A VINDICATION OF THE SINCERITY OF THE Protestant Religion In the Point of Obedience to SOVEREIGNES.

Opposed To the Doctrine of Rebellion, authorised and practised by the Pope and the Jesuites.

In Answer to a Jesuitical Libel, Entituled PHILANAX ANGLICƲS

By PETER DU MOULIN, D. D. Canon of Christ-Church Canterbury, one of His Majesties Chaplains.

LONDON, Printed by I. Redmayne, for John Crook, at the Ship in St Pauls Church-yard. 1664.


Geo. Stradling, S. T. P. Rever. in Christo Pat. Dom. Gilb. Archiep. Cant. à Sacr. Domest.

To the Most Reverend Father in God, GILBERT, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his GRACE, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, my most Honoured Diocesan and Visitor.


AN Adversary of the Truth, and therefore Yours, hath lately offer­ed to your Grace the same abuse as the Roman Souldiers did to the Lord Je­sus. For as they arrayed him in Royal Scarlet, bowed the Knee before him, and said to him, Hail King of the Jews; but at the same time spit upon him, and smote him on the head: This enemy, who is also a Roman Souldier, clotheth your Grace with high praises, and makes a profound obeysance to your Place and Merits in an Epistle Dedicatory; But by the same Epistle he puts under your Graces Prote­ction [Page] a charge of Rebellion against our Catholick Orthodox Church, and an Apologie for the Doctrine of the Jesuites. This is stroaking and striking together. No blame is so disgraceful as such praises. So did the Devil call Christ the Son of the living God, to disgrace him by his Te­stimony, and make him to be taken for one of his Confederates. The man never appearing to own his work, seems to ac­knowledge, that neither his person nor his work deserveth the notice of the world. Yet I thought it necessary to let the world know what a cheat is put upon the Rea­ders by this childe of darkness, who being altogether unknown to your Grace (as your self were pleased to express unto me) beareth himself for your ancient Acquain­tance, and claims your Patronage, while he disgraceth your Person, and revileth your Doctrine. Neither doth the Libel, [Page] being but an ignorant scolding, deserve an answer; but that the man recompenceth his shallow learning with his superlative malice, making use of this conjuncture, when the minds of loyal subjects are exul­cerated by their late and long sufferings by rebellious Zelots under pretence of Reli­gion, to make the sufferers to fall out with Religion it self.

These are the depths of Satan, who knows perfectly how to steer the spirits by the Rudder of their most sensible Interes­ses, and at this time labours to drown the too remiss sense of holy Belief, in the quick resentments of personal oppression. Blessed be God that he is come short of his aim in this attempt; and that this Libeller by his Imposture hath only stirred the just indignation of good Christians, in whom the interess of Gods truth and glory takes place before all personal concernments. [Page] Himself might have bin an example of that just severity which he commends in your Grace, if he had been as bold to Pre­sent the Book, as audacious to Dedicate it to so great a Patron. I cannot but have re­course unto the same Patron which he hath chosen for his untruths, to protect the confutation of them: Knowing, that the Vindication of the Truth, is in its right place, being put under your Graces prote­ction; in whose shadow the Church re­joyceth, as of the gracious Patron of Piety and Vertue, the Incourager of Goodness, the Maintainer of the Orthodox Faith; and in that respect, the right Arm of the great Defender of the same. That your Government may be blessed unto the Church, and Prosperous and Honoura­ble unto your Self, is the fervent prayer

Of Your GRACES Most dutiful and humblest Servant, PETER DU MOULIN

To the Roman Catholicks of His Majesties Dominions.

My Lords and Gentlemen,

THe Adversary against whom I appear ha­ving laid a Charge of Rebellion against a sort of Protestants in his Title page, hath in his Book brought the generality of Protestants under that Indictment. I will not imitate his un­sincerity, by laying that charge proper to the Court of Rome, and the Jesuites, upon all the Ro­man Catholicks, knowing the Loyalty of many of them, with whose acquaintance I am honoured, and making use in this Treatise of the Testimony of great Persons, and whole Courts and Societies of the Roman profession, against the precepts of Disloyalty enjoyned by the Roman Court, and acted by the Jesuites. For to these only I profess that my present opposition is limitted. Only I will be here your humble Suitor, That since the Pope is called by Cardinal Bellarmine, The Epist. ad Blackwell▪ Head of the Faith, and Praefat. ad lib. de summo Pontisice. The Fundamental Stone of Sion, you be pleased to consider seriously, how taking the Popes sense and authority for the foundation of your Faith in this point, can consist with that Honour and Loyalty which you harbour in your generous Breasts: And how you that venture your [Page] lives so freely for the Defence of your King, can acknowledge the power which the Pope assumeth of disposing of the Crowns and Lives of Kings, and absolving you from the duty of your Allegi­ence when he thinks good. Certainly, when you have weighed this in the Ballance of Conscience and sound Judgement, you shall finde your selves hedged in within this Dilemma, Either to cease to be good subjects, or to acknowledge that the Pope can erre, even when he speaks and makes Decrees from his Chair. Of which Truth if you be once perswaded, your way is open to know more Truth. That our faith may be setled upon that Truth which makes us free, we must call upon theJoh. 8. 32. assistance of the God of Truth, and prepare for it a meek, docible, and unprejudiced spirit; which are qualities altogether remote from the furious and contumelious Adversary whom I take in hand in this Treatise. Yet since they are not opprobri­ous terms, but clear proofs that are most offen­sive to the accused, I cannot deny that I have been more offensive to him, then he to the Protestants. God govern his Catholick Church with the Spirit of Truth and Peace, and convert with his bles­sings those that curse us. So prayeth

My Lords and Gentlemen,
Your most humble servant in the Lord Iesus. our Common Saviour, Peter Du Moulin.


The Designe, Style, and Genius of that Libel. Observations upon the Epistle and Prefaces.

THe licentiousness of the Press hath long since beaten me to that patience to let others speak, contenting my self to think; Looking upon the eager­ness of some men to confute all untruths that appear abroad, as a relick of Knight-Errantry, which obliged the Knights to redress all the wrongs that were done in the world. But my patience was over­come by the bold and pernicious untruths vented in a Libel, tending to no less then the rooting out of Protestants out of all States of the world, as Re­bels by their very Religion, and the Bane of all Go­vernments. The whole Work is purum putum mendacium, right mettle of untruth in the main substance. The Title is false, for it picks a quarrel with the Presbyterians only, whereas the Book de­clareth open war to all the Protestants under heaven. [Page] The pretence false; for the Author pretends to under­take that task out of love to the King, whereas he works the Kings ruine by calumnies against his true Subjects, and by maintaining the Jesuites, the sworn enemies of his Crown and State. The face he puts on, is false many wayes; for he pretends in his Epi­stle and Prefaces to publish the Book of a dead man, whereas the uniformity, or rather deformity of the af­fected broken Style, and Billings-gate language, in the Epistle, Prefaces, and body of the Book, shews all that false coin to have been stampt in the same base Mint. The Author is produced as a Priest of the Church of England; whereas he speaks as a Priest of the Church of Rome. The Publisher calls him­self Bellamy, whereas he is a false Friend, and a true Enemy, and most like it is, that no such man as he names himself, is to be found: For such Vizards are borrowed by these children of darkness, A wrong Name, A contrary Profession, A dead man that speaks out of his Grave; three Vizards one over another; lyes upon lyes in the Porch; a right Entry into a Shop of Lyes.

But how much falshood is in the Epistle? Was Bellamy or the pretended dead Author well acquain­ted with that venerable Prelate to whom the Book is [Page] dedicated? Did Bellamy ever present the Book to his Lordship? Did he chuse him for his Patron, and stroak him with deserved praises, to honour him, or to betray him, and make him odious, as a Patron of Popery, and Protector of Jesuites? And lastly, the accusations laid against the several Prote­stants, even these that are true, if any be, are they not falsely imputed to the generality of the party? And are not most of the alledged passages out of their writings maimed, detorted, or plainly forged?

