. As though Samson were bound to put his head in Dalilahs Jud. 16. lappe. Nay but their answer sheweth that this Inter­rogatorie was as necessarily inuented, as it is wickedly impu­gned: for this being an inbred law of Nata lex, quam non didici­mus, sed à natu­ra exhausimus. Cicero pro Milo­ne. Nature, to studie for a selfe-preseruation; these men call vniust and vnnaturall: but how senslesly let the very heathen iudge, Vt iugulent homines sur­gunt de nocte Latrones: vt te­ipsum serues non expergisce­ris? Horatius. Theeues watch to mur­ther, doest thou not awake to saue thy selfe?

Now secondly, their delaying. When the question is vrged, whether, if the Pope or any of his appointment should inuade the land; which part they would take: then they shift footing, and some (as our Gouernors haue obserued) haue answered: I will then take counsell when the case shall happen: others, I will answer then and not before: others, I am not yet resolued: lastly, I shal then do as God shall put in my mind. As though these masks were large enough to shadow their faces: which their Creswell hath alreadie discouered, saying that Si Pontificis iussu de Religi­one restituenda bello decertaretur, se conscientiâ saluá facere non posse, quin pa [...]tibus Catho­licis adhaereant. Creswel in suo Philopater. pag. 352. If by the Popes command the warre should be vndertaken, to the end of restoring Religion, then (to answer) that he is bound in Conscience to hold with the Romish. This man speaketh without Parables: make then but a pretence of Religion, and farewell subiection.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra. § Now, &c. in fine Sectio­ni [...]. There is none bound generally to euery oath: for as the lawe of nature, and his Maiestie, with Bishops and Nobles, in the last Con­ference taught: if the Article either touched the parties life, liber­tie, or scandall, he may refuse to sweare.

The Reply.

This Answer and my Question differ as much as yesterday and to morrow: for my argument à simili concludeth of an oath concerning a matter to be done, and not of that which is past: yet not so, as to enforce any to the oath de futuris, but from the denying, or delay thereof to euince a politicall demonstration of a disloyall heart. You haue another answer no whit more true, though somewhat more pertinent.

The very moderate Answerer.

Answer quo su­pra. § As con­cerning. As cōcerning Interrogatories de futuris contingentibus, things which are to come: no creature, man, nor Angell naturally can perceiue them: therefore the examen of such things may be left to God.

The Reply.

You haue reason to refuse the examination of men, lest they (vnderstanding your trechery) might preuent their owne dan­ger: I dare say, there is no malefactor in the world bent to any mischiefe, but he is of your mind. But you are deceiued; the question is not absolutely de futuris, that is, of things to come, as if your debtor promiseth to repay you this debt, may he not answer he will pay it? The act of payment hath respect to the time to come, but the will to pay it, it is an internall and pre­sent act, and a resolution of the mind, which no perfect man can be ignorant of in himselfe. Nemo nescit se velle quod vult: No man can be ignorant of his owne will. And this is that present will, which by his outward messenger, the tongue, he doth thorow a corporal oath manifest to man, what it doth resolue. Else why are leagues betwixt Princes, contracts betweene man and man, consent of wedlocke, holy vow in Baptisme to God: are not all these visible acts, symbols, and signes of in­ward will? Acts (I say) de futuris of things to come, as namely, of fidelitie, loyaltie, sanctitie hereafter to be performed? O­therwise how is it, that you dare contest Answer cap. 10. § Now. For all Catholikes, not [Page 85] to refuse an oath of allegeance according to the iust proceeding of law? promising in your selfe, that other shall take an oath of alle­geance and obedience to his Maiestie, A thing (except you meane they will not take the oath) hereafter to be done. Wherfore when you are about to make an answer, take foorth this l [...]slon of true moderation; It is better to hold your peace, then say no­thing.

CHAP XXVII.

The Discouerie.

THe second point is their deluding of an oath by a new tricke of Equiuocation, as they (vnproperly) terme it. Others call it Reseruatiō: but most fitly we may cal it Collusion.

Their Position in the Mator.

Cùm Iude [...] non iutidicè peut iuramen­tum, vel contra iustitiam, li [...]et vti aequiuocati­one secundùm mentem suam, contra mentem Iudicis; vt puta, quaerenti, fecis­tiné illud? Res­pondeat non feci; intelligen­do inter se, non hoc tempore, aut, vt narrem tibi; aut aliquid simile. Tollet. Card lib. 4. Instit. Sacerd. cap. 21. & 22. When any Iudge (saith one) shall demaund an oath vniustly, then may the examinate sweare by an equiuocation: as for exam­ple: being thus demanded; Whether didst thou that fact or no? he (though he did it) may answer, I did it not; vnderstanding secretly in his mind, at this time; or, I did it not, meaning, to tell you: or some such like euasion. If you desire to know the Author, it is Cardinall Tolet; if his authoritie, De hoc illustri Cardinali Gregorius 13. Pontifex fic scribit: Dilecte fili. &c. Tanta est tua do­ctrina, que longo & inumo vsu nobis cognita est, vt tua scripta, sicut caeterorum al [...]orum iudicio at (que) examini subijci aequum non sit V [...]sques I [...]s Epist. de dicat. ante Com. in L [...]ue. Vasques the Iesuite sheweth he had a speciall priuiledge from Pope Gregorie the 13. wri­ting thus vnto him; We so approue of your singular learning, that we hold it vnmeet that your bookes should be subiected to the cen­sure of others.

Now their Assumption in this case of our English iustice, cōcerning examination of Priests is: Officiarij Regi­nae Angliae non iuridicè iuramenta exigunt; quia Regina haeretica non est Regina. Martinus in lib. R [...]solut. Cas [...]m. The Officers of the Queen of England (saith Martin) cannot challenge Answers and oathes iud [...]iously, because an hereticall Queene is no Queene. Vpon this sand is builded that which they conclude, namely, Alane, Parsons, Gregorie Martin, that Si Sacerdos interrogetur in portu, vel alibi, de antiquo suo nomine ab aliquibus, qui cum habent suspectam, possit respondere, illud non es [...]e suum nomen: at (que) e­odem modo si interrogeturde pat [...]a, parentibus, amicis. &c. Resolutio quorundam c [...]suum Na­tionis Arglican [...]. If a Priest shall vpon suspition [Page 86] chance to be asked either in any hauen, or else where concerning his ancient name, his countrie, kindred, or friends; he may denie all. And againe: Cùm Sacer­dos sistitur ad tribunal, vbi ad­sunt magistra­tus regni, ac­cepto iuramen­to, possit ille prestare iura­mentum aequi­uocando, quia, qui quaerunt non [...]ridice interrogant, cum sint Tyrā ­ni, & velint pu­nire bona ope­ra. Ibidem. When a Priest is conuented before a Iudge, after the oath taken, concerning such questions, he may answer by the fore­said Equiuocation: because these that aske this oath, are not to be accompted Iudges, but Tyrants. Which point of Equiuocation (saith Parsons in his briefe dpolog. fol. 193. Parsons) is not onely to be allowed by all Diuines, but iudged ne­cessarie also in some cases for auoiding lying and other inconuenien­ces. This man, we see, (as if he would driue out Satan by Satan) teacheth by lying how a man may auoide a lie. This is the ge­nerall doctrine of their Sèe Aquinas. Schoole, more then heathenish: for among Pagans this was a Decree of Conscience: Fraus non dis­soluit, sed di­stringit periuri­um. Cicero. Craft in an oath doth not lessen but strengthen periurie.

Now the Practise.

The practise of this deuice of Equiuocation in Priests hath bene found to haue bene common of late, by experience of Magistrates. It may be thought to haue crept out of Saint Fran­cis sleeues. For Sanctus Fran­ciscus rogatus quâ perrexisset quidam homi­cida, qui iuxta cum transierat; manus per ma­nicas immit­tens respondit, nō transi [...]sse il­lac: intelligens, non transi [...]sse per illius mani­cas. Nouar. Tom. 3. cap. 12. He (as Nauarre writeth) being asked which way the murtherer did flie; putting his hands into his sleeues, answered, he went not that way, meaning, through his sleeues.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra. § This. For Tolet among the Iesuites I cite another Iesuite, famous a­mong the Casuists, Quidam dicunt eum, qui non tenetur respondere ad intentionem Rogantis, posse respondere aliquid subintelligendo, vt non e [...]e sc [...]licet, ita vt ei dicere teneatur [...] vel se non habere, sc. vt ei det. licet alij id non admittunt, & for­ [...] poti [...]ri ratione. Eman. Sà. in Apboris. 4. Emanuel Sà, who writeth, that some are of a­nother opinion, and peraduenture with better reason.

The Reply.

If you oppose the persons of these Authors, there is (in the opinion of a Iesuite) no comparison; if their opinions, there is scarce any opposition. For their persons: Tolet was lately a [Page 87] Cardinall, Illustrissimum Cardinalem Baronium, inter Iesuitas recense­re est, ac si inter infimae magni­tudmis stellas Arcturum im­peritus numeret Astrologus. Seraries Ies. in Minerual aduers. Scalig lib. 4. cap. 1. But to recken a most reuerend Cardinall (speaking of Baronius) among the Iesuites, (saith a Iesuite) is as if a fond Astronomer should number Arcturus among the lesser Starres. Examine now their opinions, Tolet saith: This kind of Equiuo­cation is lawfull; Iesuite Sà saith, There is more probable reason to the contrarie. These may seeme contrarie to men of syn [...]eritie, but among these speakers, in their practicall iudgement, there is no contradiction: for they haue another winding in this their Labyrinth, that Frequent'r quidem opinio probabilior non est eligen­da. Azor. Ies. J [...]t. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 16. § Tertiò quaeri­tut. [...] mo­do Tolletus Jes. Inshuct. Sa [...]e [...]d. Many times the lesse probable opinion is to be followed. So then as yet we haue but an Eele by the tayle. Againe, to determine against so damnable a doctrine onely in these termes, More probable; yea and peraduenture more pro­bable: I say, to doubt of such a Protestant and orthodoxall truth, is doubtlesse to denie it. But of this hereafter. How will you therefore excuse your selues?

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo su­pra. § For our. For our excuse in this place and question Catholikes do gene­rally agree, that to equiuocate before a competent Iudge (such as we allow all Magistrates in England to be in temporall causes in as* Infra in the 3. part.ample manner, as if they were of our Religion, keeping order of lawe) is a mortall sinne: as it is defined by Thomas, Nauarre, and others.

The Reply.

This excuse will make you more inexcusable, because I shall proue that by your dissembling parenthesis you do but cloake your liars. Are all Magistrates in England reputed of your Equiuocators competent Iudges? So you answer, but false­ly, both against your ordinarie Thesis and practise: For in your Positions your now-cited Author Nauarre (I omit Thomas, as one not acquainted with our English affaires) saith, that, Coram haere­ticis (loquitur de Iudicibus Angli­canis) potest Ca­tholicus vel re­cusare (quod est prudentius) vel sophisticè iu [...]ans & interro­gatis, ni [...]i quan­tum interroga­tur de fide, so­phisticè respon­dere. Nauar. cap, 12. num. 8▪ It is lawfull for a Catholike (except it be in question concerning his faith) to equiuocate (speaking expresly of English Magistrates) before Heretikes. Your Reinolds was by birth English, by baine Romish, and telleth vs plainely, that [Page 88] Episcopi te­nentur fidei suae commissos in­struere, vt á cōmercio Re­gis Haeretici abstineant▪ & ei nec in bello, nec in pace opitu­lentur: vt omnes Idiotae ratio ci­nari discant, Talis vir Haere­ticus est: Ergo in nos, qui Ca­tholici sumus, authoritatem nullam habet. Reia [...]ld. Rosaeus. pag. 335. All people must be instructed thus to reason, (speaking of the King of France when he was a Protestant) This man is an He­retike, therefore hath no authoritie ouer vs. Your Parsons, En­glish by nature, though now translated into Romish, com­mending your Southwel, Parsons in his briefe Apologie. fol. 193. This point of Equiuocation M. South­well (saith he) defended (before English Protestant Iudges) at the barre. The booke intituled, Resolution of English cases, by Alane and Parsons, resolueth thus: Cùm Sacerdos sistitur ad tribu­nal, vbi suut ma­gistratus ciuiles regni, & for [...]an aliqui pseudo-Episcopi, non tenetur quis responde­re ad interroga­ta, sed possit vti aequiuocatione, quia non iuridi­ce interrogatur, cum sint Ty­ranni. Rosolutio casuu [...]. Natio­nis Anglicanae, p [...]r Alanum & Parsonum. When (say they) any is brought before those Magistrates to be examined, they may an­swer by Equiuocation: because they being Tyrants do not examine iuridically. This was then in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth: but now in the raigne of our Soueraigne King Iames, it may be the case is different. Nay now also hath your Arch▪ priest authorized the booke in defence of Equiuocation in behalfe of Catholikes (the words of the title) before a Magistrate: spea­king professedly of our present English State: and the present practise both of Priests and their Disciples is (alas!) so ordina­rie, that the daily experience of their equiuocating lying is readie for this your answer to giue you the lye. I will not trou­ble my memorie with multitude of examples, which diuers Magistrates haue reported: I will onely be contented with two, proued the last day in the Arraignment of Garnet the Ie­suite your Superior.

Garnet: He (as before almost al the Honorable of our State was proued) had by manifold protestations and execrations denyed before the Lord Chiefe Iustice, and his Maiesties At­turney Generall, that he had conferred with his fellow Hall since their coming into prison: by and by was witnesse produ­ced, who heard their conference, and related the very words so directly, that both Garnet and Hall did confesse, they indeed had had conference together. What was his excuse now for his first Answer? He did equiuocate, (his owne words at the Barie) because he was not bound to accuse himselfe, before he saw witnesse to conuince him. An answer wretched and witlesse; wretched (I say) because to vse equiuocation in a religious ex­ecration, is execrable wickednesse: witlesse, because to defend a denyall of truth, till one be conuicted of a lie, is to professe a [Page 89] defence of an vntruth, till he be not able to defend it.

The second example is in your Disciple M. Tresham, who vpon his death-bed, moued by a sinister spirit of a woman to retract his former true confessions, wherin Garnet was brought in suspition of the last treason, (least the guilt of such a Priest, might be preiudiciall to the Catholike cause) did before the formerly named Magistrates at the point of death recall his foresayd confession thrise with protestation: Ʋpon my sal­uation (saith he) I was not acquainted with Garnet this many years. After his death is Garnet apprehended, and examined of that point of acquaintance with Tresham, who did vnder his hand writing confesse both the times and places of their con­uersing together: al this Garnet did acknowledge at the Barre. Then the right Honorable the Earle of Salisburie, (whose rare wisedome did in that vmuersall audience proue it selfe often the only racke to that Iesuite, in extracting many truths from that Equiuocator to his often publike confusion) asked him: What iudge you, M. Garnet of that false protestation of M, Tresham he made vpon his saluation? Garnet smiling, answered. I thinke he did equiuocate. Smiling, a thousand beheld him. A very ridiculous answer indeed, if it had not bene horribly im­pious, which therefore the whole audience, as children of truth, did then by a common murmure openly detest.

To conclude, I must now (my moderate Answerer) neces­sarily racke you: but (feare not) onely by that Logicall instru­ment, which is therefore called [...]: thus: you would per­swade vs that Priests thinke our Protestant Magistrates compe­tent, before whom you may not vse Equiuocation: your Su­perior, by whome (if you be a Iesuite) this your booke was priuiledged, did both by practise and position more then al­low the vse of Equiuocation the last day, euen in a most hono­rable presence. Now therefore if your booke was not priui­ledged by Garnet, then this inscription of your booke, Answer in the front of the book. [With licence of Superior] is vntrue: if you say he did priuiledge it, then this excuse for all your Priests, saying: [We allow Magistrates in England co [...] petent, before whome we may not equiuocate,] (Gar­net gaine▪ saying it) is likewise vntrue.

[Page 90] The greatest difficultie now will be, to tell whether of you two be the Superior in lying: you in saying, You do not defend that, which you do so manifestly defend, a flat lye; or he, who defendeth that, which no man can euer defend, Equiuocation, the very damme of all damnable lying. Whereof more at large in the Confutation.

Yet behold a greater mysterie of this iniquitie, then hath bene yet reuealed: Tresham taketh it on his saluation, that, to his knowledge, no Priest was acquainted with the plot, Digby and others make the like protestations at their death: Garnet a Priest did deny with maine and many protestations, that he had conference with Hall, and defended it lawfull, till he was conuicted by witnesse. To what end? lest that Priests guiltinesse might make their priestly function and Religion more odious. Whence I may conclude, that it were more then sottishnesse for any Protestant to beleeue the Priests protesting their inno­cencie (as Garnet did) at the Barre, or their disciples protesting (as Tresham and Digby did) the innocencie of Priests and their adherents at their death: I say, all their witnesses deserue no credite, who defend thus to equiuocate, till they be euidently conuicted by witnesse.

CHAP. XXVIII.

The Discouerie.

The third abuse of Oathes is in dissoluing them.

THat though they take an oath of allegeance in cases tem­porall, yet their common interpretation is still with re­spect of their more supreme head. See before Rea­son 4. lit. c. During the will of the Pope, who (say they) hath power to free both himself and others from the bond of an oath. Which is their old glosse, saying, that Debuit intelli­gi, nisi Papa re­mittat ei iura­mentum: Nam in iuramento excipitur au­thoritas Maio­ris. Glossa ad Decret. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 10. The case is so to be interpreted, namely, except the Pope shall release him from his oath: because in euery oath the authoritie of a Supe­rior must be excepted.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 10. § This is. There must needes be some exception of lawfull oathes, else [Page 91] whatsoeuer wickednesse is sworne must be performed: as that of the Iewes against Saint Paule; and of Herod against the Baptist.

The Replie.

There must be some exception of an oath, which is this, In male promissis rescinde fidem: that is: A wicked vow is well bro­ken. But your Popish exception for two respects we iustly think intolerable; this will be plaine by this example: If now the Spanish, in his league vpon expresse conditions with the En­glish, would, for the performance of his oath, depend vpon the Popes arbitrement, which is, [Till you can find oportunitie for a mischiefe,] then silly English are in no better case then a goose tyed with a line by the legge to a foxe tayle, which doth appeare in the Discouerie following.

The Discouerie. Practise.

Their practise we haue shewed in the former Reasons: we may here adde a more auncient example. Canonicus qui dan [...] inuehitur in Greg. 12. Pontificem, quòd tempore magni schisma­tis, antequam Pontifex crea­retur, iurauer at publicò & [...]o­lenni [...]itu, se se abdicaturum Pontificia dig­nitate: Postea verò Pontifex electus, noluit Pontificatum deponere. Azor. Ies. Ins [...]it. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 15. A Canonist (saith a Iesuite) did inueigh against Pope Gregorie the 12. who in the time of a great schisme did openly and solemnely sweare, that if he were made Pope, he would giue it ouer againe: but being elected, he performed nothing lesse. The Canonist, doubtlesse, wanted not a Canon to condemne this perlurie, though the Iesuite vpon presumption of iusta causa doth defend it. For the cause was in­different, whether to giue ouer his Popedome, or to keepe it: but the oath of indifferent matters doth inferre a iustice in per­formance, and condemne the not performance of periurie. Who also in the same Volume holdeth their generall position saying, Aliorum quo­ (que) iuramenta possunt Pontifi­cis authoritate relaxa [...]i. Ibidem. lib. 11. cap. 9. Other mens oathes may be dissolued by the Pope. So that when the Pope shall send but his Bull of freeing our English, the bond of their oath will proue as strong as the knot of a Bul rush.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer Ibid. But to speake vnto this Obiector concerning Protestants pro­ceeding [Page 92] in equiuocating.

The Reply.

But first, men should be so modest as to couer their owne bald pates, Of the Answer for Protestants see the 2. part. before they note others of like imperfections.

The moderate Answerer.

f I plainely answer, that all Catholikes of this Kingdome both Priests and others, do and ought syncerely to acknowledge his Ma­iestie absolute and really a true King of all his kingdomes, &c. And that among other duties to denie to sweare, or violate an oath, iuri­dicè, iustly and according to the course of lawe proposed, and to e­quiuocate therein is a sinne damnable.

The Reply.

In this your protestation by these words, It is damnable to vse Equiuocation before them iudging, iuridicè, iustly and accor­ding to lawe, I doubt much that you your selfe vse some damna­ble Equiuocation: for what is (I pray you) iuridicè, iustly? may you Priests take a corporall oath before a ciuill Magistrate whomsoeuer? this is against your owne Decrees. Coram Iudice & Magistratu ciuili nunquam Sacerdos [...]urat, etiam Episcopi consensu: at Episcopus facit vt coram se Sa­cerdos iuret. Azo [...]. I [...]. Ins [...]it. lib. 11. cap. 11. § Sexto quaeri­tur. A Priest (saith your Iesuite) may not take an oath before any ciuill Magi­strate, though the Bishop should [...]cence him thereunto.

Secondly, call to mind the forme of our English oath, To acknowledge no forraine power either of any King or Prelate to haue any preheminence ouer our Soueraigne (to insist onely vpon this branch) in causes temporall, either directly or indirectly. Say now, will you be sworne to this or no? If you shall say, you will not, take heed, then shall you be a Preuaricator, denying that which you wold seeme before to defend. If you say, you wold, which all yours say, Videsupra. The Pope is in­directly suprem in temporall causes. Bellar­ [...]. Aadagaine The Pope may dis [...]olue oathes. Vide supra Rat. 4. lib. [...]. you may not, then are you (whom you would seeme not to be) a damnable Equiuocator.

CHAP. XXIX.

The Discouerie in the tenth Reason.

WHosoeuer is possessed with these former seditious Positions, that ex Officio, that is, as he is a Romish Priest, he must professe them; such an one is to be iudged a most desperate Traitor. But all Romish Priests, as Priests, pro­fesse some, and othersome all of these seditious Positions, [...] ­go, &c.

The Minor

  • 1. proued,
  • 2. confirmed.

Proued by an argument of Relation: that seeing the Auth [...] of this rebellious doctrine are the principall Rabbies of [...] Sect, and publikely authorized with the ordinarie pr [...] of that Church; it may not be imagined, but that the [...] are infected with the leauen of their Professors & D [...] bouenamed. To wit, 1. Tolet a late Cardinall, whose [...] haue this speciall priuiledge by Pope Gregor [...]e 1 [...]. a That ( [...] Ʋasques the Iesuite) they may without censure or examination of any be published to the world. Now the booke wherein these po­sitions or rather poysons are contained, is intituled, De Instru­ctione Sacerdotum: that is, The Booke of instructions for Priests.

2. Cardinall Bellarmine publike Reader in Rome, in his Booke intituled, Of the Pope of Rome, dedicated to Be [...]o, Sanct [...]ssimo (que) Pat [...] X [...]o Quinto P [...]t. Maximo Rob. Bellarminus. In princ [...] [...]i ep [...]t. [...]cat. d [...] T [...]m. Roman. [...] Quintus Pope of Rome, and authorized by the same Pope of Rome to no other end, but (as he confesseth) Ad eos [...]ue­ne [...]uendos qu [...] à Tran­ [...] [...]egio­ [...]bu, Authori­t [...]s tua reuoca­ [...]. [...] d. To instruct those Scholers, whom his Holinesse did send for from beyond the Alpes, that is, all Scotish, Polish, Flemmish, Danish, and En­glish extrauagants.

3 Cardinall Alane created of the same Pope Xistus Quin­tus, Anno Dom. 1588. to the like end: for in the same yeare when the Spanish inuasion was intended against England, he published his booke intituled, An Admonition to the Nobility of England.

4 L. Molina Diuinitie Reader in the Vniuersitie of Ebornensis. Ebor.

[Page 94] 5 Gregorie of Ʋalentia Diuinitie Reader in the Vniuersitie of Ingolstadien­sis. Ingolstade.

6 Doctor Stapleton, Diuinitie Reader in Lo [...]aine.

7 Dominicus Bannes Diuinitie Reader in the Vniuersitie of Salmaticens [...]s. Salmat. Another much infected with the same leauen, and yet priuiledged in Spaine with these commendations: Legi & ex­pendi diligen­ter iussa & im­perio Senatus, F. Dom. Ban­nesij Cathedra­tij Sacrosanctae Theologiae in Salmaticensi Academia in 2. 2. Dom. Thomae Com­mentarios. & nihil reperi lima dignum, sed admiratio­ne vt appareat fore opus The­ologis vtilissi­mum, & fructu­osissimum. Id (que) ego ratum mea fide iubeo. Fra­ter Daques Regis Hispani [...] Conses­sarius in coment. Francisci Ban­ [...]sij. A worke admirable, and profitable for all Diuines. Dignified also of the Friars, called Minors, in these termes: Ne tam glo­rioso open sanctae obedi­entiae meritum deesse contin­gat, hoc ipsum ei praecipimus in virtute Spiri­tus Sancti sub formali prae­cepto, In nomire Patris, Pilij, & Spiritus sancti. Amen. non obstantibus in contrarium quibus­cunue. Fratrem Minorum de D. Bannesij Commentarijs Encomium. Aglorious worke, which lest it want his deserued obedience, this we challenge in the power of the holy Ghost, vnder our formall commaund (without all exceptions) in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, A­men.

We haue also alledged the resolution of the Iesuites Col­ledge of the Vniuersitie of Salamancha in Spaine, Anno Dom. 1602. As likewise Creswell his Philopater, printed at Rome, Licentiâ Superiorum, by the licence of the Superiors; signifying the Iesuites there. What shall I need to mention Reinolds (in his Rostus) a Doctor of Diuinitie, and chiefest man in the En­glish Seminarie at Rhemes? Father Parsons (in his Dolman) a principall Rector in the Seminarie at Rome? Seeing all these be Seminaries, you may trie the young plants by their fruites. If any desire further experience in this kind, he may consult with Carolus Molinaeus, and Pontus Tyardaus, both Parisiens, and but euen now, before I can reade them, to be read of all men.

The Confirmation.

It will not be denyed of any Priest, but that in these Popish Seminaries he hath vowed obedience to his generall Fathers in those schooles: and it is as notorious, that all Generals are absolutely enthralled to their chiefe Generall the Pope; all of them as hands and feet to worke and walke, as that their head shall deuise. Which (as we haue heard in Gregorie the 7. Gre­gorie the 9. Pius Quint us, and others) haue absolued Subiects [Page 95] from all obedience, and charged them to take armes against their Emperours, Kings and Queenes excommunicate, &c. Shall we now imagine, the old Foxes being such, that their cubbes can degenerate? If euer any of that kind gaue hope vnto vs, it was the secular Priests; who for a fit did write many things very tru­ly against Iesuiticall rebellious Practises: but after, perceiuing the Recusants to withdraw their beneuolence, as rather deuo­ted to the Iesuites, and that the Pope also tooke part against them, they, searing their consciences, wholly submitted them­selues vnto the Arch-priest, whose commaund vpon occasion is countermaunded by the faction Iesuiticall. So that now we may aswel expect grapes from thorns, or a white Aethiopian, as loyall subiection from this Religion.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 11. § The tenth & § And what­soeuer. His tenth Reason is no new Reason, but an Epilogus of the former. But I answer, that the Catholike Students neither of En­glandn [...]r of any other Nation are bound to defend their Masters reading, but in matters of faith and generall receiued doctrine.

The Reply.

Nay, it is a different and demonstratiue Reason, taken from the formall cause of conspiracie and consent in such practises, because Doctors and Disciples with you, are more then Rela­tiues: for what can most of your Priests say here, but as School­boyes, Dictata Magistri; and as Infants, who receiue no more food, then that which they sucke from their nurces. A matter notorious: and how (I pray you) may we better, then by the doctrine of your Generals, know what is your generall do­ctrine?

The moderate Answerer.

Answer ibid. These Assertions are most falsely obiected, for the Scholers do not vow any obedience to their Superiors; and that obedience which they follow, is in obseruing the Collegiall Rules.

The Reply.

Yet they acknowledge obedience, as a due thing, Non sub mo­do praecepti, sed sub modo per­fectionis. Tollet. Tract. de 7. Pec­cat. mort. cap. 15. Though not in the bond of precept, yet of perfection. And I thinke your vowes do arrogate perfection.

[Page 96] Secondly, it is requisite you should shew vs some reason, why your scholers should in these points dissent from their Masters; and whether we shold rather beleeue you herein, li­uing in cryptis, or them who for their excellent learning, domi­nantur in Cathedris, your doctrine couched vnder a bushell, or theirs within their publike and priuiledged bookes, set as it were on the house top.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer Ibidem. in sia [...]sectionis. And yet there is not any one sentence alledged from any of them or any other Catholike, which in his true sence will bring any pre­indice to our most holy innocent cause: as I haue demonstrated.

The Reply.

In his true sence, say you? Why? by what reason can you challenge my sence of vntruth? Answer supra. Because the authorities be fals­ly applyed. Why so? [...]. 1. [...]g. Because this particular Reason, whereupon, as [...] most certaine foundation, his arguments are built, is this, Pro­testants are by vs accounted Heretikes and excommunicate; which is most false. O, this then is the onely cause you can pretend, but seeing [...]ll [...]s [...]. it is confirmed by impregnable demonstrations frō Popes and all Popish Authors, that Protestants by all Papists (though heretically) are esteemed as Heretikes: it will demon­strati [...]ely follow, that all the authorities I alledged are rightly applyed, and all the crudities of your indigested answer suffi­ciently dissolued. Whether therefore that doctrine, whereby detestable lying, vnder the shadow of Equiuocation, is autho­rized for truth; where desperate Rebellion is aduanced in the pretence of Religion; where most barbarous massacres of Chri­stian people, and monstrous murthers of Kings and Princes are magnified as glorious Stratagemes, be preindiciall to the ho­linesse of any cause. I dare call heauen, earth, yea and hell also to witnesse between vs. Thus I leaue you as persons conuicted of high Treason, (God grant you grace of repentance) and now I proceed to pleade the cause of Protestants generally impeached by you as persons guiltie of the same crime.

The ſecond Part, con …

The second Part, containing a Iu­stification of Protestants against slaunderous imputations, obiected vnto them by this Answerer in two points,• Doctrine of Rebellion, , and • And sacrilegious Aequiuocation. 

CHAP. I.

THE second kind of answer in this our mode­rate Answerer, is by Recrimination, to make Protestants as much, or rather more guiltie of crimes Rebellious, and Aequiuocations, then the Romish sect.

First is the case of Rebellion,

  • 1. generally,
  • 2. more particularly.

1. In generall.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 1. § Lastly. Let the Discouerer battle himselfe against his Protestant brethren, which, of all the people in the world that euer were, or will be, are most guiltie in these proceedings. Ibid. § Fourth­ly. [...]t cap. 15. in initio. & cap. 7. § We haue. All iumping together in this conclusion, that Kings differing in Religion from them, are not worthy to be accounted either Princes or men, but must be de­posed. We haue read and seene many conspiracies and rebellions proceeding from the dogmaticall men of this profession, and their Rebels s [...]aine in their actuall rebellions, and approued of them, and canonized for holy Martyrs.

The Reply.

Lowd clamour and lewd! Which your generall accusation [Page 98] must haue a general satisfaction, to shew that it is childish, ex­trauagant, and slaunderous.

As childish as your boy-trick, when, about to be conuicted for a truant, you accused some other for fellowship. Admit then this to be a true recrimination; yet, as S. Augustine reaso­neth of two kind of theeues, so may I of diuers kinds of rebels. Horum duorū non ideo alter bonus, quia pe­ior est vnus. August. lib contra mendac. cap. 8. in initio. This theefe (saith he) is not therefore good, because the other is worse. Can the one of these be saued by the other mans halter?

2. Extrauagant: wandring out of the circuit of the question, thus, The question was whether Romish Priests can be true subiects vnto our Protestant King: you would satisfie by ex­amples of Protestants disloyaltie to Romish Gouernors. Sup­pose it be so, although we condemne all such Protestants, yet here is your iniquitie: those Protestants in the Romish regi­ments, you call Rebellious traitors; and yet you Romish, in Protestants kingdomes, will be called dutifull and faithful sub­iects: contrary to the naturall law of all equitie, Feras legem, quam fers: To be iudged by your owne law; and acknowledge your like case with such Protestants (if yet there haue bin any such) worthy of the like condemnation.

3. Slanderous: for those, whom you in this place accuse re­bellious, in another place by consequent you acquit as inno­cent Answer cap. 2. § Therefore seeing. Protestants (you say) alledge this Scripture, [Rom. 13. Omnis a­nima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit:] Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers, &c. to proue Princes supremacie. By the which also Protestants proue, Primum pro­bant Pont. Ro­manum nullo iu [...]e posse impe­rare Principibus secularibus, ne­dum eos regnis priuare, etiamsi illi priuari alio­qui mereantur. Hoc docet om­nes (intelligit Protestantes) hoc tempore, vt Caluinus, Mar­tyr, Brentius, Magdeburgen­ses. Bell [...]. lib. 5. de Ro [...] Pont. cap. 1. in initio. That the Pope of Rome (saith Bellarmine) ought not to ouer-rule Princes, or depriue them of their regiments, although otherwise they deserued to be depri­ued: of this opinion be all Protestants. Now I would demaund of any indifferent Reader, whether they do suffer any to resist, who chalēge euery one [...]o acknowledge obedience. We may deuine now, what moderation you will keepe in the rest of your accusations, who haue thus plainely confuted your selfe in this first.

CHAP. II.

The particular Recriminations are fetched from diuers Kingdomes. First (to begin at home) England.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 7. § I haue. The Discouerer hath made a fond argument against the Pro­testant ministers in England conuinced of sedition, for taking armes against their Soueraigne.

The Reply.

I would this your obiection were such, whereby we might onely charge you of fo [...]dnesse, and not of falshood also, and malice. For of the Church of England your Iesuite hath giuen a contrary verdit; Anglicani Pro­testantes Princi­pem Christianū etiam in causa Ecclesiastica Superiorem ag­no [...]cunt. Salme­ron Jesuita com. in Epistol. Pauli in gener. disp. 1 [...]. § Verum. s [...] ­king of the latter dayes of K. Henry the eight. The English Protestants (saith he) do acknow­ledge their Christian Prince supreme, euen in causes Ecclesiasticall. Which is true in his lawfull sence. But here againe we behold the spirits of giddinesse: you defame the English Christians, as denying due subiection to their Soueraigne: your Ie­suite accuseth the same English for yeelding more then due. But I leaue you both to battle together, you to accuse him of impudencie, and he you of stupiditie. This hath bin of English onely yet in generall. Next you

CHAP. III.

Descend vnto Indiuiduals in our English nation.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 1. adfinem. § Fourthly. I must put the Discouerer in mind, that he hath beheld his vi­sage too much in the glasse of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Sands, [Page 100] Rogers, and all Protestants of all places. What haue these men done? Answer cap. 3. repeating it § Against, &c. It was the consent of these and the chiefest Protestant Bi­shops and Diuines, that Queene Marie might be deposed; and not onely she, but her sister Queene Elizabeth a Protestant, which was put in practise both with wit and weapons, to the vttermost of the Protestants power by the Duke of Northumberland and Suffolke, and many others of great estate: and not this only against the expresse statutes of the kingdome, but their owne oath to the Lady Marie in her fathers life. Answer cap▪ 4. repeating it, in initio. Thus did these wth their Protestant Preachers and forces against the succession of Queene Elizabeth. Answer, repea­ting this, cap. 9. § For England. For En­gland I haue spoken already more then I desire, had not such wicked accusations against vs vrged me to the breach of silence. Now I will onely say, that the publike and dogmaticall positions and practises of rebellions by the greatest Protestant subiects of this kingdome, the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolke, and so many Nobles to be passed with oblinion, with the whole Cleargie, against not onely God and their Queene, but oathes of fidelitie to King Henrie the eight, that I am bold to affirme, &c.

The Reply.

No maruell though you be bold to affirme thus much con­cerning the knowledge of these things, seeing you (verifying the vulgar article) are herin blind. Seeke therfore into historie, the light of veritie, and life of antiquitie, and you will easily see how much you haue bin ouerseene.

First your boldnesse, touching historie, hath presumed to affirme, that Answer cap. 10. § Secondly. K. Henrie the eight did illegitimate his two daugh­ters M. and E. and after declared the contrary, making them le­gitimate by statute. I haue inquired into the Acts which are ex­tant, and I find three Acts, whereby the aforesaid daughters were disabled, as namely in annis 25. 28. 33. of King Henrie his raigne. But for establishing of them in the right of succes­sion, I think you cannot shew it, except it be in anno nunquam, canone nusquam.

The case is more manifested by the answer of the whole Councell to the letters of Queene Marie, wherein she now [Page 101] after the death of King Edward made chalenge to the right of the Crowne. The Councels answer is thus framed. The Counc [...]l [...] letters to Lady Ma [...]ie. This is a­against the sundry Acts of Parliament remaining yet in force, con­firmed by the King of famous memory Henrie the eight, against the letters patents of our late Soueraigne King Edward the sixt, and his great seale, against the consent of the most part of the noble Vniuersities of Christendome, &c. Wherefore you, that tell vs of a statute of Legitimation, as a matter euident, in modestie shold not haue concealed your euidence. Otherwise you know in a proposition copulatiue, if but one point be true, the whole is a lie.

Say then, whereof can you accuse Cranmer, Ridley, and all Protestants, wherein you will not make King Henrie the eight, King Edward the sixt, and many Parliaments guiltie? I did neuer heare the whole state of any kingdome termed Traitors but by your boldnesse: If you had strooke at the head of that opposition, you should not haue needed to haue lopped the branches: for if King Henry might haue spoken from the dead in the day of the succession of Queene Mary, he would haue pleaded the cause of the opposites, as Dauid did in the behalfe of his people, Oues hae, &c. It is I: these other what haue they done? Notwithstanding we acknowledge her successiō iust: and after the proclamation of her title, shew vs what Protestant euer resisted? what Minister of the Gospel in all that fierie trial did kindle the least sparke of sedition among her people? Was it because they wanted hope of succession? Behold there was the hand-maide of God, Elizabeth their hopefull successor to the Crowne. Was it for want of power? why death is rightly described to be a Giant, hauing a thousand hands, able to giue any liuing creature his mortall wound. But I abhorre to dis­course of these rebellious conceits. Lastly, of all Protestants which were burned in Queene Maries dayes for Religion, name but one that was accused of treason; I require instance but in one: an apparant demonstration, that their Religion taught them loyall subiection.

The second Instance for England. The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 3. § Against. Re­peated, cap. 4. § But. Sir Thomas Wyat warranted by Protestants Cleargie, with diuers others in the short regiment of Queene Marie may be giuen for instance.

The Reply.

The Historie relateth the pretence of Wyat, thus, H [...]shed Chro A Proclamation against the Queenes marriage, desiring all English men to ioyne for defence of the Realme, in dan­ger to be brought into thraldome to strangers, who be Spa­niards. The like was the Proclamation of the Duke of Suf­folke, Against the marriage with the Prince of Spaine. Where auouching his loyaltie to the person of the Queene, layed his hand on his sword, saying, Hee that would her any hurt, I would this sword were at his heart. Againe, there is recorded the Oration of Queene Marie against Wyat; where there is not to be found any scruple con­cerning the (subiect of our question) cause of Religion: neither was there (to make it more apparant) any Mini­ster of the Gospell brought in question, as a commotioner in that cause. Though therefore it is requisite that that which is lawfull, be performed by lawfull proceedings; yet if intent (the subiect of this dispute) might answer for Pro­testants accused in that name, then is it plaine, that it was not Religion: if for Wyat and his fellowes, it is as plaine it was not against the Queene or State, but for both, that the whole land might continue in their former subiecti­on, and that by Spanish insolencie, her Highnesse pre­heminence and soueraignetie might not be impared. Let vs heare

The third Instance for England. [Page 103] The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 4. Goodman published a booke, concluding it lawfull to kill Kings transgressing Gods lawes themselues, and commaun­ding others to do the like.

The Reply.