O God of Truth, who lovest Truth in the inward parts, and lookest with piercing judicial eyes into the bottome of crafty projects through all the coverings of hypocrisie; Is thy Truth to be defended with Falshood? What followship hath the simplicity of thy Gospel with this heap of multiplyed Impostures? And how can the zeal of Religion put a man that hath some sense of Ingenuity, upon such false and crooked wayes? Well, I see my self engaged to fight with wilde Beasts, as St Paul did at Ephe­sus. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered. Let them also that hate him, flee be­fore him.

I did not see the Book but after the second Editi­on, eight moneths after its first appearing; And [Page] though I had seen it before, I would have made no haste to appear upon the lists against this Adversary, but expected of the Secular Power a more substanti­al, and indeed the right Confutation. But what! the smalness of the Libel, and the Libeller, kept them hitherto from the Censure of Authority: For those that stand in high places, can hardly discern such strawes below: But we that stand below, may look neerer, and see poyson in a straw; and ought to represent unto our Superiours the mischievousness of this small, yet dangerous thing.

Dangerous I say, not for the strength of reason, nor for the bitterness neither; for the very extre­mity of malice in that Book makes it weak in rea­son, as it is the natural effect of pride and choler to enervate the judgement, and take reason off the hooks. But that which makes the Book dange­rous, is the unparallell'd boldness and presumptu­ousness of the attempt. Could we believe, but that we see it, that in England, where the Law gives no Toleration to the Romish Religion, a Papist durst appear in Print, with his and his Printers name to the Book, to tax not only the Protestant Reform­ers, but the very Reformation of Rebellion and High Treason? Put among Luthers crimes, That [Page] he preached against the Tyrannie and Superio­rity Pag. 73. & 74. of the Bishop of Rome, and perswaded the people not to render him any Obedience. Call the Reformation the New Gospel, Excuse Mariana, and justifie the Jesuites, against those that charge them with the Doctrine of King-killing; Cry down Protestants, as persons not to be trusted with any part of the Government of the State, or suffered to live in any Commonwealth; Bestow upon them the most contumelious termes that he could devise, Tray­tors, Diabolical, Cockatrices, Infernal Spirits, are the mildest words that he giveth them.

It is a silly colour to his malice to name them al­wayesIn his pa, 109. his vizard falls down and he saith o­penly, These rebel doctrines are backt by the ge­nerality of those that call them­selves Pro­testants. pag. 71. Protestants of Integrity, as if he meant a different sort from other Protestants; whereas under that name he persecuteth all the Reformed Christians of Europe, following them from Coun­trey to Countrey. And although he durst not so openly rail against the English Reformers, yet can he not abstain to tax them of Rebellion under Queen Mary, saying most falsely, That there was more Rebellions in her poor five years, then in the forty four of Queen Elizabeth; thereby to shew, that the Roman Catholicks are the far more loyal subjects.

But that which goes beyond all examples of the [Page] most superlative impudence, that most virulent Li­bel against the Protestants of Integrity, which is the Religion profess'd in England, he makes bold to recommend to the Protection of that Eminent and Vertuous Prelate, now our most Reverend Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, then the second Ecclesi­astical Person of all the Province, and President of the Convocation.

I pray Sir Philopapa (for Philanax Anglicus is too good a Title for you) do you know who you speak to? Do you think what you say? Do you remember where you are? In qua tandem Civitate Catili­na, arbitraris te vivere? Do you think you are at Rome or Madrid, where you may bring, as you do, all Protessants to the Inquisition? Or do you hope that our loyal Clergie will mistake you for one of their side, because you rail against Knox and Bu­chanan, and make some profession of Obedience, and declame against the late rebellion? And when they know you once for the man you are, do you presume that you can make them forget what Sove­reigne you are sworn unto, and what power the Pope claims over all Kingdoms, and what particular Title he pretends to England and Ireland?

Certainly Sir Philopapa (for the Pope is the [Page] King you love, and whose Interest you promote among our Kings Subjects) I hope you shall finde that your loud cryes at my Lords Grace of Canter­bury's door, for the putting down of all Protestants of Integrity, will prove as improper and unseason­able, as if you proclaimed at the Court gates the Or­dinance of the Rebels Parliament for putting down Monarchy; and that you shall be helped with some personal interest to increase your hatred against the Protestants of Integrity: for such shall you finde the Kings Majesty, his Council, his Parliament, the pious Fathers of the Church, and the wise Judges of the Land. Could you not content your self to enjoy quietly your Sovereigns Clemency and forbear­ance, but you must defame in Print all that are not of your gang, which are no less then the King and the State? From their Justice nothing can secure you but your obscurity. But while you take an or­der that your person may lye undiscovered, I will make bold to discover some of your Impostures: All I cannot, neither is it material; for all that I need to do to provide an antidote against your poison, is to do two things: The one, to wipe off the aspersions of Rebellion which you cast upon the holy Doctrine of the Protestant Churches. The other, to bring to [Page] the Bar the true Rebels; which will be no recrimi­nation, but asserting the Pope in his ancient known possession, of being the grand Patron and Architect of Rebellion of subjects against their Sovereignes, and the especial directer of high Treason against the Kings of England.

Before I look to the body of his Book, somthing must be said of his Epistle and Prefaces. His Epi­stle is addressed to no less then the Right Reverend Father in God, Gilbert Lord Bishop of London, and Dean of His Majesties Chappel Royal, since deservedly promoted to the highest Dignity of the Church of England. A great Honour to his Book▪ How far the great Patron which he chuseth is honou­red with that Dedication, and the due praises which he payeth unto him, is obvious to any ordinary un­derstanding. Praise at the best is [...], but a light gift to a wise man. And since praise Seneca▪ Sit tibi tam turpe laudari a turpibus quam si lauderis ob turpia. hath its price from the praiser, that eminent Pre­late is little obliged to this Gentlemans praises, who justifies in his Book what he is, and what he aimes at. It is praising him with a vengeance, to take him for a Protector of his mischievous attempt.


He hath more obliged our▪ late most Reverend [Page] Archbishop Juxon, now a glorious Saint in heaven, whom he hath not spared to blame, though he doth not name him, but he points at him with his finger: And then tells My Lord of London, From all these vanities, your Lordships known Innocency and Piety hath alwayes defended you; scientifically inferring, that Innocency and Piety is inconsistent with the Character which he had given of that great Prelate. Could this Epistles be so senseless as to expect thanks from a Bishop of London, for raising his commendation upon the disgrace of his Metropo­litan? What needed he to go so far out of his sub­ject to bring in that malicious exception? For the blame of the one adds nothing to the praise of the other. Does he not shew his hatred against Pro­testant Prelates, which he could not but express, even when he took one of them for his Patron? And no wonder that a Jesuite should maligne an Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing the Jesuites had no greater enemies then those that sate in that See. That which he findes amiss in that rarely accomplished Prelate, is commended in him by wise men, his lau­dable curiosity, fit for a great Naturalist, as he was; to keep several sorts of Animals about his house, as Aristotle did before him: Their Nature and Incli­nations [Page] he would observe with a judicious eye, and speak of them pertinently and delightfully. Of these Natural Lectures he was pleased to make me hearer several times, and to imploy me to finde him Books of that subject. So serious were his Recreations, when he would unbend, among those whom he honour­ed with his Discourses and Table, after his great Imployments about the Government of Church and State.

As that great person's known Piety and Inno­cency cannot be blasted by such a weak enemy as this Jesuite, so it needs not be defended by such a weak Champion as I am. His admired Vertue shines in an Orb elevated far above the reach of the barking of envie; and if he needed the approbation of any un­der God, he had a Royal Testimony, when his late Majesty, our glorious Saint and Martyr had so much confidence in his Piety and Innocency, and together in his Wisdome and Courage, that of all his Divines he chose him for his second, when he was to encoun­ter the terrors of a violent and ignominious death: And by the excellent use which he made of his godly counsel in the retirement of his last devotions, he ended his combates in a victorious death over all his enemies spiritual and temporal, and yeilded his great [Page] soul unto God with joy and comfort. For one thing this Jesuite and his confreres had great reason to hate that godly Prelate; That after His Majesty had spoken many divine words upon the Scaffold, he put him in minde to make a profession of his Religion; which he did, and professed before God and the world, that he dyed a Protestant according to the Religion established by Law in the Church of Eng­land. A profession which gave great discontent to the Papists and the Fanaticks, for both wish'd that he had dyed a Papist indeed.

It is known with what calmness of spirit, pru­dence, and magnanimity, that vertuous Prelate went through the tryals which he was put to after the Kings death; for he was as wise as a serpent, though as harmless as a dove: And among his many Ver­tues, he was a great Master of two, which seldome meet together, a singular and Moses-like meekness, and an invincible constancy. They that have known him moderating in the Ʋniversity, and have seen him since acting in the greatest businesses of the King­dome, admire the readiness and solidity of his judge­ment, fitted alike for speculation and action, and in both excellent. His dexterity and patience, over­coming the most difficult affairs. His sincerity in de­claring [Page] himself without Complements, and his fideli­ty in keeping his promises without wavering, were very remote from the imputation of vanity, which this enemy would fasten upon the reputation of that truly great and good man. I cannot leave, I cannot part from the mention of him, without that reverend and affectionate expression of the Jews when they speak of their vertuous friends departed, [...] Let his memory be blessed, for so his soul is in heaven, for all the good he hath done in earth to so many, and to me for one, for to his Graces goodness, next to God, I owe the greatest part of my well-being.

To return to our Adversary; Many things in his Epistle and Preface shew him to be an Adversary in­deed to the whole Protestant party, and a sworn slave to the Court of Rome. But as he takes no pains to prove any thing, but that all Protestants are Rebels by their Religion, I will not take the pains to dis­prove any thing else.

All his Preface is verba & voces; Moralities far from his purpose, interlarded with invectives with­out ground. For who are those that will do no good works for fear of meriting by them? And where are those Protestants among whom dulness and heaviness of spirit is taken up as a practise? A [Page] character more befitting Monastical devotion. God fetcheth light out of darkness; but it is the Devils work to fetch darkness out of light. This man labours to do the same, Sententias loquitur carnifex. But he goeth untowardly to work: For he pulls his doctrines by the hair to bring them to his uses. It seems the man had made some petty declamations when he was a Grammar Scholar, in a broken boyish style, made up of a thousand stollen shreds: And now, lest these pie­ces of wit should perish, he brings them in by head and shoulders to decide controversies in points not controverted. For to his silly commendations of de­votion and humility, one may say as that King to him that would commend Hector in his presence, Quis vero illas vituperat? What need you speak for these Vertues, when no body speaks against them? And what are these declamations to the matter in hand?

To give a taste of his learning in Greek, he trans­lates [...] an eloquent Oration.

He calls St. Austin the Oracle of the Latine Church; But he never belonged to it, but to the African.

And for a tast of his wit and eloquence, barking at the Moon, he saith to be the Divinity of Dogs.

[Page]This is of the same kinde, The blessed eyes of Bats they have to mock at the greatest lights. But if the Bats mockt at the great light, they would out­face it, whereas they hide themselves from it.

One more of these impertinencies out of the body of the book. He gives these commendations to our latepag. 57. & 58. excellent King, a Prince as wise as Apollo, valiant There wanted no more but animo prudens, ut Homerus; as it is up­on the Tombe of Richard the 11. as Achilles, vertuous as Socrates, pious as Aeneas, and beautiful as an Amazon. O brave boy! Well declamed for a Scholar of the second Form! See what comes by being bred in the Colledges of the Jesuites of Flanders; for such a gallant strain of Oratory could never have been learned in the Schools of Westminster or Eaton. Yet me-thinks the first and the last of these comparisons, have a reach quite be­yond common sense. Will he call holy King Charles a Prince as wise as Apollo? It is a fit parallel for Julian the Apostate. Had he no better comparison for that Saint then a Pagan God and a Devil, who by reason of the uncertainty of his Oracles, was called [...] crooked and winding: How doth that fit such a pattern of Christian and Royal ingenuity, so sincere in his words, so real in his actions? The last parallel is as incongruous as the first, He calls the King as beautiful as an Amazon. Where hath this [Page] Antiquary found those viragines the Amazons with their right breast burnt, set out as Paragons of beau­ty? And though they had been such, Is a womans beauty fit to express the majestical presence of a King? How do these two comparisons suit with the subject, and one with another?

Velut aegri somnia vanae
Finguntur species, ut nec pes nec caput uni
Reddatur formae.

This writer affords more occasions to make sport with him by his ignorance, but more by his blind choler; then which there is nothing that disarmeth a man more, and exposeth him more to be a laughing stock. Such another Pierochol and Cacafuego I ne­ver met with, His style is a continual casting of fire­brands, and firing of Granado's to scatter among the Protestants in all the corners of the world. What would become of the Ship of this Church, if these men ruled upon the Deck, and were masters of the Stern and the Sayls, seeing they are so swaggering now they lye under the Hatches?

Let the Author of the book keep himself there for me, and remain unknown. The publisher will not ac­knowledge himself to be the Father, but only the God­father; although the Epistle, Preface, and Book, look [Page] like three brats of one venter. We need not question who is the father, since the godfather answereth for the childe.

Neither is it more material to search into the oc­casion of the writing of the book, which he saith to be a Letter from a Protestant of integrity, in answer to a letter from a person of quality. These letters I never saw: But if that Protestant of integrity will have the Presbyterians conformable to the Church of England in Ecclesiasticks, as the Epi­stle seems to intimate, we are of his minde; neither is any more required of the Presbyterians for the blessed work of concord, and for the comfort of their Protestant brethren, and their own.

The Title of Philanax Anglicus, whereby the Author makes a profession to love the King, is his passport into the patience of the Reader: And he makes of it a Fort, under the shelter of which he thinks he may boldly shoot upon whom he pleaseth to take for his mark. But what advantage this lover of the King alloweth to him, is much like the gift of Juglers; his Majesty may hold it fast, and finde nothing in his hand, as we shall see afterwards.

A Vindication of the Protestant Religion in the point of obedience to Sovereigns; opposed to the doctrine of Rebellion, au­thorized and practised by the Pope and the Jesuits. In answer to a Jesuitical Libel, intituled, Philanax Anglicus.

CHAPTER I. Of the Objections out of the Books of Protestant Writers.

THe Book of this Adversary consisting of stale Objections, which have been a thousand times answered, would put me and any man that would answer him to the unavoidable necessi­ty of saying over many things that were said before; but that all his Objections may be reduced into one, and therefore one answer will serve for them all.

For from the beginning to the end, he objects unto us some passages out of Protestant Writers which savour of disobedience, as he dresseth them, and some faults in that kinde of those that have embraced the Prote­stant party: whence he inferreth, That both the Do­ctrine and the Practise of Reformed Religion is Rebel­lion. He labours especially to pick faults in the first Re­formers; [Page 2] but coming short of his end, he quarrelleth with others that came long since the Reformation.

But though he had brought the Reformers to plead guilty, he hath done nothing against us; For to all these allegations we answer, that our Belief depends not up­on the doctrine of any particular person or persons, much less upon their actions. But that to know the true belief of our Churches, one must look upon their publick Confessions of Faith.

The Law was received by the disposition of Angels, saith St. Steven, Act. 7. 53. and so was the Gospel. But those whom God used to draw his Church out of the abuses of Popery were not Angels but men, whom we hold not to have been infallible. Wherefore if one alledge to the English Churches some hard Sayings of persons that had a hand in the Reformation, to the Germane Chur­ches of Luther, to the Helvetian of Zwinglius; they will answer, They were men. They are not the Pillars of our Faith. Since those men have laid open the Holy Scripture before us which was shut up before, it is no more for their word that we believe, for our selves have seen the saving Truth of God, and upon that we are built.