If I should iustifie this Goodman, though your exam­ples might excuse him, yet my heart shall condemne my selfe. But what doe you professe to prooue? All Prote­testants teach Positions rebellious. Prooue it. Here is one Goodman, who in his publike booke doeth mainetaine them. I haue no other meanes to auoyde these straites, which you obiect, by the example of one, to conclude All Pro­testants in England rebellious, then by the example of * All the rest, to answer there is but one. And now let me be beholden to your moderation, to remember multitudes of your Priests, Iesuites, Cardinals, and Popes in their pub­like authorized bookes, Bulles, Decrees; and now you re­quite mee with one. But shall one dramme of drosse prooue the whole masse no golde? Let vs therefore leaue this Goodman, as a man, who by his vnauthorized, wic­ked and false positions hath falsified his name. You pro­ceed

The fift Instance against English Protestants. The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 2. § And whence▪ The English Protestants notes vpon the Bible (as his Ma­iestie is witnesse) do not disallow the killing of Princes in such case: as is shewed by the booke of Conference, pag. 47.

The Reply.

It will be requisite, without preiudice to the most learned and [Page 104] religious iudgement of his Maiestie, to satisfie for two places related from that conference. The first place touching the act of the midwiues of Egypt, who mercifully spared the liues of the infants of the Hebrewes, notwithstanding the commaun­dement of the King. The note: [Their disobedience herein was lawfull, but their dissembling was euill:] And was not this dis­obedience lawfull? Let vs consult with the holy Ghost, Heb. 11. 23. where it is written [By faith Moses when he was borne was hid three moneths of his parents, neither feared they the Kings commaundement.] The same is the case of the [midwiues dis­obeying the commaundement of the King.] Now that which is noted by the Spirit of God, as commendable in the parents of Moses, may it be condemnable in these mercifull midwiues of the Egyptians? Nay, for it is also written, [Exod. 1. 15. & 20. The midwiues of Aegypt feared God, and did not as the King commanded them, but preserued aliue the male children, and therefore God prospe­red them.] But we must discerne in this act two colours, white and blacke, which S. Augustine distinguisheth: In vi [...]andis pueris, opus mi­ [...]ericordiae fuit; mendacio vero illo pro se vte­bantur ne no­ceret illis Pha­rao: non ad lau­dem, sed ad ve­nia pertinebat. August. Quaest. super Exod. 1. They did a worke of mercie in preseruing the liues of the yong babes; but they did lie vnto the King for safeguard of their owne liues: The first deserued prayse, the other needed a Pardon. There­fore this their lawfull and mercifull disobedience for pre­uenting the bloudie Massacre of Infants, can be no president for your practises intended in malice, to end in the bloud of Protestants of all sorts. The other point of the note a­gainst Dissimulation, doth indeed crosse your equiuocating profession: but you are not to be offended with vs, if we con­demne that as sinfull, which (as S. Augustine saith) [...]m su [...]a. needed a pardon.

The second place, 2. Chron. 15. 16. the Text, [King Asa deposed Maachah his mother from her estate, because she had made an Idole in a groue.] The note, Mother, or Grandmother, yet herein the King shewed that he lacked zeale: for she ought to haue bene burnt by the Couenant, as vers. 13. And by the law of God, Deut. 13. but he gaue place to foolish pittie, and would also se [...]me after a sort to satisfie the lawe. The truth then of this expo­sition (as al Orthodoxal Comentaries shew) is grounded vpon [Page 105] the direct Scripture, the Oracle of truth: for in the law, Deut. 13. 6. & 9. If thy brother, &c. the summe whereof is repeated in the Text in question, vers. 13.] Whosoeuer will not seeke the Lord God of Israel, shall be slaine, whether he were small or great, man or woman.] What shall we say then; is the Soueraignty of Kings disabled? God forbid, but it is rather established here­by: for the King is made the Deposer, yea euen of whosoeuer. Now that Commentarie doth not defend deposing a King, nei­ther possibly can it be defended by any ordinarie commaund of God in all Scripture: which is Infra. proued. Wherefore suppo­sing that the Relation of the Conference be direct, yet may you not thinke that his Maiestie (whose iudgement is so di­uinely illuminated by the light of the word of God, that he neuer refused Conference with the greatest Iesuite or Doctor Romish) could take exception to the note, as from an offence thereby giuen, but onely in suspition, an offence taken by weake ones prepossessed with your Romish maladie, whereof you haue giuen vs experience in your many controuersies. For wheresoeuer in all Scripture almost you feele but any sent of fire, O behold, this doth Vide Apolog. Cathol. Part 2. lib. 5. cap. 40 & d [...]. cep [...]. Proue Purgatorie fire after death. Whereas indeed the context is plaine, there is onely signified * Afflictions of this life. Where you reade promised Reward for goodworkes, there you presently conclude, Amerit of Condig­nitie; when as all is the onely iustice of Gods promise, and the consequent of the onely grace and mercie of God, who giueth to will, to worke, to perfect, and crowneth his gift of grace, with the grace of the gift of glorie. I may not digresse. Here doubtlesse his Maiestie doubted lest some impotent Reader, not ignorant of your suggestions, vnderstanding a Prince de­posed by the King, might iustifie your proceedings, where so many popishly inspired, haue assumed the office of Kings, to depose a Prince. But know you, there is not in any part of our Commentarie vpon the Bible any one sparke, whereat any Guido may light his match, to giue fire to his powder.

The last instance for England. The moderate Answerer.

Answer in his Epistle to his Maiestie. § Which as. If I had trauelled no further into that doctrine, then to the [Page 106] late printed booke, by your Maiesties Printer of the late intended Conspiracie, I might easily performe a iust defence: for the Prote­stant Author giueth it out as a generall rule, and vndoubted Ma­xime to all Professors of worship to take armes, if their Religion be in hazard: and that no priuate man should thinke his life more hap­pie then to fight pro Aris. Which is greater libertie then our Ad­uersarie can find in Catholike Writers, so of him attached of Trea­son and Rebellion.

The Reply.

This shoot is but twelue score wide of the marke you ayme at: your bent is to defend them, who professe it lawfull for Ca­tholikes in the maintenance of Religion to murther Kings, and harrow Kingdomes (in their opinion) hereticall. This Author teacheth vs to Fight (his owne words) pro Aris, pro focis, pro Pa­tre patriae: his Reason, Because the indangering of one of these would at once stirre the whole bodie of a Commonwealth, not any more as diuided members, but as a solid and indiuiduall lumpe. What is then the difference? he in the whole Treatise, teach­eth euery priuate man to arme himselfe by all possible meanes, but first armed with authoritie of the King and State. You teach to fight for Religion (violating the obedience of God) against your King and kingdome, to destroy them. The diffe­rence may be illustrated by the like: A priuate man, if without authoritie temporall he kill a murtherer, he is a murtherer; but authorized by the publike lawe, he is now no more priuate, but an Officer, but the lawles homicide doth best pattern your lawlesse parricide. So that there is no more oddes betweene our and your Authors opinion, then cum Rege, & contra Re­gem: to fight with, and against the King. You can find no more exception in England, whither will you now? it is but a step to Scotland, what see you there?

CHAP. IIII.

The Obiection of the moderate Answerer against the Church of Scotland.

Answer cap. 3. repeating it cap. 7. & cap. 9. KNox, and Buchanan defended the power of people ouer their King.

The Reply.

You might haue added, that there was in Scotland an Anno. 1584. Act of Parliament, to call in that Chronicle of Buchanan, censuring all such contempts and innouations: but it stood your modestie in hand to conceale this, lest we might reply vpon your modera­tion thus: That is not to be called the doctrine of Scotland, which the general currant of that Church and State in publike Parliament doth condemne: such is this seditious doctrine of resisting and deposing Kings, a learning substantially popish, your Proued by the Popes Buls supr. Popes being Authors thereof, your other Priests of Rome suggestors publikely authorized herein, and your trai­terous Actors canonized for Saints in the conceit of all Ro­mish. And now you may bid great Britaine adiew: you may make a short cut into France.

CHAP V.

The Obiections of the moderate Answerer against the Protestants in France, both in their Positions and Practises.

Answer cap. 9. § Let vs. LEt vs come into France.

The Reply.

But vpon condition, that you will not returne. Yet what of Fraunce?

The moderate Answerer.

Answer Ibid. Caluin and Beza, and the rest of that holy Synode say, that the Kings and Queenes, their children, posteritie, and all Magistrates must be put to death: and so euery Protestant must be more then a Pope.

The Reply.

Nay, God forbid; that any should be so great a man in Re­bellion, as your Popes, who haue bene the heads of the grea­test tumults in Christendome. Caluin and Beza, whom you traduce (if your moderation will suffer that which iustice doth exact) must answer for themselues.

Caluins iudgement in this case.

In his booke of Institutions, which he framed for instru­ction of all the Church of Christ, touching the case now con­trouerted, he beginneth to consult with God, saying: Caluinus Instit. li. 4. c. 20. § 22. Verbum Dei docet, Princi­pum omnium, qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur, eti­amsi nihil mi­nus praestent, quàm quod ex Officio erat Principum, im­perio es [...]e pa­rendum. Paulò post Vt homines intelligant, in homine deterrimo honore (que) omni indignissimo, penes quem modo sit publica potestas, praeclarā illam & diuinam potestatem residere, quam Dominus lu­stitiae & Iudicij sui Ministris verbo suo detulit: I [...]roi [...]dè a subditis eadem reuerentiâ ac dignatio­ne habendū, quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet, quâ Regem optimum, si daretur, ha­bitur [...] estent. Nabuchadnezar strenuus erat aliorum inuasor, ac populator, & Dominus ta [...]en per Prophetam d [...]cit, se illi terram illam dedisle. Ezech. 29. & Dan. 2. Vt [...]os nequissimum Ty­rannum eo loco habeamus, quo Deus eum posuit. C [...] Samuel describit Regem iniquū. 1, Sa­muel. 8. 11. Hoc ius (inquit) erit Regis, filios vest [...]os tollet, &c. Cert [...] non quòd iure ita facturie­rant Reges, quos lex Domini ad omnem continentiam instituebat▪ sed [...]us [...]n populum vocatur, cui patere ipsi necesle erat, nec obsistere liceret & [...]er. 27. S8ruiet Regi Babel. Videmus quan­t [...] [...]e [...]ti [...] tetrum illū ferocèmque Tyrannum Deus coli voluerit, non al [...]â ratione ni [...]i quia regnum▪ [...]bat, quod exemplum vobis assid [...]è ob animos obuetletur: ita nunquam in ani­m [...] [...]dit [...] cogitationes venient; Tracta [...]dum esse pro me [...]itis Regem; nec aequum esse vt subd [...]s [...]s praestemus, qui v [...]cissim Regem nobis se non praestat. & de hoc extant gene­ral [...]a Sc [...]ip [...] testimonia. Hunc reu [...]rentiae atque ade [...] p [...]tatis affectum▪ debemus ad extre­mum [...]llis, qu lescunquetandem sint; Quod saepiùs ideò repeto, vt satis hab [...]amus, quòd eam Domini voluntate personam s [...]stine [...]t, cui inuiolabilem maiestatem impressit ip [...]e & insculpsit. The word of God teacheth vs to obey all Princes, who are established in their thrones, be it by what meanes soeuer: yea and though they shall do nothing lesse then the Offices of Kings, yet must they be o­bayed; though the King be neuer so wicked, and indeed vnworthie of the name of a King, yet must subiects acknowledge the image of di­uine power in his publike authoritie, and therefore must in all tem­porall duties reuerence and obey him, as well as if he were the god­liest King in the world. To contract his other sentences into a briefe. We are instructed (saith Caluin) by many documents of holy writ neuer to suffer these seditio [...]s cōceits to possesse our minds; as to thinke an euill King must be so dealt withall, as he deserueth: [Page 109] but we are directly charged to obey the King, though he be a sa­uage Tyrant, and neuer so wicked: which I therefore often vrge, that in such a case it may content vs to know, that euen such Ki [...]gs beare in their office the image of God, in whom God hath stamped andingrauen an inuiolable Maiestie, not to be contemned. Thus farre Master Caluin: neither doth he euer restrain the outward power of any King, except in those States where there is cu­stomably ordained for that purpose, the Magistracie of those who are called Ephori, and Tribuni plebis. But when? when they shall commaund any thing against the lawe of God? then Caluin embraceth the doctrine of Saint Peter, Act. 15. 29. [We rather obey God then man:] but how? not to obey man? as actiuely to resist, that is, to rebell against him? God forbid! but onely passiuely, which is not to do that which shall be wic­kedly commaunded; Perpeti potiùs, quàm à veritate discedere, au [...] à pietate deslectere. Rather suffer (saith he) then to betray the truth of God, or to accord to iniquitie. But reade and examine all the lines which euer Caluin penned, and you shall not find one syllable that can preiudice his loyaltie. Wherof more hereafter.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo iam supra. Beza also and the rest of that holy Synod, defend the same.

The Reply.

Belike then this rebellious doctrine will be proued a Syno­dicall Decree among Protestants: but if you should vow faith­fully not to eate, till you proue this, I could easily prognosti­cate what death you should die. But Beza, as he succeeded Cal­uine a Doctor, so in doctrine likewise. Heare Bezas owne confession, and it will proue him innocent, you a slaunderer, and your Popes the capitall delinquents in this kind.

1 His innocencie. Quod attinet ad p [...]iuatos ho­mines, à qui [...] us etiam aut [...]ihil aut no [...] [...]ltū absunt [...] [...]es m [...]gistratus, t [...]ne [...]e [...]llos o­pott [...]t [...]l [...]imū inter le de [...]r [...]e, in [...]am [...]er­re, & [...]m pati: Iniuriam enim pati nostrum est, sic praecipiente Domino & exemplo suo nobis praeeu [...]te, cùm nobis illum vi arcere non licet à nostrae vocationis praescipto, ext [...]a quam ne [...]as [...]vel pedem ponere. Nequè aliud remedium proponitur priuatis hominibus [...]yranno sub [...] ­ter vitae emendationem, preces, & lach [...]ymas, quas Dominus pro tempore non a [...]p [...]r▪ Impiē autē facere nec volentes nec ius [...]os fas erit; quoties enim ho [...]inum imperijs patére n [...]n possumus, qui [...] Regis Regum authoritatem violemus, Deo parendum est potius quam homini­bus; ita tamen vt memine [...]im [...]s, aliud esse non parére, quam resistere & ad arma [...]e co [...]patare, quae à Domino non acceperis. B [...]za confess. fid. cap. 5. § 45. Priuate men, among whom I account in­ferior [Page 110] Magistrates (in respect of their King) haue no other re­medie against Tyrants, to whom they be subiect, then amendment of their liues, prayers, and teares, which God in his good time will not despise. They alwaies prouided not to do, but onely to suffer euil, as Christ by his owne example hath taught vs. And if it shall so happen that we cannot obey the commaund of the King, but that we must offend God, the King of Kings: then must we rather obey God then man. But how? so, as likewise to remember, that it is one thing not to obey, another thing to resist and betake our selues to armes. This kind of violent disobedience we may not vse. Can any moderate spirit call this doctrine rebellious?

Secondly: Your slaunder. Quid de Sub­iectorum erga suos magistra­tus officio sen­tiamus, ex his cognosci potest certiùs ac veri­ùs, quàm ex corum calum­nijs, quibus nullus est pu­dor nos inuol­uere cum verti­ginosis Ana­baptistis, qui magistatuum authoritatem tollunt, iurisiu­randi religio­nem euertunt, indicia & B [...]lla aduersus se illa­ta illicita esse contendunt, à quibus sceleri­bus quantum absumus, nemo potest ignor are nisi qui lucem recusat intueri. Beza quo supra. What our opinion is concerning subiection vnto Magistrates, (saith Beza) a man may better be instructed by our writings, then by the slaunders of such as number vs among the companie of intoxicate Anabaptists, who renounce the authoritie of Magistrates: which doctrine how much we ab­horre, none can be ignorant, which doth not obstinately refuse to see the light. Of which kind you must needes be, seeing you had rather beleeue any libels against Beza, then see his owne wri­tings.

Thirdly, your Popes capitall Offendors, Au­get etiam illud aduersariorum nostrorum impudentia, quòd cùm ipsi palam contra Dei Ver­bum Reges & Regna sibi subiecerint, nec vllum sit hominum genus aduersus magistratus ma­gis rebelle, audent tamen illi nobis illud ipsum scelus impingere, quod sibi licere non ob­scutè iactant. Beza ibidem. The impudencie of our Accusers (saith Beza) herein is most notorious; that they, who contrarie to the word of God haue openly subiected Kings and Kingdomes to their authoritie, being themselues the most rebellious Sect vnder heauen in contemning Magistrates; dare notwithstan­ding obiect the guilt of that crime vnto vs, which they thinke to be a vertue in themselues, and wherein they glorie and vaunt. Which is most true, as we haue proued out of your Bellarmine and o­thers, glorying in the acts of such Popes, who haue deposed Emperors.

CHAP. VI.

The Practises of Caluin and other Protestants of France ob­iected by this Accuser in diuers particular instances.

The first instance. The moderate Answerer.

Answer qu [...] supra. THese were instruments of all Rebellions and oppressions in the Monarchie of France, wherein they tooke all authoritie from the King and Magistrate, against King Francis, whom they rebelliously persecuted.

The Reply.

For your proofes against Protestants in this your Answer you produce Genebrard, Claudius de Sanct. Petrus Frar. Co­claeus and such like, all professed Aduersaries to the Religion of Protestants. How moderate dealing this may be ac­counted will appeare, when I shall oppose your owne Histo­rians to condemne you, and acquit the Protestants. Two wit­nesses shall suffice, who how farre they were from fauouring the Protestants you may iudge by their complexions: for the The Histori­call collection of the memora­ble acts in France from Henrie the 2, till Henrie the 4 Before his Treatise of the reigne of Henrie the 3. he hath in­serted. A briefe Discourse (for so [...]e [...]th i [...] title it) of the grace and wonderfull effects that haue insued the Kings conuersion, collected. VVherein are these words folowing: His Maiestie by reuelation of the holy Ghost and for his owne salua­tion turned to the bosome of the Church, leauing the [...]ors of the new opinion, ab [...]uring his former impostures▪ &c. first greedily relateth a Discourse, wherein he calleth our Re­ligion new and a plaine imposture. The L'histoire de France, [...]es plus notables occurrances, &c. Au Roy. second is dedicated to Charles the then French King; and to L'histoire de Franc. &c. A la R [...]in [...]. the Queene mother: in which Historie he calleth the doctrine of M. Luther, La multitude des absurdes Heresies, &c. Lib. 1. fol. 9. A mul­titude of absurd heresies. Therefore you may not think these men partiall in our behalfe.

Both prouing

  • 1. The pronenesse of Papists to slaunder the Religion of Protestants.
  • 2. That this accusation is a slaunder, which is now obiected.

For the 1. I will alledge of many but one story, published by [Page 112] them both. The first Hist. pag. 5 [...]. A [...]o D [...]. 1559. and the second Historie lib. 15. A [...]o 1559. § Or come. False witnesses were brought against (Protestants) them of the Religion, affirming that in a place at Maubert, at a Councellors house, great numbers of them had eaten a pigge instead of a pascall Lambe before Easter; and after, the candles being put out, euery man tooke his woman, and had his pleasure of her. The Cardinall vpon these informations moued the Court, the Queene mother tooke occasion hereby to reuile some of her Gentlewomen, who were of the Religion: but they desired and obtained means that the principall witnesses might be examined: it was done, two young boyes come foorth, and affirme that then and many other times they had had the vse of your Councellors daughters: but in the end the witnesses began to stagger, and couertly to denie it. The Councellor (sought after for his Religion) vnderstanding this shameful slander, went with his wife and his two daughters, yeelding himselfe priso­ner for his Religion, desiring that the cause of his daughters might be examined. They were diligently searched by Physitions and wo­men, and found to be virgins: and the young men did thus iustifie themselues that they did it in deuotion, being perswaded that such an accusation against such Heretikes was good, whether it were true or false. But the virgins were cleared, and yet their father re­mained in prison, and the witnesses were not punished.

The second. Concerning the present Accusation thus it standeth. The first Hist. pag. 86. The Guizes (who were no naturall Frenchmen) not able to accuse the Prince of Condie of Treason, (Daniels case) cal­led him in question to be condemned of heresie for his Religion. But what was the right cause of tumults? Pag. 62. & 67. There was deliuered an exact declaration to proue, that those of the Guizes had decreed to put all the Princes of the bloud Royall to death, as soone as they had cut off them of the Religion; and they were euidently proued to be guiltie of his treason. Pag. 83. And the King could not otherwise iudge, but that great wrong was offered to his bloud. Then not the Prote­stants, but the Spanish faction of the Guizes were guiltie of those broyles in the daies of King Francis. Notwithstanding Pag. 85. 86. 87. Though the Prince of Condie did acquit himselfe of Treason, and boldly stood to his Religion, yet not long after they pronounced iudg­ment of death vpon him: But King Francis fell extremely sicke, and in his sicknesse made a solemne vow to all Saints in Pieardie, [Page 113] that if it pleased them to help him, he wold wholy purge his Realme of (meaning Protestants) all those heretikes. And thus all Pro­testants were freed then from this designe: the Saints of Pic­cardie belike were of your mind, Protestants are no heretikes.

The second Instance, of The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 9. § After the. They raised such rebellions and civill warres against Charles the ninth, wherein the King of Nauarre, and Duke Nyuers with others were slaine.

The Reply.

I reade the storie in our foresaid The first Historie. Pag. 114. & de­inc [...]p [...]. Historicall collection of me­morable accidents in France, and others, and I can find onely this thing memorable concerning this point, that The King was then in his minoritie, and the Queene Mother was regent, who yeelded too much vnto the Guizes faction, who persecuted the Prince of Condie, and sought the destruction of all the bloud royall: at length Duke Nyuers with King Nauarre in the warre against his brother, at the siege of Roane are wounded and slaine. See the cause of the Prince of Condie his defence. Pag. 111. In lan. 1 [...]. anno 1562 was made an Edict, whereby permission was granted to them of the Religion to assemble without the townes, and order was taken, that either part, Protestants and Catholikes, might liue in quietnesse and peace with each other: But a while after the Constable did de­face all places of their assemblies, and those of the Religion were cruelly handled. This was the first beginning of the horrible troubles in France. But were Protestants after this rebellious? Pag. 152. In those of Languidoch the King did pardon whatsoeuer they had done in their iust defence, holding them for good subiects. What was then the cause why the Prince of Condie and the Admi­rall did beare armes? Pag. 184. They vnderstanding that 6000. Switzers were now entred into France, with intent to execute violence vpon them of the Religion, they betake themselues vnto the King, from [Page 114] whom they receiued no fauourable answer, therefore they did flie for defence against those Switzers, not suffering their throates to be cut by theeues. Pag. 194. After this was there concluded a peace, the Prince of Condie doth lay downe his armes, his aduersaries were contented onely to promise to do the like, alledging that there is no faith to be held with heretikes. Shewing themselues herein false, and not onely faithlesse; for you know Protestants are no here­tikes.

The third Instance of The moderate Answerer.

Answer ibidem The Duke of Guize was trecherously murdered by Pultrotus, for that fact suborned by Beza and the Protestant Admirall.

The Reply.

The storie is, that The first h [...]storia pag. 118. The Duke of Guize had appointed a day to take Orleance, wherein he would not spare any man, woman, or child whomsoeuer; and after he had kept his Shrouetide there, he would spoile and destroy the towne: Pultrot riding vpon a Spanish Ginnet shot the Duke with a Pistoll and slue him; after was taken and tor­mented with hot tongs to make him confesse, and then torne in pee­ces by force of horses. Let vs leaue him (if you will) iustly execu­ted by them; come to the other vniustly slaundered by you: for Ibidem. It was euidently knowne at his execution, that Pultrot did it of his owne motion and particular intent, thereby to free France and espe­cially Orleance frō the violence of the Duke of Guize. To this first Historian agreeth the second. L histoire de France, depuis l'an 1550 ius­ques à ce temps Tom. 2. Lib. 26. anno 1581. The King after he had examined the Admiral, to [...]ether with his Councel, did acquit him of suspision, and imposed perpetuall silence to all, not to speake of it. You there­fore (though no subiect) might haue bene taught silence, espe­cially seeing that Ibid. lib. 19 an­no 1563. § Nous pag. 360. the confederates of the Religion, among whom was Theodore Beza, did condemne this fact of Pulirot as rash, and directly contrary to the commaundement of God, who will (herein condemning all such desperate examples, inspired onely with a di­uellish motion) that euery crime and offence shal receiue punishment [Page 115] according to the institution politike and forme of gouernment esta­blished in euery state, at the discretion of the Magistrate.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo su­pra. Such were the miserable murders and calamities which they brought to that distressed kingdome, that in the two first ci [...] wars and rebellions aboue an hundred thousand were slaine, as Gaspar Collen witnesseth.

The Reply.

It is not vnlikely but an hundred thousand were slaine; but it is as probable that a thousand for an hundred of them were Protestants persecuted for their Religion, who alwayes lay o­pen to Popish trecheries, as is plaine by the barbarous massa­cre, wherein (as testifieth your owne L'histoire quo supra. lib. 29. fol. 70. author) there was slaine twentie thousand Protestants in lesse then one moneth by the furie of the Catholikes. What could there be in the Protestant? was it rebellion? No, but only constancy in Religion, then persecuted by the malignant. But what kind of motion might this be in those Catholikes which egged them on to this butcherie? whether was it zeale or fury; Christian iustice, or Antichristian malice? Quo supra fol. 65. The Catholikes not content (saith your Author) to liue alwayes assured, hauing the autoritie of the State for them, aspired with a burning desire to bring to passe that which they had a long time plotted against their enemies. But let vs leaue this G [...]lgotha (for so you made France by your monstrous massacres) as then a place of dead mens sculs. Whither shal your next voyage be?

CHAP. VII.

The Instances of the moderate Answerer in Heluetia.

The first. The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 9. § Let vs come. LEt vs come to Heluetia, and especially Geneua, the Mother-Church of the Reformed; M. Caluine the supreme head of [Page 116] thereformed there, hath told vs before, that Princes not agreeing with vs in Religion, are to be spitted vpon rather then obeyed: they are not to be numbred among men, they are to be bereaued of all authoritie.

The Reply.

What? absolutely depriued of all authoritie? Proue this, and I will as absolutely denie all his doctrinall authoritie: whom, by reading of your most learned Iesuites, as Maldonate, Ribe­ra, Pererius, Salmeron, Tollet, and such others, and conferring their expositions with Caluins, I dare boldly affirme him, to be of that excellēt iudgment, that these your greatest Rabbies (for their best expositions) light their candles at Caluins to arch. But to the point. Caluin doth consider in the person of a wic­ked King two situations, one as he sitteth vnder God, the o­ther when he exalteth himselfe to sit aboue God: when he com­mandeth as a substitute and subordinate, God hath comman­ded vs to obey man: but when he commandeth contra Deum, against God (saith * Caluine) he vsurpeth Gods throne, and herein he looseth his royaltie, which is to be obeyed. A matter so reasona­ble, that in the behalf of God, the A postles in like case are con­tent to appeale herein to the iudgement of his aduersary, man, [Act. 4. 19. Whether it be better to obey God or man, iudge you.] To ex­plane this by example: If a Iustice of peace shall command me to kill a fellon, I denie his authoritie, this is against the com­mission of his and my King, and in this case of too perempto­rie a commaund I acknowledge him no Iustice, yet not abso­lutely no Iustice: for if presently he shall commaund me to ap­prehend the same fellon, I willingly obey him. He therefore in his former commaund was as it were disjusticed onely by that act of disobedience; wherein obedience to him had bene dis­obedience against the Crowne: but yet he remained Iustice in office, and therefore comanding iustly, I dutifully obeyed him. Thus is it in Caluins iudgement, in the comparison betweene man and God: If the King exalt himselfe to Gods throne, then pull him downe, that is, do not obey, yet so, that we dispossesse [Page 117] him not of his owne throne, which is Gods footstoole. There­fore, said Caluine, [...] supra c. 5. In the most wicked King, that is enemie to God; there is by Gods ordinance an impression of maiestie, which is inuiolable, and his authoritie is not to be contemned. This is cleare in Daniels case, wherein Caluin doth insist: for Da­niel commaunded by the King to worship the Idoll, refused; & cast among Lions, was miraculously preserued, & in the end deliuered: then he thus answered the King, Dan. 6. [...]2. Against thee, O King, haue I done none iniquitie. Wherein Caluine obserueth, that Respondet Daniel, se nul­lam prauitatem co [...]sisle ad. [...]e [...] Regem: vt hoc pateat te­nenda [...] [...]ente­t [...]a Petn▪ De [...]m [...]ete, [...]eg [...]m honorate, [...] haec [...]ter [...]e co­ [...]ex [...] possit vnum ab [...]o [...]lli: pr [...]dat oportet timor Dei▪ vt Reges obtineant suam autoritatem, sic [...]men vt Deus emineat. [...]ure [...]rgo Daniel se defendit, quod [...]llam prauita­tem commisit aduersus Reg [...] q [...]a, sc [...]icet, co-actus D [...]pe­rio Reg [...]s man­datum neglexe­rat Abd [...]ant e­nam se potestate terreni Principes, dum insurgunt contra Deum, imò indigni sunt qui [...] in ho­minum numero, po [...]s ergo con [...]p [...]ere opo [...]tet in ip [...]o [...]um capita, quam [...] parere, [...]bi i [...] proteruiunt, vt vel [...]nt etiam Deum iurespohate, & quasi occupare sohum eius, acsi postent eum è coelo detra [...]ere. Caluin. com. in Dan. 6. 22. No King ought to thinke it iniquitie to be disobeyed in that which he shall commaund contrary to God, because the order of o­bedience to Kings beginneth at God: as S. Peter saith, [Feare God, honour the King.] This is the summe. And is there any King which feareth God, that can call this exposition rebellious? For to * giue to God that which is Gods, doth not depriue a King (though most wicked) of his due: for it followeth. Matth. 22 21. Giue vnto Caesar that which belongeth vnto Caesar: but you doe not onely take away duties belonging vnto Caesar, but also take out of the way Caesar himselfe, if opposite vnto your super [...]iti­ous doctrines. Thus haue I satisfied according to the truth of Caluins opinion. Now for his phrase.

The Phrase of Caluin iniuriously vrged. The moderate Answerer.

The answer, quo [...]. But Caluine saith, that such a King is to be berea [...]ed of all authoritie, and not to be numbred among men, but rather to be spit vpon then obeyed.

The Reply.

You haue weighed the words of Caluine in false ballances I would I could say ignorance onely, and not also malici­ous [Page 118] deceit: but first of ignorance. For when we consider man created with a reasonable soule, and after rebelling against his maker; shall we not thinke him vnworthy of the name of rea­sonable man? What is this els then that which we reade, Psa. 49. v [...]. 20. Man in honour hath no vnderstanding, and is become like the beast that perisheth? Shewing (as ancient Fathers do comment) that man by disobedience to God, is degenerate frō his kind: and there­fore as God said for the presumption of his transgression by an Ironie, Gen. 3. 22. Behold man is become as one of vs, &c. So the beasts may say in mans confusion, thus: Behold man is become like one of vs, because he is degenerated frō the first sanctified reason: for which cause our Sauior called Herod a Luk. 13. 32. Foxe, and his owne Disciple M [...]rk. 8. 33. Satan. And yet in regard of their offices, neither did the Apostle cease to be an Apostle, nor Herod to be acknow­ledged King. Nay Nabuchadnezzar by a sauage distraction metamorphosed into the disposition of a brute beast, to liue in deserts with beasts; yet lost not, in the interim, the right of his empire. The next word of [rather spitting in their faces,] spoken comparatiuely, doth not rebelliously teach irreuerence to the maiestie of a King, but only emphatically, inforce a more zealous obedience vnto God: as whē I say, I had rather burne my hand, then write any thing against my conscience; I do not danger my hand, but I auouch the sinceritie of my conscience. Notwithstanding if the word had bin vsed simply, yet could it not haue bin vnderstood literally, but figuratiuely. As when it is written of God, that Apoc. 3. 16. God will spue the luke-warme professor out of his mouth: signifying he doth loath such. Therefore you must not deale with mens speeches, as Salomon teacheth men not to deale with their owne noses: Prou. 30. 33. He that wringeth his nose too much, doth fetch bloud.

2. D [...]ceit. Caluin saith (say you) that such a King is to be be­reaued of all authoritie. It is noted of Satans temptation, that in alledging a text of Scripture [Math. 4. 6. He hath giuen his Argels charge o [...]er thee, to keep thee in all thy wayes, &c.] the subtile Tempter left out the words of greatest importance, In al thy wayes. I wil not charge you with imitation of that spirit of lying by substra­cting; for you do but adde onely one word [All:] bereaued [Page 119] of [All] authoritie. But Caluine [Abdicant se potestate] berea­ued of authoritie, meaning only in that case of contradiction a­gainst God. But this kinde of dealing is but ordinary in your moderation. Thus is Caluin i [...]stified concerning his doctrine, & in him also Beza: because Beza (say you) his successor in place, succeeded him also both in opinion and practise. We haue heard of their opinion. Haue you any thing to except against their pra­ctise?

The practise of Caluin and Beza, obiected by The moderate Answerer.

Answer [...]os [...] [...]. Both Beza and Ca [...]n armed subiects against their Prince at Geneua, and (as Calu [...] himselfe, Doctor Su [...]cli [...]e, and the Arch-bishop of Canterburie be witnesses) deposed their Soue­raigne from his temporall right, and euer since continue in that state of Rebellion.

The Reply.

I am sure if Caluin hath written to that effect, your modesty would not haue concealed it: but as the Comedian Poet ma­keth his parasite to speake, Aequè quidquam nunc quidem▪ [...] ­uen any thing so I m [...]y seeme to say something. The booke of Do­ctor Th [...] b [...]oke which you cite in your m [...]r [...]nt, Be [...]al. de [...] Magis [...] no [...]or [...] to [...]e cal­l [...]d B [...]za [...]s, th [...] th [...] Vindic [...]ae contra ty [...]annos▪ [...] herof your [...] [...]uthor vvrit t [...] thus: Vindicia [...]um contra Tyrānos Autorem expis­cari non possu­mu [...]. B [...]claius [...]ib. 3 contra Mo­ [...]. [...]. 1. Sutcli [...]fes I could not find, and I needed not seeke it, for I haue con [...]erred herein with the master, who answered me, that the booke De Iure Magistratus, he neuer thought to be Beza his worke: and concerning the State of Geneua, the Bishop thereof, whom you call Prince and Gouernor of Geneua, was neuer there Prince, but the state of the towne was a free state of it selfe. To make a question, whether I should rather beleeue him or you, is to doubt whether he that hath bin at Geneua, or he that neuer saw it can better report the state thereof. The words of Caluine his confession, which should haue be [...]e produced, are these: lus gl [...]dij▪ & alias ciuilis iurisdictionis partes, quas sua immu [...]tatis specie personati [...]lli [...]pis­copi & Sacerdotes fraudulentèr Magist [...]a [...] e [...]eptas sibi vendic [...]unt, annon Magis [...]atui resti­t [...]? C [...]l [...]in in lib. Tract. Theolog▪ R [...]sp. [...]d Sad [...]let. pag. 142. We haue restored to the Magi­strate of Geneua all the ciuill power which those false Bishops had, vnder colour of liber [...]ie and priuiledge, taken from the Magi­strate, [Page 120] and by collusion did chalenge to themselues. Adde that which may be obserued, the continuall contentions partly be­tweene the Bishops and the Dukes of Sauoy about that so­ueraignetie, partly also of the citizens against them both. An argument of no constant consent. The conclusion will be, that you may rather proue those Bishops to haue bene iniuri­ously ambitious, then the citie rebellious.

CHAP. VIII.

Instance in Burgundie.

The moderate Answerer.

Ansvver cap. 9 § In Burgundie IN Burgundie a like assembly and conuenti [...]le was kept at Ca­billion, therein was decreed that three wor [...] to be taken out of the world; first the Church of Rome, secondly [...]le [...]es of auncient houses, and thirdly all ciuill policie and gouernment.

The Reply.

Were euer any Protestants so fantasticall? who were the authors of that decree? nay who was your author witnessing that there was any such decree? You expresse neither. We may not maruell if through the wearinesse of your so long trauell into many countries you fell at length a sleepe, and dreamed this idle dreame of three wormes; so I had rather thinke, then that you dreamed it waking, for then should you find a fourth worme worse then all those three, euen the Mark. 9. 44. 46. 48. worme of conscience which gnaweth euery lying soule. The like may I answer for your imagined rebellions A [...]sw [...]r quo [...] [...] I [...] Den­mark. In Denmark, but that you haue for your witnesse your owne Peter Frarer, you might say Frater; for who so shall reade his idle pamphlet, shall easily perceiue that his inke wherewith he writ was of that co [...]ound which the Iewes offered our Sauiour, vineger and gall. There is an established Church of Protestants in Sueueland; doe you see no beakons of [...]i [...]e there which might portend rebellions?

CHAP. IX.

Sweueland obiected by

The moderate Answerer.

Answer quo supra. § [...]o [...] Sueueland. FOr Sueueland the Protestants themselues gi [...]e also testimonie, that the Catholike King thereof was enforced by his rebellious Gospellers to make himselfe a subiect vnto their designements, and condescend, that no Catholike should beare office in that Kingdome: as is witnessed by Cytraeus Chron. Anno 1593. 1594.

The Reply.

The Storie is long▪ but the summe is short: that the whole State of Sueueland required that according to the former Parliament of their Kingdome, the King should sweare to defend them in their former liberties, and especially the fruition of the Religion then pro­fessed. Doth your Protestant witnesse call them Rebellious Gos­pellers? It was the demaund of an whole State for defence of their countrie priuiledge; can any Papist call this rebellious? You will be as loth to confesse this, as you are prone to forge the other. Let vs trauell homeward againe, and end there where you began.

CHAP. X.

In the Imperiall State of Germanie: particularly obiecting

  • Luther.
  • Muntzer.

The moderate Answerer his first instance against Luther.

Answer cap. 9. § First Martin. MArtin Luther the prime Protestant of that time said, he ca­red not for Kings, & so careles he is in this case, that he tel­leth, that it is the nature of the Gospel to raise wars & seditions: that among Christians there is no Magistrate, no Superior, that it is a thing to be obtained by prayers, that countrimen obey not their Princes; No lawe, or syllable of lawe can be imposed vpon Christi­ans [Page 122] neither by men or Angels; there is no hope of remedie, except all humane lawes be taken away.

The Reply.

Here is your common Linsi-woolsie, mixture of truth and falshood: but as you would haue vs to confesse a truth, so be you willing to acknowledge your Error.

The truth. Luther professed that he did not care for Kings: true, but in that comparatiue sence, which he had learned of our Lord Christ. Luk. 21. 12. You shall be called before Kings and Rulers for my name sake: but feare not man, who can kill the bodie, but feare God, who is able, after the bodie is dead, to take the soule, and cast it into hell fire, I say, feare him. Secondly, Luther telleth that it is the nature of the Gospell to raise warres and seditions. And doth not the Gospell it selfe tell vs the same likewise? Matth. 10. 34. Behold, I came not to send peace into the world, for I will set the father against the sonne, and the daughter against the mother, &c. You cannot be ignorant of the difference of a cause and an oc­casion, a thing considered properly in his owne nature, and vnproperly by externall accident. An nos frangi­musianuam, cum effractori­bas suribus, quia, si non cā clauderemus, illi non frange­rant? August. lib. de m [...]ndacio. cap. 9 Do I (shutting the doore) breake it, because the theefe would not haue broken it except it had bene shut, saith Saint Augustine. So Luther: Because the Gos­pell is preached, the professors thereof are persecuted with the sword; is therefore the innocent professor cause of the persecu­tion? no, but onely an occasion. Christ, who is in his owne na­ture * Petra salutis, a rocke of saluation to the elect; to the re­probate is called a 1. Pet. 2. 8. Stone of offence: because the godly are by faith edified to life, and the wicked by the malice of their hart do spurne against Christ, stumble, and perish through vnbe­leefe. The Gospell likewise hath a double sauor, vitall and mortall; being 2. Cor. 2. 16. The sauor of life vnto life to the sanctified by Gods spirit, and the sauor of death vnto death to the irrepen­tant and vnregenerate. So then the Gospell is no otherwise se­ditious then the sweet flower is venimous; frō this the Spider sucketh sweetnesse, but through the fierie malignitie chan­geth it to peyson: so that obstinate hearing of grace, peace, [Page 123] and saluation, by his naturall malice resisteth grace with con­tempt, peace with warre, and eternall saluation, by working bodily destruction.