But that the faults of men may not be imployed or received to give a prejudice against the Doctrine of God, I desire all judicious and sober minded to consider, that in the midst of the Romish darkness it was not to be expected that the saving light of Gods truth, and the Apostolical Government of the Church should be disco­vered upon a sudden by any man, completely & with all its parts. As Rome was not built in one day, no more was [Page 3] Sion. Many were great helpers towards the knowledge of the truth, who were themselves very short of it, and nevertheless ought to be reverently remembred by us for doing more then was to be expected in that Age. Such were the Waldenses; such was Wiclef, such was John Hus, men too severely censured by some of us as not thoroughly principled in many points of Religion. But how much truth did they discover? How much saving Doctrine did they bring forth? What lasting seeds of Reformation did they sow, which lying buried for some Ages, sprung forth, and had a happy growth to a greater perfection in the age of our Fathers? Truly, although the announcing of the Gospel by the Angels be called the Day-spring from on high, because that lightLuk. 1. 78. at Christs coming brake forth as it were from the Meri­dian, not from the Horizon, and was full at its very rising; we are not to expect at every return of that light after a long night that there shall be no difference be­tween break of Day and Noon. No; the Truth is com­pared2 Pet. [...]. [...]. unto a Light shining in a dark place untill the day dawn and the Day-Starr arise. In these last Ages of the world, after a long darkness, the Sun of Truth did rise by little and little. It shone at the first with much fogg about it and cast long shades. And we have reason to acknowledge with thankfulness and admira­tion, that among those shades so much saving Light did shine as inlightened the understanding and comforted the conscience with the mystery of Gods reconciliation with men in Jesus Christ through faith and repentance, which is the main substance of Religion. For Grace as Nature▪ begins with the noble parts, which are [Page 4] perfectioned long before the outward be finisht.

Although I reverence very much the memory of those that were raised by God to discover the errours of the Court of Rome, I will not justifie their errours, if they had any, nor all the words and writings of them that came after, and brought their Work to a greater perfe­ction. To compass that great work among the highest contradiction, and against the current of custome, if men of stout spirits (and there was need of such) had let fall from their mouth or pen some less reverend expressions then duty required concerning the superiour powers that opposed them, none needs wonder at it, and yet none needs to justifie it, and we are very far from it. But though they had spoken treason, it casts no blur upon our profession, which is exprest in our publick confessions. Neither do we acknowledge any private man to be the warrant of our faith.

I may then save my labour in examining whether our Adversary hath faithfully alledged the writings of Pro­testant Divines, and truly represented their opinions, since their opinions are not our rule. And yet so much we will say for them, that those very men whose opinions their Adversaries misrepresent unto the world, were the Writers and Composers of those Confessions of Faith which were subscribed unto, and acknowledged by the National Churches as the publick Declarations of their belief. Which Confessions are so full and pregnant in as­serting the obedience of subjects unto their Sovereigns (as I will demonstrate, God willing, in the third Chapter of this Treatise) that the greatest Adversaries find little to say against it. And our Adversary (to whom his Par­ty [Page 5] owes this commendation, that he hath carefully colle­cted and epitomized all the objections made against us about the point of Obedience) passeth by our Confessi­ons of faith as being without the reach of his exceptions. Onely he nibbleth a little at the 39. Article of the French Confession, which is this; We affirm that Laws are to be obeyed, tributes to be paid, and the yoke of subje­ction to be born, although the Magistrates be infidels. Thus far excellent well, saith the Adversary, but that which follows spoils all in his opinion. The Sovereign Em­pire of God remaining alwaies entire, Why? here is a gallant latitude (saith he) for disobedience and rebellion. But no such latitude is left by the Article. All that good reason can infer out of it, is, that we must obey the Ma­gistrates as long as we may do it without disobeying God. There is great difference between not obeying and rebelling.

I see nothing else bearing the stamp of publick consent of any National Church among Protestants that this man excepts against in the point of obedience. For his invective against the Geneva Bible, is a wilfull mistake. Some English exiles at Geneva printed there a Bible; An Edition justly discredited by a Note in the Margin, 2 Chron. 5. 16. upon that Asa put by his mother Maacha from the government for her idolatry. And the annota­tion saith, that he should not onely have deposed her, but killed her. Which impious Paradox this Gentleman imputeth to the whole Congregation of those Protestants of integrity, as he calls us, because, saith he, their holy Ge­neva Bible is admitted by their whole Kirk; which we deny. No English Translation of the Bible is authentical [Page 6] to be read in Churches, but that which was made by the commandement of King JAMES of glorious memo­ry. Neither was that Geneva Bible translated or recei­ved by publick authority. Neither is Geneva more to be taxed for it, then London for printing the wicked libel which I am now confuting, both being printed without Licence. That, Note, put in by some Fanatick, is rejected by all Protestants, and the generality must not be char­ged with a private mans folly.

Although I answer not for any private man, yet that the Reader may judge what credit he may give to this Gentlemans allegations. I have set down here a samplePag. 82, and 83. of his unsincerity in his alledging of Luther. He sets down three passages taken, as he saith, out of Luther'sI made use of the Edition of Iena An. 1600 tom. 2. omni­um ope­rum D. Mart. Lutheri, Treatise De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae. The first cap. De Sacramento Baptismi. Ab omnibus hominum le­gibus exempti sumus libertate Christiana nobis per Bapti­smum donata; that is, We are freed from all humane Laws by the Christian liberty given to us by Baptisme.

I may confidently affirm that these words are not to be found either in that Chapter, or in the whole Trea­tise. And if the Reader will be so inquisitive as to look upon the place, he shall find it so. There Luther com­plains of the ceremonies wherewith the Pope hath clog­ged the Sacrament of Baptisme, and maintaineth that neither Bishop, nor Pope, nor Angel hath power to im­pose such humane additions upon the conscience of Chri­stians to be obeyed as Laws. And yet if they be imposed he will have Christians to bear with them, keeping still to themselves that liberty of conscience to remember, that such things are wrongfully imposed, and taking [Page 7] heed either to justifie the tyranny, or to murmure a­gainst it. This is the sense of the whole discourse of Lu­ther. But he saith no where that the Christian liberty gi­ven to us by Baptisme, exempts us from the Laws of men. This is a meer fiction.

So is his second allegation out of the same book, cap. de Matrimonio. Scio nullam Remp. Legibus feliciter administrari. He makes Luther say, I know that no State is happily governed by Lawes: but there is not one word of that in the whole Chapter of Matrimony, nor in the whole Treatise.

And Luthers opinion was as farr from that Tenet as the East is from the West, and the Pope and his Con­clave from Christ and his Apostles. Shall we wonder that the Pope alters the words of Scripture making the Text say, she shall bruise thy heel, in stead of he, to trans­fer the victory of Christ over the Devil unto Christs Mo­ther; or that he giveth to Scripture a contrary sense, turning Feed my sheep into Depose Kings, and dispose of Kingdoms? when such men as our Adversary take upon them to forge what words and sense they will, and to fa­ther them upon whom they please?

Quid Domini facient audent cum talia fures?

The third allegation is out of the Chapter de Ordine in the same Treatise; the words, as our Adversary re­cites them, are these, Turpe enim est, & iniquiter servile Christianum hominem qui liber est aliis quam coelestibus & divinis legibus subjectum esse; that is, It is a foul thing, and wickedly servile, that a Christian man who is free, should be subject to any other but the divine and hea­venly [Page 8] laws. But this Gentleman, or he from whom he hath borrowed these allegations, hath basely corrupted and falsified this passage, putting legibus in stead of tra­ditionibus, which alters the sense altogether, and chan­geth the question: for Luther disputeth against imposing unnecessary traditions in Religion, as necessary to salva­tion, and would not have a Christian to subject himself in that kind to any tradition, but such as are divine and heavenly. But this corrupter represents him as refusing subjection to civil laws and temporal powers. Can there be a more ungodly and odious imposture? And how doth this mans inference follow upon Luther's discourse? So that it is most plain (saith he) that it was not Lu­ther's design onely to pull down Monarchy, but all other kinds of civil Government, and to extirpate all humane laws. Certainly that inference depends no more upon Luther's discourse, then the new stars of Galilee upon the Aphorisms of Hippocrates.

It is a good sport to see how incensed this Gentleman is against Luther for exhorting Kings and Princes to fall upon the Pope and his Cardinals, and to fulfill the Pro­phecy of Rev. 17. That the Kings of the earth shall strip the great harlot naked, devour her self, and burn her with fire. Which he exagerates as high treason, because he acknowledgeth the Pope for his Sovereign, and the King of kings, whom none can resist or call to account without incurring the crime of Rebellion.