The falshood: to affirme, that Luther did abandon all Ma­gistracie, and abhorre all humane lawes, is first false: for then I should maruell in what commonwealth the doctrine of Lu­ther could [...] long breath. Secondly false, for Luther defendeth Magistracie in his publike bookes. Thirdly, thrice false, for Luther also condemneth the Romish for their contempt of Magistrates.

His doctrine. Obijci solet vide [...] Impenū tyrannidem, cum sit Caesar alijs homimbus si [...], qu [...]d imperium in h [...]nes vlur­pet. Vetum nos, q [...] verbū Dei habemus. debemus man­datum Dei op ponere, quia nostrum est di­uinae ordin [...]u­om patere. Luther. tom. 1. in Gen. cap. 9. Prohibitum est gladium acci­pere, dicente Christo, Qui accipit glad [...]um gladio peribit, quia iniussus & propria suâ libidine a [...]ipit, sed mandatum est gerere gladium, & est ministerium Dei Though some thinke gouernement of man ouer man to be a tyrannous vsurpation, because all men are naturally of like condition: yet we that haue the word of God must oppose to this delusion the commandement and ordinance of God, who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate, whome therefore the Apo­stle calleth Rom 13. Minister Dei est. [...]r. Tom. 3 A [...]ot. in D [...]. cap. [...]. fol. 40. Anarchia Satanae consilium est. Ibid fol. 552. Gods Minister.

His taxation of the Romish. I am vehementet piget p [...]det (que) imò miseret me, quoties cogito quae & quanta ludibtia sibi ab Imperatenb is, Principibus, vniuer [...] Natione German [...]ae Papa fec [...]rit: Deus bone, quanta [...]bi [...]ine & fiducia in eislusit, non secùs eos ducens, & tractans, quam irrationabilia bruta, q [...]ibus tantum ad [...] ­des, dolos rapinas, & quicqaid Satan suggerete potuit Papisticatum artium abuteretur [...]ut [...]er. Tom. 2. Resp. ad A [...] Catherinum. fol. 15 [...]. Sanctus Petrus Pap [...]tum gra▪ hice depinxit. 2. Pet. 2. [Dominationes spernant] Quis hoc nisi Pa [...] ecta fa [...] Quid, Don in [...]t [...]nes. Apo­stolus nisi Principes & magistratus vocat? Nonne hoc est Do [...] [...]S spernete, serp [...]os pro­pria authoritate [...] a tubutis subiectiombus, & v [...]etsis [...] Reipublicae contra do­ctrinam Petri & Paul [...] tantum abest vt dominationem agno [...]at P [...]pa, vt luminos Principes ae­que ad oscula pedum admittat; dein Monachum & Sacrisiculum stipite rudiorem, & [...]enone sceleratiorem super v [...]os mundi Proceres [...]t propter characterem illum indelebilem; i [...] [...] coguntur Dominationes contemptae honotare idol [...], a quibus hono [...]ari debuerant, igna­ [...]um hoc Papalium hominum genus vix poreis alendis idoneum Luth quo [...]. fol. 152. I grieue, and blush, and grone, roses how scornefully our Emperors and Princes of Germanie are abused: whom the Pope leadeth and handleth like brute beasts, both for spotle and slaughter at his pleasure. This Poperie is liuely described by Saint Peter, saying, that in the latter times [Some should despise Rulers:] by Rulers, signifying secular Princes. Now the Popish Clergie by their owne authoritie haue exempted themselues from performance of tributes to Princes. And the Pope is so farre from acknowledging the Soueraigntie of Princes ouer [Page 124] him, that he will scarce admit them (sauing your presence) to kisse his sh [...]oe. How like you this doctrine of Luther? If well, then must you free him from rebellious conceit, for he defen­deth subiection to Princes; if ill, then you condemne your self, for he renounceth Popish Hierarchie, as a rebellious tyrannie.

The moderate Answerer His second instance against Luther.

Answer quo supra. § First, &c. He censured King Henry the eight of England, the Princes of the Imperiall Orders, the Princes of Germanie to be vnworthie either of obedience from Subiects, or life in themselues; and giuing the same doome of his naturall Soueraigne George of Saxonie, na­meth him the Calamitie of his countrie, and Tyrant: so he scorned the Emperor and wrote directly against his Edicts. He taught, that Protestants hands must be imbrued with bloud, teaching that he had warrant from God to battell against Princes.

The Reply.

His literall censure of words will be partly confessed, but the other of swords which draweth bloud, neuer can any proue. But to him that looketh through red spectacles, whatsoeuer he be holdeth seemeth red. No maruell therefore though your fantasie preoccupated with the reflection of your last bloudie stratageme, cannot see your aduersarie but with sus­pitiō of bloud. It may be you wil alledge Wicelius: as though your owne Romish might suffice in this case, or professed ma­lice could euer speake a truth. A man whome Luther thought so vnworthie the naming, that Miror quo consilio velis, Erasme, Wice­lio respondere, cùm per hunc librum satis sit responsum. Summa doctrinae eius haec est, Lutheri doctrina est haeresis, quia a Papa & Caesare damnata est; sua verò est Orthodoxa, quia Episcopi, Cardinales, Principes & Reges mittunt & donant ei aurea pocula. Si aliud est in suis libris, moriar. Agno­sco Dei opus & eius mirabilia video, sidem esse donum suum, quia exci [...]auit Christam a mor­tuis. Luther. Tom. 2. Epist. ad Eras. fol. 487. He doth maruell that any will answer the booke of Wicell, which doth sufficiently answer it selfe.

The former censure of sharpe speech let vs see how Luther can excuse. He writing to the Duke of Saxonie, doth thus re­concile [Page 125] himselfe: illust [...]ssime Princeps Do­mine clemen­ [...] [...] constat, qu [...]d [...] me [...] tribuit Deo, [...] principio [...] & asper casti­gat homines, vt p [...]st leniter eos, am [...]nter & pa­tern [...] comple­ [...]. Reg. 2. Dominus n [...]at & vi­nisicat, &c. [...]go itaque nec in­stituto plan [...] dis­simuli, nec om­ [...]ò diuerlâ ra­tione cùm plu­res altos, tum vestram celsitu­d nem tractaui alicubi asperius, & immituis ca­lamo perstrinxi, sed à Deo precatus sum, vt aliquando me reconciliaret, & restitueret in gratiam celsitu­dinis vestrae: ac interim Conciones consolationis plenissimas edidi, in quibus non opinione, non oculis, sed, vt ita dicam, manibus deprehendi potest, me nullá maleuolentiá aduersus quenquam labora [...]e: vt intelligat Celsitudo vestra, obiurgationem acerbissimam animi beneuoli & candi­di pectoris notam fuisse, quàm omnium qui nunc gratulatiombus & blanditijs inflant in aures Celsitudinis vestrae, laudes & fucata dicta, &c. Luther▪ Tom. 2. Epist. ad D. Georg Duc. Sax. fol. 487. As God doth seuerely chasten those, whom he purposeth afterward louingly and fatherly to embrace, killing that he may reuiue: I likewise (most excelent and gracious Soueraigne) had no other intent in my bitter speech, wherein I might happily of­fend your Highnesse or any other. Wherfore my humble prayer to God hath bene, that I might recouer your Highnesse fauor, especi­ally seeing that a tart reprehension for good, is a [...] simple and syncere heart, more precious then all [...] ­ses of painted flatterie. He writeth almost the like Apologie vn­to King Henry the eight, wholly to the same end: granting, that Quanquam vereri meritò deberem (sereni [...]. Rex illust [...]s. Princeps) [...] Matestatem tuam tentare, & qui mihi conscius maximè sum, grauissime offensam esse Maiestatem tuam libello meo▪ quem non ingenio meo, sed incitantibus his, qui Maiestati tuae parùm fancbant, stultus & praeceps edidi: tamen spem mihi fecit Regia tua clementia, vt cùm n [...]ortalem sese nouent, immortales inimicitias ser [...]aturam esse non credam. Tom. 2. Epist ad Regem A [...]gh [...]. c. 493. He had offended his Maiestie with his writings, yet not with intent to offend him, but by instigation of such as did not so greatly fauour his dignitie: and did not therefore doubt but his Princely clemencie, knowing himselfe mortall, would not harbor any immor­tall displeasure against him. He craued pardon onely for words: O that your case would suffer such an Apologie! Concerning his allegeance to the Emperor, the Emperor himselfe did ac­quithim, who neuer charged him with seditious doctrine a­gainst his State, but onely religious profession against the sa­crilegious superstitions of that time. Which his doctrine he iu­stified in the presence of the Emperor at Auspurge: whereof Luther writeth thus: Audi­ta est nostra causa Augustae coram Caesare & toto mundo, inuentaue est i [...]reprehensi [...]s, & sacram doctrinam referens. Deinde nostra Apologia vulgata est, in qua respondemus infinitis Papisticis mendacij [...] cal [...]j [...] quibus hanc facultatem m [...]mè inuidemus, cùm nullis alijs virtunbus po [...]ta [...]t v [...]nt esle n [...]b [...]les. Luther. [...]. fol. 187. Our cause was heard at Auspurge before the Emperor, and before the whole world manifested to be improua­ble. I haue published our Apologie, answering therein to all Popish lying slaunders, which are infinite: but I may not enuie in those men [Page 126] that facultie, because they haue no other excellent vertue, wherly to ennoble themselues. A certaine argument of your ruinous house, whose best supporter is the priuiledge of lying: by ver­tue whereof to your other more then a good many euill slaun­ders, you adde these two next following.

The third instance in Luther by The moderate Answerer.

Answer quosu­pra. § Munster. By Luthers doctrine, that Christians must not fight against the Turke, in short time Belgrade and Rhodes were taken, Hungary was entred, King Lodowike slaine, Buda conquered, &c. Witnes­ses Munster in Chron. & Pantaleon Chron. 121.

The Reply.

I haue perused the follies you quote, and perceiue that your wisedome in deluding your Reader is excellent: for Munster and Pantaleon both writing of Belgrade, Hungarie, Rhodes, &c. neuer attribute the least scruple or suspition of occasion thereof vnto Luther. Can you be contented to vnderstand the true causes of those mischiefes? Hearken then vnto your owne Historian. L'histoire de France, enrichie &c. lib. 1. Anno. 1521. pag. 13. See also the Hi­storie of Turkie lately set forth by M [...]ster Know [...]s in English, colle­cte▪ [...]out of the true stories, &c. and concerning Rhodes, [...]e saith, Because it was publikely knowne that Leo the Pope had not employed the great summes of money, which he raised from Par­dons, against the Turk: there followed the ruins of Hungary, Bohe­mia was assaulted, Rhodes surprised, and a thousand other euils fell vpon Christendome. This is certaine from the truth of all Storie concerning the Turkes, that Popes and Popish Clergy by their insatiable riot and couetousnes haue bene the bane to all If Adrian the Pope had bene as carefull to send aide against the Turke, as he was to de [...]end the Emperor Charles against the King of France, the Isle of Rhodes had bene safe at this day: Belgrade also was lost by the want of experience of their King, and through the insati­able conciousnes of the Clergie, who in the minoritie of the King got possession of the wealth of the Kingdome, and performed no strengh to resist the Turke. So was Belgrade lost, and a gap made open into Hungarie. And you [...] Gaicciardine shevvs that The not rescuing of Rhodes was imputed to the Popes fault. lib. 15. Of the vvhich summe of mony he gaue that vv [...]ich [...] gathered out of the most quarters of Germany to his [...]ler Magdalene; and 50000. crovvnes to his n [...]phevv Laurence. Hist. quosupra. & Guicciardin. quosupra. Christendome, & alwaies since their temporall Hierarchy by kindling firebrands of seditions among Christians, haue gi­uen the greatest aduantage to the Turke.

CHAP. XI.

The last instance against Munster and other Anapabtists.

The moderate Answerer.

Ansvveribid. MƲnster was of the same opinion and practise, and called Re­bellion for his Religion the warre of God: affirming that he had receiued some speciall commandement from God to war against Kings, and had promise of victorie from heauen: and hereupon such Rebellions ensued, that of his owne adherents and Traitors were slaine within the space of three moneths one hundred and thirtie thousand.

The Reply.

You being in your selfe Magnus opinator, told vs of the opi­nion of Luther, and now descended to Munster, say, Mun­ster was of the same opinion, (viz. with Luther) and called, &c. But your Peter Frarer, whom you brought to accuse Caluin, is herein readie to iustifie Luther, saying, that P [...]t Frarer. supra. Luther wrote a­gainst these rebellious ones, prouing that it belonged to all Christi­ans to persecute them to death. Caluin also wrote a booke, intitu­led, * Aduersus Libertinos: against fantasticall and Anabapti­sticall Libertines: and Beza, as we haue heard, saith, Supra. That it is impious wickednesse for any to obiect vnto Protestants the opinion of those rebellious Anabaptists, and spirits of giddinesse. But what thinke you? were Anabaptists Protestants? or were Protestants whom you haue named, of this opinion of Anabaptists? Thus would you perswade your English Reader; but your Cardinal, & Reader at Rome doth confute you, Potestatem politicam esse apud Christia­nos illicitam, est opinio Anabap­tistarum: quam non solùm Ca­tholici omnes execrantur, sed etiam Philip­pus Melan­cthon, Calui­nus, Lutherus in visitatione Saxonica instis­s [...] & acer­timè oppug­nant. Bellar. lib. 3. de Laic [...]s. cap. 2, ad [...]in [...]m. For this opiniō of the he­reticall Anabaptists (saith he) not only we Catholikes, but Melan­cthon also, Caluine, and Luther, do abhorre. Recount now your words: Munster was of opinion that it was the commandement of God he shold war: True: and that he sa [...] he had a special reuelation from heauen, promising him victory: True: And that thereupon en­sued [Page 128] rebellions to the death of many thousands. All these yet true: but now there is wanting this one word [same:] Munster (say you) was of the same (meaning Luthers opinion). It is written, Eccles. 10. 1. One dead [...]e in the ointment of the Apothecarie, doth poison the whole box: And so in one little word [same] your great lie hath disabled your whole accusation. For as well may you call the Bandites, namely those grand theeues and out-lawes in Italy of the same incorporation with the citizens of Rome, as name Anabaptists who depend vpon extraordinary and fantasticall reuelations of the same opinion with Protestants, who are wholy directed by the expresse written law and Gospell of Christ.

I perceiue you are now growne weary with long trauell, I could haue wished you would haue visited Polonia, and after that Bohemia in some particular obseruations: for in both those kingdomes there hath bin long time manifold vexations executed vpon Protestants, and yet neuer any of them or o­thers can be named, who deposed Princes, inuaded Crownes, or by any treason did practise the deaths of their Soueraignes. Now therefore let your moderation be admonished to returne home into England: and seeing you cannot find Protestants for your fellowship in your kind of rebellion, now let Prote­stants (I pray you) haue your fellowship in faithful subiection. But lingua, quo vadis?

CHAP. XII.

The second kind of Recriminations against protestants, is in the second wickednes of Aequiuocation.

YOu returne the guilt of this cursed doctrine vpon Prote­stants after two fashions,

  • Reasoning,
  • Railing.

1. Reasoning, (if it may be called Reason, which is mixed with most slanderous vntruths) but you wold be heard speake with good will.

The moderate Answerer.

Answer cap. 10 § But to. But to speake vnto this Obiector concerning Protestants procee­dings in aquiuocating: Luther vsed it at his pleasure, now appealing to the Pope, and after renouncing his authoritie. Cranmer did often recant his errors by othes, and again oftē defend them; counter fetted the hands of fiftie Conuocation men (Fox himselfe being iudge) to giue alying credit to his false cause, but excused his false oaths by equiuocation. Protestants of England in the dayes of K. Henrie the eight, King Edward the sixt, and Queene Elizabeth, did equi­uocate. Such was the proceeding of P. Martyr and Bucer, two great Professors of Diuinitie in Oxford and Cambridge. Such was the Protestant adherents the Dukes of Northumberland and Suf­falke, and now the ordinary vse of Puritanes.

The Reply.

Luther, Cranmer and others, as they were perswaded that the Bishop of Rome was a faithfull Bishop, did sweare obedi­ence vnto him; but afterwards being better illuminated, did re­nounce him, as Antichristian. But if all recantation shall be thus censured, then might you teach S. Augustine to retract his retractations. But we wil not denie their infirmities, for it hath pleased God to note the like in his chosen Saints in holy writ, to the amplifying of the glory of his grace in their repentance and his pardon. Yet was not there in these acts any equiuoca­tion, no more then in the acts of Peter, who, at the cock-crow, went out Math. 26. 75▪ of the high Priests hall and wept bitterly. Thus Cran­merawaked by the call of the spirit of God, executed venge­ance vpon that hand which subscribed vnto your idolatrous seruice, Fox Act. Mon. Burned it in the fire. Then whatsoeuer his dissimulatiō was, he thought it worthy of repentance, not as you do think your equiuocation worthy of defence: whereas in the truth of Christianitie, there is the same punishment due to your equi­uocating tongues which he executed vpon his dissembling hand. O but Fox is witnesse that he defended himselfe by saying [Page 128] he did equiuocate. I am sure you would not haue bene indeb­ted vnto vs for the words if they had bene extant: I found the place of M. Actes & Monu­ments, anno 1596 pag. 1309. Fox, but no mention of equiuocation. A monster not hatched in those times. That which was obiected by Do­ctor Weston, is there satisfied by M. Cranmer: but you are more rigorous then auncient Aduersaries.

Yet further would I demand, why Protestants, turning from Papacie in the daies of King Edward, must be condemned for such as haue equiuocated: and Papists reuolting from Prote­stants in the raigne of Queene Mary, must be thought to haue bene innocents?

The moderate Answerer.

Answ. quo supra. Aequiuocating was practised by Caluine, as the Lord of Can­terbury, and Beza, and others record.

The Reply.

I reported this your accusation to my Lord of Canterbury, and his Grace answered, that you had wronged his testimo­ny: for I am sure (said his Grace) that this mystery in those times was not set abroach. We also examined the book you alledge, and find not one syllable for your purpose. But what can we expect from you, Patrons of lying equiuocation, but in your accusations against Protestants equiuocating lies?

The most moderate Answerer in his railing.

Ansvver ca. 10 § But to. Luther was so vile in this kind of equiuocating, that neuer pil­lory mate behaued himselfe so as he did. Cogging, lying, equiuoca­ting, dissembling was practised by Caluine, who was banished for a dissembling seducer. Cranmer periured himselfe, and excused it by equiuocation.

The Reply.

In these your lying slanders, you giue vs good hope that you [Page 121] will leaue your equiuocating lies, because, as though you de­tested the impietie thereof, you vilifie it with these termes, vile equiuocating, adiudging it worthy the pillory, matching it with cogging, lying, seducing, periury. This is yet very wel. But we find that true which the Orator saith, Natura suilena: Euery man naturally is a band vnto himselfe. Now you examining your Glycerie equiuocation in your aduersaries, Luther, Cranmer, Caluine, O then it is vile, cogging, lying, seducing, &c. But behol­ding her in your owne embracements, so Ansvver ibid, § Secondly. In equiuocating there is nolie nor sinne. Adulterous Iudah iudging of Thamar, whom he had vnknowingly knowne, hearing that she was brought in for an adulteresse, gaue presently sentence, Gen. 38. 24. Let her be bur­ned: but when by certaine euidences and pledges she made it knowne vnto him, that if she were the woman, he was the mā; then he confesseth, She is more righteous then I. There was some modestie in this, but what moderation do you vse to adiudge equiuocation (which you fas [...]ly faine to be in Protestants) to the pillory: and for your selues, in whom the Leprosie raigneth, to vse an Apologie?

Thus haue I iustified the innocent, whose names your equi­uocating spirit hath wickedly traduced: for whom this might haue bin a sufficient answer, that (because you bring onely ac­cusations without proofe) Si accusâ [...]e sufficiet, qui [...] innocens [...] Seneca. If it be sufficient to haue accused, who can be innocent? For our Lord Iesus, euen innocency it self, was accused: who of his grace turne you to repentance, that these your slaunders be not layd vnto your charge.

THE THIRD PART,Which …

THE THIRD PART,

Which is a Confutation of the principles of Romish do­ctrine, in two points:

  • 1. The supreme head of Rebellion.
  • 2. The impious conceit of Aequiuocation.

Concerning the first, this shall be our Conclusion:

The Pope hath no authoritie from God to depose Kings or dispose of their Kingdomes.

CHAP. I.

Romish Obiections answered.

THIS pretended predominance of the Pope in temporall causes, whether Directè, que­admodú super Episcopos, in quos ipse au­toritatem ex­ercet vel ordi­nandi vel re­mouendi▪ Ca­rerius Tract. de Potest. Rom. Pont. & [...] Tract de M [...]arch Eccles. Di­rectly, or Habet Papa potestatem temporalem indirectè in ordine ad Deum in disponendis rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum; quemadmo­du [...] Spiritus dicitur praeesse carni, non quidem ipse exercendo corporales actiones, sed per intellectualem facultatem, viz. voluntatem, carni imperando vt se castiget, & alia exercitia & afflictiones, etiam martyria subeat, Bellar, lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. & 6, & Sauderus Tract. de visib. Monarch. indirectly considered, (in the which diuision of gouerning, the Romish schoole is at this day extremely diuided) if it be from God, it will sure plead, Scri­ptum est, and be warranted by Gods word either in the Olde or New Testament.

[Page 2] This point is discussed by the state of Gods church in the Olde Testament.

Obiect. 1. In the generall view. The Romish Pretence.

Dico Pon­tificem in ve­teri Testamē ­to fuisse Regemaiorem. C [...]eriu [...] lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. & 9. E [...]dom modo Sauderu [...] in visib. Monarch. The high Priests in the Olde Testament were supreme in ciuill causes. Ergo: Ought to be in the New.

The Answer.

This is so contrary to the Story in holy writ, that by the examples of Kings in ordering (though neuer in ordeining) of Priests, the Iesuits are inforced to allow that the King was supreme ouer the Priest. Their reasons: Dicunt, Pro­testantes, Re­ges in veteri Testamento praescripsisse Sacerdotibus quae in rebus sacris gerere debebant, & etiam negli­gentes Sacer­dotes à mini­sterio abdi­casse: respon­dotur, mirum esse hoc non debere, quia synagoga Iu­d [...]eorum, etiam si aliquos iustos contineret, tamen dicebatur terrenum potiùs quam coeleste regnum. Itaque cùm populus constet ex corpore & anima, carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat. Salmeron Iesuita in Epist. Pauli in giner. disp. 12. §. Sed contra. Because (sayth one) in the Synagogne of the Iewes was a state rather earthly than heauenly; so that in that people (which was, as in the body of a man, consisting of body and soule) the carnall part was more eminent. Meaning, the temporall to haue beene supreme. Or, as another sayth more conceitedly; In veteri lege Regnum erat Substantiuum, & Sac [...]rdotium Adiectiuum, &c. Carerius quo supra lib. 2. cap. 1. The Temporall state exceeded the Spirituall in the olde Law, as much as the Substantiue is more excellent than the Adiectiue. In both these we dislike their comparison, and accept their conclusion, which is this: In the Old Testament the Kings authority was aboue the Priests. And therefore they can not prooue the▪ souerainty of the Pope ouer Kings by the state of the Olde Testament. Albeit this is infallible, yet are not the Romish ashamed to argue from thence both by typicall Analogy, and by examples.

Their Analogie.
CHAP. II.

The second Obiection.

The Romish Pretence.

Et hoc reg­num terrenu vmbra tamen fuit spiritualis regiminis in ecclesia Christiana. Salineron Ies. quo supra. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. quo supra. THe Olde Testament was a figure of the New in Christ. And Regnum in Lege veteri Substantiuum fuit, Sacerdotium vero Adiectiuum: In lege verò Euangelica sacerdotium Substantiuū, & regnum Adiectiuum. Car [...]rius quo supra. Therefore in the New, the Spirituall (as Pope­dome) is the Substantiue, & the Kingdome is but the Adiectiue.

The Answer.

In this Obiection there is more childhood than man­hood, babish Grammar than sound Diuinitie. The Olde Testament indeed in his earthly elements was a figure of the spirituall and heauenly, but of the truely heauenly, the day of that eternall Heb. 4. Sabbath and the celestiall Hierusalem the mother citie of the Saints of God. And the Argument may be retorted.

The Argument returned vpon the Romish.

Christ being Christus no fuit rex tem­poralis Iudaeae sed spiritualis Ecclesiae; cu­ius regni eius figura fuit re­gnum tempo­rale Dauidis & Salomonis hac enim ratione de dit Christo Pater sedem Dau [...]d Patris. Salmeron Ies. quo supra. King and Priest was shadowed by the types of the Olde Testament: but in Christ, his kingdome had the preheminence of Priesthood, because he is Priest only for vs, but he is King ouer vs: secondly, as Priest he is sup­pliant to the Father; as King he is predominant ouer all powers and principalities equally with the Father. Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to holde as conuenient among Christians. An argument Demonstratiue.

CHAP. III.

Obiect. 3. from 14. examples.

The Romish Pretence.

Deus IN the old Testament we finde Sau­lem per Sa­muelis, Saul deposed by the Pro­phet Samuel; Re­hoboam per Achiae, Rehoboam by the Prophet Achia; A­thaliam per Iehoidae Sa­cerdotis vo­cem regnis suis priuauit. Sander. de Cla­ue Dauid. lib. 2. cap. 6. Atha­lia by Iehoiada the Priest; Mattathias gladium po­liticum sibi sumpsit, & postea silijs reliquit, quo Regem Antiochum (qui Iudaeis imperabat) iure eius imperij priuabant. Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 42. Scriptura exemplum Mattathias lift vp his sword a­gainst Antiochus, and did remooue him; Elias, & Elias also and Eli­zeus both Prophets did kill the false Prophets, and other Mini­sters of the King.

Iudith, Aeglon ab Iudith did kill Holophernes, Ahod, Sisera a Ahod Aeglon, Iabel occ [...]sus est, ita cum hae­reticis agendum est in vindictam populi. Ibidem 271. Quemadmodum Iabel Si­sera: Saul was dispossessed of his kingdome by Dauid, Ahab by Dauid, Ahab by Elizaeus; de quorum altero dicitur [Deiecisti Reges ad perniciem:] de altero, [In diebus suis non perti­muit Principem] hoc est officium Christianum. Reinaldu [...] in R [...]saeus pag. 619. & 697. Vt Holophernes [...] Iehu, Amon by the people. Parsons in his Do [...]man. We must follow herein Amon by the people: and the Macchabaei, & ipsi de genere Sacerdotum exemplum praebent Sacerdo­tibus nostris contra Principes religioni Catholicae infestos pugnandi. Lib. de [...]sta Abdicat. pag. 57. In 2. Paralip. 26. M [...]cca [...]ees sought against Kings for defence of God [...] worship: L [...]stly king Ozias Rex cùm Sacerdotis officium exercere vellet, à Pontifice de templo eiectus est, & separ [...]tus extra regnum, & consequentèr regnandi autoritate priuatus. B [...]llar. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 8. Ozias for exercising the Priests office was by the high Priest depriued of his kingdome. Mattathiae imitan­dum proponit: sic fecerunt Prophetae, nominatim, Elias qua­draginta Prophetas, inuito Rege, occidit; & [...] Ahod Aeglon [...]m Mo [...]bitam; ita ad­uersus Regem & populum haereticum animati esse debemus, Lib. de iusta A [...]dicat. Hen. 3. pag. 57. & 273. We must follow [...] Eliah, & [...] Elizaeus, who &c. Saul was deposed by Iehu, and [...] Elias, and [...] Elizaeus. A [...]e [...] in his Admonit. pag. 30. & 31.

The Answer to six kinds of these examples.

Heere we heare of nothing but fighting, dispossessing, kil­ling of Kings, and those chieflie by Priests and Prophets of [Page 5] God in the old Testament: propounded to the Prelates of the new, to teach them to erect their miters aboue crowns. But first our question is of the obedience of Subiects to their lawfull Kings, not of for [...]aine inuadors o [...] false vsur­pers. But Legimus quidem filio [...] Israël tempo­re Iudicum frequentèr eorum, qui imperabant, iugum excus­sisse, & claris­simam vidu­am Manie examples of the old Testament (saith your Doctor) we reade of such, as haue borne armes and vsed hostili­tie against Kings, who being not their naturall Princes, either did, or would inuade their kingdomes, to bring them into thraldome: Such both by the law of nature and ordinance of God may be re­sisted. Quemadmodum And this was the case of Ahod, qui Aeglonem regem Moab, dolo & arte con [...]ecit: ac Ahod against Aeglon, Iabel, quae Siseram Principem Regis Canaan sustu­lit: Gedeon qui tyrannidem Madianitarum amolitus est, Iephthe Ammonitarum, Samson [...]hilistaeorum, & heroi [...]a Ia­bel against Siser [...] Iudith, & Iudith against Holophernes, the Maccha­baeos Regi­bus fortitèr restitisse, & bellis ac ar­mis repug­nasse. Sed haec exempla non quid contra legitimum suum Principem ac naturalem Dominum populos facere debeat ostendunt; sed quid aduersus eos, qui veri Regis autoritatem, sedes regi [...]s, bona & thaesauros per vim occupant: Ne (que) enim illi, con­tra▪ quos à sanctis bels [...] illa fortitèr gerenda suscepta sunt, legitimi filiorum Israël Prin­cipes fuerunt, sed tyrannice vi sibi populum Dei subiugarunt, vel subiugare volebant. C [...]nerus de [...]s [...]ic. Princ. Christ. cap. 7. Mac­chabees against Antioch [...]. Therefore our aduersaries haue roaued at a wrong marke: for by this your Cunerus confes­sion, your 3. example of [...]eho [...]d Huiusmodi exempla non sunt ad rem, quia non agunt de rege legitimo, sed deinuaso [...]e, &c. Barcla [...]s lib. 3. contra Monarch [...]. cap. 24. your 4. of Mattathias, your 7. of Iudith, your 8. of Ahod, your 9. of Iabell, and your 13. of Macchabees; Who onely resisted vniust inuadors, and not naturall kings, pertaine nothing to the purpose. 7 Iudith caput sustulit Holophernis, & 13 Maccha­baei fortissimè Antiocho & Deme [...]o Tyrannis restiterunt, & per vim ingressos, vi­ribus suis auctis, simili vi expulerunt. Quod lex & Dei ordinatio exigit. Cunerus ibid. cap. 8.

The Answer to two other examples.

Secondly we dispute of lawfull examples of deposing kings: but behold your 1 2. Sam. 1. ver. 8 & 15. Saul was killed of an Amalachite, whō therfore Dauid commanded to be slaine. Your 12 2. Reg. 21. Ammon also was slaine of his owne seruants, who were therefore pursued and slaine of the people, because of th [...]ir conspiracie against the king. Thus your 1. and 12. examples which you propound [Page 6] for your imitation rather shew what you would, then what you should be, yet so it is, that wicked acts are the best ex­amples you can alledge to proportionate your godlesse conclusions.

The Answer to fiue other examples.

Thirdly, extraordinarie acts can be no presidents for or­dinary or generall axioms: Sed quae haec (bone Deus!) con­sequentia est? Propheta pronunciauit contra Iero­boam iudici­um diuinum. Ergo Ecclesia habet ius in Reges. Nihil inscitius: ni­hil enim ad Prophetam, nam Prophe­tae multi nul­la potestate Sacerdotali praediti fue­runt. Deinde Prophetarum munus in denunciatione iudiciorum Dei extraordinaria fuit: quae ad probandam ordinationem nullà consecutionis necessitate valeat. Barclaius ibid. But (your selues cannot deny) many of your examples were specially priuiledged functions by Prophets and others extraordinarily and immediately from God appointed to those offices: and therefore cannot inferre any ordi­narie power of altering States and kingdomes. Of this kind was 1. Samuel the Prophet, who dissolued the succession of Saul. 2. Achia the Prophet who diuided Ieroboam from Re­hoboam: 5. Elias the Prophet, who slew these Baalites, and destroyed the messengers of the King: 6. Elizeus the Pro­phet who raised vp Iehu against Ahab and his family: and 2. Chron. 26. Nathan and Dauid Prophets who preferred Salomon in succession. Therefore your Christus cùm ciecit Mercatores è templo, non quasi Regia aut Pon­tificia autoritate, sed, more Prophetarum, zelo quodam: quemadmodum Phinees occidit scortatores, & 2. 5. 6. examples be satisfied. For in them, that will holde which Bellarmine acknowled­geth in one Elias Prophetas Baal. Bellarus. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. §. Respondeo Christum. Elias; To haue beene done by zeale, and not by Pontisicall authoritie, like that act of Phin [...]es in destroying those fornicators of Israel.

The last two examples obiected.

In 2. Para­lip. 26. In the 2. Chron. 26. The high Priest deposed O­zias Rex cum sacerdotis of­ficium exercere vellet, à Pontifice de templo eiectus est, & separatus extra regnum, & consequenter regnandi autoritate priuatus. Et 2. Paralip. 23. vbi Oziah, or Vziah, from his kingdome: And in the 2. Chron. 23. Iehoida the Priest put downe Athalia tyrannicè occupasset regnum, & foueret cultum Baal, Iehoida, & Pontifex vocauit centuriones & milites, & iussit cos vt Athaliam interficerent. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8. Athalia, and commanded her to be slaine.

The answer to the former example.

King Ozias was strucke by the hand of God with lepro­sie, and therefore by the law of God might not come into the common societie of men, for feare of contagion. He was not therefore deposed from his soueraigntie, but only as a sicke King disabled and debarred the ordinarie execu­tion. A thing so manifest, that your owne Doctor calleth this your assertion Hoc (quod obijcit Bellar. supra chap. 3.) ipsa imprimis Biblia, histo­rici etiam at­que interpre­tes falsitatis arguunt: nun­quam enim de regno eie­ctus fuit Ozi­as, sed tam­diù regnauit, quamdiù vir­it, nempè, to­tos quinquaginta duos annos ex quo regnum anno aetatis decimo sexto inierat, vt pa­tet 4. Reg. 15. & 2. Paralip. 26. Mortuus autem Ozias, inquit Iosephus lib. 9. Antiq. cap. 11. aetatis suae anno 68. regni vero anno sui 52. Si ergo annum 16. agebat cum regnare coepit, & annos quinquaginta duos (scripturâ teste) regnabat, obijt (que) an­num agens 68. Ostende, si potes, quo & quanto tempore de regno deiectus fuerit. Magna sanè impudem a est ea scriptis mandare, quae manifestis Scripturae testimo­nijs redarguuntur. Aegrotante Patre, filius Rectorem & Curatorem dicitur domus Patris, non Regem egisse: testante ibidem Scripturâ, [Dormiuit Ozias sepultus in agro sepulchrorum regalium, eò quod esset leprosus, regnauit (que) Ionathan pro eo.] Falsissimum igitur est, quod scribis, Oziam ab Azaria Sacerdote de regno fuisse de­ [...]ctum. Barclaius lib. 5. contra Monarchom. cap. 11. Most false, and contrarie to the direct hi­storie of the Bible, and ancient Interpretors, because it is mani­fest (saith he) that he died a King, and his Sonne during his le­prosie was only Rector, &c. It falleth out oftentimes that some Noble-man is ordained Regent to moderate matters du­ring the minoritie of the King; is therefore the right and reall King bereaued of his crowne?

The Answer to the example of 3 Athalia.

This example is satisfied Supra in the first Answer. already: only now I will adde a confirmation of that which hath beene said. Athalia (2. King. 11.) put to death all the Kings seed, excepting onely Ioash, who by good meanes was hidde from her; after he was come to age, produced, and, according to his right of succession, proclai­med lawfull King, commanding Athalia, as an vsurper, to be slaine. So plaine, that the fore-cited Doctor doth yeeld vnto it: Expulsit Ie­hoida Atha­liam quae im­mani tyran. [...]ide per caedem regiae Sobolis regnum occupabat. Barclaius quo supra. lib. 5. cap. 11. She was deposed (saith he) for destroying the Princes [Page 8] of the blood royall, and vsurping the kingdome. Now what ma­ner of disputation call you this, when to the defenders of the soueraigntie of lawfull Kings, you oppose only the ex­amples of intolerable vsurpers?

The last Answer to all the former exam­ples in generall.

Fourthly, example without law is as a bodie without a soule: for though God be a law to himselfe, yet his reuea­led commandement is a law to man. As Gen. 4. vers. 7. His desire shalbe subiect vnto thee: this is the canon law, the eldest is to be preferred in succession, but yet dispensable onely with God, Genes. 25. 23. The eldest shall serue the yoongest. And thus was Iehu a seruant sent of God to resist Ahab his King; and thus was tolerated that defection of Israel from 2. Chron. 10. & 11. forged to allow that that defection of the people frō their lawfull King, was malū poe­nae; the euill of punishmēt, and iust: but for the people to deflect and re­ [...]lt to idola­trie, that was malum cul­pae, their owne sinne. Rehoboam their lawful King, vnto Ieroboam the idolatrous. These be all your owne examples.

Now I would argue thus: If Gods dispensation in par­ticulars could inferre a generall application, then might we conclude from this example of Ieroboam, that it shal be law­full for subiects to forsake their lawfull Kings religious, and to adhere to another King idolatrous: A conclusion (I am sure) in your owne doctrine most impious; and yet your argument doth inforce this conclusion.

CHAP. IIII.

The Argument from examples of the old Testa­ment returned vpon the Romish.

1. In generall.

IN generall obserue: there be recorded in the old Testa­ment the examples of nineteene wicked Kings of Israel; such as were either Idolaters, or Tyrants, or Apostates: with fourteene others as wicked in the Kingdome of Iuda, and [Page 9] yet not one of all them were by a Priest or people deposed from their Kingdomes.

2. In particular. The first example of Saul and Dauid.

King Saul, Nam Saul primus rex populi Israel, pessimus, vt notum est, postea Ty­rannus exti­tit, qui inno­centissimum Dauidem, op­timè de ipso ac regno me­ritum, crude­lissimè ac ob­stinatissimè persecut' est. Cuner. de off [...]. Princ. cap. 7. 1. Sam. 28. For he was the first King of Israël, prouing him­selfe in the end (you know) a most wicked man, and a verie ty­rant. yea such an one as was in a sort excommunicate: Da­uid, cum in spelunca à mi­litibus suis in­citaretur; ne quaquam manus suas extendere voluit, sed quod amplius est, cum si­lentèr partem chlamydis abscidisset, quasi alicuius peccati propter id conscius, per­cussit cor suum Dauid, & dixit ad viros suos: [Propitius sit mihi Dominus, ne faciam hanc rem Domino meo Christo Domini, vt mittam manum meam in eum, quia Christus Domini est, viuit Dominus, quia nisi Dominus percusserit eum, aut dies eius venerit vt moriatur, aut descendens in praelium perierit, propitius sit mihi Dominus, vt non m [...]ttam manum meam in Christum Domini. Et iterum cum Saulum dormi­entem, & sopore sepultum repe [...]iret, dixit Dauid ad Abisay, ne interfi [...]s eum, quis enim extendet manum suam in Christum Domini, & innocens erit? Apertè osten­dens se non propter amorem erga hominem, sed propter conscientiam erga Deum à caede abstinuisse. Cunerus quo supra. God refusing to speake vnto him either in dreames or visions, &c. This example your Cardinall obiecteth against Protestants: Allen in his Admonition pag 30. & 31. This man (saith he) was by Gods appointment deposed from his Kingdome by Samuel: so that after the sentence knowen, Dauid might lawfully haue killed him. A Carnals, (I should haue said) a Cardinals conceit, vtterly condemned by Dauid him­selfe. For Sane Dauid persecuted by Saul (as the 1. Sam. 24. storie sheweth, and your Bishop acknowledgeth) when he was now in a caue where he had Saul in his power, excited by his souldiers to kill him, would not lay violent hands vpon his person; but which is more, closely cutting off a lappe of his cloake: (as though euen in that he had offended) stroke his owne brest, saying thus to the souldiers, [God be mercifull vnto me, that I doe not this wicked­nesse against him; as the Lord liueth, except the Lord strike him, or his day shall come to die, or that he perish in warres, God be mercifull vnto me that I [...]ay not mine hands vpon the Lordes anointed. 1. Sam. 26. Yea after Dauid found Saul asleepe, he said to his [Page 10] owne seruant Abisay; Let vs not kill him, for who shall laie his hands vpon the anointed of God, and be innocent?] Shewing euidently that he did refraine to kill Saul, not so much for the loue to his person, as for conscience towards God. And yet your pur­purate Cardinall would from this same example of Dauid die his gowne afresh in the blood of his Soueraigne: con­cluding (contrarie to Dauid) It was lawfull for Dauid to kill Saul.

The Application of this former example in the position confuteth the Romish.

This example of Saul and Dauid, (if there were no other in the whole booke of God) might suffice for full determi­nation of this cause: for there is nothing which you can pretend for the iust deposing of any person, which is not correspondent in this example.

First you require in the person to be deposed that he be either a Tyrant, or Excommunicate, or an Apostate from God: but 1. Saul by persecuting Dauid an innocent, (which he did not by order of law, but by mortall enmity) is by your Bishop defined a Cunerus su­pra in hoc cap. lit. [...]. Tyrant: 2. by being 1. Sam. 28. forsaken of God, an excommunicate: 3. by 1. Chro. 13. 3. asking counsell of a witch of Endor, an Apostate.

Secondly, the end of deposing you pretend is the Catho­licke cause, propagation of true religion. This end might Dauid haue proclaimed, because (after Sauls death hec saith, The moderate Answerer su­pra. [But we will bring againe the arke of God, for we sought it not in the dates of Saul. Signifying equall necessity of the restitution of religion.

Thirdly, you in deposing of the possessour must foresee a probability of 1. Sam. 16. an hopefull Successour: behold heere is godly Supra. Dauid anointed of Samuel the Prophet, ordained of God to succeed Saul after his decease.

Lastly, you professe to attempt this deposing and mur­dering of such a King, 1. Sam. 24. As soone as there is an opportunity to effect it. Marke heere, * Dauid hath the tyrant in a ca [...], as [Page 11] able to stabbe him to the hart, as to cut off the lappe of his garment: another time finding him and all his guard asleep, and able now to cast him into a dead sleepe: Notwithstan­ding all this, Dauid, who was afterwards to performe the of­fice of a gratious King in ruling, doth now practise the duty of a faithfull Subiect in obeying. And now from the appli­cation of the position we descend vnto

The Application of his practise.

1. Dauid flieth into a Caue or vault of the earth, yet not to plot, but to auoid parricide. 2. Dauid hauing Saul in his power, he cutteth off only the lappe of the garment of the King, so farre was he from cutting off the head and shoulders of a kingdome. 3. Dauid praieth not God speed the procee­ding of the complot of treason, but God forbidde; and, God be mercifull vnto me, that I doe not this wickednesse. 4. Dauid sweareth also, but what? a sacramentall oath of se­crecy, and confederacy, To doe it as soone as possibly he can [...] No, but As the Lord liueth I will not lay my hands vpon the Lords anointed. To conclude, when Saul is slaine by an A­malakite, Dauid entertaineth the murtherer, but how? reioicing and approuing the act? or as thus dignifying the malefactour, So sayd Pope Sixtus Quin­tus of the like. ô memorable act! ô religious man! No, but he 2. Sam. 1. 11. Rent his owne clothes, fasted and wept and commanded the mur­therer to be slaine, saying, Thy sinne be vpon thine own head. &c. This one example of this incomparable seruant of God Dauid is therefore recorded in the volume of Gods booke, that in one man all men might haue a double example to imitate; Kings to behold him as he was a grati­ous King, and no Tyrant: Subiects to beholde him, as a faithfull subiect euen to a Tyrant.

CHAP. V.

The second example, which must be returned vpon the Romish, is that which hath beene of them obiected of Elias.

2. King. 1. ELias did call for fire from heauen, and destroied the Cap­taines and Messengers from the King. Ergo (say your men) Protestants officers may be so dealt with by vs Priests. Now, we argue contrarily, Ergo this may not be attemp­ted of Gods Ministers. 1. because Elias was no Priest, but a Prophet, that is, his calling was not ordinarie, but extra­ordinarie, as appeareth by his act, [Fire from heauen] a worke miraculous. 2. Our Sauior Christ, who did assoile this question long agoe, hath taught vs how to conclude; for Luc. 9. 52. When his Disciples asked him saying, Master shall we com­mand fire from heauen to destroy them, as Elias did? vers. 55. Iesus rebuked them, saying, you know not what spirit you are of: for the sonne of man came not to destroy but to saue the world. Con­cluding from the same example negatiuely, namely, that the Ministers of the Gospel must not heerein imitate Elias.

The Application of this example and Answer.

Whom doe you seeke to destroy? Protestants, whom you call Heretikes: but marke, 1. these disciples desired to destroie Those vers. 51. Samaritânes, namely the false worshippers, which had long before forsaken the true religion of God; and therefore now disliked Christ, vers. 53. Because his face was as though he would goe to Hierusalem: that is, because of his re­ligion, for that he gaue some signification that he meant to goe to the feast at Hierusalem to solemnise the true worship of God according to the lawe. Secondly what haue Prote­stants done? Iesuits supra. They will not admit of our Priests, and our high Priest and Vicar of Christ the Pope they doe reiect.

And these Samaritans in this place, vers. 53. Would not receiue Christ. 3. What therefore? A generall destruction at The strata­geme. one [Page 13] terrible blow: and these desire to Luc. 9. 54. Call for fire to consume these Samaritans. 4. Now who are you? Men zealous of Gods glory: and these for their zeale are Marc. 3. 17. Surnamed the Sonnes of thunder. 5. To what end doe you breath fire, and why are your mouthes so hot? In ordine ad Deum: euen for the glorie of God, aduancement of the church of Christ: So these wished vers. 54. fire from heauen, namely, that it comming by the prayer of Christ immediately from heauen, God might be glorified in his Sonne. 6. What ground haue you for such an at­tempt? The example of Elias: the same example did these Bonarges alledge saying, vers. 54. As Elias did.

Notwithstanding all which, Christ answereth you in them, saying, vers. 55. You know not what spirit you are of, adding, I am not come to destroie, but to saue: shewing that there is as much difference betweene a minde so resolued, and a true regenerate spirit, as is betweene Christ and Elias, Law and Gospel, destruction and saluation. Thus the Sonnes of thunder and our Sonnes of powder being rightly compared, there is only this difference: They would not haue fire except from Gods owne hand, from heauen, an argument of their pati­ence; these, as men desperate, will worke it in many barrels in the earth, as if it had beene from hell. they consult with Christ, vers. 54. Master wilt thou that we command? you without all command, yea against Gods forbid, seeke the ruine of a Kingdome.

The Conclusion from the old Testament.

Seeing that 1. there was No soueraigntie either of Supra. Priests or Nullum ex­tat in sacris li­teris exēplum pro potestate populi in Re­ges. Barclaius lib. 3. contra Monarchom cap. 6. People ouer Kings; we are taught from the example of the people of God (as saith your Cunerus) Magna patientia populus Israël plu­rima ab hu [...]smodi Tyrannis mala sustinuit, qua tamen facilè poterat resistendo re­pellere, vsque ade [...] cordibus hominum lege naturae inscriptum est, potestati non re­sist [...], Scriptura vbi (que) nobis attestante, Regibus, licet reccent, vim nullan esse infe­rendam, quoniam causa nostra est [...]unc Deo committenda. Cuner. i. de [...]. Princ. cap. 7. With great patience to indure the tyrannie of mortall Kings, yea when [Page 14] we haue power to resist. And because they be next vnder God in earth, in all their iniuries To commende the reuenge vnto God. Nay he teacheth Kings an other excellent rule of policie, fitting for the preseruation of all States, which is, Paralip. 24. De quo sic Cu­nerus. Qui fuit verus Rex Iudae, & cum ad Idola impunè reli­cto D [...]o de­clinaret, & Zachariam Prophetam, [...]ilium Ieho [...] ­dae, interfe­cisset, serui quidam Zelo commoti, insidiat [...]nt Regi, & occiderunt illum in lectulo suo: sed iustè ab Ama­ [...]ia regem sequente regulati sunt. Cunerus lib. de O [...]i [...] Prin [...]. cap. 7. He who succeedeth a King violently murdered of any, though of a godly zeale, yet ought he to reuenge his Predecessors death by the death of the male factors.

Thus much of the old Testament concerning the law of Subiection; wherein we haue many lawes to obey Kings, but none to resist: We ascend to the new Testament sealed by Christ his death, whose speech is true concerning the Ciuill law of the prerogatiue of Kings which he spake of the Morall law of God, Matth. 5. 17. I come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill the Law.

CHAP. VI.

The former Question disputed according to the state of the new Testament.

The Romish shewing the state of the question.

Carerius, & Bozius. Vide supra. THe Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporal ouer all Kings & Kingdoms of the world. Which we prooue by consent of Diuines, and Canonists: And the Defen­dors of the contrary to be but meer Polititians. Take heed, there was a spirit that shewed a synopsis of All the nations of the world to our Sauiour, and said, Matth 4. 9. All these will I giue thee: he was no lawfull Doner, but a lying Tempter. From whom it may seeme this your doctrine had his stampe, Francise. de Victoria Re­lect. 1. Sect. 6. For (to beleeue your owne Doctor) to say that the Pope hath all tem­porall domimon ouer all the world, is nothing else but a flattering of the Pope: And Bellarminus, vide supra. False (saith your Iesuite) as I shall prooue. You will not then contend for all the world; what say you to all Kings in Christendome? Bellar. vide supra. Victor. Relect. 1. Sect. 6 Sander. de vi­sib. Monarch. pertotum & alij supra. He hath ouer these indirect­ly, that is, as it may be behoouefull for the Spirituall good, power [Page 15] temporall ouer all these. By what law? Non iure politico sed diuino. San­derus lib. 2. de Clauib. Dauid. cap. 10. Not by Ciuill but Diuine law. Well then, this would be prooued, either by Scripture or by tradition, or at least some probable reason.

Obiections from Scriptures.

1. Obiection. The Romish pretence.

Petrus quo tempore ac­cepit [...]laues regni coelo­rum, accepit ius quo (que) de­struendi & ae­dificandi re­gna in Eccle­sia Christi, quandò id ex­pediret. Itaq: gladium poli­ticum habuit Petrus con­cessum sibi, non quidem ad finem po­liticum, sed ad spiritualem, viz. salutem animarum: in quem finem [...]o gladio Pontifex vti debet. Sanderus lib. 2. de Clauibus. cap. 10. pag. 41. Saint Peter when he receiued of Christ the keies of the Kingdome of heauen, he also receiued the temporall and ciuill sword, and a right of erecting and destroying kingdomes; as farre foorth as hee might thinke it behoouefull for the good of soules, and to this end ought the Popeto use the ciuill sword. This cannot be, for In Ecclesia sunt claues regni coelo [...]um. Matth. 16. & 18. Sed haec potestas est alia à ciuili potestate, quae certe non habet hu­iusmodi claues: confirmatur, quia vsus ostenditur, Remittendi & r [...]endi peccati, Ioh. 20. quae potestas non est in Rege ciuili. Victoria Relect. 1. Sect. 2. §. Teruò probatur. By the k [...]ies of the kingdome of heauen (as your Victoria determineth) is signified a spirituall autori­tie different from the ciuill iurisdiction, as is prooued by the vse, which is remitting and deteining of sinnes: which no way can be­long to ciuill autoritie. Neither can any shew me any one Doctor of but reasonable antiquitie, (Peto vel ex millibus vnum) who by keies, vnderstand a ciuill power. It were au excellent Art if you could make a sword of a paire of keies; and as profound Diuinitie were it to turne spirituall regi­ment into politike.

2. Obiection. The Romish pretence.

Cùm dici­tur Petro, [Pasce oues] Ioh. 20. intel­ligitur ea potestas, quae est ad gregem regendum necessa [...]a, id [...]irco ad Lupos, id est, Principes haereticos arcendos, & pabulū ouibus ministrandum. Bell. lib. 5. de Pont. ca. 7. Where it is said to Peter, Ioh [...] 21. [Feede my sheepe] is vnderstood the power wherby the Pastor may driue away a woolfe [Page 16] (such an one is an hereticall Prince) from his flocke. Againe: Nam Prin­ceps ours & silius est sa­cerdotis spi­ritualis, at Sa­cerdos Ouis aut silius Principis nullo modo dici possit: quoniam omnes Clerici suum habent Principem spiritualem, à quo non in spiritualibus solùm, sed etiam in temporalibus reguntur: neque sieri possit vt duas agnoscant Principes in rebus temporalibus, cùm, iuxta Euangelium, nemo possit duobus Dominis seruire. Bellar. disp. de Exempt. Cleric. cap. 3. in calce. Quod opus vnà cum libris de Indulgentijs compingitur. A Prince is the spirituall sheepe of a Priest, but a Priest can­not be called the sonne of a Prince: for Priests haue their spiritu­all Gouernour, to whom they are subiect both in spirituall and temporall matters, and to no other.

The Answer.

It was neuer read, heard, nor dreamed, that [Feed my sheep] should signifie any temporall feeding, as though Princes must be dieted corporally at the Popes discretion; this will follow vpon your assertion, because the metaphor, Feede, hath more significant relation to diet then to domini­on. Againe, Aliae Scrip­turae Princi­pibus Pastorū & Patrum officia tribu­unt, quemad­modum Da­uid pro sub­ditis suis in­terpellans; Ego, inquit, peccaui, iste grex quid cō ­metuit? vbi 70 Interpre­tes habent, Ego sum Pa­stor, istae O­ues &c. 1. Paralip. 21. Cunerus de Offic. Princ. cap. 1. Rex saepe Pastor dicitur. Mich. 5. Ribera Ies. Comm. in hunc locum. Num. 31. Scriptures doe often call Princes Pastors, as your owne Doctors demonstrate, and as plaine it is, Kings are called nourcing fathers; Es. 29. And we will make no question but that Father is a relatiue to a Sonne, and there­fore a Priest may be a sonne vnto a Prince.

Lastly your deuice of exemption of Priests is too crude to be easily digested of any reasonable Diuine, for (as your Victoria saith) Personae Clericorum non exemptae sunt omninò, & quo ad à potestate ciuili, nec iure humano nec diuino: qui praeter quod sunt Eclesiae, sunt etiam ciues Reip. & Rex est Rex non solùm Laicorum, sed etiam Cle­ricorum; Ergo aliquo modo Clerici subijciuntur ei, qui in quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica, sed in istis Principi obedire tenentur. Fr. Victoria Relect. 1. Sect. 7. Priests, besides that they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise members of the common-wealth; and a King is as well a King of the Cleargie, as of the Laitie: there­fore the Cleargie is subiect vnto the ciuill autoritie in temporall things; for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall. a plaine demonstration.

The third Obiection from the prophecie of the old Testament, and the euents of the new. The Romish pretence.

This is the tenor of the late yongue Buls of Popes, as of Paulus [...] ­piscopus, ser­uus seruorum Dei, &c. Nos in iustitiae se­de constitu [...]i, iuxta Prophe­tae vaticinium dicentis, [Ec­ce te constitui super Gentes, & regna, vt [...] ­u [...]llas & de­ [...]ruas, plantes & aedifices. Bulla Pauli 3. aduersus Henric. 8. Regem Angliae. Paulus 3. Pius, &c. Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in coelo & in terra potestas, quem super om­nes Gentes & super omnia regna Principem constituit, Qui euellat, destruat, dissi­pet, disperdat, plantet, aedificet, &c. Bulla Pij Quinti cap. 39. & aliae aliorum Pontificum Bullae. Pius 5. and all their followers. I the seruant of the seruants of God, placed in the seat of iustice, according to the Prophecie of Ieremie, where it is written (Ierem. 1.) [Behold I haue appointed thee ouer Nations to roote them vp and destroy them, to plant and establish them] doe excommuni­cate these Kings and their fauorites, absoluing subiects from their obedience, and commanding them to take vp armes to roote them out. Is this the true sense of that Prophecie? Hoc Propheta in persona Christi ad Romanum Pontificem loquitor. Care­rius de potest. Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 3. Rursus. [...]er. Prophetae autoritas haec tempora­lis con [...]irmatur, sc. per correctionem & punitionem, si Reges mali fierent. Carer. ibid. It was spoken to the Bishops of Rome in the person of Christ.

The Answer.

O arrogant glossers, yea impudent glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! Did euer Ieremie put downe Kings to root them out? Hearken to your Lyranus: Tantùm de­nūciando esse destruendas. Lyranus in c­um locum. No, he did onely denounce Gods iudgements against wicked Kinges. Hearken to that godly Pope Gregorie, who sheweth that Ieremies act was onely Frustra Hie­remias, nisi peruersa de­strueret, prae­dicando recta edificaret. Greg. Mag. Past. cura Admonit. 35. By preaching, and not by fighting. If you demaund in whom this prophecie was fulfilled, li­sten to your Doctor Capella: His verbis totum Hieremiae ministe­rium comprehend [...]tur, haec in Christo completa sunt, qui Idolatria & erroribus de­structis, & Principe huius mundi foras eiecto, Ecclesiam suam aedificauit atque plan­tauit. ff. Andr. Capella Theol. Doctor in hunc locum. It was fulfilled in Christ, at [Page 18] whose comming Idols and false Oracles ceased, and the Prince of the World was cast out. Which Scripture lest the Pope might vnaduisedly applie to himselfe, holie Bernard doth forewarne him to Propheta, cùm art, [Vt euellas, &c.] Quid horum fastum sonat? schemate quod á magis rust [...]cam [...]u­dor [...]s labor spiritualis expressus est. Vt nos etiam sentiamus impositum esse nobis mi­nist [...]um, non dominium datum. Esto Propheta, sed nunquid plusquam Propheta? si sapis, er is contentus mensurâ quam ubi mensus est Deus: nam quod amplius est, à malo est. Bernard. lib. 2. Consid. ad Eugen. Beware of insolent pride: for these wordes being applied vnto the Pastors of the church, betoken onely an in­dustrio [...]s ministrie, but no predominant autoritie.

CHAP. VII.

The antiquitie of this pretended Papall power is examined from the Apostles times.

The Romish pretence.

Allen in his Admonition pag. 34. THe Priest of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authoritie than that of the law ouer Kinges to depose them.

The Answer.

This is not probable, except you can shew some footings either of Christ, or his blessed Apostles, or their holie suc­cessors in the purer periods of times. But

1. Christ vsed not this ciuill iurisdiction.

For Regia auto­ritas non erat Christo ne­cessaria, ne­que vtilis, sed planè inutilis & supers [...]ua: nam finis aduentus eius in mundum erat redemptio humani generis, ad quem potestas regia necessaria non fuit, sed solùm spiritualis. Bell. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 4. Princely autoritie (as your chiefe Iesuite confesseth) had beene supers [...]uou [...] in Christ, whose end was to worke the worke of Redemption of man, whereunto the onelie spirituall power was sufficient.

2. Peter and the other Apostles neuer challenged tem­porall authority.

This also is confessed: Carerius, Bel­larmunus, Aco­sta, & alij. Apostles (saith Carerius) were sub­iect vnto the heathen Kings in all temporall respects: because Pon­tificall gouernment is only ouer Christians, within the church, but the Heathens are said by the Apostle to be without. 1. Cor. 6. Heereupon your Saunders doth conclude, that Quo tēpo­re Principes erant Ethnici, Petius illorú Iudex non e­rat, sed è con­tra in omni­bus causis ci­uilibus, non minus quàm caeteri homi­nes, illis sub­ijciebatur: quia Pontifex non est Iudex nisi Christianorum. 1. Cor. 6. Peter re­ceiued of Christ no power ouer Heathen Kings. He conceiteth a reason. Du­plex fortitudinis potestas est, altera in faciendo res arduas animosè, altera in pati­endo res aduersas constantèr: cùm igitur illa, quae in patiendo consistit, sit praestan­tior, hanc patiendi potestatem sibi ac suis Christus elegit, vt mundum in admiratio­nem potentiae suae cohuerteret. Idcirco Apostoli & primi Apostolorum successo­res hoc mysterium non ignorantes, ab armis pro fide sumendis abstinuerunt. Sunderus quo supra. cap. 13. There is a double power, of fortitude, and Christian valour, (saith he) The one in suffering aduersitie constantly, the other in attempting and effecting hard matters couragiously: that power of suffering, as more excellent, Christ chose as fittest for himselfe, and his Apostles, and their successors for the gaining of the world to the faith, and therefore they did abstaine from armes and prescribe obedience. Quid ad me de his qui foras sunt iudi­care? Careriu, de potest. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 23. Idei [...] co Petrus in Neronem & Tyrannos Gentium nullam potestatem accepit. Sanderus de Clauib. Dauid. lib. 2. cap. 13.

The Romish insist.

Non Iohan­nes Baptista, inquiunt Ad­uersarij, non Christus, non Apostoli in Regem impium surgere, aut eum è medio tollere docuerunt: hoc leuissi­mum est, quali vero eadem mstituendae Ecclesiae ratio atque institutae credenda sit; ac non potiùs prius plantari atque irrigari vineam, quàm incidi conuenit. Lib. de Abdicat. iusta Henric. Regis. pag. 278. As though there were not a difference of the condition of the church; as of a vine, there is one time to plant and water it, an other to loppe and prune it.

The Answer.

As though the Church, which before time was planted & watred with the blood and deaths of holie Martyrs, ought [Page 20] now (for that is this mans scope) to be lopped in the cut­ting off of the heads of wicked Kings. Nay but if the pati­ent suffering of the tyranny of Kings, be (as your Sanders truely said) the more excellent Christian power, than acting and working the death of Kings: and that therefore that po­wer was practized of our Lord Christ, and bestowed on the Apostles for the confirmation of the glorious faith: pardon vs if we fall at Iesus feet, to choose the better part: especial­ly knowing that 2. Tim. 4. To all those who suffer vniustly for iustice, there remaineth a crowne of iustice, which the iust Iudge will giue in that day of Reuelation.

CHAP. VIII.

The primitiue Successors of the Apostles for the space of two hundred yeares and long after, did acknow­ledge all Obedience temporall to all Emperours and Kings, whether heathen or baptized; al­though Tyrants or Heretickes or Apo­statates, yea euen then, when they wanted no force to resist.

The Romish pretence.

Bellar. supra. IN former ages Christians (said your Bellarmine) did not depose wicked Emperours, as Diocletian, Iulian, and such, because they wanted force. Which maketh some Catholicks (said your Bannes) now not resisting their Kings, excusable, because they want force: For it is commendable (said your Frenchman) to suffer when thou canst not resist. Otherwise Catholickes (said your Creswell) are bound to hazard their liues in this cause, assooue as they can make resistance. Where­unto might haue beeneadded your Cardinall Allen, Allen in his true and mo­dest Defence of English Ca­tholiks. An­cient Bishops (saith he) might haue excommunicated the Arian Emperours, and hauedefended themselues from them by force [Page 21] of armes; but they did not, by reason of greater forces of their Persecutors.

The Answer.

This is the very Arche of all your rebellious building, which all your Iesuites haue erected, and whereupon our bastard English Cardinall doth insist in his booke intituled, A True and modest Defence for English Catholickes: which how false and shamelesse it is, I am now ready to shew vnto all true catholickes for their confirmation, and to the others for their conuersion.

First in generall.

For. A Christo passo per in­teruallum du­centorum an­norum, nus­quam legi­mus Chr [...]sti­anos contra Imperatores iam saeuientes in eos & plu­ [...]imos necan­tes, contra tempublicam quiequā esse molitos, etiā cum Christi­ani pares viri­bus & nu [...]o fuerunt; imò religionem suam anteferri alijs omnibus, se (que) ab eo Christianos di­xerunt appellari, cuius sit hoc pijssimum dogma, vt Magistratibus pareant. Tolossanu [...] lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. § 10. For the space of two hundred yeares we cannot reade (saith your learned Tolossanus) of any christians resisting Em­perours of other times, or in their most bloudy persecutions to haue raised any tumult in the Common-wealth; no not then, when they were able both by equall number and power to match them: But heerin they thought their religion aduanced before all o­thers, and gloried in this behalfe to be called Christians, who professed this as a most holy doctrine, namely, obedience to Ma­gistrates.

True, the patient Christian did aduance Christian religi­on by suffering vnder Kings; but the now pragmaticall Christian (God grant I may be a false Prophet) by acting and plotting Strategemes, in resisting Kings, will ruinate the holy faith.

To Tolossanus agreeth your Cunerus, saying, Cum Martyres no [...] Testament [...], propter multitudi­nem, facilè contra tyrannidem Persecutorum suorum conspirare potuissent, pro o­bedientia tamen & honore, quem iussi sunt Christiani regibus & sublimiori potestati deferre, maluerunt pati quám resistere, si quandò [...]gerevel euadere non poterant. De quibus perpulchre Augustinus lib. 2. contra Faustum, Vbi venit plenitudo tem­po [...]is, iam demonstrandum erat esse aliam vitam pro qua debet hae [...] vita contemni; promdè per quorum confessiones & mortes hoc Deo placuit attestari Martyres ap­pellantur, quorum numerus tantus essloruit, vt si eos Christus vellet armare, atque adiuuare propugnantes, sicut Hebraeos Patres ad. unit, quae Gentes restiterent, quae regna non caederent? C [...]nerus de O [...]ic. Prin [...]. cap. 7. The [Page 22] Martyrs of those times, when they by reason of their multitude, might easily haue conspired against their persecuting Tyrants; (Hearken you conspirators and be ashamed) yet for the ho­nour of Christ by performing obedience to the higher power chose rather to suffer then resist. For, as saith S. Augustine, they would demonstrate their hope of the life to come, and, by their confessions and deaths, whereby they gaue witnesse to the truth of God, were called Martyrs, witnesses: whose number was so great, that if it had pleased Christ to arme them, and aid them, as he did the He­brewes of old, what nation could haue resisted thew force? Al­though these glorious Martyrs of the mother Church in their death, whereby they haue anouched that good and glorious profession of Christian faith, haue thereby also sealed the infallible truth of Christian obedience due to earthly Potentates: yet will we not be content with these two hundred yeares, but challenge the currant and succes­siue practise of 4000. more. We therefore come to

CHAP. IX.

The same duty of Subiection proued in the next 400. yeares.

FIrst Tertullian in his Apologie in defence of Christian loyalty. Absit vt vir­tute humana vindicetur Christiana se­cta, aut doleat pati in quo probatur: si enim hostes extraneos, nō tantùm oc­cultos, vindi­ces agere vel. lemus, deesset vis numerorum aut copiarum? externi sumus, & vestra omnia imple­mus vrbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, Se­natum, forum; sola vobis templa reliquimus: cui bello non idonei, non prompti su­issemus, etiam impares copijs trucidamur, si non apud istam disciplinam magis oc­cidi liceret quàm occidere? Tertull. lib. Apolog. cap. 37. God forbid (saith he) that Christian professours should reuenge themselues with humane power, or feare that touch of persecution whereby they are tried: for if we would either seeke secret reuenge, or vse open hostility, can you imagine we could want sufficient force? we are visibly knowen vnto you, and are interested in all your affaires, your Cities, Iles, Forts, Bor­rowes, Tents, Tribes, Decuries, Senate, Ma [...]kets are all full of Christians, except only your temples. Now what warre are not we ready and sit for, who being in power moe, yet do willingly suf­fer [Page 23] death, if by this profession it were not more lawfull to be kil­led, than to kill? Heerein you who boast often of yours as great multitudes in England, as there were locusts in Ae­gypt, able to do mischiefe if you would, and professing also to be willing as soone as you are able: Compare but your God speed, with Tertullian his God forbid, and then you shall see that God cannot be said to be otherwise in your Popes Buls to kings, than he was in Aarons calfe, for in both there is a sinne of rebellion against Gods ordinance.

The second is Cyprian; he likewise penneth an Apology, and directeth it to Demetrianus the Officer of the persecu­ting Emperour, answering in behalfe of all the Christians of his time. Laedere ser­uos Dei & Christi perse­cutionibus tuis desine, quos laesos diuina vltio defendit: in­dè enim est quod nemo nostrū, quan­dò apprehen­ditur, relucta­tur; nec se ad­uersus iniustā violentiam, quamuis ni­mius & copi­osus sit noster populus, vl­ciscitur, &c. Cyprian. ad Demetr. §. 14. vt refert Pam­mel. pag. 328. col. 2. None of v [...]when he is apprehended doth resist, or reuenge himselfe of your vniust violence, although the number of our people be maruellous great: for our certaine confidence we haue in him that will take vengeance of all transgressours, doth confirme our patience. Whereby you are taught not to glory of pati­ence, who (if you had force) would banish obedience.

The third is Athanasius, writing an Apologie for him­selfe to Constantius an Arian Emperor, and therfore hereti­call; to free himselfe of a slanderous imputation, which was that he had suggested some matter to the Emperour Con­stance a Catholicke, thereby to kindle coales of dissention betwixt Brethren; therefore he saith. Deum teste muoco in a­nimā meam, & testis est frater tuus, me nunquam tui mentio­nē in malam partem esse loquutū; non adeò insanus fui, neque ob­litus sum mā ­dau Domini, Non maledi­ces Regivel in corde [...]o: sed obsequutus sum mandatis tuis, quae praeceperent vt ab Alexandria discederem. Athanas. in Apolog ad Constantium. I call God to record vpon my soule, and your Brother Constance could witnesse, that I neuer spake word of you in euill part; I was not so madde as to for­get the commandement of God, who saith; Thou shall not speake euill of thy King, no not in thy hart: but did obey your command, when I had charge to depart from Alexandria. The summe is this. When he had power to stirre the Emperour Constance a true professor, against his brother Constantius an here­ticke; yet he made conscience, not to raise rebellion, but rather submitted himselfe to the violence of persecution. If your Pope had beene truly catechized in this Creed of A­thanasius belonging to the truth of faithfull allegeance, he [Page 24] would not so oft haue raised King against King, as your selues confessed: And why then may not hee be that man prophecied of, Apoc. 6. 4. Sitting on a red horse, and hauing power (per­missiuely) giuen vnto him, to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another?

The fourth is Gregory Nazianzene, in his Oration a­gainst the Emperour Iulian, who (the very hinge of this cause) had beene a Christian, and did after Apostate and proue an Infidell, saith: In quos ve­stiûm popu­lum, exaest [...] ­antem contra vos, insurge­re sollicitaui­mus? quibus vitae periculū attulimus? &c. Nazianz. Orat. 2. in Iulianum. Against whom of you did wee euer raise any insurrection, or sedition among your people, though o­therwise of themselues prone to rebellion: or whose death did wee euer conspire? But, you, lately whose deaths haue you not conspired?

The fifth is Ambrose. When the Emperour infected with the heresie of Arius, had sent magistrates to remoue Am­brose from his Bishopricke, and the people thronged to rescew him, Auxentius haeret. de Im­peratore vult inuidiam cō ­moucre, &c. quasi verò su­periori anno, quādo ad pa­latium suum petitus, cùm praesentibus Primatibus, ante consisto­tium tractare­tur, cùm Im­perator Basi­licam vellet atripere, ego tunc aulae re­galis contemplatione fractus sim, nonne nouerunt, quod vbi me cognouit populus palatium petisse, ita irruit vt vim eius ferre non possent? nonnè tunc rogatus sum vt populum muto sermone mulcerem? reuocaui populum, & tamen inuidiam non euasi, quam quidem inuidiam ego temperandam arbitror, non timendam. Ambros. Tom. 3. lib. 5. post Epist. 32. Oratio ad Auxent. Et Lachrymae meae arma mea sunt, alitèr nec debeo, nec possum resistere. Ibid. In such power (saith Ambrose) that the Offi­cers could not resist their force; I quieted the people, and yet could not auoid their malice. Then sure he did abhorre by raising sedition among the people, to prouoke magistrates to malice. The same Father vpon that penitentiall dumpe of holy Dauid, [Psal. 51. 6. to thee only haue I sinned▪ proueth that some Qui tenentur legibus audent suum negare peccatum, dedignantur rogare indulgentiam, quam petebat Dauid, qui nullis tenebatur legibus humanis, neque enim vllis ad poenam vocantur legibus tuti imperij potestate. Homini ergo non peccauit cui non tenebatur obnoxius. Ambros. Apolog Dauid. cap. 4. & cap. 10. Kings are not subiect to any penall law of man. And for S. Ambrose his actiue profession in this kind, it is confessed by your owne Doctor, saying that Potuit Ambrosius armis Ecclesiam suam tucri, & vim virepellere, nec ideò armis abstinuit, quod armis esset inferior, ab eo nam (que) po­pulus stabat, & ab eo pars maxima militum, ab eo (quod caput est) Christus Iesus omnes (que) coelites, vt Augustinus Epist. 166. Barelaius lib. 3. contra Monarchom. cap [...]. Saint Ambrose when he was sufficiently armed both by power of people and souldiers, [Page 25] strengthened with the might of Christ, yet would not defend his Church with violence against the fury of the hereticall Emperor.

The sixth is Basill, Basilius Ma­gnus, vt est in eius vita, Iuli­ano Caesariā Cappadociae ven [...]enti ob­uiam proces­sit, & pandi [...]i Ciuitatis portas, om­ [...]que subdi­torum officia exhibere sua­sit, & vt odi­um conceptū in Christia­nos mitiga­ [...]et, supplex deprecatus, quanquam poterat se vallo ac mu­ris sinè vllo periculo cō ­tinere, &c. Barclaius qu [...] supra lib. 5. cap. 5. Who by reason of the strength of the forts, wherein he was, needed not to feare any danger; yet suppli­antly offered himselfe to Iulian, the Apostate: and caused the gates of the city to be opened vnto him, thereby to appease his wrath against Christians.

The seuenth is S. Augustine: who in his expositiōs of some proposition, doth, concerning this point, giue this instru­ction. Rom. 13 [Necessitate subditi esto­te.] Ad hoc valet vt intelligamus, quia necesse est propter hanc vitam subd [...]os nos esse, non re­sistentes, Principilius, siquid auserre illi voluerint, in quo illis potestas data est in tem­poralibus rebus, tamen quoniam dixit, [Necessitate subditi estote] nè quis non inte­gro animo & pura dilectione subditus non fieret, huiusmodi potestatibus addidit, di­cens, [Non solùm propter itam, sed etiam propter conscientiam:] id est, non so­lùm ad iram eundendam, quod possit simultate fieri, sed vt tua conscientiâ certus sis, illius dilectione [...]d facere, cui subditus [...]ussu Domini tui: Hoc est quod alio loco serus suadet, Obedite Dominis vestris etiam dyscolis, non ad oculum seruientes, tanquam homi [...] placentes. August. lib. exposit. quorundam proposit. ad num. 74. Whereas the Apostle (saith he) exhorteth that we should not resist gouernors in temporall matters, he saith, [It is necessary that we be subiect:] and lest any might not performe this in loue, but as from constraint and necessity, he addeth; [Not for feare of wrath, but for conscience sake:] that is, not dissemblingly, but dutifully in good conscience, and loue to him (God) who com­mandeth subiection: and, as in another place he exhorteth, Ser­uants Ephes. 6. & [...]ss. 3. Obey your hard and iniurious masters; but not with ey­seruice, as only pleasing men, but God. Therefore you must not plead Your most humble subiect aboue ground, and from the concaue and vautes of the earth seeke how to humble your soueraigne. Forey seruice and hart-seruice do distin­guish a Christian from a Pagan, according to that of Arno­bius, Vos Eth [...]ios [...]entes, nos [...]ro consci [...]um. Ar [...]b. contra Gentes. lib. 8. You Pagans do feare onely the outward sight of men; we only the inward conscience of our mind.

The eight is Pope Leo, writing to a true Catholicke Em­perour. Debes Imperator [...]èr aduertere Regiam potestatem tibi non sol [...]m ad mundi regimen, sed, maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. Epist. 75. ad I [...]on. August. You may not be ignorant (saith he) that your Prince­ly [Page 26] power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment, but also (Spirituall) for the preseruation of the Church. As if hee had said, Not only in causes temporall, but also inspirituall, so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation, not to the per­sonall administration of them: And this is the substance of our English oath; and further neither do our Kings of En­gland challenge, nor subiects condiscend vnto. We are not yet passed the lists of 500. yeares.

The last is Pope Gregory in his Epistle to Mauritius, a right Christian Emperour. Ad hoc, potestas su­per omnes homines do­minorū me­orum pietati [...]elitùs data est, vt qui bo­ni sunt, adiu­uentur, & coe­lorum via lar­gius pateat, vt terrestre regnum coe­lesti regno famuletur ad haec ecceper me seruum vltimum & vestrum. Lib. 2. Epist. cap. 100. Rursus. To this end (saith he) is power ouer all persons giuen from heauen vnto my Lord, that good men may be helped in the way to the kingdome of heauen. And again, In serenissimis iussionibus suis Dominorum pietas, dùm me in qui­busdam redarguere studuit, parcendo mihi minimè pepercit: nam in eis vrbanae sim­plicitatis vocabulo me fatuum appellat; Sacerdotibus autem non ex terrena pote­state Dominus noster citiùs indignetur, sed excellenti consideratione propter cum cuius serui sunt, eis ita dominetur, vt debitam reuerentiam impendat. Idem. Epist. 75. In those gratious commands of your Highnesse, your grace in sparing me did not spare mee one whit, but was pleased to call me (whereby is signified a ciuill simplicity) foole. But let not my Lord from his earthly preeminence too hastily disdaine the Priests of God; but in his princely wisedome, for his cause whose seruants they be, so rule ouer them, that he denie them not due reuerence. Heerein we finde another clause of the forme of our En­glish oath, Power ouer all persons, euen the Pope himselfe yeelding that, which is not due but only to a Superiour rule: and requiring that which may be yeelded to an inferiour, 1. Pet. 3. 4. Giuing honour to the woman, as to the weaker vessell. Reuerence, or curteous respect. Hoc Gre­gorius Magnus ingenuè agnoscebat, Imperatoribus (inquit) concessum est domi­minari Sacerdotibus. Espencaeus Comm. in Tit. 3. Digress. 10. For it is without doubt (saith your Bishop Espencaeus) that Gregorie did acknowledge a soueraigntie in Emperours ouer Priests. We haue not yet passed the period of 600. yeares: now therefore

CHAP. X.

We descend vnto the ages following of foure centuries more: which may make vp a complete thousand yeres.

The Romish Pretence.

Tunc Con­ [...] genera­ [...] fi [...]ant n [...] sine Impera­torum sum­ptibus; & [...]o tempore Pō ­tifex subijci [...] bat se Impe­ratoribus in tēporalibus; & ideò non poterant in­uito Impera­tore aliquid agere: id [...]ir­cò Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori, vt iuberet cō ­uocari Syno­dum. At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt, quia Ponti­fex, qui est caput in spiri­tualibus, non est subiectus in temporali­bus. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 13. §. Habemus ergo. ANcient generall Councels were gathered not with­out the cost of (good and Christian ones) Empe­rours, and were made by their consents: for in those d [...]ues the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour, that by his authori­ty he would gather Synods. But after those times all causes were changed, because the Pope, who is head in spirituall matters, can­not be subiect in temporall.