For his other allegations against Luther, he shall not have the luck to be believed upon his word, after I have laid open his infidelity in that kind. He that hath lei­sure or curiosity enough, may search the places and exa­mine [Page 9] whether they be true or false, neither of which concerns us. Yet a judicious view of the affairs of Ger­many at that time, and of the nature of Sovereignty and Subjection in the Empire, of which I intend to say some­thing in the next Chapter, which will make his hardest expressions to seem less strange.

It is certain that he writ against King Henry the VIII. most slovenly. Yet observe, that Henry the VIII. was not his King. That he said nothing against the obedi­ence due to him by his subjects, and that he made a­mends to the King since, and cryed Peccavi. He was then less to blame then the Jesuite Sander, who calledSander. lib. de Schismate Anglica­no. the same King (his natural Prince) another Mahomet, the root of sin, and a most impious and sacrilegious Tyrant, and Queen Elizabeth Lupam Anglicanam, the English wolf-bitch, and made them no amends for it.

This testimony cannot be denied to Luther, that he opposed rebellion most vigorously; as it may be seenSleidan. lib. 5. ad an. 1525. Id. lib. 14. ad an. 1542. in his Epistle to the Boors that rose in arms, and by his Sermon in the Camp, both pregnant for the obedience of subjects to their Princes; of which Sleidan giveth a faithfull account, a better Author then our Adversary, or Cochlaeus Luther's enemy.

The first and greatest instrument of the Helvetian Re­formation was Zuinglius, out of whose books the Ad­versary picks some passages to exhort the Switzers and Germans to defend their Religion against the Empe­rour. If there had been no quarrel of Religion at that time, yet he would have exhorted them to stand for their liberties against the Emperour. For the Switzers having shaken off the yoke of the Empire two hundred [Page 10] years before. It is no marvel that Zuinglius was not carefull to exhort his Countreymen and neighbours to obedience to the Emperour, the perpetual underminer of the State which he lived in.

Observe that the Authours that write of the power of Princes, and of the duty of subjects, determine it accor­ding to the form of the States in which they live: and so no wonder that Zuinglius a Switzer acknowledgeth no successive power, but conceiveth all Princes to be eli­gible and deposable by the Commonwealth. And that Calvin and Beza living in an Aristocratical State, shewed also in their Writings more inclination towards that kind of Government. So the German and Italian Writers are for a mixt and much limitted Government. The English and French for Monarchy, with certain Laws. And if the Turks and Muscovites could make Books, they▪ would write for the Despotical and unlimitted power.

Our Adversary layeth a heavy charge upon Melanch­ton, that he should say that the inferiour Magistrates Pag. 105. Melan­cton in Epit. Mo­ral. Philos. Id. in lib. de Consil. Evangeli­cis. may cut the throats of the superiour, and all this for refor­ming Religion: for which he referreth us to two of his Books, without quoting the particular place; much like the direction of the Goodwifes Letter, To my Husband dwelling at the wars. But no such thing shall be found in all Melanchton's Works. Neither is it suitable to the spi­rit of that wise and meek man.

For Calvin, by reason of his Aristocratical Doctrine about the Tribunitian power of the tres ordines regni over the King: I would leave him for such as he is; but that it is my proper business at this time to discover the imposture of my Adversary, and he hath committed a [Page 11] signal one against Calvin, whom he hath served just as he did Luther before. For he brings him upon the Stage,

Lacerum crudeliter ora,
Ora manusque ambas.

as he did the other, miserably torn and disfigured.

Speaking of oaths which bind us to observe and obey Pag. 103. the King, he saith, that to all oaths of this nature Mr. Calvin from his high Cathedral and Consistorial Tribunal gives this absolution; Quibuscunque hujus Evangelii lux affulget, &c. ab omnibus laqueis & juramentis absolvi­tur. I cannot make good English of false Latine, of which Calvin is not guilty, but it is as familiar with this Gentleman as false Doctrine. His meaning is to make Calvin say, that when a man is inlightened with the Go­spel of Geneva, he is free from all oathes to his Sove­reign; for it is of all oathes of that nature that he makes Mr. Calvin to give absolution. But there is a swarm of corruptions in that allegation. The words of Calvin are these. Quibuscunque ergo Calvin. l. 4. Inst. c. 13. sect. 21. Qui ex Monachismo ad honestum aliquod viven­di genus concedunt, fractae fidei & perju­rii graviter accusantur, quod vinculum (ut vulgo creditur) insolubile quo erant Deo & Ecclesiae obligati abruperint. At ego nullum fuisse vinculum dico, ubi quod ho­mo confirmat Deus abrogat. Deinde ut de­mus fuisse obligatos quū ignoratione Dei & errore impliciti venerentur nunc post­quā veritatis notitī sunt illuminati, simul Christi gratia liberos esse dico. Nam si tan­tam efficaciam habet crux Christi ut à Le­gis divinae maledictione quâ vincti detine­bamur nos absolvat, quanto magis ab ex­traneis vinculis (quae nihil sunt quam captiosa Satanae retia) nos eruet. Quibuscun (que) ergo Christus luce Evangelii sui affulget, non dubium est quin ab omnibus eos laqueis expediat quibus se per superstitionem induerant. Christus Evangelii sui luce afful­get, non dubium est quin ab omni­bus eos laqueis expediat quibus se per superstitionem induerant; that is, As many then as Christ illu­minateth with the light of his Go­spel, no doubt but he sets them free from the suares into which they had ingaged themselves by super­stition. Without insisting upon [Page 12] all the words which he changeth, or addeth, or leaveth out. He altereth Calvin's question, whose discourse I have therefore set in the Margin, that the Reader may see that he speaks of Monastical vows, which he affirms to be void, when by the light of the Gospel they appear to be contrary to the Christian liberty purchased by Christ unto his Church. Whereas this Gentleman makes use of that passage to make Calvin absolve subjects of their allegiance to their Sovereigns. Where is consci­ence? Where is sincerity? Will Jesuites use such pious frauds to make proselytes? Habeat jam Roma pudo­rem.

I cannot pardon this Gentleman his prevarication a­bout Calvin, though I should make a digression for it; for is it not good sport to see him defend Calvin when he takes upon him to defame him? For having accused Calvin of Delicacy and Epicureisme in his behaviour, he brings for a witness Florimond de Remond, a Gentle­man Pag. 7. of quality, who hath left us (saith he) the lively image of him. And when upon that I would see whatFlorimun­dus Ray­mundus Historiae de nativ. Haer. &c. lib. 7. cap. 10. lively image Florimond de Remond left us of him, I found that he giveth this account of his life. Calvin from his youth did macerate his body with fasting; whither it was to preserve his health, and by that abstinence dissi­pate the fumes of meagrom wherewith he was afflicted, or that he might thereby be the more free to write, study, and exercise his memory. The truth is, that hardly could a man be found that equalled Calvin in laboriousness. For twenty three years that he lived at Geneva, he preacht every day, and many times twice upon Sundays: every week he made publick lessons of Divinity, and every Fri­day [Page 13] he was present at the Colloquy or Conference of Pastors which they call Congregation. The rest of his time he im­ployed in writing Books, or answering letters of divers persons.

Well, Sir Jesuite, do you tax Calvin of Epicureisme after your confreres, and bring convincing proofs a­gainst it? What discipline must ye expect from your Superiours at Douay for thus betraying their cause? It is well if you can scape the Chamber of Meditations. In the mean while all those serpentine Geneva Rabbins, that conquering Legion of the right cockatrice kind, a­gainstThese are his words Pag. 48, and 49. whom you rail so emphatically, will give you thanks for your real help.