Who would thinke this man could be a Papist, much lesse a Iesuit, how much lesse a Cardinall, who thus disableth the title of the Pope, granting to vs in these words, [After these times (that is, after 600. yeres) the truth of purer Anti­quity challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Em­perours? And yet, who but a Papist would (as it were in de­spite of Antiquity) defend the degenerate State, saying, After those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall mat­ters? As if he should haue said; Thou gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours, thou sound iudgement of an­cient reuerend Fathers, thou deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes; in summe, thou ancient purity, and pure An­tiquity adiew. But we may not so bastardly reiect the de­positum and doctrine of humble subiection, which we haue receiued from our Fathers of the first 600. yeares: and not so only, but which (as your Bercklay witnesseth) the vniuer­sall Christian world embraced Sed id grauissimo argumento esse debet, quòd nemo sanctorum Patrum, vel Scriptor alioqui Orthodoxus per totos mille an­nos & amplius, licet Ecclesia tunc omnibus flo [...]eret copijs, & impiorum Principum & Tyrannorum magnus esset numerus, tale quid vnquam vel verbo vel scripto doc [...]sse legitur. Nec tamen ab autoritate negatiua tantùm argumentamur, sed proponimus Ambrosij, Hieronymi, Augustini, Gregorij, & aliorum eius aeui tempora, in quibus satis plantatam & rigatam Ecclesiam esse nouimus. Barel. lib. 6. aduers Monarch. cap. 26. With common consent for a full thousand yeares. Which is further confessed by others in the Chapters following.

CHAP. XI.

We further challenge the consent of successiue Anti­quity in the currant of more than 1000. yeares after Christ, wherein the Papallpretended Iurisdiction ouer Kings, hath beene euidently controwled.

The Romish Pretence.

Bellar. supra. Carerius lib. 2. de potest. Rom. Pont. cap. 21. The Apology of the English Catholiks cap. 5 WE haue many examples of Emperours deposed by Popes, as Leo, Fredericke, Henry 1. Freder. 2. Otho 1. Lewis 3. Lewis 4. Henry 4. who was deposed by Gregory the 7.

The Answer.

This argument, The Popes did depose them from their temporall authority, Ergo, He had authority to depose them, will iustifie all Pyrates, and theeues in their spoiles; all Tyrants in their vsurpations; and will impeach this au­thority of the Pope, which you would heereby defend. For (as your Cardinall doth confesse) Bellarm quo supra. Many Emperours haue deposed many Popes. Therefore from the act done to conclude a right of doing is no good argument. Let vs therefore examine the worke by the square, and not the square by the worke; and by the law of doing, trie the law­fulnesse of the thing done. And first, beyond the antiquity of a thousand yeares granted, we find that the first who euer violently deposed an Emperour, is the last of them whom you cite for authority of deposing them. For Lego & re­lego Regum & Imperato­rū res gestas, & nusquam inuenio quē ­quam illorum antè hunc Henricū Im­peratorem, quem Grego­rius 7. aliás Hildebrandus deposuit, à Summo Pon­tifice priua­tum. Otto Fri­singens. lib. 6. Chron. cap. 35. vt refert Tolossanus lib. 26. de R [...]pub. cap. 5. I reade and reade (saith your Otto Frisingensis) and I find that Pope Gre­gory the 7. called Hildebrand, (in the yeare 1060.) was the first Pope that euer depriued an Emperour of his regiment. Hildebrandus [...]uit, qui no­uello schismate regnum & sacerdotium scindens, primus sacerdotalem lancem con­tra diadema eleuans; se, s [...]o [...]; exemplo Pontifices alios contra Principes & excom­municatos gladio accinxit. Claud. Espen [...]. Epise. C [...]mm. in Tim. lib. 2. digress. pag. 275. He was the first Pope (saith your bishop Espencaeus) who by making a new rent betwixt Kingdome and Popedome did raise force a­gainst [Page 29] the Emperiall diademe, arming himselfe & by his example excited other Popes against Princes excommunicate. An act new, you see; and that it is also naught will appeare by the Actor. Gregorius septimus, qu [...] ipsum omnes Italiae Episco­pi iampridem excommuni­cassent, quia sedem Apo­stolicam per Simoniacam haeresin occupasset, & alijs capitalibus c [...]iminibus pollu­isset; Regem autem secus ac decuit egisse, quòd homini haeretico & probris omni­bus infamato maiestatem regiam submiserit. Scaffneburg. In Anno 1077. Pope Greg. the 7. (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolike See by Simony and other Capitall crimes.

There is an Instance giuen in the Donation of Con­stantine, which proueth the Popes to haue beene notable forgerers. The Romish Pretence.

Bonifacius Papa ad Phi­lippum Fran­ciae Regem ita scripsit: No­ueris te in spi­ritualibus & temporalibus nobis subesse; & oppositum sentientes haereticos esse reputamus, & declaramus. Carer. lib. 1. de Pont. potest. cap. 3. Boniface Bishop of Rome, (so saith Carerius) writ to Phi­lip King of France: to let him vnderstand that Philip ought to acknowledge vnto him both spirituall and temporall subiection, and whosoeuer shall thinke otherwise (saith Boniface) we iudge and declare him an Hereticke.

The Answer.

May it be lawfull for vs to aske you by what law this temporall is assumed? Constanti­ni donatio sa­us contra hae­reticos à no­stris defēsa & probata est. Sanderus lib. 4. de Clauib. Da­uid. cap. 4. There is extant the Donation of Con­stantine (saith Sanders) sufficiently defended against all Here­tickes. Then belike this iurisdiction was from man and not from God. Quam Ca­tholici veram esse fatentur: quae quidem potiùs redditio dici debet, quia Constantinus reddidit Christi Vicario, quod tyrannicā autoritate diu det [...]uerat, vt dicamus cum Tu [...] ceremata, De Eccle. lib. 2. cap. 41. Pontificem Romanum habere dominium temporale immediatè à Deo, declaratiuè à Concilijs, à Constantino promulgaticè. Carerius lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 21. Not so (saith Carerius) for it was rather a resti­tution than a Donation, because he did but returne it, being a Christian, which he had receiued by Tyrannicall vsurpation, be­ing an Heathen: therefore according to the iudgement of Turre­cremata, did not now so much giue it as publish it to be due to the [Page 30] Pope. What was contained in this schedule? In ipsa Do­nationis pa­gina contu­lit in Ponti­sicem Reg­num S. ciliae, Neopolita­num, Italiae, Galliae, Hi­spaniae, Ger­maniae, [...]ri­tannae, to­tum deniquè occidentem. Valla Declam. de Donat. Constant. And this is ex­presly chal­lenged in the forme of the pretended donation. There was heer­in specified (saith your Valla, and so is the tenor of the Do­nation) a conueiance of the kingdome of Sicily, Naples, all Italy, France, Spaine, the Countries of the Germans, and Britans, and all the Western part of the world. This is a goodly gift, if it be good: but I heare Luther say, Ingens est hoc mendacium, quod tamen reperitur Dist. 96. &c. Luther. Tract. aduers. Pa [...]. It is a large lie. But you had rather heare your Doctors speake, although they may seem partiall, because yours. Antiqui probatae fidei Autores, qui omnia gesta Constantini scripserunt diligentissimè, eius Donationis mentionem nullam faciunt. Canus loc. theol. lib. 1. cap. 5. The most ancient Historians, authors of best credit (saith your Canus) and such as purposely, and most diligently recorded the acts of Constantine, and yet make no men­tion of any such Donation: Quam Pius secundus Pontifex, vt adulterinam & sub­dititiam refellit; inuehiture; contra miseros (vt eius verbo vtar) Legistas, qui tantùm sudant disputando a [...]d valuerit, quod nullo vnquam tempore fuit. Balbus de coronat. ad Carol. 5. Imperatorem. Which Pius the second Pope of Rome, did (as saith your bishop Balbus) Infra cap. 12. in Ballus test. & cap. 13. by Popish Lawyers. proue to be a slatte counterfet. So that now your Popes temporall hold should be forfetted, because it doth appeare that your Pastor, in this challenge, is a meere imposter. The Donation is cal­led palea, and therefore as light chaffe I passe this ouer. What is your next claime?

CHAP. XII.

Popish Arguments from Reason. The first, wherein they (failing to prooue the temporall dominion of the Pope by succession) endeuour to prooue it from successe.

The Romish Pretence.

Romanos Pontifices vrbis Romae non solùm possessionem, verùm etiam dominium iamdiù adeptos esse nemo est qui nesciat: stupenda quidem res, & supra quam dici possit admiranda; vt cum poten­tissimi quique Imperatores per aliquot secula omnem suam vim in ex [...]erminandis ex v [...]be Roma Pontificibus Romanis srustrà explicàssent, nunc è contrario Pontifices Romani absque vlla vi Romano: Imperatores ex arce imperi [...] semouerunt, palatijs Caesarum atque adeò totâ vrbe in suam proprietatem conuersa. Digitus Dei est hic. Sander. lib. 4. de Clau [...]b. Daui [...]. cap. 4. THe Popes of Rome haue long since got not only possession but also dominion of the city of Rome: a matter to be won­dred [Page 31] at, to see how after that the Emperours had many times sought to root out the Popes of Rome by force, the Popes haue b Id quod di­uina proui­dentia factū est. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 13. §. Quar­ta. &c. contrarily remoued the Emperours out of Rome, the chiefe towne of their Empire; and the property of Caesars pallaces and the city of Rome is without force come vnto the Pope. This (saith San­ders) is the singer of God: This (saith Bellarmine) is Gods pro­uidence.

The Answer.

As though that which is without force might not be by Proued. Vide infra. craft; or that they who pretend a Vide supra. cap. 11. forged donation, of the Emperour Constantine, (as your own Pope called it before he was Pope) would want art to delude his Successours. It it not impossible for Pyrats to build a shippe, for spoile, and call it Gods prouidence. Which wil so much rather appeare in this, by how much more you labour to obscure it: for Ex Pontifi­cibus primus Bonifacius nonus Anno Domini 1400 vrbis Romae sibi domina­tum vindica­re tentauit. Balbus Episc. detoronat. §. Post mortem. Bo­niface the 9. (as your owne Balbus noteth) was the first who did assay to challenge there giment of Rome to himselfe, which was in the yeare of Christ 1400. And this was but a forged chal­lenge too, as is euident, because Carolus Quintus ex Imperatoribus Christianis pri­mus vrbem Romam vnà cum oppidis vndique circum sedi Apostolicae habendam sumendamque donauit. Ibid. §. Munificentia. Emperour Charles the fift, (about the yeare 1550.) was the first that bestowed the city of Rome and the Territories adioining vpon the Pope.

CHAP. XIII.

Their second Reason from a pretended right of Confir­mation of Emperours, to conclude a power of abrogation and deposing.

Imperator in electione sua à Papa ap­probatur & confirmatur, & tanquam minister summi Pontificis gladium ad Pontificis nutum ex­ercens: Ergo est quod ex nutu Pontificis reprobatur & deponitur. Molina. Ies. Tract. 2. de Iust [...]. disp. 29. ad 2. THe Emperour in his election is confirmed by the Pope, and as the Popes minister is to vse the sword at his com­mand, and at his command be is deposed. Proue this. Hoc in eoru [...] coronatione & consecratione fidelitatis (que) praestito iuramento apparet. Carerius lib. 2. de Potest. Pont. cap. 17. This [Page 32] is apparent by the oath that he taketh at his coronation. Proue this. Propterea in D. Cap. Ve­nerabilem, de elect. Papa lo­quens in per­sona sua, in­quit; Ius & autoritas ex­aminādi per­sonam electā in Regem, & promouere ad imperium ad nos spectat, qui eum vngimus & consecramus. Carerius ibid. cap. 18. The Pope himselfe saith of himselfe, that the right and authority of examining the person elected (saith he) to be a King or Emperour belongeth to vs, who doe anoint and consecrate him. What will you prooue by this? Et cum vacat potestas temporalis, in Administratione Papa succedit: sic enim va. cante imperio concludit Innoc. Abb. & Felin. & est casus Clem. Past. in sin. de re Ind. In euery vacancie of tem­porall States the Pope is Successour in the gouernment. What yet more? Quinimò de causa vel dubio aliquo inter Imperatorem & Pontificem, Papa erit Iudex competens; imò de causa vel dubio inter Papam & Imperatorē cognoscat Papa. Clement. Rom. §. Caeterùm de iur [...]iurand. Carer. lib. 2. de Potest Rom. cap. 16. That when there ariseth any doubt betwixt the Emperour and a Prince, the Pope is a competent Iudge; yea, when there is a cause or doubt betwixt the Pope and Emperour, the Pope himselfe is Iudge.

The Answer.

You know the fable: If the wolfe may iudge the sheep in the cause of troubling the water, the wolfe wil be the guilty, but the sheepe shal be the condemned. But that you say [The Emperour is not without the approbation of the Pope,] is false: And your Consequents, [Ergo the Pope doth succeed in va­cancy; Ergo he may depose] are both friuolous and preiudici­ous to your owne cause. To the Antecedent: your Bishop Lupoldus hath satisfied long sithence, saying: Electus in Regem aut Imperatorem post electio­nem Princi­pum concor­dem, vel ex maiore parte ipsorum de se factā, à Papa vel ab Eccle­sia Romana nominationē vel personae approbationem petere & recipere non tenetur. Lupoldus Epise. Bubenburg. lib. de Iure Regni & Imperij Rom. cap. 8. in initio. That hee that is chosen Emperour by the consent of the greater part of E­lectours, needeth not either seeke or receiue any approbation of the Pope. This doth your other learned bishop Rationes, quibus euincitur ex sola electione aliquem verum & legitimum Imperatorem nec confirmatione Pontificis indigere, probatur ex constitutione Ludouici Baiuari Imperato: is de Imperij iuribus & excel­lentia: qui legem sanciuit, promulgauitque, in qua haec ad verbum habentur [Quia nonnulli auaritiae & ambitionis coecitate ducti, diuertentes à tramite recti sensus in quaedam praua commenta, & assertiones detestabiles prorumpant, FALLACI­TER asserentes Imperialem potestatem esse à Papa, electum (que) in Imperatorem non esse verum Imperatorem, nec Regem, nisi priùs per Papam confirmetur, approbetur, coronetur: per huiusmodi praua dogmata Serpens antiquus SEDITIONES pro­curat. Ideò ad tantum malum eui. tandum de consilio & CONSENSV ELECTO­RVM & a­liorum P [...]n­cipum Impe­ [...] declara­mus, IMPE­RIALE [...] di­gnitatem & potestatem à SOLO DEO pendere; nec postquam electio si [...] Pontificis consensu indigere qui [...]unque contra hoc decretum aliquod ASS [...]ERE aut asserentibus consentire praesumpserint, eos omnibus fe [...] ­dis & priuilegi [...]s, quae ab imperio detin [...]t, PRIVAMVS & ipso [...]ure & facto decer­nimus esse p [...]tos. Iusuper cos CRIMEN LA [...]SAE MAIESTATIS incurrisse, & poe [...]s omnibus impositis cumen laesae maiestaus committentibus subracere. H [...]c omnia [...] us Ep [...]sc. G [...]ce [...]s lib. de Coronat. ad C [...]r [...]m 5. Imperat § Rationes &c. & Constitutio. &c. Balbus by [Page 33] many arguments determine, and to this end produceth A publicke decree of the Emperour Lodouicke, by the consent of all the Electours: Ad [...]ging All such as deny the imperiali digni­ty to depend only of God, as not needing the Popes confirmation, to be seditious, and presently they that deny it, and whosoeuer con­senteth vnto th [...], to be reputed as guilty of high Treason, and to incurre all the p [...]s due to so great a guilt We proceed now to your consequent: and first shew the noueltie of your claime. Veruntamen qu [...]cunque ratione ad Pontificatum pate­ret ingress [...]s, nemo Apostoli [...]ae cymbae gubernacula capescebat nisi priùs Imperato­ris autoritas intercessisser, vt cap. Adrianus in Syn. 30. Dist. Mos e [...]m apud veteres inu [...]l [...]erat longo annorum decursu obseruatus, vt Cleritus populusque Romanus Pontificem eligeret; quo designato in▪ Imperatoris manu erat eius electionem ratam initam (que) habere. Cap. Agatho. Dist. 63. [...] vt collubitum fuerat, aut eum admittere approbareque, aut [...] reiecto atque exploso alium subrogare: Durauitque is mos vsque ad Adrianum, anno salutis 815; qui tanti a [...]mi fuit, vt initio Pontificatus su [...], ad senatum populumque Romanum retulerit, ne [...] creando Pontifice Imperatoris autoritas expectaretur, vtque libera essent cleri populi [...]; Romara suffragia. Sed huic edicto minimè fuit obtemperatum, permansitque VETVS illa consu [...]tudo Ponti­ficis [...] Imperatore confirmand [...], vse ne ad Gregor. 9. qu [...] praefuit Pontificatui anno Christi 1072. quem Gregor. (vt a [...] Pla [...]) in Pontificem Romanum confirmauit, vt tunc tempo is mos erat. NVNC AVTEM NOVA RERVM FACIES fortuna immurata est [...] contra [...] eflante: C [...] legum interpretes hanc (vt put [...]t) Imperij calamitatem deplora [...]e non desinunt, & causantur ASIV potius DO­LOQVE, quam ex aequo bonoque tam certa diuturna [...]ue [...] Caesares ami­sisle ex longa Impe [...]j vacatione; non enim potentià prudentia [...]u. Summorum Pon­tificum tantum decoris esle ademptum. Haec ille, qui mutationem non [...], [...]u­sa [...] tripl [...] asserit. Vel Imperatores priuile▪ [...]te à se abdi [...]sse, vel ex abusu perdidisse, vel ad extremum cessante causà p [...]g [...], è v [...]o p [...] euanuisle. Haec, inquam, Balbus Episc. lib. de Coronat. ad C [...]r [...]nt 5. Imperatorem. §. Quomodò olim. For (as the same your author witnesseth) It was an ancient custome and of long continuance, and till Adrian the Pope in the yeare of Christ 815. without contradiction, that the Emperour did confirme the election of the Pope, that none could be Pope without the approbation of the Emperour: which custome [Page 34] after the death of Adrian was inforce, till Pope Gregory the 9. which was in the yeare 1072. But now we see a new and contra­ry countenance of the state of Christendome, which the Lawiers deplore as miserable, and complaine that the Emperour lost his priuiledge by cosenage and deceit. &c. How it was we leaue the case to be disputed among your Romists: that heere is a change of Antiquity it is not denied, either by your Balbus, or Aliquan­do saecularis Principis, vt Imperatores & alij, Pon­tificem elige­bant, vt pa­tet Cap. A­drianus. & cap. Agatho. Quae priuile­gia durabant vsque ad tem­pora Adriani Secundi. Ca­rerius lib. 1. de potest. Pont. cap. 17. Carerius, or any other. Hence we argue.

That if power of approbation of the election of the Em­perour do conferre a temporall authority Emperiall vpon the Pope, then when the Pope was confirmed by Empe­rours there was in the Emperour a spirituall authority ouer the Pope: if you will deny our latter consequent, then you teach vs to deny your former.

CHAP. XIIII.

Their third Argument from a presumed danger.

The Romish Pretence.

The Apolo­gie and Defence of the English Catholicks. cap. 5. EXcept there were a way of deposing Apostate Princes, God had not prouided sufficiently for his Church.

The Answer.

This obiection is in your Non vide­retur Domi­nus satis dis­cretus fuisse, vt cùm reue­rentia eius di­cam, Extra­uag. Com de Maior. & Obedient. §. Vnam sanctam. Extrauagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth Extra without the bonds of Gods ordinance, beside the presidence of primitiue example, be­yond the compasse of your owne allowance.

First from Gods ordinance. An igitur, inquiunt, nunquam Principibus resistere liceat? huic quaestioni non corrupto & temerario carnis nostrae iudicio, cui frequentèr recta sunt, quae coram Deo stultissima & impia reputantur; sed ea diu nis literis, quae nemini blandiuntur, respondendum esse puto. Nam vt­cunque verisimilitèr nobis humanitùs ratiocinari videmur, naturali iure nobis lici­tum esse nos nostraque defendere: Diuina tamen Lexid contra sublimiorem pote­statem armis fierivetat: quemadmodum Christus Dominus Petro volenti Dominum defendere, dixit [Conuerte gladium tuum in vaginam tuam, omnes enim qui gladi­um acceperint gladio peribunt] Non enim subditi contra Potestatem, sed potestas contra subditos gladium diuinitùs accepit. Cunerus lib. de Offic. Princ. cap. 7. For by the word of God (as [Page 35] your Cunerus diuinely reasoneth) which is not partiall, and not by the selfe-pleasing fancy of sensuall affection must this questi­on bee determined. Though therefore it may seeme to vs a decree of nature for euery one to defend himselfe and the things he doth enioy; yet the law of God doth forbid to doe this by taking armes against the higher powers: as our L. Christ taught his Disciple now about to defend his Master, [Put vp thy sword, for he that smiteth with the sword, shall perish with the sword.] Because the sword is not put into the hands of Subiects a­gainst their Kings, but into the hands of Kings against Sub­iects. Accordingly S. Augustine doth conclude. Omnes gla­dio diuim iu­dicij pe [...]itu­ti sunt, qui contra Prin­cipis volunta­tem glad [...] assumunt: i­deoque sim­plicitèr & ge­neratim ab Apostolo di­ctu est, [Qiu potestan resi­stit, Dei ordi­natio [...] resi­stit; qui autē resistunt, ipsi sibi damnau­onem acqui­runt.] [...]t alibi. Those who beare the sword (saith he) against rulers, must perish: there­fore the Apostle speak Non defen­dētes vosmet, charissimi, sed date locum i­rae, scriptum est enim, Mi­hi vindicta & ego retribuā, dicit Domi­nus: Noli vin­ci à malo, sed vince bono malum. Aug. lib. 2. cont. Fau­sium. cap. 73. th generally, [ Rom. 13. He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.] And againe [ Rom. 11. not defending your selues, (my Dearest) but giue place to wrath (of the Gouer­nour) for it is written, vengeance is mine, (therefore no reuen­ging power ouer Kings) and I will reuenge, saith the Lord: be not ouercome of euill, but ouercome euill with good.]

The second is the consideration of examples of the pri­mitiue Church, when for the space of 300. yeares, it was in grieuous persecution: where (as S. Paul speaketh) the faith­full Rom. 12. 19. fought with beasts after the manner of men: namely, (as some doe allegorize) with men as sauage as beasts; and there was found no power on earth to restraine that earthly power. Was therefore God awanting to his Church? God forbid. Nay rather he was not awanting, for it is written, 1. Cor. 15. 32. Vertue is perfected in infirmity. And againe, 2. Cor. 12. 9. As gold is pur­gedin the fire, So by affliction &c. Because, 2. Cor. 22. When the outward man suffereth the inward man is renued: And 2. Cor. 12. When I am weake, then am I strong. As therefore the wisedome of the Artist is then present with the gold, when he is refining it; the Physician with his Patient when he woundeth to cure him: So whensoeuer the three faithfull be in the fiery fur­nace Dan. 3. 25. Behold a fourth, that is, a diuine succourer either by the inward miracle of comfort in patience, or the outward of deliuerance.

The third is the view of your owne Popish Principles, [Page 36] which is this: Pontisex non potest vl­lo modo [...]u­dicari in ter­ris ab vllo Principe sae­culari, siuè Ecclesiastico, neque ab om­nibus simul in Concilio congregatis. Bellar lib. 2. de Rom. Pon­tif. cap. 26. That the Pope (saith Bellarmine) may not be iudged of any person vpon earth, whether secular or Ecclesiasti­call, no not of a generall councell: Etsi Papa contra vni­uersalem Ec­clesiae statum aliquid age­ret, non possit tamen à Concilio depo [...]i. Carerius lib. 1. de potest. Pont cap. 23. num. 12. Nether may be (saith your Carerius) be deposed, though he should do something contrary to the vniuersall state of the Church, Quaeres quid si [...] se Pontifex Canones legesque [...]ura negligat, delicta im [...] relinquat, innocentes opprimat, res Ecclesiae dissi e [...] ▪ Regu [...]. iura pe [...]tat? Respon­deo Rom. Pontificem nulli Princi [...]um in terris [...]e, à nullo nisi à Deo iud [...]: pro eo orandum &c. A [...]. Ies. Instit. lib. 5. cap. 14. E [...] Autores sibi Suffragantes pluri­mos adducit. As for example (saith your Azorius) though hee should neglect the Canons of the Church, spare offenders, oppresse Innocents, make a pray of the goods of the Church, and violate the lawes of Kings: yet is he not to be iudged of any but God. Dist. 40. Si Papa offecit tibi. & alus omnibus nihilo [...]us innumera­biles populos cat [...]m secu [...]n du [...] man [...] [...]o Gehennae, huius culpas redar­guere praesumet nemo mortalium. [...]ritur in Calend. Martyrum. Not though (saith your Pope himselfe, one placed in the Calends of your Mar­tyrs) hee should cary many people with himselfe to hell: yet no mortall creature may presume to say, why do you so? Heere is a desperate disease, wherein you will not suffer so much as practise of Phlebotomy, much lesse an incision or exustion. And yet in like case against the secular state obiect Gods prouidence: said I like? O no, farre different!

The difference of Kings and Popes in this point.

The Papall power will be thought spirituall; and thus be­ing euill, may be the baine of soules, the power of Princes is but corporall, Matth. 20. 28 [Therefore [...]are them not] because they can goe no further then the body. Now the bodilie tyrannie worketh in the godly, patience, patience supports martyr­dome, martyrdome gaineth a crowne of life: Therefore this euill with patience may happily be indured; but the spirituall tyranny doth captiuate the inward soule, the sou [...]c commands the senses, these practise sinne, and the stipend of sinne is death, euen the euerliuing death of hell. There­fore heere is need (according to Gods prouidence) of pow­er [Page 37] to depose so desperate a spirituall euill, whereof it is writ­ten: Matth. 5. 13. If the salt want his salinesse, it is good for nothing, but to to be cast vpon the Dunghill. Marke then concerning the spi­rituall that God hath ordeined, Eijciatur foras, cast out: con­cerning the temporall, Rom. 1 [...]. Resist not the powers.

CHAP. XV.

The Arguments of Protestants a­gainst the pretended Papall power ouer Kings from

  • 1. Scripture,
  • 2. Fathers,
  • 3. Reasons.

1. Scriptures. In the Old Testament.

IT is granted vs for the old Testament that Supra cap. 1. & 3. & 5. Priests were subiect to their Kings; and the necessity of due subiection to wicked Kings, we haue exemplified in Supra cap. 4. Dauid the mirror of all perfect loyalty: which case is made more liuely by the Answer to the example of Supra cap. 5. Eliah.

Scriptures. In the New Testament. Of many one shall suffice.

Rom. 13. Rom. 13. 1. [Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers:] If you doubt what power this is to whom subiection is due; looke what he hath in his hand, vers. 4. He beareth not the sword for naught: It is a sword therefore power temporall, if from whom this is due, it appeareth, vers. 1. Euery soule be subiect, all other conditions of reasonable men: If why? this is expres­sed, vers. 1. For the power is ordained of God. The point in question is concerning the Subiect: The Romish seeke two enasions to free their Pope from subiection.

The Romish pretence.

Obijciunt Protestantes ex hoc loco, concludunt etiam Pontifices Regibus subiectos esse debere. Respondeo negando consequ [...], quia alia est ratio Principum infidelium, alia Christianorum, &c. Costerus Ies. Euchirid. Tract. de summo Pont. Obiect. 11. From this place the Protestants conclude, that therefore the Pope ought to be subiect: But I deny their consequent, for the [Page 38] Apòstle writeth of subiection to Heathen Emperours, to whom euery Christian was to submit themselues: But now that Empe­rours be Christians, they ought to acknowledge a superiour power in the spirituall Pastor the Pope.

The Replie.

This your solution doth destroy a generall maxime, con­fessed of all diuines, to wit, that (as your Acosta confesseth) Omnes fa­tentur, & est persecertu, etiamsi Bar­bari conuer­tantur ad Christū, non tamen re [...]um suarum iure excide [...]e. A­costa les. lib. 3. de Inforum sa­late. cap. 7. Insidels conuerted to Christian faith, do not therefore lose their former temporall right. Which we haue already prooued by your owne confessions, and more then ten circles of Anti­quity. We argue further now from this knowen principle; Princes by conuersion to the Gospell lose no temporall right, which they had before their conuersion: But in the state of Infidelitie we neuer reade that they could be deposed by their Pagan Priests. Ergo, this their prerogatiue may not be impaired by their obedience vnto the Gospell: nay, it is rather con­firmed thereby, euen in this text, especially in three degrees.

First, it teacheth greater Christian reuerence, because in the Prince a Christian man doth not behold only man, but the hand of God, Rom. 13. 4. He is the Minister of God. Secondly, from Christian feare: For Pagans, as hirelings, onely per­formed obedience propteriram, for feare of the temporall Sword; which man (because it is in the hand of man) might auoid by many meanes: But Christians, [Rom. 13. 2 He that resisteth purchaseth damnation,] are dutifull for feare of the eternall wrath of the iust omnipotent God. Thirdly, from Christi­an confidence, For Pagans, assoone as the King doth tyran­nize, do rebel, as though freedome corporall were their spe­ciall good: but Christians Rom. 13. 3. [Wilt thou not feare the power? doe good and thou shalt haue praise of God in suffering outward euill for well doing are confirmed in the hope of an euerla­sting good. Fourthly, from the bond of Christian loue, for Pagans by their Princes commands are naturally incli­ned to discontent and hate: but Christians [vers. 8. Loue is the ful­filling of the law] are by the law of Loue made perfect to o­bey [Page 39] the iust lawes of men. If therefore Christians would, as they ought, be subiect to the law of Christ, I suppose there is no Pagan Prince (if perswaded of this doctrine of Christ) but would more easily be a Christian.

Their second Euasion. The Romish Pretence.

Apostolus hoc in loco non restrin­g [...] personam ad Principem saeculare, sed d [...]omn. po­testate loquitur tàm spirituali quàm seculari: ita vt ex hac sententia deduci Papam subditum esse Regi, aut Regem Papae &c. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. §. Argumentum tertium. The Apostle doth not restraine his speech to any kind of su­periour power, but speaketh generally of [powers that be:] signi­fying aswell the spirituall power, as the temporall. Therefore Pro­testants may not conclude heereupon, that the Pope ought to be subiect vnto temporall Kings.

The Answer.

If we suffer the spirit of God to be our Iudge the cause is plaine, [He beareth not the sword in vaine,] he meaneth the temporall Gouernour: If we require witnesse of this truth from all antiquity, behold Apostolus docet omnes credentes mundi pote­staubus esse subiectos: [Omnis ani­ma,] Id est (Chrysosto­mus ait) siuè Propheta, fi­uè Apostolus, fiuè Episco­pus, subditus sit: sequitur Chrysosto­mum Euthy­mius, Theod. The [...] hylact. Oecumen. & qui non Graeci? Idem Gregorius Magnus agnoseebat. & Bernardus ad Episcopum Senonensem idem colligit, [Omnis ani­ma] tum vestra, inquit, quis vos excipit? si quis tentat excipere, tentat decipere. Espentans Epis. Comm. in 1. Tim. D [...]gress. lib. 2. S. Chrysostome (saith your own Bishop, and that truly) doth vnderstand by (euery soule) that euery Apostle, euery Prophet, and euery Bishop ought to be sub­iect: To whom doe other ancient Fathers, as Euthym. Theod. Theoph. Oecumen. and all the Greeke Doctors agree. Yea Gre­gory surnamed the Great, Bishop of Rome, doth so likewise ex­pound it: and S. Bernard in his Epistle to a Bishop said th [...] (Euery soule) saith the Apostle: then must you also (speaking the bishop of Senona) be subiect, he that shall offer to exempt you, shall but offer to tempt and delude you.

CHAP. XVI.

Arguments of Protestants from Antiquitie.

HE that is Alpha and Omega, first for Antiquity, and last for Eternity, Christ our Sauiour (by the confessi­on of your grand Bellarm. vide supra. cap. 7. Iesuite) as he was man and the Messias, had no power temporall on this earth.

Secondly, S. Peter and the other Apostles (as is also con­fessed by your most vehement Carerius & Sanderus vide cap. 7. Aduocates in their plea for Papall hierarchie) were all subiect to the temporall States.

Thirdly, all ancient holy Popes, Martyrs, Fathers, (as is Vide supra cap 9. & de­inceps. commonly granted) yea when they had force to resist the violence of Tyrants, Heretickes, and Apostates; did per­forme subiection to temporall gouernment, as the ordi­nance of God, Vide supra cap. 9. Tertullian saying, If we would be reuenged we could not want force: Ibidem. cap. 9. S. Cyprian, We doe not resist, although our number be great: S. Ibidem. cap. 9. Nazianzene, Not though the people be prone to resist you: S. Ibidem. cap. 9. Ambrose, Not when the people are present and offer a defence: S. Ibidem. cap. 9. Augustine yeelding the cause, Because Christian subiection is to be performed in loue, and not in feare or by constraint. A doctrine for those times, namely, the first 600. yeares in generall vse, saith your Vide supra cap. 10. Bellarmine: And continued after Christ the space of 1000 yeares saith your Ibidem. Be [...]la [...]s: neuer changed till the yeare 1060. saith your Supra ca. 11. Tolossanus, Friburgens. Espencaeus and others. And shall we dare to remooue Deut. 27. 17. The ancient Land-markes of our fore­fathers?

CHAP. XVII.

Other Proofs of Protestants from Antiquity in two most Chri­stian and potent Nations: England, and France.

THat this soueraignity of his Maiesty (whereunto, not­withstanding all Papall iurisdiction, we doe willingly [Page 41] subscribe) may be knowen to be as anciently as earnestly challenged, I will only point at some few heads of examples of our ancient Christian Kings, which Sir Edward Cooke, his Maiesties Attorney generall, in his alwaies reportable and memorable Reports hath lately published.

Reports. part. 1. fol. 12. In the raigne of K. Edward the first, a Subiect brought in a 1 Bull of excommunication against another Subiect of this realme, and published it: But it was answered that this was then, accor­ding to the ancient lawes of England, Treason against the King; the Offendor had beene drawen and hanged, but that by the mer­cy of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme. Compare this Bull, which did only push at a Subiect against his benefice, with that Bull which more mankeen goareth Kings, to giue them their mortall wound. At the same time The Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the prouince of Yorke; the King presented another: the Arch-bishop refuseth the Kings presentation, and yeelded to the Popes prouision. This Arch-bishop then by the common law of the land was depriued of the lands of his whole Bishoprick during life.

Reports. fol. 15. In the raigne of King Edward the third, the King presen­ted 2 to a Benefice, and his Presentee was disturbed by one, who had obtained Buls from Rome, for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment. Compare this Bull of disturbing onely the Present of Kings with that which doth ordinarily violate the Kings person.

Fol. 21. In the raigne of Richard the second it was declared in the 3 Parliament [R. 2. cap. 2.] that England had alwaies beene f [...]ce, and in subiection to no Realme, but immediatly subiect to God and to none other: and that the same ought not in any thing, tou­ching the regality of the crowne, to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome, nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his plea­sure. Compare this English King immediately not subiect to the Pope, and the aboue mentioned Iesu [...]ticall principle, Supra. All Kings are indirectly subiect to Popes.

Fol. 23. In the raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed 4 that Excommunication made by the Pope is of no force in En­gland. Compare this Of no force in England, with those ex­communications [Page 42] which in these later times haue been made Supra. against England.

Fol. 26. In the raigne of King Edward the fourth, the opinion of the 5 Kings bench was, that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue ano­ther spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall, where hee might haue remedy before his Ordinary within the Realme, did incurre the danger of premunire, being an hainous offence against the honour of the King his crowne and dignity. Compare this with their Acts, who haue made no other sute at Rome, but meanes to dispossesse English Kings of their crowne and dignity. Many other examples of like nature I pretermit, and remit the Reader desirous to be further satis­fied to the booke of Reports, Habet enim ille quod det, & dat nemo largius. The conclusion is, that that challenge of So­ueraigntie which was in opposition to the Popes Buls, anci­ent right and iustice in Kings which were predecessours, be not traduced now as an irreligious impiety, in the successors. The like might be spoken of France, but I hasten to the last Argument, presuming that my studious Reader perusing the French stories will ease me of that trauell.

CHAP. XVIII.

The last Argument of Protestants from Reason.

IT will be sufficient onely summarily to recapitulate the Arguments dispersed in this former Treatise.

The first Reason was long since Christened: for The Apo­stles (saith your Supra cap. 7. Sanders) did chuse rather to suffer euill, than to reuenge: wherein they were seconded by other heroicall Martyrs of Christ, Who thought (saith your Supra cap. 8. Tolossanus) their faith glorified in this, that being persecuted, yet they perfor­med obedience. Questionlesse they had some reason heereof: One is specified by S. Cyprian, Ibidem. Christians must be Preachers of the supernaturall vertue patience, and not of vengeance.

Another by S. Augustine, that Ibidem. Induring the misery of this life, they may auouch their hope of a life eternall. And lastly by [Page 43] Arnobius, Heereby to make distinction of Christian obedience, from that other of Pagans: that whereas these yeeld onelie obedience proceeding from feare of man, ours should appeare to be from Conscience towards God.

The second Reason is politicke, which is that of your Supra cap. 6. Vi­ctoria, that the Clergy be members of the common-wealth: Ergo, they ought to be subiect vnto the state temporall. I will adde another of this kind which wee borrowed from your Acosta, shewing that licence of deposing Kings, is an Supr. cap. 10. occasion of much spoiles and bloudshed.

The third Reason is violent inforcing you by your owne confessions to grant our conclusion; your confessions be of two kinds; first, Bellarmine and all Iesuits. vide supra. The Pope hath not temporall Soueraignty ouer Kings directly, but onely indirectly, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, that is, as the temporall doth necessarily helpe or ad­uance the spirituall good of the Church. But Quia seque­retur hinc, quòd nec Rex directè Do­minus esset in tēporalibus, quia cuilibet Regi compe­tit dominium in ordine ad spiritualia, vt ad iustitiam administran­dam. Carerius lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. n. 13. So you may as well say (saith your Carerius) that a King hath not iurisdiction temporall, but only indirectly; because his authority doth intend a spirituall good, a [...] namely preseruation of iustice in a common-wealth. And he saith truely as may be confirmed by Saint Augustine. Alitèr ser­uiunt Reges, quia homines sunt, aliter quia Reges; quia homines sunt, Deo ser­uiunt rectè vi­uendo; vt Re­ges sunt in re­gno suo bona iubendo mal áque prohibendo, non solùm quae pertinent ad huma­nam societatem, verum-etiam quae ad Diuinam religionem conseruandam condu­cunt leges sanciendo. Augustinus supra. A king as a man (saith he) doth serue God by his owne good life; as a King, by gouerning other mens liues, to see that they doe that which is good: It is his office not only to ordaine lawes for the preseruation of the politicke peace, but also to establish true religion. From hence I conclude: that if this your distin­ction be good The Pope hath temporall iurisdiction ouer Kings to depose them, indirectly: that is, as far foorth as may be be­hooffull for Religion: then must you grant that Kings haue iurisdiction temporall onely indirectly, because their Of­fice also is ordained of God [in ordine ad Deum] as a minister of God for defence of his Church. If your position be false, then hath not your Pope that power ouer Princes, no not indirectly.

The second Confession I take from Carerius, your most [Page 44] importunate, and most impudent magnifier of Papall au­thority, that (excepting your Bozius) we can reade of. This Carerius reasoneth thus: Donatio Constantini vel vera [...]uit vel falsa; si ve­ra, vt veri Ca­tholici consi­tentur, [...]m constat quo iure (quasi di­xerit Papali) Principes I­tal [...]am caete­rasque partes occidentales possideant: si verò est falsa, quânam au­toritate Za­charias pri­mus Pipino petenti Reg­num Franciae confirmauit? Cur Leo ter­tius Carolum Magnum Im­peratorem constituit? cur Alexand. 6. orbem ter­rarum parti­tus, insulas (que) noui orbis Arragonum Regi einsque haeredibus donauit, vt ex eius diploma­te patet? Ca­rerius lib. 2. de Donat. Constant. cap. 21. num. 14. The Donation of Constantine to the Pope (whereby the possession of all the kingdoms in Europe were bestowed vpon the Pope) was either true or false; if true, then the Princes of the West parts hold their thrones by the Popes authority: if false, then had Pope Zachary no authority to con­firm K. Pepin of France, nor Leo the third to constitute Emperor Charles the great &c. This your Doctor giueth vs this ante­cedent proposition. If the pretended Donation of Constantine to the Pope be counterset, then hath not the Pope authority to di­spose of these Kingdomes. But, Canus vide supra. That pretended donation (by your owne confe [...]sion) is fabulous: so false is it, as this is cer­taine, Balbus supra. cap. 12. That no Pope was possessed of the dominion of the city of Rome, till the yeare of our Lord 1400. Insomuch, that Anno 755. donauit Pipinus Romanis Pontificibus Exarchatum Rauennae, cum magna parte Italiae, vt Historici testantur. Bellar. lib. 3. de Pont. cap. 3. Bel­larmine can find no title of the Pope till the yeare 755. To the Dukedome of Rauenna.

The fourth from a necessary consequent, strengthened by the authority of S. Bernard, who writeth vnto Eugenius the Pope concerning this very point. His argument is; The suc­cessour of S. Peter cannot challenge anie authority as de­scending from Peter, which Peter had not in himselfe: Apo­stolis interdicitur dominatus; ergo aut tu vsurpare audi aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolus dominatum? Et paulò post: Non iure Apostolico haec tibi vendicares, ne (que) enim ille, quod non habuit, tibi dare potuit. Bernard. lib. 2. de Consider. ad Eugen. But Peter had not this temporall. Ergo, (for Eugenius did not challenge it directy essentiall to the Popedome) the Pope, by S. Bernards iudgement, may not assume any such authority either directly or indirectly.

We may conclude, that both direct scripture, torrēt of Fa­thers, and euidence of reasons do all confute this Papall V­surpation ouer Kings as a challenge meerely ambitious, fraudulent, and rebellious. Come you therefore out of Baby­lon in this point with holy Bernard, and put vpon you his [Page 45] Christian resolution: for writing to king Lewis, who was Erat ei ne­gotium cum Ludouico Crasso Rege improbo multa in De­um & homi­nes flagitia perpetrante. Barclaius lib. 5. contra Mo­narchom. cap. 5. & 6. A wicked man (saith your Barclay) multiplying most heinous crimes both against God and man: yet against the suggestions of the rebellious spirits of those times thus doth S. Bernard determine for himselfe: Si totus mundus ad­uersus me coniuraret, vt aliquid molirer ad­uersus Regū maiestatem, ego tamen timerem De­um, & ordi­natum ab eo Regem offen­dere temerè non auderē: Nec enim ig­noro vbi legerim [Si quis potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, & qui resistit &c.] Bernard. Epist. 221. ad Lodo [...]icum regem. Though all the world (saith he) should conspire against me, to moue me to practise any conspiracy against the Maiesty of the King, I would feare God, and not willinglie offend the King ordained of God: for I cannot be ignorant of that which is written, [If any resisteth the power, he resisteth the ordi­nance of God, and purchaseth to himselfe damnation. &c. Mark, S. Bernard maketh this necessity of subiection an article of Christian morality necessarily to be defended vpon danger of damnation: relying vpō a canon: what, Papall? of Si quis nostris mandatis? &c. no, but Rom. 13. Apostolicall, Si quis; If any resist regall powers, he resisteth the ordinance of God, & purcha­seth damnation. Whereby you are taught neuer to delude your soules in any such mischiefes by presumption of your good intent, as for the Catholicke cause, or, in ordine ad Deum, for that can neuer cary an order to God, which is against the ordinance of God. Who gratiously sanctifie you with that 1. Pet. 2. 17. Feare of God, which worketh Honour to your King, and glorie, through patience, to our Christian faith.

The second Member of this Third part, Which is a Confutation of the wicked doctrine of Aequiuocation.

CHAP. I.

I Am now to encounter this new-bred Hy­dra, and vglie Monster, which lurked a while in the inuisible practise of the Aequi­ [...]ocating sect; but, at length being dis­couered, is now by the Arch-priest drawen into publicke by a solemne Approbation, as it were a golden chaine, that it might heereby appeare lesse monstrous.

The Priuilege of this Treatise of Aequiuocation by their Arch-priest.

Tractatus iste valdè do­ctus, verè pi­us, & Catho­licus, certè sanctarū Scri­pturarū, Pa­trum, Docto­rum, Scho­lasticorum, & optimarū ra­tionum prae­sidijs plenissimè [...]irmat aequitatem Aequiuocationis: ideóque dignissimus est, qui ty­pis propagetur ad consolationem afflictorum, & piorum instructionem. Ita censeo, Georgius Blackwellus Archi-Presbyter Angliae, & Protonotarius Apostolicus. THis Treatise is very learned, godly, and Catholike: wherein doubtlesse the Authour doth confirme the equity of Aequiuocation by euidence of Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, School-Diuines, Canonists, and soundest reasons. A work [...] wor­thy to be published in print for the comfort of all afflicted Catho­liks, and instruction of the godly.

Thus do I iudge,
George Blackwell Arch-Priest of England,
and the Apostolicall Protonotarie.

[Page 48] All this is very semblable, for who could be more fit to commend this Aequiuocation, a piece of blacke art, than Blackewell? Who can be more willing to autorize this Ae­quiuocation, the Arch-piller of security for Romish Priests, then their Arch-priest? And from whence rather shall a man expect a priuiledge of lying, then from that place (falsly called Apostolicall) Paulus 4. Pont. Max. cum de me in consacerdo­tum suorum collegium cooptando se cogitare seriò dixerat (nihil hic sin­go) Immor­tali Deo gra­tias immor­tales egi, quòd mihi tantum mali non per­mis [...]t Chri­stus: Quid fa [...]erem Ro­mae, mentiri nescio? Espen­c [...]us Episc. epist. ante sex Tract. ad Cardinal. Castilion [...]um. where (as their owne learned Bishop saith) there is nothing but lying? Of which kind (by the assi­stance of the spirit of truth) I shall proue this Aequiuocation to be, and also the approbation thereof: shewing that not one iota in all Scripture, not one example in all Catholicke antiquity, not one shadow of reason in all the wit of naturall man can be brought for the iust proofe or colour of this Mysterie of iniquitie.

First we must vnderstand that our Aequiuocatours teach a double kind of Aequiuocation.

The first is a mentall reseruation in the mind, differing from that which I outwardly expresse, whether it be by voice or writing. Their example: The Preface in the front of the booke of Ae­quiuocation, and the Argu­ment of the booke. If a Catholicke or any o­ther person before a Magistrate shall be demanded vpon his oath, whether a Priest be in such a place, may (notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrary) without periurie securely in conscience answer no, with a secret meaning reserued in his mind, namely that he is not there so, vt (loquar enim Latinè, ne hinc Idiotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi) quis tenea­tur illud detegere.

The second is a verball Aequiuocation, whether it be vo­call, that is, vttered in the voice, or literall, that is, expressed in writing: when one word shall import two or moe diffe­rent significations: as thus, To go to fast: the word fast, whe­ther vocall or literall, doth equally signifie to abstaine from meat, and also, to make haste. By liberty of this Aequiuocati­on one merily did play vpon his friend going at dinner time to a churles house, O sir (saith he) you go to fast. But to vse the example of our Aequiuocatours; The same po­pish Treatise, [...]hap. 5. If one shall aske whe­ther [Page 49] such a stranger (this is for security of a Priest) lieth (mea­ning whether he lodge) in my house, I may answer he lieth not i [...] my house: meaning, non mentitur, and heerein I say truth.

Concerning these two kinds of Aequiuocations I make two conclusions to be manifested in this dispute.

Our first conclusion is this; Euery Aequiuocation by a mentall Reseruation is not an hidden truth, but a grosse [...]e.

The second conclusion is this; Euery Aequiuocation, (whether it be mentall or verball) if it be vsed in an oath, though it be no lie, yet is it an abhominable profanation of that sacred Institution of God; by whomsoeuer or to whom­soeuer this oath be performed.

To prooue that Aequiuocating by a mentall Reseruation is a lying falshood, we must first distinguish of falshood, lest the doubtfulnes [...]e of this word falshood, dull the vnderstanding of my religious Reader, not to per­ceiue the State of the Question.

There is a double kind of falshood in speech; The first hath respect to the thing spoken, the other to the mind of the speaker. The example of the former: If thinking it to be ten of the clocke (when it is but nine) I shall say it is ten, this is false, but not a lie: Because Nemo mē ­tiens iudican­dus est, qui dicit fal [...]um qu [...]d [...]utat [...]sse verum; quia, quan­tum in ipso est, non fallit ipse, sed falli­tu [...]: lingu [...]m enim ream non fac [...], nisi mens [...]ea, Aug [...]st. [...] [...]hirid. cap. 18. None must be iudged a liar (saith Saint Augustine) who speaketh false, thinking it to be true which he speaketh: because heerein his purpose is not to deceiue the hearer, but he is only deceiued in himselfe. The o­ther, when thinking that to be false which I speake, I affirme it to be true, (and so on the contrary) as thinking it to be ten of the clocke, shall say it is nine: thus whether it be ten, or no, I do lie: and thus sometimes a man doth lie in spea­king a truth. As the Client, who hauing in his pocket both counterfet and currant gold, intending to cozen his Coun­sellour with the woorse mettall, by chance gaue him the bet­ter, saying; Sir, I cannot be vnthankefull to any that shall [Page 50] deserue well, heere is an Angell, and so he departed a falsly true, a deceiued deceiuer, and an vnthankefully thankefull man. The first kind of false speech is against truth, as it is defined Logically, A congruity or consent of the speech with the thing: the second falshood is defined morally, as it is op­posite to truth, which is a consonancy of the speech with the vn­derstanding of the speaker, and this falsity we call properly a lie. Ille falsum loquitur con­tra scientiam, iste contra conscienti­am, & verè mentitur. August. contr. me [...]d. cap. 5. The former kind (saith S. Augustine) speaketh falslie for want of knowledge: the latter speaketh falsly against his knowledge and conscience, properly a liar. And only of this liar now we frame our dispute.

CHAP. II.

NOw we must come into the lists of this conflict, and enter vpon our Aequiuocator, to conuince him a grosse liar by manifest arguments, and to answer all his Obiections in their due order.

The first Argument from the definition of a lie.

Maior.) Whosoeuer vseth any signification of speech a­gainst his conscience, is properly a liar: (Minor) But our Aequiuocator doth vse a signification of speech directly a­gainst his conscience. Ergo, he is directly a liar. The Minor is not onely the confession, but also the profession of our Aequiuocator, as hath beene shewed. Vide supra cap. 1. If a Catholicke (saith he) shall answere, [The Priest is not in my house] contrary to his perfect knowledge. &c. And can any man of conscience deny the conclusion? Yet because we haue to deale against con­sciences Ezech. 13. 11 Dawbed vp with mortar vntempered; we adde

A confirmation of the former Argument.

Let vs consult with the principall Doctour of your more ancient schoole, as the first of all, with him, who for his excellencie obteined the name of Master, as it were the [...] of his time.

[Page 51] Mentiri est cōtra id quod animo sentit quis dicere, fiuè verū sit, siuè falsura. Lombardus l [...]b. 3. dist. 38. This is properly lying (saith he) when a manspeaketh any thing contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind.

This Doctour is seconded heerein by Aquinas, who in your opinion was not second to any in, or since his time: Veritau op­ponitur qu [...]d aliquis per verba ext [...] ­ora aliud vult significate, quàm quod hab [...]t apud se, quod ad mendacium pertinet. A­quinas 2. 2. q. III. Art. I. Mentitur quis cum verbis a­liquid signi­ficat quod non est, non autem quan­dò tac [...]t quod est. Ibid. ad 4. This is proper to a lie (saith he) when a man will signifie in out­ward words another thing then that which he thinketh in his mind. In which consideration S. Hierome about to free S. Paul from suspition of lying, who promised to the Corin­thians, to come vnto them, but did not: Cùm Pau­lus (1. Cor. vlt.) promi­ [...]it se ventu­rum ad Co­rinthios, nec tamen veniebat, culpam mendacij non contraxit, qui [...] sic animo sen­tiebat, & quantum in ipso fuit, verum dixit: ita nemo mendax, nisi qui alite [...] sentit quam dicit. Hieron. Comm. in cap. 4 in princ. Tom. 5. de 1 Cor. vlt. S. Paul (saith he) did not lie, because he purposed with his hart to doe that which he had promised with his pen: but he only is a liar, who thinketh contrary to that which he speaketh. For, Omne menda­cium falsum testimorium est dicendum, vnde est quòd Dominus monet, [Sit in ore vestro, Est est, Non non.] August. lib. de Men [...]ac. cap. 5. Euery lie (saith Saint Augustine) is that false witnesse (which is forbid in the com­mandemnet) therefore it is that our Lord Christ doth admonish euery one; [Let there not be in your speech yea & nay, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay.] This being his iudgement a­gainst, as I may so say, Sarai, a free speech: what thinke you he determineth concerning Hagar the bond-woman, that is, such a speech as is obliged by an oath? Formale in per [...]io est, putare falsum esse quod i [...] as: interest igitur quemadmodàm verbum procedat ex a­nimo, quia ream linguam non [...]acit nisirea mens. August. serm. 28. de verl i [...] Apost. Tom. 10. & recensetur hoc testimon. ab Aquinate 2▪ 2. q. 98. art. 1. ad 3. This is a formall property of periurie (saith S. Augustine) to sweare that which I thinke is false: for nothing can make a guilty tongue, but only a guilty mind. To endeuour to prooue this point by testimo­nies of all men, who maintaine it, were a labour infinit; and it may seeme also vnnecessary to confirme vnto men that which no man can deny. Now must we examine whether that we haue not by this proofe so intrapped the fox Aequi­nocatour, that he cannot find any hole whereby to escape.

The Aequiuocatour.

Treatise in initio & a [...]ibi. Though the Catholicke thinke the Priest to be in his house, [Page 52] yet may he answer, No, with a secret Reseruation in his mind, as this, Vt narremtibi. Or demanded whether I be a Priest, not­withstanding, contrary to my knowledge, I may answer, No, with a secret reseruation, Vt me detegam.

The Replie.

Suffer me Socratically to debate this point with you, and answer me friendly to these demands: Q. When be­ing asked, whether you are a Priest, you answer No, what signification hath this word No? R. It doth signifie di­rectly, I am no Priest. Q. And yet you thinke you are a Priest. R. Yea I know it: Q. Wherewith doe you know it? R. By my inward mind and vnderstanding, my conscience testifying this vnto me. Q. Can conscience beare witnesse? then can it also speake. R. It speaketh as verily to my inward soule, as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your eares. Q. When therefore I aske you whether you be a Priest, your conscience saying to your selfe, I am; would it not say the same to me likewise if I could heare it? R. Certainly it would. Q. Yet it may be your mind may demurre or varie in that which it thinketh, as namely, thinking thus, [I am a Priest] yet to be able to perswade your soule, and say, [I am no Priest.] R. Vnpossible, for this is an infallible position, Mens non potest non intelligere quod intelligit: The mind cannot possibly but thinke that which it thin­keth. Q. And it is as vnpossible but, [I am] the direct voice of your conscience, and [I am not] the expresse voice of your tongue, must be as contrary as yea and nay. R. True. Q. Then will this be as true, that when your conscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth, that your tongue speaketh, against your Conscience. Prooued in the beginning of this chapter by common consent. And this is that which we haue proued to be flat lying, a conclusion which no art of Aequiuocation can possibly auoid.

Our Aequiuocator conceiteth a double intention of the mind, the one directly respecting the signification of the words; and thus they grant that the Nay of their tongue was contrary to the yea of their vnderstanding: the second is an [Page 53] indirect intention, which is a clause of Reseruation, [Vt di­cam tibi.] Whereby they would reconcile their tongue to their mind. Whereas our Witnesses haue thus determined, that truth and falsity doth consist only in the conformity or contrariety of the signification of the words, and direct in­tention of the mind, plainely calling it a lie, When one shall speake words (saith Aquinas) which doe not signifie that which he intendeth: When he speaketh otherwise then he thinketh, saith S. Hierome: When he speaketh that which hee thinketh is false, saith S. Augustine. But the indirect intention of the spea­ker [Vtreuelem tibi] cannot alter the signification of his out­ward words, [I am no Priest] which his direct intention of conscience doth contradict, saying, [But I am a Priest.] Er­go our Aequiuocating Priest cannot possibly reconcile such a contradiction of his hart and his tongue. Wherefore we will desire S. Augustine to conclude against our Aequiuo­catours; Da mihi ali­quem qui iu­rat verū esse, quòd scit esse falsum, vide­tis ista quàm detestanda sit bellua. Aug. lib. de verbis Apost. Serm. 28. paulo post medium. Tom. 10. Whosoeuer shall sweare that which he knoweth is false, is but a detestable beast.

CHAP. III.

The second Argument from the Definition of Aequiuocation.

The Aequiuocator must speake.

The Treatise of Aequiuoca­tion, chap. 2. WE will speake with Aristotle and the Logicians spea­king of foure propositions: first mentall, only concei­ued in the minde; secondly vocall, vttered with my mouth; third­ly written (which I haue called literall;) and the fourth mixt, when we mingle some of these propositions together, when one part is expressed outwardly, as to say [I know him not:] the other part reserued in my mind, as to say, [Vt tibi significem] both ioined to­gether make vp one true proposition.

The Replie.

Dare you appeale vnto Logicke? This is the Art of all Arts, and the high Tribunall of reason and truth it selfe, [Page 54] which no man in any matter, whether it be case of humanity or diuinity can iustly refuse.

Consult therefore with the ancient Logicians, and proue (marke what scope I yeeld vnto you) that from the begin­ning of the world in the whole currant of so many thou­sand generations of mankinde, till within the compasse of these last foure hundred yeeres, and lesse, that euer any Logician, whether Infidell or Beleeuer, did allow your mixt proposition (which is partly mentall, and partly verball) or thinke it a Proposition: and I will be (which my soule vtterly detesteth) an Aequiuocator.

Yet I must not now expect impossibilities, to trie what you would proue, but shew herein what I can disproue.

The Argument.

Your proposition [I am no Priest,] mixed with your mentall reseruation, [Vt tibireuelem;] if it be true, it is so either in his simple signification, or by vertue of Aequiuocation: but it is not true in his simple signification; this you grant: nei­ther can it be true by vertue of Aequiuocation; this I prooue.

[...]. Arist. E [...]ench. lib. 1. cap. 4. Aequiuocation in word or speech (sayth the Oracle of all Logicians) is when one word or one speech doth equally signifie diuers things. As when one shall say, I am afrayd of a Dogge: this word Dogge hath a triple signification; for it signifieth aswell a fish in the sea, called a Dogge-fish, & a signe in the heauenly spheare, wherein when the Sun hath his course, we call the dayes Dogge-dayes; or as thirdly, it doth signifie mans faithfull seruant, a barking dogge. Therefore when he sayth, I feare a Dogge, whether he meaneth he is afrayd of the housholde dogge to be bit with his teeth, or to be drowned, and so deuoured of the Sea dogge, or to goe mad by the poisonfull influences of the Planeticall dogge: If, I say, he vnderstand any of these kinds, this his speech is true, [I am afrayd of a dogge.] But your mixt and patched proposition is not one word or speech signifying equally di­uers [Page 55] things; but contrarily (as you pretend) diuers parts of speech (one in the minde, and another in the mouth) signifying one thing: for, I am no Priest, and To tell it to the, what words can be more different? which whosoeuer shall call Aequiuocall, may be iustly suspected to be bit with the highest dogge; the position is so absurd and vnreasonable.

The Aequiuocator doth insist. His Obiection.

The Aequi­uocator chap. 3. Voices and writings are ordemed for instruments and signes to expresse a Proposition which is in the minde; therefore may I expresse all in word or all in writing, and the proposition in the minde remaineth the same. So may I by another mixt proposition expresse some part, and reserue some part in my minde. For ex­ample, If when I say [God is not] should lose presently my speech, before I could vtter the word following [vniust,] which hauing my pen in my hand, I exhibit by writing; who doubteth, but all that is but one proposition, the trueth whereof consisteth of the mixture of both parts together? So is it where one part is deli­uered with the mouth, and the other reserued in the minde.

The Replie.

It were better that both you & I should become speech­lesse and handlesse, than either in word or writing to mini­ster such a bainfull Conclusion vnto the world. But to the matter: Voices and writings (say you) are outward signes of the inward propositions of the minde. This is true: What then? And the part wanting in voice is supplied by the other word in writing. This is also true: But why? Because words and writings be mutuall signes and interpretations of the minde. This is againe most true: What can you inferre from all this? So the signification of the part outwardly expressed [I am no Priest] may be supplied with the other part of the proposition reserued in my minde [Vt tibinarrem.] I tell you this compa­rison [Page 56] is vtterly false. For the foresaid Oracle in his booke intituled, The interpretation of speech, saith, that [...]. A­rist. [...]. Euery pro­position enunciatiue (that is, euery outward speech, whether by word or writing, whether affirming or denying) is ordei­ned for signification: that is, (as you haue well said) to expresse some thing. But no mentall, or inward conceit of the minde is ordeined of God as a signe to expresse or signifie (as words and writings doe) but as a thing signified hath need to be expressed and expounded. Such is your mentall clause reserued [Vt narrem tibi.] Can you make this a signe or in­strument to expresse & signifie your true meaning, which you haue purposely deuised for a den to lurke in, lest your false meaning might be signified and reuealed? Thus haue you by your comparison of voices and writings made a strong loope whereby to strangle your selfe.

This is confirmed by S. Augustine.

Omnis E­nunciatio ad id quod enun­ciat est refe­renda. August. lib. de Menda [...]. cap. 5. At omnis E­nunciatio est vel affirmatio vel negatio a­licuius de ali­quo. Arist. 1. de Interpret. Euery speech (sayth he) whether it affirme or deny any thing, is to be referred vnto that which it doth affirme or deny. But your Negatiue, I am no Priest, can not be referred to your supposed true clause [Vt narrem tibi;] for it doth not signifie any such thing: but only to your Priesthood. In which simple signification it is (by your owne opinion) most false. A delusion notably confuted by your owne Se­raphicall Doctor, who affirmeth, that Dicitur O­ratio vera quatenus est signum intel­lectus. Aqui­nas part. 1. q. 16. art. 1. Cùm voces natural tèr signa sunt intellectuum, innaturale est & indici­um vt aliquis significet id quod mente non habet. Vndè Philosophus dicit Ethic. 4. quod mendacium est per se fugiendum. Aquinas ibidem. A speech is so farre foorth true, as it is a signe of a true vnderstanding. But your voice (you know) is contrary to your vnderstanding. And as concerning Voice, which is the signe, he addeth from Aristotle, That it is against nature to signifie any thing by words which we haue not in our minde. If then this equiuocation be vnnaturall, we haue not without reason called it a Monster. And now we will shew your vnnaturall countenance in a like example.

An example of like Sophistrie.

A presumptuous Gorgias and Sophister in Cambridge vndertooke the defence of this Probleme, Virtus est vitium, vertue is a vice: but being plunged in his answer, he fled to a reserued clause, fugere. And was not this his fugere, plain­ly your subterfugere? Therefore as any Philosopher onely hearing these words, Virtus est vitium, must necessarily call it after that name of one of the markes of Sophistrie Arist. Elench. lib. 1. cap. 2. [...], that is, A singular absurditie: so might any hearing a Priest say simply, I am no Priest, call this after the name of the second scope of Sophistrie, which is Ibidem. [...], a lie.

CHAP. IIII.

The third Argument from the description of lying.

MAior.) Nemo du­bitat mentiri eum, qui falsū dicit causâ fal­lendi. August. lib. de Menda [...]. cap. 4. & in [...]ine ca. 5. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 38. Canus loc, theol. Mendacium est verbū cùm intentione fallend [...]. Tract. de 7 peccatis. cap. 5. 4. No man can doubt (saith S. Augustine, and your whole schoole) but he lieth, which speaketh any thing which is false, with an intent to deceiue another: (The Minor) But our Aequiuocatours professe by a false speech to Creswell, Allen, Southwell, Tollet, and others. Vide supra. delude (their owne words) Protestant-examiners, Ma­gistrates, Pursuuants, and other Officers, and whosoeuer may be instruments to call their persons in question, Ergo, by their art of Aequiuocating haue they obtained a perfection of ly­ing. What can you answer?

The Aequiuocatour.

Treatise of Aequiuoc. quo supra. This speech [I am no Priest] is not false, being mixed with that clause which is vnderstood [Vt tibi significem.]

The Answer.

I haue already prooued from the iudgement of S. Hie­rome and S. Augustine, two of the most iudicious Fathers; out of Lombard and Aquinas, the two eies of your Romish [Page 58] schoole, that wheresoeuer the speech is contrary to the know­ledge (such you haue granted your Aequiuocating to be) there the speech is false and a slat lie. Which is now further proued from the end of lying, which is, To deceiue the hea­rer: except you professe an intention to deceiue men by true speaking, and so make truth a Seducer.

The Aequiuocatour doth insist.

The Treatise of Aequiuocat. Our Aequiuocating doth not alwaies deceiue the hearer, for if a man of Couentry, a place generally infected with the plague, dwelling himselfe in a part of that city, which is free from infecti­on, and comming to London, shall be asked if he came from Co­uentry (they intending to aske him concerning a place infected) may answer, No: for heerein he deceiueth not the mind of the Questioner, but answereth directly to his intention.

The Replie.

If this one instance were true, yet could it not iustifie your other Aequiuocations, as that [I am no Priest:] where­by your whole purpose is to delude the intention of the ex­aminer. Sic proferre sententiam vt diuersam opi­nionem in al­terius animo generes: haec est intentio fallendi aliū. Tol. Ies. Instr. Sacerd. lib. vlt. de Septemper­catas cap. 54. For this is an intention to deceiue, (saith your Ie­suite) to seeke to beget a signification of your speech in the mind of your hearer, diuers to that which you conceiue your selfe.

Secondly, this your instance is false; for euery one that asketh a Question, doth intend to receiue a direct answer: and therefore his answer, [I came not from Couentry] who came from Couentrie, cannot satisfie the intention of the Examiner.

Thirdly, though it shall satisfie the remote intention of the Examiner, yet is it a lewd lie in the speaker, because he that speaketh truth hath alway a conformity betweene the intention of his mind and his speech: but to deny, He came not from that place from whence he knoweth he came, is no conformity, but infinite contrariety between his speech and his owne intention. An answer so grosly false, that a Iesuite of high esteeme in your church, writing against this spiritu­all [Page 59] iugling of his subtile lying brethren, doth confesse, Quidam pu­tant eum, qui venit ex loco aliquo peste minime infe­cto, qui falsò habetur pro infecto, posse tuta consci­entia & citra mendacuum dicere, se non venisse ex eo loco, dūmo­dò intelligat se non venis­se ex loco pe­stilenti: quod si verum est, nihil tàm fal­sum esse pos­sit, quod non queat ab om­ni mendacio libe [...]ar [...]; quia mentitur qui verba aliter accipit, quàm ipsa signifi­cant. Azor. Ies. Inst. moral. lib. 1 [...]. cap. 4. §. Primò qui­dem. That if this kind of answer (concerning a place infected with the plague &c.) be not false, then there is no speech so false, but it may be freed from falshood: because willingly to vse words in a contrary sense to that they signifie, is plaine lying. By whom you Aequiuocators may learne, that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence, yet this your aequiuocating proceedeth from minds spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying. O but you are more subtile then your Aduersaries; and so was the Gen. 3. 1. Ser­pent (the Diuels instrument) more subtile than all the beasts of the field. Yet behold one Doctor amongst you so subtile, that for that faculty he hath (by figure of excellency) beene called the subtile Doctour: who doth conclude all you Ae­quiuocatours liars, saying, Dicere [non feci] quod tamen seci, licet cùm hac mentis limitatione, [vt tibi significem] non est aequiuocatio, sed mendacium. S [...]us lib. 5. de Iust. q. 6. art. 2. To say that [I did not] that which I know I haue done, although I speake it with this limitation (or reseruation of mind) [Vt tibi significem it is not aequiuocation, but a lie. And not he alone, but euen the subtilest of all your Iesuites must be called a liar, if this your aequiuocating subtilty be not rancke lying: Quisquis fingendo alium fallere conatur, etiamsi aliquid praetereà significare velit, haud dubiè mentitur; alioqui nullum esset mendacium, quod non istà ratione possit defendi. Maldonat. Ies. Com. in Luc. vlt. vers. 28. Whosoeuer (saith he) doth in­deuour by feining to deceiue another, although he intend to sig­nifie something else, yet doubtlesse he lieth. Which kind of aequiuocating when your diuine of Cullen doth examine, he maketh his Theophilus, that is, the louer of God, to answer Philetus, that is, a louer of himselfe; to wonder at your Quis te docuit tàm bellè nugari? quis tibi periurium tam latam latebram indicauit? quâ mendacij excusatione si vti vellera, quis me ferret grauium prudentiumque virorum? siquid veri habet vulgaris isthaec interpretation, [Mentiri quasi contra mentem i [...]e] men [...]i est aliud animo sen­tire, aliud fallendi gratia significare. Genesius Theol. Doct. in lib. qui in [...]eribitur Theophi­lus de causis occultis. cap. 6. Vbi ex professo in hoc Aequiuocationis dogma vehementér inue [...]itur. Tri­fling foolerie thus contrary to the iudgement of graue and wise men, to inuent such a lurking hole and refuge for periurie. Con­cluding that It is certainly a lie, when any doth thinke one thing [Page 60] in his mind, and signifie the contrary in words, with intent to de­ceiue another. Therefore are you to be exhorted as his good Theophilus, for the loue of God, who is the truth, to re­cant this your doctrine of aequiuocating, the metropolis of lies.

CHAP. V.

The fourth Argument a Specie, or from a parti­cular kind of lying, which is Periury.

MAior.) Periurium est mendaci­um in iura­mento factū. Tollet. Ies. Tract. de sep­tem peccatis. cap. 54. Periurie (as both your now Iesuites, and also your ancient Schoole saith) is a lie made in an oth. Iuramen­tum, cui de­est veritas, est Periurium. Malden. Ies. Sum. q. 1. Art. 11. For an oath void of truth must needs be a lie. Iu [...]are quod falsum esse putas, est formale periurium. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 98. A [...]t. 1. ad 3. Because in an oath to vse such a speech as thou thinkest is false, is formally per­iurie. Anancient doctrine, for the Prophet requireth in e­uery Iurist truth; Iere. 4. Thou shalt sweare the Lord liueth in truth &c. But mentall aequiuocating is in an oath per [...]urie. Ergo simplie in it selfe without an oath it is a lie.

The Minor proued.

This is a certaine maxime in Diuinity, grounded vpon the eternall commandement of God, [Exod. 20. Thou shalt not beare false witnesse;] and expounded by his Prophet, Thou shalt sweare in truth; and confessed by your Azorius, Illud Ierem. 4. Iurabis in veritate: ad est, ad verita­tem confir­mandam, & ex veritate, vt is qui iutat non leui sed probabili ra­tione, ita esse arbitretur. A­zor. Ies. lib. 11. Moral. cap. 2. §. Quanti quaeritur. That is to sweare both for the confirmation of a truth, and so also in truth as to thinke probably that true wherunto thou art sworn. (Minor.) But our Acquiuocatours do neither sweare from truth, nor for confirmation of truth. Ergo their oath is plaine periury. A conclusion thought so iust, that your owne great Mo­ralist doth condemne all Aequiuocators heerein as periured liars; Quidam putauit fas esse cuiquam, vt vitam suam conseruet, hosti iurare, tantummodò eo sensu, quem mente intùs concipit: posse­mus enim hac ratione quiduis negare, & nihil non, absque mendacio, dicere. Azor. ibid. cap. 4. §. Primò quidem. or otherwise (saith he) there is nothing which may not [Page 61] be affirmed and denied without a lie. Yet against your concei­ued reseruation we will obiect a conceiued supposition for further confirmation of this point,

This last Minor confirmed.

Suppose that your Guido hath wrongfully impeached some man of honour, as to haue beene an Inginer and wor­ker in the Powder-vault together with Piercie and Catesbie brethren in that euill: and thus is the noble person made guilty of high treason; but after by more exact triall of cir­cumstances, it is found that the man of honour was neuer incorporate in that conspiracie, what can you answer for your G [...]? What else, but as your Garnet answered for your Tresham, I thinke he did aequiuocate? saying [The ho­nourable man was present in that vault] reseruing in his thought this clause [Quatenus vir longissimè absens, praesens esse potuit. But answer, (for we wil draw you out of that foxe hole) He swearing according to these words, [This man was one of vs Pioners,] did his words accord with his direct meaning? No: then was not his oath a veritate, from truth; But did his oath (the second propertie of a true oath) con­firme a truth? No: for it did betray an innocent; then was it not pro veritate, for truth. Therefore call you such an oath, Aequiuocation, or, Reseruation, or secret limitation, or what you will: our great grandfathers (I am sure) would haue termed it peri [...]rie, and adiudged it to the pillorie, a shame too little for so shamelesse a collusion. For seeing that Periurium grauius est homicidio ex parte peccati, e [...]si secus sit ex parte dam­ni. Sa. Ies. Aphoris. tit. Iuramentū. [...]t. 26. Per­iurie (though not in the iniurie to man, yet in it owne iniquity) is a more grieuous sinne than murder; it may be wished that men­tall aequiuocation might haue a corporall suspension; and where any of whatsoeuer profession he be, shall be found guilty of both murder and the aequiuocating clause of Re­seruation; the sinne of Reseruation, may haue a reseruati­on of punishment: that if, for the one, he hang by the neck, for the other, he may hang iointly by the tongue, as it is written, Iuxta peccatum ita erit & poenae modus.

CHAP. VI.

Our fift Argument from the principall subiects of Truth, God: and Lying, the Diuell.

1. God.

HEb. 6. 17. God willing to shew more abundantly vnto the heires of promise the stablenesse of his Counsell, bound himselfe by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it is impossible that God should lie, we might haue strong consolation &c. Heere we see the nature of a lie, Mendaci­um est malū tam intrin­secè, vt bonū reddi nullā ratione pos­sit. Vasques Ies. in Thom. disp. 53. num. 22. To be so absolutely euill in it owne nature, as (which all Diuines hold) that no­thing can make it good. Therefore so it is said, that to say it is vnpossible, that our good God, father of truth, should lie: is as much as to say, it is impossible for goodnesse to be euill, or for truth to be a [...]ie; because this is as contradictorie, as God not to be God.

Hence we argue.

Maior.) That, which God can not doe by reason of ly­ing iniquity, hath in it the iniquity of a lie. (Minor.) But your aequinocating conceit is that which for the lying ini­quity thereof God can not possibly doe. Therefore it is a godlesse and lying wickednesse.

The Minor proued.

If God by an oth of promising saluation in Christ could vse your aequiuocation, then should the Elect of God not haue any strong consolation, when God by word or oath he promiseth life, and though Rom. 8. 16. his spirit witnesseth to the spirits of his Elect, that they are the sonnes of God, and that they shall no▪ perish: yet might they suspect (which blasphe­mie [Page 63] farre be it from the hearts of his Regenerate) that it is spoken with some secret reserued clause of delusion. Rom. 3. 4. But let God be true, and euery (especially aequiuocating) man a liar, as it is written: for he who is Trueth will be iustified, when this sect continuing in this sinne must necessarily be condemned.

The principall subiect of lying is the Diuell.

Because when the voice of the Almighty had denounced death to the Transgressours, saying, Gen. 2. Eating of this fruit ye shall die: the Diuell in his instrument contradicting that trueth, sayd, Gen. 3. You shall not die at all: he is therefore truely called Ioh. 8. 44. A liar from the beginning. From whence we may argue thus.

Maior.) That can not be a doctrine of trueth, which stoppeth a mans mouth, that he can not giue the Diuell the lie. (Minor.) But admitting your aequiuocation, all man­kinde is silenced, as not able to giue the Diuell his due title of a Liar. Ergo aequiuocating is no doctrine of trueth.

The Minor proued.

For Eue, who was catechized in this trueth, God sayd that if we eat we shall die, and hearing the Diuels contrary sug­gestion, Though you eat you shall not die: might she not say to the serpent, Spirit thou liest? If she might not, then is that no lying spirit, which is father of all lies: if she might, then is your close aequiuocating a lie. Otherwise, the Diuell might haue freed himselfe as you do, saying, I sayd truely, for I did aequiuocate.

The Minor confirmed.

Though the Diuell haue plunged himselfe in Abyssum, the bottomlesse gulfe of wickednesse, as to do wickedly for loue of wickednesse: Nemo tam i [...]probus, qu [...] malit honestis rationibus quàm nequitiâ peruenire ad ad quod cupit. Cuero in Offic. Yet is there not the most desperate sin­ner [Page 64] amongst men, but if he could, he had rather by honest than by wicked meanes atchieue whatsoeuer his wicked heart lusteth after. We will borrow of you an example: The mode­rate Answe­rer in his Epi­stle to his Ma­iestie. The late in­tended conspiracie, which (as you confesse) was so hainous an impiety, that God and heauen condemne it, men and earth de­test it: Now then, what wickednesse vnder heauen would not these Conspirators haue attempted, which haue beene found guilty of so damnable a mischiefe? Yet am I persua­ded that for aduancement of their Religion they would ne­uer haue practised by powder, if they could haue preuailed with paper. All which I produce to this end, to let you vn­derstand, that if mentall aequiuocation were lawfull, and did qualifie a false speech to free it from a lie, no man instructed in that Art would or could lie; and so we should seeme to liue in an Outopia, where men shall be conuicted of most manifest aequiuocating falshood; only he shall be the liar, that giueth the conuicted the lie.

CHAP. VII.

The sixt Argument, from examples of dissimulati­on condemned by

  • 1. Scriptures,
  • 2. Fathers,
  • 3. Pagans.

1. Scripture.

ACts 5. 1. Ananias with Saphira his wife solde a possessi­on, and kept backe part of the price, his wife being of coun­sell with him; and the other part he brought and layd it downe at the Apostles feet. Then sayd Peter, Why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou should'st lie? thou hast not lied vnto men, but vnto God. When Ananias heard these words, he fell downe and gaue vp the ghost. After this came in his wife, ignorant of that which was done; and Peter sayd vnto her, Tell me, Sold you the land for so much? and she sayd, Yea, for so much: and Peter sayd, Why haue you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? and she fell downe, and yeelded vp the ghost.

[Page 65] These pretended to bring all their substance, and to ten­der it to the Apostles for the common good of the Saints, an act proper to the infancy of the Church: but they reser­ued one halfe for supply of their peculiar vses, if happily they might come to want. The woman is asked, Solde you the land but for so much? her answer is, Yea, but for so much: and yet this dissimulation is called a lie. When she answe­red, For so much, meaning but one halfe, concealing the other halfe, it was not possible but in that dissimulation your reserued clause must haue come into her minde, to thinke, But for so much: vt in commune bonum conferamus: or, vt alijs largiamur: or your owne crotchet, [Vt vobis sig­nificemus.] Let any but enter into the meditation of such a dissimulation, and he shall finde it vnpossible but some such conceit will be flittering like a butter-flie in his mind, and like one of the 1. Reg. 22. false spirits of Satan, delude his soule, as not to discerne of a lie: but S. Peter calleth it a Satanicall lie. This is the first example of lying we reade of in Christi­anity, wherein the actours by the visible vengeance of God were strucke dead suddenly and perished in their sinne, and should therefore teach you, that though you may delude man, who only iudgeth the mouth, (therefore S. Peter sayd of it, Thou hast not lied vnto men▪) yet for feare of the all-see­ing iust God, not any more thus, Act. 5. 9. To tempt the spirit of the Lord.