The Adversary having done with Calvin, falls upon Beza, a man for whom I am less partial then for any of the Reformed Divines, herein heir of my Reverend Fa­thers dislike of him for dashing the fair hopes of agree­ment in Religion in the Colloquy of Poissy by his immo­derate behaviour. But to lay a charge upon Beza's Doctrine about the point of the authority of Kings, and obedience of subjects, he should have taken allegations out of Beza's undoubted Writings, not out of pieces without name, ascribed to him by his enemies. Such is Eusebius Philadelphus: Such is the treatise de jure Magistratus, which this very Adver­sary saith to be ascribed by some to Hottoman. Such is also Junius Brutus; concerning whom we stand to the Oracle of our English Solomon King JAMES in his Defense of the right of Kings against Cardinal Perron. Junius Brutus, when he objects unto us, is an unknown [Page 14] Author, and perhaps some of the Roman Church hath made it to make Protestants odious unto Princes. The conjectures of that great King are more certain then the affirmations of the Jesuites.

As for Beza's siding with the Princes of the bloud that were in armes against the Court, which our Adver­sary objects unto him, and proveth it by some letters of his, and the testimony of Baldwin his enemy; the qua­lity of that charge depends upon the nature of that quarrel, of which something must be said before he and I part.

For Paraeus, we are against him about the point of o­bedience as much as our Adversary. His son seeing whatPhilip. Paraeus Append. ad Rom. 13. Loquitur D. parens meus cum Politicis & Iuris­consultis non de Rege ab­soluta po­testate in­duto, sed sub condi­tione ad­misso. Pag. 23. general opposition his Doctrine found among the Prote­stants, and that the Book was burnt in England by au­thority, made this excuse for his father, Valeat quantum valere potest; My father speaks with the Politicks and Iurisconsults, not of a King invested with absolute power, but admitted upon conditions. Paraeus considerd not how the world was abroad, but how it was in his coun­trey.

The Adversary quarrelleth also with Gracerus, but hath nothing else to say against him, but that he is a­gainst the Antichrist. Coercenda gladio est Antichristi ambitio, which he expounds thus, That Antichristian ambition is to be cut off with the sword, that is, all Prin­ces and Prelates. It seems the man taketh part with An­tichrist since he taxeth Gracerus for being against him. But that Gracerus would cut off Princes and Prelates be­cause he would repress the ambition of Antichrist, is a [Page 15] great inconsequence. Observe this Gentlemans learning, the Verb coercere signifieth repress, which is a modest term of Gracerus. But our Adversary translates it cut off; shewing himself to be as great a scholar in Latine, as he approved himself to be in Greek, when he translated [...], an eloquent Oration. And that his head is much like that upon a clipt sixpence, it is a little head without letters.

His objection of the rebellious Maxims of some Scots, Pag. 47, & seq. as Knox and Buchanan, is now stale and out of season, since they have been generally condemned and explo­ded by Protestants both on this and the other side ofRivet. Castiga. Not. in Epist. ad Balsac. cap. 13. num. 14. sub finem. the sea. The judgement of the learned Rivet to this pur­pose is ingenuous and prudent, that these things must be imputed to the hot and audacious brains of the Scots, then heated again by persecution. Let me adde, that when the persecution was pretty well overcome, they were kept in their heat by sharp contention. There be­ing then a Royal Bastard, who pretending that his Fa­ther had once a designe to make him King, followed that designe very close, yet closely, raising all the trou­bles he could against the Kings Widow, and his legiti­mate Heir: for which the difference of Religion hap­pening about that time, gave him fair play; for all his ambitious projects were cloaked with the furtherance of the cause of the Gospel. This was the man that coun­tenanced that divinity of rebellion.

Which that it may not be imputed to the Religion, I desire all judicious heads maturely to ponder Dr. Ri­vet's wise observation; That the Scots of a hundred and five Kings, which they reckon till Queen Mary, had [Page 16] deposed three, expelled five, and killed thirty five. I demand then whether all those excesses must be impu­ted to the doctrine and zeal of Religion. If so, let the Roman Catholicks look how they shall defend their Re­ligion which then was prevalent. But if that must be imputed to the bold and stirring Genius of the Nation, why shall the troubles risen under the Queen Regent of Scotland and her daughter Mary be ascribed to Religion, and Reformation, supposed the cause, not the occasion, by the managing of crafty self-seeking men, of the di­stempers of the State, and the intemperance of pens? Yea, it shall be found, as Dr. Rivet observeth, (and we find it now) that the light of the Evangelical truth did very much mitigate the fierceness of the Nation; and that those disorders, as turbulent as they were, are not comparable to those that were in former times in Scot­land: which as we are too ingenuous to ascribe to the Religion of those dayes, the Papists ought to shew the like ingenuity about the excesses of wits and swords since the coming of the Reformation.

It were to no purpose to follow all the objections of this Gentleman out of Protestant Writers; since whether they be well or ill alledged, our belief is not ingaged in their ill opinions, nor our reputation concerned in the wrong done to them by perverse and unfaithfull allega­tions. I have discovered so many of them, that the Rea­der may well mistrust his other citations. If all were as they are represented, they are but so many Doctours o­pinions strengthened with no approbation of persons au­thorized for it. And to speak after our Most Excellent King JAMES in his Defense of the right of Kings. I [Page 17] would not defend all that some private men could say. It is enough that in our Religion there is no rule to be found that prescribeth rebellion, nor any thing that dispenseth subjects from the oath of their allegiance, nor any of our Churches that receive that abominable doctrine.

This is spoken with a Royal brevity, and an imperi­ous weight, which both confutes all objections in that kind, and together silently retorts upon the Roman Ca­tholicks, that among them they have rules that prescribe rebellion, and an authority dispensing from the oath of allegiance, and that their Church is commanded to re­ceive that abominable doctrine.

Blessed be God, our doctrine about the point of obe­dience never gave yet jealousie to Kings, though of con­trary Religion. Whereas the Sovereign Courts of the same Princes have expelled the Jesuites for teaching and practising the murther of Kings, and condemned the Popes Bulls to be torn for sowing rebellion among the people. Is it not a matter for no lesse patience then that of God, to see those that teach rebellion by the publick expresse laws of the head of their Church, now to charge our Churches with rebellion for some words of private men, either falsly imputed unto them, or disal­lowed by the generality of the Protestant Churches? Is it for him that hath cut the purse to cry, stop the thief? Must the Doctors of high treason lay an action of rebel­lion against us, in effect because we will not be rebels with them, and acknowledge a King above our King? for when all is said, that is the ground of the quarrel, and we can buy our peace with them at no other rate. But before I lay the charge against them, at which I long to [Page 18] be, I must make an end of answering the charge which they lay against us.

CHAP. II. Whether the Reformation of Religion ought to be charged with Rebellion. Reflections upon the actions of the Protestant party.

THe Charge of Rebellion which the Adversary layeth against us, consisteth in two things, The Doctrine of our Divines and the actions of our party, especially in the beginnings of the Reformation. I have answered the first part of the Charge, and shewed that either the Charge is false, or it is nothing to us, be­cause we have no dependance upon the Authors char­ged with it. To which I will adde but this; That if as much pains was taken to set forth all that those very men have written for obedience, as this Gentleman hath taken to make them speak treason, it would be farr more in bulk, and more home, then all that the Roman Ca­tholicks have written or dare write of that subject.

pag. 72. Azor. Mo­ral. Instit. parte 1. lib. 8. cap. 13. Eos om­nes qui e­rant haere­tico aliqua ratione obstricti jurisju­randi seu fidelitatis feu alte­rius pacti­onis & promissio­nis libe­rari. Our Adversary chargeth Luther, the first Instrument in Gods hands for the work of Reformation in Germa­ny, that he was the great Grand-father of the prodigious Doctrines against the State, Dignity, and Persons of Kings and Princes. Why? Did he rebell against his Princes? Did he stirr rebellion in other Princes States? Did he teach, as the Jesuit Azorius did since, that all that were tyed with any bond of oath or fidelity, or any other pa­ction or promise to an Heretick, were freed of it? Then, if ever, it was the right time for him to preach that do­ctrine, [Page 19] if he had approved of it, when Commons and Corporations embraced the Reformation, many of them without the Princes consent. Nay, he did alwaies la­bour most earnestly and successfully to put down re­bellions when any arose. What was then his rebellion? Marry, he preached against the tyranny and superiority of the Bishop of Rome, saith our Adversary, and per­swaded pag. 73, & 74. the people not to render to him any obedience. This was the rebellion, the most horrid of all rebelli­ons in the eyes of Jesuits. I enter not into the question of the Popes superiority. My Adversary keeping him­self to matters of fact, I must keep my self to it also.