CHAP. VIII.

Examples out of ancient Fathers.

SAint Augustine vseth many, especially two: The first; Ecce graui morbo peri­clitatur aegro­tus; cuius vi­res ferre non possunt, si ei mors vnici & charissimi filij sui nunciaretur: quid respon­debis? quicquid dixeris, nisi vnum de tribus responderis, proindè erit ac si filium mor­tuum esse dixeris; aut enim respondebis mortuus est, a [...]t viu [...]t, a [...]t nescio; haec duo, [Viuit, &, nescio] falsa sunt, illud autem vnum verum, mortuum esse dicere. Ex quo dicetur, homicida veritas: nùm si stuprum petens impudica f [...]mina, &, te non con­sentiente, saeua amore perturbata moriatur, homicida erit ca [...]titas? August. lib. contr. Mendacium ad Consentium. cap. 18. Suppose there is a man so dangerously sicke (sayth this ho­lie [Page 66] Father) that if he should but heare of the death of his deare and only sonne, his strength cannot beare the griefe of it, but he must presently die: thou knowing his child is dead, and being as­ked of him whether he be dead or aliue; what wouldest thou an­swer? Thou must either say he is dead, or he liueth, or I know not: but these two, [he liueth, and, I know not] are both false; the only true is, He is dead. But thou wilt say, then truth shall be a murtherer: why? if an impudent woman shall soliicite thy cha­stity, and thou denie, she in the rage of her passion shall shortly die: wilt thou say that chastity is a murtherer? Me thinke I heare our Aequiuocators say, what, no true answer but only he is dead? simple S. Augustine! for both of the other might haue beene made good, as either to say, I know not, inwardly vn­derstanding, [Vt narrem tibi, or, nescio calcibus, or, nescio cras] and such like: the second vi [...]it, he is aliue, might haue stood for currant, intending in the mind, [Viuit in Purgatorio, or, in coelo, or, vitam spiritualem, or, sibi, or, Deo,] and an hun­dred such qualifications & reseruatiues, both to free the an­swerer from lying, and the man from dying. Well S. Augu­stine his simplicity made him a Saint; what your double­harted subtilty may make you, I had rather you should duly consider, than I vtter.

His second example: Erat quidā Episcopus, nomine Fir­mus, [...]irmior voluntate, qui cùm esset in­terrogatus, vbi esset qui­dam, quem ab ipsis perse­cutoribus oc­cultauerat, Apparatori­bus Impera­torijs respon­dit, se neque mentiri posse, nec homine prodere: & nè alterum è duobus face­ret, tormen­ta multa per­pessus est: quid hoc dici possit fortius aut honesti­us? August. lib. de Men­dac. cap 1 [...]. There was a certaine Bishop, by name Firme, but firmer by the constancy of his will: who being asked where the man was, whom he had hid from the hands of the persecutor; answered the seruants and officers of the Emperour thus: I (quoth he) may neither [...]e, nor yet betray my brother: and lest he should do either, he suffered many torments of these persecutors. What answer could haue beene giuen more resolute and honest than this? Thus resolueth S. Augustine euen vpon the case in question: only differing heerein, that the exam­ple which the Father propoundeth, is of a Bishop for the safetie of a Christian; the answer which our Aequiuocator teacheth is especiallie directed to lay-men for preserua­tion of Priests, viz. themselues. S. Augustine resolued that the Bishops answer was most honest: what wil our Aequiuo­cators iudge? surely their subtilty teacheth that it was most [Page 67] sottish, by ignorance of another meane of euasion, through this backdoore of Reseruation, [Vt tibi reuelem.] Therefore the Catholicke Bishop might seeme foole-hardie to expose himselfe to torments when by aequiuocation he might haue kept his knowledge as inuisible for that time, as Christ did his person by his almighty diuine power a­mongst the persecuting Iewes. But S. Augustine could not finde that passage, because it was not heard of in those daies; therefore doth resolue thus, that the answer of the godlie Bishop was honest: Scriptū est, os quod men­titur, occidit animam. Ec­cles. 1. Peruer­sissimè igitur dicitur, vt al­ter corporali­tèr viuat, al­terum spiritu­alitèr mori, homo enim non potest ni [...]i corpus occidere, De­us autem cor­pus & animā in Gehennam detrudere possit. August. lib. de Men­dac. cap. 6. Because it is written, he that lieth slaieth his owne soule: therefore it were peruersnesse to say, that one should choose to die spiritually, that another may be saued bodily: for man it is who may kill the body, but God can take body and soule and cast them both headlong into hell. Dicit ali­quis, ergonè Rahab melius fecisset, si nul­lam miseri­cordiam ho­spitibus pre­stitisset nolē ­do mentiri? Nonnè potu­it dicere, scio vbi sint, sed Deum timeo, eos prodere? posset hoc quidem dicere, si ve­ra esset Israëlita, in qua dolus non esset. Verùm illi hoc audito (inquies) illam peri­merent, domum scrutarentur: Sed numquid consequens erat vt illos etiam, quos di­ligentèr occultauerat, inuenirent? perspexerat enim cautissima foemina, & ibi eos posuerat, vbi inuen [...]ri minimè potuissent: Si tamen à suis ciuibus esset occisa, vitam istam finiendam pretiosa in conspectu Domini morte siniuisset, & erga illos eius be­neficium inane non [...]u [...]sset. Sed (inquies) quidsi eos occultatos perscrutando inue­nissent? isto [...]odo dici possit, quidsi turpissi [...]ae mulieri mentienti credere noluissent? at vbi ponimus voluntatem & potestatem Dei? A quo enim post mulieris mendaci­um custoditi sunt, ab eo potuerunt, etsi illa mentita non esset, vtique custodiri: nisi fortè obliti sumus quid Sodomitis contigit, qui Lothi hospites quaerentes, domum in quo erant inuenire non poterant. August. lib. contra Mendac. 17. But the example of Rahab (saith he) will be obiected, whether she had not done well if she had not shewed mercy vnto her guests the seruants of God, when inquisition was made by their enemies to know whe­ther they were there; She might haue said, I know where they be, but I feare God, and therefore will not tell you to betray them: thus should she haue answered if she had beene then a true Israe­lite in whom there is no guile. But you will say that then they would haue slaine her and haue sought out the strangers: doth it therefore follow that they should find them? But suppose she had lost her life, a life which must be lost, yet had her death beene right deare and pretious in the eies of God, and the benefit to her guests had not beene in vaine. You will furthermore obiect that they by this meanes might make more diligent search for her guests, and [Page 68] haue found them out; and what I pray you, if they would not haue beleeued that leud woman? Howsoeuer, who are we that we should censure or limit the power of God? For he that preserued them after by this womans lie, might haue preserued them without her lie: except we can forget his power against the Sodomites; they sought the guests of Lot, but were strucke blind, and not able to find the doore. This S. Augustine his Scio our Aequiuoca­tors turne into Nescio: they can spie out a bench-hole to hide the persecuted by her answer, [Vt tibi reuelem] which was neuer reuealed to S. Augustine, nor yet to the holy Popes of ancient time: for S. Hoc men­dacij genus perfecti viri magnoperè fugiunt, vt nè vita quidem cuiussibet per [...]orum falla­ciam defen­datur. Greg. lib. 18. Moral. in Iob. cap. 2. Gregory, and Scriptura sacra prohi­bet etiam pro alterius vita menti [...]i. In­nocentius. tit. de Vsuri [...] cap. 4. Innocentius in the same cause of preseruing the life of a brother was of the same mind. Neither is there one in all antiquity who euer knew the Nescio of your mixt proposition, no not for any cause of danger to be free from them there is no greater Tyrant than Sap. 1. a lie, which slaieth the soule.

There remaineth the third example deriued from Paga­nisme; and also other two arguments, the one deduced from comparisons, the otherfrom effects, which will fol­low in their conuenient order. In a conflict we know it is required that the Souldier be prouided as well defensiuely, to ward; as offensiuely, to impugne his Enemy. Let vs a while trie the forces of our aduersaries in

CHAP. IX.

The Obiections, which our Aequi­uocators vrge for their men­tall Reseruation from

  • Reasons,
  • Scriptures,
  • Fathers.

1. Reason.

The Treatise in the Preface. Ibid. cap. 3. §. Two others. WE will prooue our mentall Aequiuocation by natu­rall reason. Thus, If I were alone and should talke with my selfe, and say one thing, vnderstanding a thing different from that, this is not a lie. Ergo mentall aequiuocation is iust and true.

The Answer.

Of these two most diuine properties, whereby man is di­scerned from beasts, Ratio & oratio, Reason and speech: the vse of speech was not ordained for a looking glasse, whereby a man might see himselfe, but as the Vide supra. Interpreter of the mind, whereby he might be knowen of others: as the lear­ned Philosopher looking earnestly vpon a Scholar profes­sed in all arts, Loquere, inquit, vt t [...] videam: Speake, (quoth he) my friend that I may see thee. Now because there is no man of sound braines, but he knoweth before he speake, what his tongue vttereth, there can be no neede that by speech hee should interpret his owne meaning to himselfe, no more then a man may be properly said to steale his owne goods, or commit adultery with his owne wife: because both these are actions ad extra, that is, without a man, and haue relation to others then to our selues. Which is yet more apparant heerein, seeing that he cannot be said pro­perly to speake vnto himselfe, who cannot properly be said to lie to himselfe: but whosoeuer can lie to himselfe may also by speech properly deceaue himself; because a lie is descri­bed to be a false speech, to this end, Supra. To deceiue. And can any by any wilfull lie deceiue his owneselfe, as thereby be made ignorant of his owne meaning? This were to distract a man from himselfe. Therefore this naturall reason taken from the speech of man with himselfe, might best befit a pure naturall, or some person distracted; namely, such a one as being beside himselfe can best talke with himselfe.

The second Obiection from Reason. The Aequiuocator.

Vide supra. When there is a mixt proposition the two different parts make one &c.

The Answer.

This is already answered, and proued that this patch of [Page 70] mixture is no better than a new peece of cloth in an old gar­ment, Luc. 5. 36. which maketh the rent greater.

CHAP. X.

The Obiections from examples of Scriptures in the Old and New Testament.

1. From the old. The Aequiuocator.

Aequiuoc. chap. 10. THe Scripture telleth vs how Gen. 27. Iaacob told his Father Isaac that he was his eldest sonne Esau: which was not so in the sense of the Patriarch Isaac &c.

The Answer.

First, Si dixisset Iaacob [Ego sum primoge­nitus tuus] & non addidis­set [Esau] ex­cusari potuit: nunc autem non possit, quia Pater re­petens, dixit, [Tues filius meus Esau?] de industria restringens interrogatio­nem ad per­sonam Esau; respōdit Iaa­cob, [Sum,] inexcusabilis à mendacio. Caietan. Cardin. in Gen. 27. Esau (as your Cardinall Caietan saith: Haec est opinio nec paucorum nec ignobilium Doctorum. Pererius Ies. Comm. in Gen. 27. Which is also the opinion of many learned Doctors) being a proper name, which Isaac did purposely restraine to that particular person, say­ing, [Art thou my eldest sonne Esau?] Iaacob heerein is inexcu­sable from alie.

Secondly, your Aequiuocators doe prescribe the vse of this your art to be put in practise onely before a iudge, or hearer incompetent: and shall wethinke that Isaac the bles­sed Patriarch and father of the promised seede could be an vnfit and incompetent hearer of his sonne now only crauing his blessing? This Disputer therefore (to speake mildly) is incompetent; although, I must confesse, this example is very semblable to your persons, in whom we heare Iaacobs dissembling voice, but feele the rough hands of Esau, who in­tended the murder of his brother.

The second example. The Aequiuocator.

The mode­rate Answe­rer. cap. 10. Such aequiuocation did the Prophet Ieremie vse (Ier. 38. 26.) when he tooke aduice of the King.

The Answer.

You discern̄e nothing in the outward speech of this Pro­phet but a lie, falsely imagining an inward aequiuocation of thought, which no man can discerne. But your ancient ex­positour telleth vs, that In hoc ve­rū dixit Hie­remias, alias non obedi­uisset menti­endo; & hoc patet, quia hoc quod su­per dictū est, quòd Rex iu­rauit ei, quod non interfice­reteū, nec tra­deret eum in manus Prin­cipum, qui miserant eum in lacum; nec est verisimile quòd Rex iu­rasset de ali­quo, quod Hieremias nō petiuisset. Ly­ra [...] in Ier. The very outward speech of Ieremy was true, as may appeare, (saith he) in that the King swore vnto him, that he would not kill him, nor deliuer him ouer into the hands of those Princes. Neither is it probable that the King did grant any thing to Ieremy which he did not require. Which is plaine by the 15. verse.

Againe, if we iudge the outward speech of Ieremy was false, yet is it not written for our imitation, but for directi­on, that (as S. Augustine doth obserue in the like examples) Casus maiorum sit cautio minorum: the faults and slidings of the stronger might be warnings to the weaker. According to the wisedome of the holy Ghost in S. Paul, saying, 1. Cor. 10. 12. Let him that standeth t [...]ke heed lest he fall. Howsoeuer, for your glosse of mentall resernation; shew vs but one Father whe­ther Greeke or Latine; one Pope, whether Catholicke or Antichristian; one Author, whether learned or vnlearned, who did euer so fancie. But now you shall receiue

A generall Answer to all examples of the old Testament, wherein there may be any scarres of infirmities: from Saint Augustine.

Haec quidē in Scriptures sanctis legi­mus, non i­deò tamen, quia facta credimus, facienda credamus, ne violemus praecepta, dùm passim sectamur exempla. An verò quia iurauit Dauid se occisur um esse Nabal, & clementi consideratione non fecit, proptereà illum imitandum esse dicemus: vt temerè iuremus nos esse facturos, quod non faciendum esse posteà videamus? Imò sicut Lothum, cùm volu [...] filias suas prostituere, ita Dauidem cum temerè turabat, ira turbabat. Aug lib. cont. Mendac. cap. 9. We reade of such kind of examples in holy writ, not that, be­cause we beleeue they were done, we should therefore beleeue they may lawfully be done; lest when we would imitate examples of men, we transgresse the precepts of God. This Answer doth S. [Page 72] Augustine vse against the Heretickes of his time, called Pri­s [...]lli [...]ists, who defended lying by the same examples where­by you would defend Aequiuocating, yet not so modestly, (I confesse) as you doe: for they maintained openly lying in his proper name; you couertly vnder an adopted name of Aequiuocation, an euident argument that those Heretickes, whose best refuge was lying, either by ignorance knew not your aequiuocating crotchet, or according to the common language of Diuinity in those times, called it by his proper name, lying. And yet your booke for aequiuocating must be intituled, A Treatise forsooth against lying.

CHAP. XI.

Examples out of the new Testament obiected.

The principall be foure. The first Example. The Aequiuocator.

The Treatise cap. 4. THe infallible Verity saith to his Disciples, (Ioh. 11.) [All things which I haue heard of my Father haue I manife­sted vnto you:] Yet in the chapter following affirmeth, that he had many things to say vnto them, but they were not able to beare them away then. Therefore must the first proposition be vnder­stood according to his meaning reserued. Ibid. paulò post. Aequiuocation there­fore is euidently conuinced out of thi [...] speech of our Sauiour, who is infallible truth.

The Answer.

I answer (with S. Augustine) that Agit suas partes infir­mitas: sed vt esse sibi adul­terandum nemo discat à castitate; cuiquam nocendum esse nemo discat à benignita­te; & esse mentiendum discamus a veritate? August. cont. Mend. cap. 1 [...]. Now mans infirmity plaies her part: but know that no man learneth of christity to be adulterous, or of godlinesse to be impious, or of bounty to be iniu­rious; [Page 73] and shall we learne of truth to be liers, and periurious? God forbid! Touching the text, your owne Bishop Ianseni­us answering this obiection, saith, that Obseruan­dum est tales propositiones esse limitan­das ad status, loci, tempo­ris, conditio­nis circum­stantias; alio­qui falsae es­sent: vt illa, Quodcun (que) petieritis Pa­trem in no­mine meo, dabit vobis, id est, quae­cun (que) pro cō ­ditione vestra expediūt, &c. Iansen. Concord. in Ioh. 15. & 16 These kinds of spee­ches, and all such are to be expounded according to the circumstan­ces either of state, place, time, or condition of the persons speaking, or to whom they were spoken: as namely that, Whatsoeuer you aske my Father in my name he will giue you; what any thing ab­solutely? nay, but vpon condition it be expedient for you. So heere, Christ saying, I haue manifested all things, it is expoun­ded by the circumstance of the present state; signifying, All that appertaine vnto you to be knowen. So then heere is no concealed sense to deceiue the hearer, but it is euident by circumstance of speech. Whereby you may perceiue, that not that infallible Verity, but your owne infirmity and vanity hath deceiued you: in so peruerting the truth to patronize your lie.

The second place obiected. The Aequiuocator.

Aequiuoc. Treatise. chap. 4. Our Sauiour said to his Disciples, that he himselfe knew not the day of iudgement, but his father only: which by consent of holy Fathers is to bee vnderstood, that hee knew it not [vt significaret eis.] Thus Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophilus, and Basil expound it. And Garnet at his arraingment obiected S. Augustine, and wholly depended vpon his iudgement in the same exposition.

The Answer.

It will not be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of [...]Multi vete­res Patres A­thanas. Greg. Nazian. The­od. Cyrillus, Autor operis imperfect. in Matth. docu­erunt Christum quatenus hominem diem iudicij ignorâsse. Maldon [...]. Ies. Comm. Fathers, Who were many (saith your Maldonate) expounding this text thus; that Christ, as he was man knew not the daie and houre &c. but the question is, whether the former expositi­on of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mentall equi­uocation. And because Garnet did select onely S. Augu­stine [Page 74] of all the Fathers, we will appeale to S. Augustine for answer to them all. By whose testimony it doth appeare, that when our Sauiour said, I know not the daie, signifying, [vt di­cam vobis;] this clause whereby he meant to conceale the time, was not concealed from them; who though they were by the sense of the speech held in ignorance not to know the day, yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speech, which was, I may not let you know it. For he maketh the sense of the word Nescio, I know it not, to be a figuratiue speech, and by the emphasis of pronunciation to signifie so much to his Disciples, as you shall not know. His examples. Qemadmo­dum dicitur de Deo Deut. 13. [Tentat vos Deus ve­ster vt sciat si diligatis eū.] non vt ipse sc [...]t, quem nihil latet, sed vt scire vos faciat quantū in eius dilecti­one profece­rimus, tentari nos permit­tit. Secundam ipsam locuti­onem dicit Dominus no­ster nescire se diem & hor ā de sine seculi: quid enim potest esse, quod ipse ne­sciat? sed quia hoc vti­litèr occulta­bat Discipu­lis, nescientē se esse dixit, quia illos ne­scientes oc­cultando fa­ciebat. Secū ­dum hanc fi­guram etiam Patrem solū dixit scire di­em ipsum, quia eundem filium scire facer [...]t. Talibus locutionibus etiam abundat nostra consuetudo, cùm dicinuis laetum diem, quia nos laetos facit; & pigrum frigus, qui pigros nos facit, &c. August. de Genes. 1. contra Manich. lib. 1. cap. 22. When it is written Deut. 13. The Lord your God trieth you, that he may know whether ye loue him. These words, [That he may know] do not signifie that God may receiue knowledge, who know­eth all things before they be; but the sense is this, That he may make you to know how much you haue profited in his loue. So Christ speaking to his Disciples, saying, The Sonne of man know­eth not the day of iudgement, had this meaning, to make his Di­sciples that they should not know it. Now therefore as the peo­ple of God vnderstood the figure of the phrase, Vt sciat De­us, in his id est, vt scire vos faciat: so did his Disciples by cir­cumstance, or emphasis of Christ; speech vnderstand his Nescio, in his id est, vt vobis dicam, which is yet more perspi­cuous by that which S. Augustine doth adde; Such kind of speeches (saith this holy Father) are ordinary in the common speech of men, as when we say, It is a pleasant, or a drowsie day: signifying that the day maketh vs pleasant, or drowsie. I would desire the Reader to compare this Nescio of Christ with S. Augustines Nescio, in his Supra chap. 8. lit. [...]. former example, and hee shall easily interpret S. Augustine by S. August, to vnderstand that Nescio cannot admit a concealed sense. Now what man of common sense doth not know the sense of such speeches? plainly shewing that the Apostles did then know the sense of that Nescio, the day of iudgement, onely that they might not [Page 75] know it. Can then your vnknowen Reseruation haue appro­bation by S. Augustine? fie no: his Christian ha [...]t was [...]o di­uinely precise in this point, that the did not admit of dissi­mulation for preseruation of the glory of woman-hood, wo­mans chastity; no not for the preseruation of another mans life, no not of our owne life, no not for gaining a mans soule. And will you make him guilty of more than Hea­thenish Aequiuocation?

Secondly, consider but the vse of your imagined Reser­uation, which you prescribe to be then only requisite, when the hearer is incompetent and vnfit to vnderstand the clause reserued: but shall any imagine, that the Apostles were not fit to vnderstand (the only reason of your imagined Reseruation) that they were vnfit to know the day of iudge­ment? senselesse, for our Sauiour elsewhere saith, Act. 1. 7. It is not for you to know the times and seasons. And why was not that [vt vobis significem] at this time also seasonable for them to vnderstand? Yes doubtlesse, if that were the meaning of his wordes, they vnderstood it, and then it was no concealed reseruation; if it were not his meaning, there was no aequi­uocation.

Thirdly, the purpose of the Aequiuocator is by his secret reseruation To delude his hearer. And will you say now there­fore that Christ did aequiuocate, that is, delude and deceiue his Disciples? This were blasphemy.

Fourthly, this exposition [Vt vobis significem] is either de­riued from the circumstances of Christ his speech, whether of time, or place, or persons &c. Or else it is idlely imagi­ned, to say that the Fathers doted dreaming vpon a sense without light of some circumstance would be iniurious to reuerend Antiquity, and prooue the subuersion of your owne cause: but if the Fathers collected this by circum­stances and consequents of Christs speech, then was it not the sense concealed, except you will say S. Augustine and S. Ambrose did vnderstand better the meaning of our Sauiour then his prime, chosen, and (concerning the tenor of Christs speeches) his familiar Disciples. Lastly we will conclude [Page 76] this point by the testimony of your Genesius, who will tell you that this sense which you conceit, is not only contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense: Non susti­neamus hâc interpretati­one nitentes. quidquam nō modò contra veterum & grauissimo­rum Doctorū consensum, verum-euam contra communem sensum, quasilegem in vitam communem induce­re. Genesius in lib. qui inscribitur Theophilus, Tract. de cansis occultis. We may not suffer (saith he) those who relie vpon this interpretation to bring in (speaking of purpose against your Aequiuocation) any doctrine amongst men, which is not onely contrary to the common consent of ancient Fathers, but also common sense.

The Aequiuocator.

The mode­rate Answerer chap. 10. Our Sauior Christ in going to Luc. 24. 28. Emmaus, did faine as though he would go further. Ergo, it is lawfull to aequiuocate.

The Answer.

Graecè est, [...]; quòd hone­stius conuerti possit, & con­uenientius [prae se fere­bat:] vt qui­dam exponit. Iansenius Con­cord, in hunc locum. The Greek word (saith your Doctor) might haue been more securely and conueniently translated, as one doth it, [He made as though he would go forward:] But Aequiuocatours delight in faining: will you therfore behold your own visage? Priscilliani­stae haeretici ex hoc loco, (vt docet August. lib. ad Consentium cap. 13.) probare contendunt licere nobis ali­quandò mentiri. Maldon. Ies. in hunc locum. The Heretickes, called Priscillianists, as appeareth in S. Augustine (saith your Iesuite) from this text did labour to prooue a lie law­full. And in reading S. Augustine you shall finde, that ne­uer either Catholickes or Heretickes could discerne in your mixt proposition any thing but a lie. But to the text; the Fathers shall be our Iudges, and your Authours our wit­nesses.

First, Mendacium non est, inquit Augusti­nus, verba ambigua proferre occultandi veritatem causà, modò non fiat animo fal­lendi alium: ita fictio illa in factis vitiosa non suit, sed salutaris, qualis fuit illa Pauli cum circum cidebat Timotheum, vbi non circumcisionem tanti fecit, sed vt Iudaeus Iudaeis factus Iudaeum lucrifaceret. haec Augustinus. Nec hic Christi gestus ad fall [...]n­dos eos, sed vt hac ratione excitaret discipulorum animos ad hospitalitatis vi cut [...]. Iansen. Concord. in hunc locum. Christus figuratè sinxit se longris [...]re: qui [...] cum lo [...]s esset recessurus ascendendo in coelum, per hospitalitatem quodammodo reti [...]ebatur in terra, inquit Augustinus. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 111. art. 1. Saint Augustine (as your Bishop relateth) saith that [Page 77] Christ did seeme to go further, but not with any purpose to de­ceiue those Disciples. How then? your Aquinas will tell you. S. Augustine saith, that Christ made as though he would go fur­ther; to signifie figuratiuely, that he was ready to go into heauen, but that for a while he was in a sort retained by earthly hospita­lity. Christus, vt Greg. & Beda exponūt, no­luit discipulos istos fallere, sed postùs do­cere cos falli, [...]ocue cos er­rore liberare, qu [...] utabant illum non re­surrexisse, nec Christum esse posse: ergo fingebat se tanquam, eo­rum opinio­ne, peregrinū longiùs [...]e. Quemadmo­dum Prophe­ta Michaiah 1. Reg. 22. 15. respondet re­gi quaerenti an esset praeli­andum in Ra­moth [Ascen­de, inquit, & vade properè, quia tradet cos Deus in man Regis] cùm tamen [...]atis intellige­ret. Regi ibi esse moriendum, haec loquens non sua, sed Regis & falsorum propheta­ [...] opinione, à quibus rex erat deceptus: non vt homine falleret, sed vt [...]si­ [...] doceret. Solemus enim aegro dicere, qui aquam rubio color [...] tinct [...]m, quam [...]s, vinum este putat: Accipe vinum; vbi [...] on sall [...]mus, sed aegrum [...] signis [...]s. Maldonat. [...]. s. [...]. in [...] Pope Gregory likewise and Bede (saith your Iesuite) hold that Christ did it not to deceiue them, but rather to shew how they were deceiued. He cannot be said to he (saith Gregory) who vseth words, which are not intended to deceiue another, but to shew that he is deceiued, as the Prophet Michaiah dealt with Ahab. 1. Reg. 22. The story is plaine: when King Ahab was bent to go to fight against Ramoth Gilead, all the false Prophets promised him a prosperous warfare: the King calleth for Micheas, and asketh, [Shall we go vp against Ra­moth Gilead, or no? the Prophet answered, Go vp and pros [...]er.] When notwithstanding he knew that the King should pe­rish: but this was an irony, and in a sense knowen to the King himselfe, who therefore charged him to speake seri­ously. Therefore the Prophet spoke these words now ac­cording to the meaning of the false Prophers in scorne: as When a sicke man shall take water died with a red colour, which he is perswaded to be wine, we would say in iesting manner, well drinke your wine; thereby to tell him his errour, and not to cause him to erre: so here these disciples not perswaded that Christ was risen from death, but held him as a stranger and passenger feined himselfe a passenger to go forward. Come to the literall and historicall sense. [He made as though he would go furder: and they [...], that is, did compell, or, constraine him, saying, Abide with vs, and he abode with them.] And now it appeareth, he meant as he seemed, to goe further, but after was ouercome by their curteous importunity to yeeld vnto them: as the Gen. 19. Angell of God was by the vrgent request of [Page 78] holy Loth: heereby teaching vs a double instruction: in re­spect of man not to be peruerse, but when our occasions may suffer vs to yeeld to the sweet violence of curtuous hu­manity; in respect of God [Who loueth an importunate beg­gar] to be instant in praier, knowing that God, who in our remisnesse will, by withdrawing his graces, seeme to go from vs, yet condescendeth in mercy to our importunity, and will abide with vs. If therefore we consider the figuratiue sense, then in this fiction there could not be your aequiuo­cation, for it was done to instruct them, and not to deceiue them: If we imbrace the literall, then it was no fiction, but a plaine and familiar humane practise, as any one who departeth from his friends is truely said to depart. What reason or re­ligion then shall we call this, which thus from an action of sensible instruction, would prooue an aequiuocating dissi­mulation, a reseruation insensible, that is to say, a deceitfull delusion: turning by this meanes the Oracle of the sonne of God Christ Iesus, authour of the truth, into the Oracle of Delphos, the professed diuellish schoole of Sophisticall ae­quiuocations?

The fourth place. The Aequiuocatour.

Treatise of Aequiuocat. chap. 4. Iesus said to his Disciples, Ioh. 7. I will not go vp to the feast at Hierusalem, and yet afterward went, meaning (as Bellarmine in his Dictates doth expound) not as the Messias, but in secret, or (as S. Cyrill doth interpret) not to solemnize it publickely; or (as S. Augustine will haue it) not to manifest my glory; or else not the first or second day, but in the middest of the weeke. Thus haue wee from Scriptures and Fathers sufficiently proued our mixt proposition.

The Answer.

You haue bestowed many leaues in Commenting vpon this text, to euince from hence your reserued conceit: let me borrow a little leaue to pleade aswell for truth, as you do [Page 79] for a lie, and shew you, how expounding this place, you, blinded with the loue of your Thais, had rather snatch at a­ny meaning, then take that which is meant: for those words [I will not go vp▪ in the Greeke are, [I will not go vp yet:] and then (as your Iesuite Maldonate well obserueth) Qui dicit se, nondum, a­scendere, non dicit se non a scensurum, nec aliquid contrarium dictis postea fecerat, atque it omnis que­stio tollere­tur. Maldon. Ies. Comm. in Ioh. 7. He who saith he will not go vp yet, doth not denie that he will not go vp at all, and therefore going ap afterwards, that act doth not contra­dict his former speech, and so all doubt and question is easily assoiled.

But your Helena, the Latin vulgar text must be imbra­ced, for Treatise quo supra. Albeit, (saith our Aequiuocator) in all the Greeke co [...]ies it be [ [...], nondum, not yet,] yet all Catholickes are bound to admit [ [...], non, not,] because it is so in the vulgar edi­tion. How farre they erre from Catholickes heerein, I haue Apoleg. Ca­thol. part. 2. elsewhere shewed; how wee are to esteeme of the Greeke translation in this present text may appeare by the testimony of your forenamed Iesuit, saying: Innumeri penè codices Graeci sunt, in quibus legi­tur [ [...], non­dū ascendo] maximè verò antiquissimus Vaticanus, toto terrarū orbe celeber­rimus, deindè Autores gra­ues, Nonnus, Chrysosto­mus, Euthy­mius. Maldon. Ies. quo supra. Almost innu­merable Greeke copies haue [I will not yet ascend] and in that most ancient Vatican copie vniuersally commended throughout the world, it is sore [...]d, which reading many graue and learned Fathers do fellow.

Yet we will not so strictly challenge our right in this equi­ty approoued by all antiquity, which is, that as in discerning pure water, rather to examine it by the fountaine, then the riuer: so we iudge of the truth of texts by the Originall, ra­ther then by the translation. For your Latin text doth suf­ficiently betoken the same sense of the Greeke, [Not yet]: so do two of the principall Doctors of your Church para­phrase: the first is your some-time Iesuite, and late Cardi­nall, Tollet: [Non ascē ­dam] id est, Nondum; quia [Tempus meum] quandò me i [...]e oportet, [nondum est impletum:] quo tamen impleto ascendam, nè scandalizentur, quod ipse nollet ire ad festum, nondàm enim legis obseruantia cessârat. Non absolutè nega [...], significans se posteà venturum; nam vox [Non] est dictio limitata, quae est in Graecis [...], quae vox eadem in sequen­tibus, [Nondum tempus meum impletum est.] Tollet. I [...]s. & Cardin. [I will not go up,] that is, (saith he) not yet, be­cause [my time] when I must goe vp [is not yet fulfilled:] which being fulfilled, then I will goe vp; lest that his Disciples should [Page 80] haue beene offended at his absence from the solemne feast at [...] rusalem (because the obseruation of Iewish rites was not yet abo­lished) Christ did not absolutely denie to goe, but did signifie that after a while he would go vp. For the word [Not] in the Latin is the same with [not yet] in the Greeke, as appeareth in the words following, [For my time is not yet fulfilled. Our next witnesse is your bishop Ia [...]senius, who from the sound light of the text concludeth that [Verba quae sequuntur, [Tempus au­ [...]em vestrum paratum est] significant Christū non opera sua fa­cere aliorum hominūmo­re, prout oc­currit, sed certis tempo­ribus praescri­bere sibi, & prout nouit [...]a maximè fa­cere ad Dei gloriam, id­circò tempus sibi nondum opportunum ascendendi, vobis autem, ou [...] ex prae­scripto Dei viuitis, tēpus paratum est adeundi festum. [Non ascendam] id est, non adhuc ascendam: qui sensus satis indicatur, cùm sequitur, [Quia tempus meum,] quo scz. mihi ascendendum est, nondum est impletum. Et Erasmus testatur antiqua quaedam Latinorum exemplaria habere [Nondum:] & hae est Germana expositio. Iansenius Concord. in hunc locum. Not] signifieth plainly, not yet▪ and that this is the proper expositiō of the place. Adding ou [...] of Erasmus, That many ancient Latin translations follow the Greeke, hauing, [not yet.] Therefore this text admitteth no reseruation.

What shall we then say to the other expositions obiected? only this, that whatsoeuer exposition they vnderstand, did thinke that the same was aswell vnderstood of the Apostles, as of themselues. For if the Apostles ha [...] not t [...] that Christ would haue gone at all to the feast, they should haue beene scandalized: saith your Iansenius. But your coined Reser­uation is alwaies supposed of you to be a clause concealed, and not vnderstood. Therefore in all these expositions al­ledged, there appeareth not the least haire of your fox­taile, you call Aequiuocation. Scriptures forsake you, or ra­ther you them: now you will haue recourse vnto Fathers.

CHAP. XII.

Obiections from Fathers.

The Aequiuocator.

Treatise for Aequiuocat. chap. 8. SAint Gregorie (Humanae au­res talia verba nostra iudicant, qualia foris sonant: diuina verò iudicia talia [...]a audi­unt, qualia ex intimis proferuntur; certè noue [...]t ille, qu [...] intentionem alterius varijs explicat verbis: quia non debet alioqui verba considerare sed voluntatem & inten­tionem, quia non debet intentio verbis deseruire, sed verba intentioni. lib. 26. moral. cap. 7.) teacheth that we ought not to respect w [...]rds, but the intent of the speaker. Ergo the intent maketh the Proposition true.

The Answer.

You roue from the marke, your learned Doctor will di­rect you to vnderstand the meaning of S. Gregory, as thus: Gregorius eorū calum­niam taxat, qui contra lo­quentis indu­bitatam men­tē verba ma­litiôsè inter­pretantur. Sic enim hunc locū viri do­ctissimi inter­pretantur, qui docent cùm calliditas ad­hibetur ab al­terutro dic ē ­te, vel accipi­ente, tùm de­mùm oratio­nem accipere ad mentem e­ius, qui sim­plicitèr intel­ligi [...]Genesius in suo Theophi­lo. cap. 6. Gregory doth in that place (saith he) reproue a quarreller, who knowing the simple meaning of him, with whom he doth contend, yet maliciously doth wrest his words: And thus do the most lear­ned expound S. Gregory. This kind of example we reade of in our Stories: An Inne-keeper in London at the signe of the Crowne, to incourage his sonne to learning, would v­sually say, Learne fast, child, and I will make thee heire of the crowne. One peruersly taking aduantage of the ambiguity and double sense of the phrase, heire of the crowne, brought him in question of high Treason, & the poore Inne-keeper (as I take it) lost both his artificiall and naturall Inne. Here was place for S. Augustine his moderation not captiously to catch at mens doubtfull words, where we are not ignorant of their simple meaning. The like I haue heard of a Minister called in question of periurie, because he had sworne that N. was possessed of a lease, as it might be the 13. day of May. It appeared, indeed, that vpon the same day the said lease was deliuered to the forenamed N. according to this forme of law, To hold from the day of the date heereof. O sir, (saith a Lawyer) you are now conuicted for a notorious periurer; for these words From the day &c. are vnderstood exclusiue­ly, signifying after that day, and that the lease was not in force till the next day. Seeing then (saith the Minister) both law and Lawyers faile, I must beseech your honours to giue me leaue to shew the simplicity of my meaning in a case of like tenor; leaue was granted him to plead his owne cause: thus then (quoth he) when any in this honourable assem­bly was married after this forme, To haue and to hold from this day forward; whether were they man and wife before the next day, or no? If they had said no, they should haue stained their first-borne; and, affirming it, they were forced to acknowledge the simplicity of his meaning, and remit the rigour and extremity of the law. Haue you no Father [Page 82] to father your aequiuocating lie vpon, but only Saint Gre­gory? (For this is the onely direct testimony which you al­ledge out of the Fathers, to this purpose.) You thought, be­like, that if you must haue an authour for a lie, it was most likely he should be a Pope. But you must then make choise of some other, than S. Gregory, who I am sure) as Popedom is now defined) was nothing lesse than a Pope. We wil con­clude concerning Fathers with your owne authours: Hanc sen­tentiam ali­qui tueri mo­ [...]tur cōtra [...] & sum­morum The­ologorum au­to▪ itatē. [...]ul­lu [...]autem an­te G [...]brielem hanc aequatio­cationem cō ­mentus est. Genesius quo supra. That this maner of aequiuocating is against the autority of most ancient and chiefe diuines, & that none before Gabriel (not that Gabriel, Angel of light, but Gabriel Biel a Sophister) taught it. Who­soeuer was the author, I dare boldly conclude, that though S. Gregory, or a thousand of Saints, yea though celestiall Ga­briel, or any Angell from heauen should teach and authorise such a doctrine as this, we may from the word of God pro­nounce him Galat. 1. 8. Anathema. Now that we haue wrested your weapons out of your hands, it will be easie to pierce you e­uen with similitudes, the bluntest kind of Argument.

CHAP. XIII.

Our seuenth Argument from comparison of a

  • 1. Signe,
  • 2. Interpreter,
  • 3. Coine,
  • 4. Gygesring.

Aequiuocat. supra. VOices and writings are as signes (say you) and instru­ments ordained to expresse a proposition. Very good, now euery signe which a man shall vse contrary to the signi­fication thereof, is a lying signe: thus to hang an [...]uie bush at a Bakers dore would be a lying signe; thus idols in visible formes made to expresse the essentiall forme of the inuisible and incomprehensible God are called Is. & Ier. lying vanities: the mirabilia, that is, wonderfull workes which exceed not the principles of nature, and yet challenge vnto themselues the name of Miracula, as though they proceeding from an om­nipotent power aboue nature are called 2. Thess. 2. lying wonders: the action of the stage-plaier, who lifted vp his hand to heauen [Page 83] crying, [...] earth, cast them downe againe to the earth, crying, [...] god in heauen; was counted a solecisme and ly­ing gesture. And shall not your voice, I am no Priest, which cannot possibly expresse (that which you are) a Priest, be a lying voice? Yes verily, and your pen also defending and approuing this doctrine of lying, is made of the same wing, whereof others were, whom God condemned by his Pro­phets, saying, Ier. 8. 8. Stylus Scribarum est styl [...]s mendax; the pen of the Scribes is a lying pen. But whereunto shall I compare this generation? they are like vnto Cacus in the fable, who is said to haue stolen oxen, and lest hee should be traced by their right footings, he dragged them backward by the tailes into his denne: so the right answer of our Aequiuocator should haue been, I am a Priest, but he saith contrary, I am no Priest. Euen by this deuise wresting a meaning by a clause of reseruation (this is the taile) and so like Cacus lurketh safe in the closet of his hollow heart.

The second similitude is an Interpreter: for Aristotle de­fineth euery proposition to be an interpretation of the mind, You must now imagine that your Pope should send his Nuncio to congratulate (together with Amba sladours, from other Princes) our Kings last miraculous deliuerance, with all complementall pretences of ioy; for his Interpreter he shall make cho [...]e of you (Aequiuocator) who professe your selfe his Maiesties loyall subiect, whom hee shall ac­quaint with his secret meanings and clauses reserued in his message: Notwithstanding our Aequiuocator shall report it thus. His holinesse doth greatly reioice (most renon med King) at your happy deliuerance▪ Reseruing that which was the mea­ning of the Nuncio; Ab omni spe obtinendi Romanum imperi­um:] and wisheth vnto your Maiesty with all his hart [reser­uing another clause, which was intended by the Nuncio from his holinesse, Admodùm exiguam] contiauance of Gods protection. Will any iudge otherwise of such an Aequiuoca­tor than of a notorious liar?

The third Similitude, vulgar and country speech by Plu­tarch is resembled to the country coine: now your selues [Page 84] cannot denie but that in all states Falsare mo­netam est cri­men laesae ma­iestaus. Sà Ies Aphoris. lit. Falsarius. Stamping of a false coine is high treason; and so is also clipping and impairing the Kings stamp: But Aequiuocators by their clause of reseruation clip off that part of speech, which is the image of God, the truth of the speech. Ergo guilty of higher than high treason.

The fourth similitude: Mentall Aequiuocation is not vnlike Gyges his ring, which Plato and others mention, be­ing of that vertue, that Cic. Offic. l. 3. Whilest the pale of the ring was kept on the backe-siae of his hand he was visible; but being turned into the palme of his hand he was inuisible, seeing any, & seene of none. By meanes whereof he shortly after practised adulterie with the Queene of Lydia, and murdered the King. So our Ae­quiuocator, when happily he shall turne his aequiuocating clause outward to manifest it in speech, he lieth open and is easily knowen for a dislo [...]al subiect: but when he keepeth it close in his mind, hee is imboldened to practise against his King. But the Heathen Ora [...]our intreating of the proper­ty of an honest man, he would haue him tried by the oppor­tunity of Gyges ring: No good man (saith he) would abuse it, because honest men do not seeke meanes how they may be secretly euill, but alwaies resolue to be absolutely good. Surely this Pagan must rise vp in iudgement against this Aequiuocating gene­ration to condemne it.

I might adde another Similitude taken from chastity; the Fathers calling alwaies veritatem [...] virginitatem; and S. Augustine castitatem mentis: Verity is the ch [...]y of the Soule. It may be they haue taken this from S. Iohn in the descripti­on of his Apoc. 14. 4. V [...]gines, in who [...]e mouth there is found no guile: as though a chast soule should abhorre as much the vse of a lie in the mouth, as a deuout Virgin would loath to staine her selfe with a knowen adulterer: such is the a [...]tinit betweene these deuises, that S. Paul doth range 1. Tim. 1. 10. w [...]gers and li­ars in one sentence. From hence it is that the craft of Vint­ners in the mixing and colouring of their wines is called A­dulterare, adulterating of the wine. Compare this craft of mixture of wine with your Aequiuocation, which you call Amixt proposition, and what shall you perceiue else but [Page 85] an artificiall adultery? Our last argument which is belong­ing to this conclusion, taken from the effects of Aequiuoca­ting, I reserue for the last in the next conclusion, because there it will be more effectuall for confirmation of both.

CHAP. XIIII.

Our second conclusion, that no maner of Aequiuoca­tion, whether mentall or ver [...]all, can be vsed in an oath without sacrilegious profanation.

WE deny not but ambiguous words may sometime be vsed in common speech: for so we reade of A­thanasius, who, flying by shippe the malice of the perse­cutor, and at last ouertaken the pursuer asked, Socrates, So­zem. & alij. Did not A­thanasius passe this way? Athanasius himselfe made answer, Yes, he is a little before you, if you make hast you shall soone ouer­take him. The Persecutor imagining, A little before, must signifie some other shippe then that which was immediately before him, passed by Athanasius, and pursued a butter-fly.

The state of this Question from the opinion of the Aequiuocator.

Treatise chap. 4. This aequiuocation of ambiguous words, is to vse one word which hath diuers significations: as being asked whether a Priest be in my [...], Treatise chap 7. may answer non est: vnderstanding by est, the signification of edere, and not of esse. May this kind of aequi­uocating be vsed man oath? No, not before a competent Iudge lawfully examining▪ this were a mortall sinne. We suspect you will proue an honest man: therefore tell vs, Whom do you hold competent Iudges? Do you esteeme any competent and fit, who are Aduersaries to your Romish profession? Treatise quo supra. And this is the opinion of thē all, to iudge Protestant-ma­gistrates not fit Iudges. Vide supra. When a Magistrate shall sweare me to bring a (Papist) Recusant to the Assies, which is vnlawfull, yet seeing there is no other way for the Recusant to escape, then will I sweare by aequiuocation. Now [Page 86] you returne to your former wallow, but we must take you as we finde you.

CHAP. XV.

Our first Argument from the forme of an oath.

WE are not now to prooue that wrought to take an oath of all them that exact it, but only that when­soeuer, or to whomsoeuer we sweate, we are bound in con­science to answer directly. To shew therefore what an oath is, we will be come [...]ed with your Iesu [...]ts definitions. One defineth it Iuramentú est religiosa inuocatio di­ [...] testimo­n [...], in dict [...] [...]us confir­matione [...] ­iet, Ies Instruct. Sacerd. lib 4. cap. 20. [...] addit, siuè ex­plicitè siuè imp [...]è. A religious inuocation (whether it be expresly, or implicatiuely) of God, as witnesse of our speech. Another, Est religio­nis officium & opus quo credimus De­um totius ve­ [...]atis autorē esle, quinee decipivnquā possit, nec a­lios [...] e [...]e: sicut ad Heb. 4. Hac agitur religio [...]n. [...]homines, Deum ve [...]a­tis tes [...]e [...]ad habent. & [...]j [...] [...]an [...] fi­de habe­re impium & nefarium sit. It is a dutifull act of religion, whereby we professe God to be the authour of all trueth; who can neither deceiue, nor be deceiued. Hence may we reason thus: The competencie of God, by whom we sweare, maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers, to whom we sweare: but by swearing by God, whom we can not deceiue, we religiously protest that we in swearing intend not to deceiue. Ergo our deceitful aequiuo­cating is a profanation of the religious worship of God.

The Maior is true, for that our Sauiour in auouching trueth, held Pilate a competent Iudge, although he did not Iuridicè, but falsly proceed. S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesars tribunall seat, who was a Pagan. Iacob did couenant with Laban an Idolater: and the maid, to whom S. Peter swore, was competent enough to heare a true oath, if he had been as ready to sweare truly: and yet neither the maid, not that Iudge did proceed turidice; for she was no lawfull Examiner, and he was a partiall Iudge.

A Confirmation of the former argument from the authority of the Fathers.

To know in what sense of words we must take any oath, the doctrine of Isidore is insallible: Quacun (que) arte verbo­ru quis iuret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita accipit sicut is, cui iuratur, intelligit. Isidor. lib. 2. de su [...]. 13. Though man vse ne­uer [Page 87] so great art and cunning in swearing, yet God doth value the oath according to the sense of him, to whom the oath is made. Hereby your art of Aequiuocating is quite excluded, which teacheth to vse that signification and sense which is most contrary to his vnderstanding to whom wee swearè. To know what is the necessity of performance of a lawful oath, the rule of S. Hierome is most diuine; which is this: In iuramēto sides seruah­da est, nec cō ­side [...]a [...]dū est cui, sed per quem iu [...]e­ris. Hieror. [...]n Ezeth 17. Faith must be kept in an oath, because we must not regard to whom; (man); but (God) by whom we haue sworne. And thus also your cousenage of falsifying your oath is likewise excluded. In both these testimonies we see the Iurer is taught alwayes in swearing to man to fix his eyes vpon God; and his omni­potent iustice, by whom I sweare, maketh euery man, to whom I sweare, a competent hea [...]er; therefore chargeth me to sweare directly, euidently condemning our Aequiuo­catours, who make a Protestant-magistrate competent to take their oath, but holde him incompetent to take their sincere and direct oath: as though man only, and not also God, did take our oath. Impious; for so sacred a thing is an oath, that Mu [...]i fal­luntur (inquit Augussinus) vt putēt, quia nihil est per quod iurant, ideo se non [...]ine per­iurij ener [...]: pro [...]us per­ [...] us es, quit per id, quod sinc um non putas, fal [...]um iuras as, si tu [...] ­hum sanctum non putas, sanctum ta­men illū pu­tat cui iurat. Genesius in suo Theoph. cap. 6. Though a man should sweare by a thing, in his own opiniō vnholy, which is holy in the opinion of him to [...] hom he sweareth; this man swearing falsley is periured. Still we see, that though an oath appeare outwardly, Exod. 3. but as a flame in the hush, yet God is in this flame, therefore we must put off the shooes of our feet, that is our carnall affections; for Gods name, the foundation & ground of an oth, is holy ground.

A Confirmation of the former argument from their ancient Schoole.

These our Aequiuocators do by their new subtleties foo­lifie the honest simplicity of their ancient Schoole: the two eyes whereof Lombard and Aquinas law clearely in this kind of swearing an homble prosanation of the sacred name of almighty God. Qui callidi­tate vtitur in iuramento, duplicitèr est reus, [...]u [...]a & nomē Dei in vanum sumit, & proximum dolo capit. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 39. lit. [...]. Whosoeuer (sayth Lombard) doth vse craft o [...] sub [...] in an oath, doth defil [...] his conscience with a dou­ble guilt; he both deceiueth his neighbour, and also taketh the name of God in vaine. Therefore Aquinas doth expresly [Page 88] conclude: Si Iudex hoc exquirat, quod non po­test secūdùm ordinem i [...] ­ris, non tene­tur accusatus respondere, sed potest vel per appellati­onem, vel ali­ter licet sub­terfugere; mendacium autem dicere non licet. Et paulò post. Falsitatem autem pro­ponere nullo casu alicui licet, neque etiam aliquem dolum vel fraudem adhibere, quia fraus & dolus vim mendacij habet, & hoc est se calumniosè defendere. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 69. art. 1. & arg. 2. If a Iudge (sayth he) shal require any thing, which he cannot (the point in question) by order of law, the party accused is not bound to answer, but either by appeale, or some other maner of m [...]anes may deliuer himselfe: but in no case may he tell a lie, or vse falshood, no nor any kinde of craft or deceit, for this is to answer, &c. I may from Thomas insult vpon our Aequiuo­catours in the words of their owne Genesius; Potuitnè Thomas apertius damnare istorum sententi­am, qui docent fas esse Reo crimen verum sibi intentum arte verborum inficiari? Genesius in Theoph. cap. 18. Could Tho­mas more plainly denie their opinion, who teach the guiltie person to auoid a true accusation by words of guile and deceit?

CHAP. XVI.

The second Argument taken from the end of an oath, as it is affirmed in Scripture.

HEb. 4. An oath is for confirmation, to make an end of all contention. This Maior is Scripture. (Minor.) But in an aequiuocating oath there is neither beginning of con­firmation, nor end of contention. Ergo it is a vaine and sacrile­gious oath.

The Minor proued out of that mouth of the Aequiuocatour.

Treatise of Aequiuocas. chap. 10. For further direction of the partie examined, let him ad­mit the oth with a secret intētion of aequiuocation, & if he be more vrged to sweare without aequiuocating, let him sweare that also (namely that he doth not aequiuocate) but with the forsaid in­tention of aequiuocation. What should the Disciple of Christ say to this Doctour, though he sate in Peters chaire? What, but as our Lord Christ taught by his example, who in the fa­uourable temptation to do euill for security of his life, an­swered, [Page 89] Math. 16. 23 Get thee behind me Satan: for this is the mouth of Satan, to sweare by an aequiuocation. We do not aequiuocate; and vrged againe to sweare this without aequiuocation, to sweare aequiuocatingly we doe not aequiuocate. &c. Heere is contention without end, by this aequiuocation which is as bottomlesse as the pit of hell.

A confirmation of this former Argument from the Iesuite Azorius.

Azorius Ie­suita qu [...] su­pra. Whosoeuer (saith your Azorius) is rightly catechized in this point of religion concerning an oath, calleth God to witnesse of the truth, and therefore it is an heathenish impiety not to beleeue Christians thus swearing. Say now, you Aequiuocators, who sweare Sophistically, turning Supra. esse into edere, thereby to de­ceiue your hearer; Is he to whom you sweare bound to be­leeue you? this were hard, for so a Christian shuld be bound to be deceiued: may he lawfully suspect you? then this your doctrine, which taketh away the consecrated vse of an oth, which is, for Confirmation of speech, is plainly Antichristian.

CHAP. XVII.

The third Argument, à minori, as the Logicians terme it, from the lesse to the more.

MAior.) That doctrine which is lesse honest then the doctrine of Pagans, is intolerable among Christi­ans: (Minor) but Iesuiticall aequiuocating is lesse honest than the doctrine of Infidels and Pagans. Ergo, ought to be esteemed abhominable among Christians. The Maior is taught by our Sauiour: Matth. 5. 20. Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisies, you shall not en­ter, &c. shewing where there is more knowledge of Christ, there the profession must be more honest. And more ex­presly S. Paul: 1. Cor. 5. 1. There is such fornication among you, as is not a­mong the Heathen. Concluding that it is blasphemy against [Page 90] God for a Christian to be more vile in life than a Pagā. The Minor prooued: for your Iesuite Sà doth tell vs, that there be but Iurans redi­re in carcerē tenetur (nisi esset ini [...]; de­tentus) etiam cùm periculo vitae; quidam etiam ad iniu­stum carcerē redeundum [...]iunt, nisi iu­ramentum re­laxetur per Episcopum. Eman. Sa. Ies. Aphor. T [...]t. Iuramentum. Some of you, who thinke that a Prisoner vniustly detai­ned vpon his oath is bound to returne, except he be absolued from his oath by a Bishop. This in an oath without aequiuocation: but our Aequiuocators thinke their Aequiuocation in ma­king an oath better, and of more power than any Bishop to free them from periurie in an oath; esteeming it as good as no oath wherein they vse their Reseruation: when as yet the very Infidels in respect of their naturall knowledge of God, kept better fidelity among men.

An Example of the Pagans fidelity out of Tullie.

Vnus ex de­cem illis cap­tiuis, &c. Ci­cero Offic. lib. 3. §. Regulus. There was a man, who together with nine other prisoners be­ing dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, vpon his oath, that he within a prefixed time should returne againe: assoone as he was out of prison, he returned as though he had forgot some thing, by and by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, answering that he was freed from his oath. See now the opinion of his owne countreyman concerning this aequiuocation of Returne; Non re & è, fraus enim distringit, nō dissoluit per­iurium: Ita (que) decreuit Se­natus vt ille veteranus & callidus vin­ctus ad Anni balem duce­retur. Cicero quo supra. Non rectè (sayth Tully) this was not well done: for craft in an oath doth not lessen but make the periury more heinous: wherfore the graue Senators of Rome sent this cousening mate bound, with cords, againe to the prison of Annibal their enemie, from whom he had escaped. Qui verò d­cunt nullam esse sidem, quae Infideli data sit, videant ne quaeratur latebra periurio; quiduis enim potiùs argutè excusari possit quam iusiurandu: quantum enim mali ex­cidit ex ipsa fraude? Cic. ibid. But some obiect, That we are not bound to keepe faith with them that are These Poeni, or Carthaginians, whom Tully calleth Infidels, were of all men in the world most perfidious, so that they came into a prouerbe, [Punica fides] The Carthaginians faith, which was as if one should haue said Falshood: and if any, then this people was incompetent to challenge trueth in an oath. faithlesse: ô let them take heed, this (such is our Aequiuoca­tors obiection of a Iudge incompetent) is but to seeke a lurking hole for periurie: whereas we may excuse subtletie in any thing [Page 91] rather than in an oath, wherein euen the least deceit is a great mischiefe. This was the honestie of the ancient Heathenish Rome, which must rise vp in iudgement against this pre­sent Rome to condemne it, which hath changed that faith­full Romanam in Punicam fidem.

CHAP. XVIII.

The fourth Argument, à paribus.

SOcrates reporteth this story of Arius, the arch-heretike, Imperator Arium ad iu [...] ­iurandum ad­egit, ille id quoque simu­latè & fallaci­tèr praest [...]tit: [...]ucata verò ratio, quâ ad fraudem in subscribendo vsus est, sicut audiui, huius­modi fuit; Arius suam ipsius opinionem in charta habebat, eamque sub ala gestat, iurat se verè & ex animo sentire, quemadmodum scripserat. Socrates lib. [...]. hist. cap. 38. who being compelled by the holy Emperour Constantine to deliuer his subscription to the Councell of Nice, and to auouch his integritie by an oath, he vsed this art and sleight: his owne (hereticall) opinion he closely kept vnder his left arme, and then swore (laying his hand vpon his left side) that he so beleeued as he had written. What can be the difference betwixt the oath of our Aequiuocators, and of this blasphemous Arius? He kept secret his aequiuocation vnder the hollow of his arme, but these conceale theirs in the hollow of their hearts.

An Obiection remoued.

You peraduenture will insist and say, that Arius did aequi­uocate in the cause of faith, which all Christians holde a thing most abominable: but first know, that although the matter of deceitfull swearing may make the deceit to be more wicked, yet it can not make the wickednesse to be more deceitfull; for euery thing is defined by his forme, and not by his matter, Vero nihil verius, and so on the con­trary: for example, to say the mouse worried a cat, and to say adulterie is no sinne, this latter is not the greater lie; yet by reason of the matter is the greater sinne, because besides the wickednesse of lying, it doth iustifie (another wicked­nesse) adulterie. Now to the matter.

[Page 92] You will aequiuocate in the question concerning your Priesthood, saying and swearing against your knowledge that you are no Priest, by some secret reseruation of minde; as ac­cording to the example of one of your fellowes, I am no Priest; meaning, No Priest [Apollonis]: as though an aequi­uocating Priest can consort with any better than with those Satanicall Priests of the Pagan god Apollo. For all their an­swers (as euery scholar knoweth) from their Oracles was by Amphibologies and Aequiuocations. Of many, be you contented with this one. Pyrrhus his question to that Ora­cle was; Whether he should giue an ouerthrow to the Ro­mans, or no: the answer of the Oracle was this:

Aio te Aetacidi Romanos vincere posse;

That is to say,

I say that Pyrrhus the Romans may ouercome.

So whether the Romans (which after was true) should ouer­come Pyrrhus, or Pyrrhus (which was false) should conquer the Romans, the aequiuocating Oracle might be found to haue sayd trueth. It is recorded by Euseb. Pra­par. Euang. Eusebius, that at the birth of Christ all those diuellish aequiuocating Oracles were put to silence: when the last which spoke, being asked Why they now ceased to giue answers; returned this last answer; [...]. Because the Hebrew babe (meaning Christ) is borne. So doubtlesse, in what heart soe­uer there is the regenerating spirit of Christ, there the aequi­uocating spirit of Delphos doth wax dumbe.

Now you holde, that your Priesthood is conferred vp­on you by a Sacrament of Ordination; and that Bellar. lib. 2. de effect. Sa­cram. in ge­nere. Ex opere operato it doth impresse in your soules Charactêrem indele­bilem, that is, a marke neuer to be blotted out. Ordo prae­stat caeteris omnib' quo­ad hoc, quia constituit ho­mines in gra­du sublimio­ri, quàm sunt caeteri Chri­stiani. Bellar. quo supra cap. 28. §. Ordo. By the power of that Sacrament of Order, which heerein (say you) excelleth all other Sacraments, that it aduanceth Priests a degree aboue all o­ther Christians. The end thereof you beleeue is Tooffer sa­crifice for the sinnes of the quicke and the dead. Yet do you ae­quiuocatingly denie your Priesthood sealed vnto you by a Sacrament belonging to faith. And what matter can there be wherein such a Priest will not aequiuocate, who doth aequi­uocate [Page 93] concerning his Priesthood? But we haue not so learned Christ, but defend that it is essentiall to a Christi­an, whensoeuer or to whomsoeuer he sweareth, to vse sim­plicitie, and not to sophisticate: for there is a double faith in the Iurer to be tendred; the first is faith to the man, to whom he sweareth, which we call fideline: the other is our faith in God, by whom he sweareth, to beleeue that he is omnipotently wise, to discerne whether my words be true according to their signification, and omnipotently iust to take vengeance vpon me, if I do dissemble. The first faith is violated by aequiuocating; for it is therefore interpreted to be called Cic. in Offic. lib. 1. & S. August. lib. de Mendacio. cap. 20. Fides, quia fit quod dicitur, that is, The thing is, as it is sayd to be. And the dissemble [...] in this kinde, Tullie (as the golden mouth of all reasonable men) calleth Speaking of the Poeni, who vsed to falsifie their faith with men. Infi­delem, An Infidell. So, likewise, your faith in God is impea­ched, for how shall I call God to acknowledge those words to be true in that sense which I ought to speake them in, wherein I know them to be false?

CHAP. XIX.

This doctrine concerning Aequiuocating must in the last place be discussed both pro, and contra in the effects.

The Aequiuocator obiecteth.

Treatise supra. VVHen a Protestant Magistrate shall sweare me to bring in a Papist Recusant to the Assises, when there is no way for the Recusant to escape, I will sweare by aequiuccation.

The Answer.

Thinkest thou it vnlawfull to bring a Recusant to the As­sises? then is it also vnlawfull to sweare that thou wilt bring him; for this is one essentiall property which God challen­geth by his Prophet, that where there is Iusiurandum, Ius [Page 94] should go before iurandum: and therfore the Prophet saith, Iurabis vi­uit Dominus in veritate, in iudicio, & iu­stitia. ler. 4. Iurabis in iustitia; Thou shalt sweare in iustice: Iudicio ca­ret [...]ramen­tum incautū, veritate men­dax, iustitia iniquum & illicitum. A­quinas. That is (to admit your owne Aquinas for expositour) not to sweare any thing that is vniust. But notwithstanding this direct com­mand [Thou shalt sweare] wilt thou sweare? Then mayst thou not sweare by aequiuocation, for that doth wound the very soule of an oath, which is simple Truth: but verball aequiuo­cation taketh away the necessary simplicity of an oath, be­cause therein is dissimulation. If therefore the thing be vn­lawfull thou must not sweare, no not truth, though thou be vrged; if thou wilt sweare, yet know thou art not vrged to sweare an vntruth.

The second Obiection is popular, (supposing Aequiuocation to be a lie) thus:

Est menda­cium triplex; perniciosum, officiosum, iocosum [...] per­ [...]ciosum est in damnum alicuius; offi­ciosum quod est in al [...] vulitatem; iocosum quod nec in dettimentum nec vtilitatem al [...]cu [...]us est. Dicimus omne men­dacium esse quidem peccatum, & cùm sit in turamento, omne mendacium esse pec­catum mortale; sine iuramento, officiôsum autem & iocosum esse veniale peccatum. Tollet. les. Instruct. Sacerd lib. de septem peccat. cap. 54. There are three kinds of lies (that one Iesuite may speake for all his fellowes) one is a pernicious and hurtfull lie, which turneth to the hurt of another; the second is an officious and cha­ritable lie, which is for the good of another; the third is but a ie­sting [...], whereby no man is either helped or hurt. Of these we define thus, that euery one of these vsed in an oath is a mortall sin; considered without an oath, the pernicious is only a mortall sinne; the officious and [...]esting are but veniall.

The Answer.

I am not ignorant that the vse of this distinction of mortall and veniall, in the comparison of sinnes, is frequent in the Fathers, but as different from you in sense, as they be conso­nant in termes: for they neuer valued any sinne so veniall in his owne nature, as not to deserue of it selfe an infinite eter­nall torment: for they alwaies taught that euery sinne being [Page 95] a transgression of an eternall law of the infinitely iust God, doth challenge an infinit punishment, & so to be accounted mortall: and yet not therefore equall, except you will say that theft and murder and blasphemy against God be there­fore equall, because they be equally mortall: which I thinke you will not. But when they consider man in the state of Grace, they taught that the sinnes of humane infirmity in a man regenerate are not rigorously exacted: and in this sense are called veniall. Notwithstanding I dare affirm, that of these kinds of sinnes which you call veniall, there is not one but being done vpon presumption, it is damnable & equall with your mortall: As thus; suppose your officious lie be vnto the examined veniall, because he was instantly surprised (as it were) with a sudden passion, and not able to know how to re­solue, which I call infirmity: yet if he had [...]ed presumptu­ously, that is, beene of this resolution, that whensoeuer such a case should happen, his purpose was to lie, this vnto that man had beene a sinne grieuously mortall: yet this manner of resolution in like case is your generall doctrine, and pra­ctise. Therefore we must shew that

Euery Officious lie, for what good intent soeuer it be, resolutely done, whether in, or without an oath, is damnable in it selfe, and ought to be auoided of all Christians.

Your practise in the popular opinion is iustified in these respects; We doe it for a good end, as to secure our selues, or a Priest; and for the Catholike cause, lest holy Priesthood might be defamed, and our Catholike faith blasphemed. Haue you sayd? Then see, I pray you, how much Christian simplicitie doth abhorre this infatuation? For holy Fathers will not allow any lie (the adultery of the soule) no not for Non ad tu­endam pudi­citiam, mult [...] enim mag [...]s custodienda est a [...] ca­stitas, quae m [...]o menda­cio, quam ea, quae aliena libidine violatur. August. de M [...]ac. cap 20. the de­fence of Chastity; nay not for Non ad seruandam alte­rius vitam corporalem. August. ibid cap. 17. & 18. & Greg. Pent. supra. preseruation of a mans bodilie [Page 96] life; nay not for the Non ad lu­crandam sa­lutem homi­nis aeternam. August. quo supra, cap. 20. winning of a mans soule; nay, no euill may be done, (as your Acosta saith well) Non ad ma­lum facien­dum, vt om­nes Barbari Christi fidem amplectan­tur. Acost. Ies. desalut. Ind. lib. 2. cap. 2. not for the gaining of many thousand Infidels to the faith. So pretious a thing is Truth, vnto truely Christian soules.

Now because by experience in reading your best authors I haue obserued that the Romish Church hath beene bold often to publish to the world lying Reuelations, lying Mira­cles, lying Priuiledges, lying Legends, and Stories, Slanders, and other lying Reports: All which I am as able particularly to shew as to name, and would also if it were not imperti­nent in this Treatise; and it may be some moderate answerer, will by someidle Reioinder heereafter extort them: Seeing also that your Superiors both secular and Iesuitical haue au­torised this art of lying, and that all such conceits are estee­med with them but as piae fraudes, godly deceits: as though the euill of them [Deceit] were veniall, and not so only, but because it is mixed with [Godly] that is, [with a good intent] it becommeth also meritorious:

I must entreat patience of the gentle Reader, to peruse a Christian reason, able to ouerthrow a thousand such Anti­christian and heathenish profanations. For it is written Rom. 13. 7. If the verity of God haue more abounded through my lie vnto his glory, why do we not euill that good may come thereof? as some affirme we do say, whose damnation is iust. The argument of the Apostle is this: though it be most true in the verity of God, that mans vnrighteousnesse, (as for example a lie) doth redound to the glory of Gods grace in pardoning of the same vnrighteousnesse of man by Iesus Christ, according to that verity of the Gospell of remission of sin: yet God for­bid that any man should therfore multiply vnrighteousnesse in sinning (as for example lying) that Gods glorie may be magnified in forgiuing! Shewing that it were blasphemie to teach that it is lawfull for any to lie, although it would establish and aduance the glorie of God in that wherein God so lo­ued ye world that he gaue his only be­gotten sonne. Ioh. 3. 16. God is most glorified, euen the glory of his grace in par­doning of sinne by Christ Iesus. And therefore the Romish godlesse deceits, must be bundled vp with those condemned [Page 97] Coloss. 2. 23. Wilworshippes, Iud. 8. 27. Gedeons Ephod, 1. Sam. 15. 21. Sauls sacrifice, 2. Sam. 6. 6. Vza his supporting of the arke, 1. Reg. 12. 32. Ieroboams altars, 1. Tim. 1. 13. & 2. Tim. 1. 3. Pauls persecuting of Gods Saints, yea the crucifying of Act. 3. 17. Christ the sonne of God (all which notwithstanding their pretended good intents) are subiect to the same iust condemnation. And why? holy Iob hath debated this matter long ago, Iob. 13. vers. 7. 8. 9. 10. Will ye talke deceit­fully (saith he) for Gods cause, or will you accept his person? Will you make a lie for him, as one lieth for a man? he will surely re­proue you. Doubtlesse; because God is truth: but no man will defend any thing, no not a lie, but he wil defend it in the name of truth: for who will say I lie; therfore it is true? Can then any without blasphemy defend the cause of the God of all iustice and truth with a lie?

CHAP. XX.

The Protestants last Argument against A [...]quiuocation, from the effects.

The Confirmation of both our former Conclusions.

The effects be of foure kinds: It

  • 1. Dissolueth the naturall policie of all kingdomes.
  • 2. Challengeth all Romish Priests and their adherents in this kingdome to the racke.
  • 3. Gaineth the infamie of deceit and lying vpon the professed Aequi­uocators.
  • 4. Begetteth scandall to soules, blasphe­mies against Christ in the profes­sion of the holy faith.

The first.

THe last anchor that man can cast for any security in this tumultuous and tempestuous world, in any Common-wealth, [Page 98] is an oath: for mans name, goods, lands, and life, whensoeuer they be formally called in question, doe all in the end depend vpon the presumption of the testimony of witnesses in the trueth of their oath; and in one word, for the Heb. 4. end of all contentions, the last linke of confirmation, is or­deined an oath. For preseruation therefore of the integritie of an oath, all Nations haue prouided punishments for all such as wilfully transgresse therein; some countries adiudg­ing the periured to be whipped; others to be hanged; o­thers to be slit in the nose; others to be branded in the for­head: and the iudiciall law of God doth command Deut. 19. legem talionis; that euery false witnesse should suffer that euill or losse, which by his false swearing he would haue brought vpon another; eye for eye, hand for hand, life for life. And in all the king­domes of the world, from all generations, the offence in an oath is called Periurie; Iesuits supra. which is a lie in an oath. But if the secret intention might excuse from lying, then could neuer any haue beene iustly condemned for periury or false wit­nesse. Thus the false witnesses suborned against 1. King. 21. Naboth, the false witnesses against chaste Hist. of Su­sanna. Susanna, the witnesses a­gainst Matt. 26. 60. Christ the iust one, euen the only iust, might each one haue iustified themselues, saying, We spoke trueth, for we did aequiuocate. And thus all humane lawes against periury must haue beene abolished.

The second effect which must moue the Aequiuocators to giue ouer this art, is extremity against their owne bodies.

Because they, who by their aequiuocating do professe to conceale most desperate treasons, till they come to be tor­tured, do necessarily challenge the racke: but all Romish Priests and their disciples are instructed not to reueale any of their sect to be guilty of such practises, till they be infor­ced by the torture: for thus your Cardinall in his instructi­ons of Priests, hath determined, Quandò ali­quis in tortu­ra positus re­uelat alterius peccatum ve­rè, quandò non interro­gatur iuridi­cè, non pec­cat: ratio, quia nullus tenetur cum tanto suo detrimento conseruare famam alterius, occultando crimen commissum illius. Tol [...]et. les. & Cardin. lib. 5. Instruct. Sac. cap. 66. When any (sayth he) is [Page 99] put vpon the racke, and doth truly reueale the crime of another, although he be not examined iuridicè, iustly, and according to the order of law; yet therein he doth not sinne, because none is bound, vpon so great bodily harme to himselfe, to preserue the good name of another, by concealing his offence. Therefore when you make all Protestant-magistrates incompetent, with whom you may vse aequiuocation till you come to be tortu­red, what do you els but teach them, that your only compe­tent Iudge and Examiner must be a Racke?

The third is infamie against the Aequiuocators good name and faith among men.

Your doctrine is, that The Treatise. Vide supra. answering your incompetent magi­strate by aequiuocation; if he shall further aske whether you doe not aequiuocate, to answer, No; but with another aequiuocation: If againe, in his ielousie, he vrge whether this third time you doe not aequiuocate; then the third time also to say, No, but with an­other secret aequiuocation; and so as often as he shall aske the like: likewise by aequiuocating to say you doe not aequiuocate. This is that monster which I called Hydra, which, as Poets faine, Hercules did impugne; in the which as often as one head was strucke off, immediatly there sprung vp another; signi­fying an endlesse businesse. It will now be requisite that we heare what our Moderate Answerer would say in the behalfe of his dissolute Treatise: The Mode­rate Answerer in the conclusi­on of his booke. §. And if &c. We haue (most mercifull Soue­raigne) in the sincerity of our soules, without ali aequiuocation or doubtfull sense, purged our selues of those opinions or practises of rebellion obiected vnto vs. Say you so? without all aequiuocation? How shall his Maiesty be perswaded that these words with­out all aequiuocation are not spoken in some doubtfull sense and aequiuocation? How can you free your selfe from this ielousie, seeing your doctrine is in protestation of not aequi­uocating to aequiuocate? You may now ges [...]e what will be the effect of this your Art; euen that, which is the due re­ward of a liar: namely, that seeing in his protestations and oathes, when he should say trueth, he will dis [...]emble, he may not be beleeued, when sometime he sayth trueth.

The last effect is scandall against mens soules, and blasphemy against God.

Seeing that all Christians be exhorted, Coloss. 4. 5. To walke warily towards them that are without, (meaning Infidels) to the end 1. Pet. 2. 12. That they which speake euill of you, [...] of euill doers, may by their good workes which they shall see, glorisie God in the day (that is, when God shall haue mercy to call Infidels to the faith) of visitation. Shewing that a wicked life in the profes­sor of faith doth hinder vnbeleeuers from the faith.

Secondly, euery Christian is admonished 1. Thess. 5. 22. To abstaine from all [ [...]] shew or apparance of euill: the reason is expres­sed in the Apostles exhortation to Christian seruants, chal­lenging of them subiection to their Heathen-masters, Tit. 2. 5. That the doctrine of God be not blasphemed, or euill spoken of: and to the same end he chargeth all Christian wiues to be chast and obedient to their Infidell husbands: 1. Tim. 1. 6. That the word of God be not blasphemed: shewing that the wickednesse of a wicked professor (by mans blindnesse) edoundeth vn­to the blasphemy of the godly profe [...]on. But in your Ae­quiuocating by a clause reserued and concealed in your thought, (which God onely, Psal. 7. 10. The only searcher of the heart seeth) no man can discerne in your speech any thing but apparance of damnable lying. Therefore not only Pagans by this scandall shall continue in infidelity, but the glorious name of Christ and his true religion, shall suffer blasphemie: and if this do follow vpon the examples of wicked seruants, wicked wiues, wicked children; how much more by the principal professors, wicked Priests?

Neither this onely, but by this doctrine the Gospell of Christ, in the opinion of all Pagans, will be more iustly con­demned, when the Pagan shall not onely examine the most godly Christian religion by a wicked Professour, as it were a right rule by a crooked example, or Christ by Iudas (which is wicked) but as the rule in it selfe, that is, the Religion in his moral truth, & find that this your doctrine of aequiuocation [Page 101] is non solum doctrina mendax, verum-etiam mendacij; not only a lying doctrine, but a doctrine of lying. What can this worke in the Turks & all Pagans at this day, but obstinacy in their infidelity, and blasphemy of that faith, which is the only life of soules? Especially seeing I may as iustly say concern­ing the Aequiuocation of your contagious Romists, as the blessed Apostle writ of the incestuous among the Corinthi­ans: 1. Cor. 5. 1. I heare that there is such fornication among you, as is not once named among the Heathen.

This our Apostolicall Defence of Protestants I will conclude from Protestations of the Apostle.

The blessed Apostle of the Genules, and elect vessell of grace, S. Paul, when he would auouch his inward zeale for the saluation of soules, he protesteth thus; Rom. 9. 1. I say the truth and lie not, my conscience bearing me witnesse that I haue conti­nuall sorrow of hart for you. And againe, 2. Cor. 11. 31. God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ knoweth that I lie not. Secondly, to per­swade to others the authority of his Apostleship, he prote­steth thus; 1. Tim. 2. 7. Whereunto I am ordained an Apostle; I speake the truth in Christ, and lie not, euen a Teacher of the Gentiles. And againe, Galat. 1. 20. This that I write vnto you, behold I witnesse before God and lie not. He would then confirme vnto the minds of the Romans, Corinthians, Galathians the sincerity both of his affection and function by the force of an oath; calling God to witnesse to his words, as directly proceeding from his conscience; otherwise these Conuerts might haue replied vpon the Apostle thus; We heare of a doctrine of Aequi­uocating, which teacheth that you, by a secret clause in your mind, may alter the sense of words in your vnderstanding; differing from the sense which outwardly they signifie, and which only we can possibly vnderstand. How can you then perswade vs in this sense, that, you are an Apostle, seeing you professe a reseruation of a contrary sense, which may signifie [Page 102] you are no Apostle? Would you perswade vs to beleeue that by that your protestation, which you teach we need not be­leeue by your reseruation? therefore it will be to no end to perswade vs to beleeue you in that wherein we may be de­ceiued. Otherwise, if by the outward sense you may con­firme vs that you doe not lie, the contrary aequiuocating sense, doubtlesse, must be accounted a plaine lie. And yet our Aequiuocators haue made as strong protestations to deny their Priesthood, as euer S. Paul did to confirme his Apostleship; these being as certainly no true Priests, as he was truely an Apostle.

To seale this truth by a memorable example of antiqui­ty, reported by S. Hierome as a mirror of Christian simpli­citie, De muliere septies [...]cta, Ad Innocen­tium: E [...]mu­lieri maritus crimen adul­terij impege­rat, & cum eculeus cor­pus extende­rat, oculis in coelū erectis, Tu Domine Iesu testis es, qui serutator es renū, non ideo me ne­gare velle nè peream, sed ideò men [...] nolle nè pec­cem. Hieron. Tom. 1. Of a wife accused of her husband, an [...] tortured to draw out a confession of guilt: but she lifting vp her eyes to heauen, sayd, Thou Lord Iesu, who searchest the heart and reines, art witnesse that I do not denie truth for feare of death, but therefore refuse to lie for feare of sinne. Me thinke I see Tollet with o­ther Iesuits standing by beholding this spectacle, and say­ing (Tollet. Ies. Instruct. Sa­cerd. lib. 4 cap. 21. & 22. for he did instruct their Catholike adulterous wife to aequi [...]ocate) Alas good woman! it pitieth me to see you abide such torment only for want of wit; and then whispe­ring her in the [...]are, giueth her this ghostly counsell: Thou mayest vse a secret abstracted reseruation in thy minde, and so both escape torture and auoid a lie. These be Iesuits, the new Theologicall Alchymists of our time, able to abstract Aurum ex carbone, Truth out of a lie: who must be admired of the world as the Monopolists of all Arts, whereas no Art is singular in them but this Aequiuocation. In respect where­of I may say of them, as Tully spoke of the Soothsayers of his time: Miror si non riserit Haruspex, cùm Haruspicem vi­derit; I maruell how our Aequiuocatours doe not laugh, when they beholde one another. But heere is the difference of the spirit of wit, and the spirit of grace: this with that woman may looke vp to heauen and call Iesus to witnesse, when he that is in heauen, shall looke vpon them and haue them in de­rision.

[Page 103] Thus haue I discussed of these Antichristian doctrines of lying and treason; the last triall of both which we referre to the iudgement of God, not as wood or straw, subiect to their fancied Purgatory fire of triall; but as pitch and tarre, sulphure, and powder reserued for the vn­quenchable fire of hell; From whence our Lord Iesus preserue vs and them, to the glory of his sauing grace.

Gloria Deo.

ERRATVM: In the third part, Pag. 40. lin. 25. for 100. reade 1000.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.