Luther was a man of an invincible spirit; one that spared neither King nor Pope, when the Truth of God which he announced was opposed: And in his expressi­ons he was [...], one that spake down right without mincing. Yet as stout as he was, I find that he behaved himself with great modesty and patience with the Pope for a great while: And in all his Addresses to him for re­dress of the horrible abuses reigning in the Church, he used a Christian humility and submission to the Popes pleasure, if his Holiness would have hearkened to con­science and reason, and remembred the duty of his place. But when the Pope and the great Clergy of Ger­many used him with the utmost scorn and inhumanity, he paid them in the same coin. The Pope burnt his Theses, and he burnt the Popes Decretals in the market place; and writ against the highest of the Roman Clergy in high terms, a crime much exaggerated by our Adversary. This is all the rebellion (if they call it so) that either Luther or the beginning of the Reformation [Page 20] can be charged with. For the Reformation was embra­ced by many Princes and Imperial Cities so freely and so quietly, that the Adversary could finde no ground to object any other rebellion unto them but that against the Bishop of Rome, who in effect was neither their Bi­shop nor their Prince.

So that which our Adversary (after others) objects against Luther, That he exhorted the Emperour, Kingspag. 74. Luther in Sylvestriū Pruratem. Si sures surcâ, si latrones gladio, si haereticos igne ple­ctimus, cur non magis i­stos magi­stros per­ditionis, hos Car­dinales, hos Pa­pas, & to­tam istam Romanae Sodomae colluviem quae Ec­clesiam Dei sine fine cor­rumpit, omnibus armis im­petimus? and Princes to fall upon the Pope and Cardinals, and all the filth of the Roman Sodom, is nothing to the question in hand. For there Luther speaks not of any insurre­ction of subjects against their lawfull Sovereign, but of the justice which the Princes of Christian Provinces ought to exercise against the Tyrants and Corruptors of the Church. He had tryed all means of Piety, Charity, Equity, and Reason. When all would not serve, and that the Pope and the Cardinals would neither reform the Church nor themselves, nor admit of an Appeal to the Councel for that great Work, then Luther brake out into these words: Mihi verò videtur, si ita pergat furor Romanistarum, nullum esse reliquum remedium quàm ut Imperator, Reges & Principes vi & armis accincti, aggrediantur has pestes Orbis terrarum, rémque non jam verbis sed ferro decernant. That is, It is my opinion, if the fury of the Romanists continue, that there is no reme­dy remaining but that the Emperour, Kings, and Princes who are furnisht with force and arms, should take these plagues of the world in hand, and decide the quarrel no more with words but with the sword. And then follow the words written in our margent which are a continua­tion of his exhortation to the Higher Powers to make [Page 21] use against them of the sword of Justice. This is bet­ter then to set on private men to stab them, or stirr the rabble to fall upon them according to the maxims and practise of the Jesuits. But Luther went the right way to work, when he exhorted those to whom God had committed the power of the sword, to make use of it to repress the tyranny and oppression both spiritual and ci­vil used in their Dominions by a foreign usurped power; and the rather, because the Emperour and the Princes had been very earnest with the Pope to remove by his Pastoral care all the causes of complaint.

It is objected against Luther and his party, that they entred into a Confederacy of defensive arms at Smal­cald; that Luther himself made a book contra duo Mandata Caesaris, against two Edicts of the Emperour▪ And that in his book de bello contra Turcas, he denyed the Emperour to be the Head of the Christian Common­wealth: But to judge aright of that Confederacy, and of the opinions of the German Divines and Lawyers about the Emperours Rights, and of the Warrs of that Age between the Emperour and the Princes of the Em­pire, we must consider the constitution of the Em­pire of Germany. And to that end look to their Magna Charta which is Bulla aurea made under the Emperour CHARLES IV. and Capitu­latio Melchior Goladast Tom. 3. pag. 424. Quod si nos ipsi (inquit Imperator) quod ab­sit, aut quisquam Successorum nostro­rum, quod non speramus, processu temporis aliquo huic nostrae statutioni aut ordinationi contravenire voluerit aut eam retractare, aut alio quoris modo violare praesumpserit, praesen­tium literarum authoritate & potestatis regiae plenitudine ex certâ Majestatis nostrae scientiâ, nec non cum consensu & beneplacito praefatorum sacri Ro­mani Imperii principum Electorum in robur perpetuae firmitatis sancivimus, ex tunc tam ipsi Electores quàm caeteri Principes, Ecclesiastici & Saeculares, Praelati, Comites, Barones, Nobiles, & Communitates sacri nostri Imperii, universi ac singuli, praesentes & suturi, licitum habeant sine Rebellionis aut Infidelitatis crimine re­sistendi ac contradicendi nobis & Successoribus nostris Romanorum Regibus vel Impera­toribus in perpetuam libertatem. Caesarea anno 1356. Where­by, if the Emperour or the King of the Romans violate any of the Rights of the Subject established by that Capitulation, It is declared to be lawfull for the Electors, [Page 22] Princes, Prelates, Nobles, and Commons, either jointly or seve­rally, to resist them without crime of Rebellion or Infidelity.

Three hundred and fifty years before that, a German Pope Gregory V. had brought in the Institution of the Electors, as the Centuriators of Magdeburg report. But Aventinus and Onuphrius more credibly make it of later date, after the death of Frederick II. whom Pope In­nocent IV. had persecuted to death; and the Empire being much weakned by the loss of that great Empe­rour, to weaken him more yet, either Innocent IV. or his Successor Alexander III. procured seven perpetual Electors, whose Interest should be to keep alwaies the Emperours low to keep themselves high. Since that time the Emperours Authority in many parts of Germa­ny is little more then a title, and a respect without power; for the Electors may both elect and depose him. They and the other Princes of the Empire govern their Signories, and pay nothing to him but homage. And the Cities called Imperial are they that have the great­est exemptions from the Imperial Lawes. Wherefore the exclamations of the Adversaries about the resistance of the Elector of Saxony, with other Princes of the Em­pire, and some Imperial Cities against the Emperour, and about the words of German Divines or Jurists to that purpose; are very ignorantly or maliciously urged as [Page 23] rebellious; for neither the words nor the actions of those Germans ought to be weighed in the balance of the duty of other subjects to their absolute Sove­reignes.

Luther who was always very rigid for the subjection of every soul to the higher powers, and had written a book expresly of that subject, had much ado to be per­swaded to consent to a confederacy of defensive arms a­gainst the Emperour; who being set on by the Court of Rome, oppressed the liberties of Germany; and to sup­press the growing Reformation took more cognizance of cases belonging to the jurisdiction of the Princes, and ci­ties of the Empire, then he was allowed by the authenti­cal capitulations, till▪ the learned in the Law satisfied him about the Statutes of his Countrey, and his reason and conscience shewed him, that the Apostle command­ing Christians to submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, requireth of them an obedience proportioned to the constitutions of the States, of which they are members. Of that consultation Sleidan giveth this account.

Before they made the confe­deracy,
Sleidan. Hist. lib. 8. ad an. 1531. Priusquam soedus iniretur, in consilium adhibiti sunt, non Iurisconsulti modo, sed Theologi quo­que. Lutherus enim semper docuerat Magistratui non esse resistendum; & exstabat ejus ea de re libellus. Cum autem in hac delibe­ratione periti juris docerent legibus esse per­missum resistere nonnunquam, & nunc in eum casum de quo leges inter alia mentio­nem faciunt rem esse deductam ostenderent, Lutherus ingenue profitetur se nescivisse hoc licere: Et quia leges Politicas Evangelium non impugnat aut aboleat, uti semper docu­erit. Deinde quoniam hoc tempore tam dubio tamque formidoloso multa possint ac­cidere, sic ut non modo jus ipsum sed con­scientiae quoque vis atque necessitas arma nobis porrigat, defensionis causa foedus in­iri posse dicit, five Caesar ipse, sive quis alius forte bellum ejus nomine saciat.
they called to counsel, not onely Jurists, but Divines also. For Luther had taught alwayes that the Magistrate must not be resisted, and a book of his concerning that subject was extant. But when in that consultation the learned in law shewed that it was permitted [Page 24] by the laws to resist sometimes, and demonstrated that at that time their business was come to that very case, of which the laws make mention among o­ther things; Luther did ingeniously profess that he knew not that it was lawfull: And because the Gospel doth not impugne or abolish the Politick laws, as he had alwayes taught. Also because, the time being so perillous and full of terrour, many things might happen which would put the armes in our hands, not onely by the prescript of the law, but by the force of conscience and necessity, he declared his opinion, that a defensive League might justly be made whe­ther the Emperour himself, or any other in his name should make war against us.

While they were thus met at Smalcald, the Emperour sent letters to them, not to condemn or dissolve their meeting, as a King of England or France would have done, for he knew that by the laws they might meet to look to their common interest without him, yea and a­gainst him. But to charge the Protestants to send help against the Turk, who was advancing with a great army towards Germany. The Protestants answered, that be­cause the Emperour would grant them no peace at home, nor suspension of the decree of confiscation against their estates for their Religion, and that they were in daily expectation of proscription and hostile dealing from him, they could not cut off their own sinews, and lay themselves open to his hostility to help him against a foreign enemy. But if he would make all fiscal proceed­ings for the matter of Religion to surcease till the time [Page 25] of the promised Councel, and grant them peace and safety at home, they would not onely assist him against the Turk with all their power, but serve him in all the publick interests to which their duty bound them. And this is that confeder [...] [...] which the Adversa­ry cryeth down as the [...]p [...] [...] [...]rn of Rebellion from that time to our days, how [...] the equitable Reader judge.

If it be objected, that this abridging of the Emperours power was wrongfully got from him, I will grant it: It was jus quod coepit ab injuria; a right that began by wrong; yet confirmed by the Emperours with authenti­cal Charters, and strengthened by long prescription. The Emperour may thank the Popefor it, who having an ancient jealousie of the Imperial rights in Italy, and not able to suffer any King of the Romans, but them­selves, have powerfully laboured for many ages to break the Emperours power every where. And it was by their practises, that the constitution of the Electors and the Golden Bull was made, and those great immunities gi­ven to the Princes of the Empire and Imperial Cities, whereby the Emperour is remained a manacled Prince; so unable in most parts of the Empire to stretch his hands upon the meanest persons that trouble him, that he could never so much as secure Luther a poor Monk, though urged to it by the most powerfull and irresisti­ble sollicitations of the Court of Rome; but Luther con­tinued till death (about thirty years) destroying the Popes interests in Germany, and all parts of Europe, and neither Pope nor Caesar could touch him. Wonderfull are the ways of Gods justice, that the Pope by foment­ing [Page 26] factions in the Empire, and breaking the Emperours power, did prepare safety and facility for his enemies in the following ages, to make that great breach in his Kingdome, and give that mortal wound to his power, of which it shall bleed till it dye of it.

Against the Helvetian Reformation the Adversary saith nothing, onely he arrayeth Zuinglius in a swagger­ing Pag. 3. swash buckler habit, as if he had wrought Reforma­tion with sword and buckler; yet it was made quietly the preaching of the Gospel, and began at Zurick in the year 1522. When Zuinglius was censured by the BishopSleidan. of Constance his Ordinary for oppressing the Romish er­rours, he set sorth Theses containing his doctrine, and the Senate of Zurick called together all the Clergy of the Canton to confer about Religion, and requested the Bi­shop to be present, or send some authorized by him. The Bishop sent Johannes Faber his Vicar General, in whose presence the Consul invited all the assistants, if they had any thing to oppose unto the Theses of Zuinglius that they would speak. And Zuinglius having addrest the same invitation to the Vicar in particular, the Vicar an­swered, that treating of Controversies was not fit for that place, and that it belonged to the Councel which should assemble shortly. After that many words had past between them, when none appeared that had any thing to oppose, the Senate made an Edict, that in all their dominions the Gospel should be purely taught out of the Books of the Old and New Testament, and that humane traditions should be banisht. This was obeyed, and Reformation was established without either sword or buckler. Neither do I read that Zuinglius was in armes [Page 27] till eleven years after that five Gantons of contrary Reli­gion suddenly invaded that of Zurick, and put Zurick▪ men to a necessary but disorderly defense, in which Zuinglius was slain. The Switzers had cantoned them­selves in the year 1315. which was 200▪ years before the Reformation. Were I as unsincere as my Adversary, I should charge the Roman Religion which then reigned with that change of State.

From Zuinglius the Adversary passeth to Calvin as the head of the French Reformation, wherein he sheweth his great ignorance; for the Reformed Religion was spread in France twenty years before Calvin was settled in Geneva, and well nigh assoon as in Germany. The be­ginning of which must not be ascribed to one Hugo, whom our Adversary knowsnot, nor any body else. But the truth is, that it was in France long before it was in Germany, ever since the errours and tyranny of the Court of Rome began to be opposed by the Valdenses, whose relicks after long persecutions by fire and sword, remain­ed in the Vale of Cabrieres and Marindol in Provence. It was from thence that Reformation was propagated, incouraged by the happy progresses of Luther and Zuin­glius. Wherefore the Popes creatures perceiving whence that blow came upon the Roman Court, never left solli­citing Francis the I. of France, till they got an Edict for the extirpating of them, which was executed with the utmost rigour.

And it was not for Religion that they were thus butch­ered, but meerly to make a sacrifice to the pride and cruelty of Rome. For as for their doctrine that excellent King Lewis the XII. liked it so well, that to some [Page 28] that represented it to him, and would incense him a­gainst them. He answered, that they were better Chri­stians then he and his Kingdome.

This was then the true Origine of the Reformation of France, the doctrine of the Valdenses preserved in the re­licks of their descent: a doctrine perfectioned since into a more Orthodox Confession conformable to the Confes­sions of other Protestant Churches. So Calvin had no hand in that Reformation, and no more had he with that of Geneva, or in turning that State into an Aristocracy, as this Adversary upbraids him.

My business being to vindicate Reformation from the charge of rebellion, I must take from the Reformers of Geneva that aspersion, that they expelled their Bishop, and that they altered the constitution of that State, and both these ascribed unto Calvin. It is a tradition recei­ved in England for a currant and undoubted truth. And upon that ground many fine and judicious inferences are built. But it is like the stories of the Phenix, and the singing of Swans before their death, never the truer for the curious similies and ingenious moralities that haveEpistola Benedicti. Turretini ad Sculte­tum in Annal. reformati­onis An. 1529. been spun out of that stuffe. What credit can we give to Histories of things happened in the Indies two thou­sand years ago, if in things done to lately, and so near us, gross mistakes go for uncontrollable truths? I say it is utterly false thar Calvin was one of the planters of Re­formed Religion at Geneva. False also that he or the Reformers of Geneva turned their Bishop out of doors. And false also that the Bishop went away upon the quar­rel of Religion. Farel, Froment, and Viret were they that wrought under God the conversion of the City by [Page 29] their Sermons, and by a publick conference with the Friars and Clergy of Geneva, there being then no Bi­shop in that Town, who was fled eight moneths be­fore, seeing his conspiracy discovered, to oppresse the liberties of the City, by the help of the Duke of Sa­voy, for which his Secretary was hanged, after he was gone; the said Bishop being hated before, for the rape of a Virgin, and many adulteries with Citizens Wives. And it is most to be noted, that they who after his flightSee the book en­tituled, A view of the Go­vernment, &c. by Iohn Durel. reformed the Civil Government, were strong Papists, and mainly opposed the Reformation of Religion. To which something like was seen in England, not far from that time: For the same English Bishops that most earnestly served Henry the VIII. to make him acknow­ledged the Supreme Head of the Church of England, Tonstal. Gardiner. Bonner &c. were afterwards the greatest opposers of the Work of Reformation, and the fiercest persecutors of the Pro­testants.

That the Church Discipline of Geneva was constitu­ted without a bishop, is a matter of another nature: Their Successors that continue it so to this day, are of age, let them speak for themselves. It is enough for my present purpose, that I have vindicated the Introdu­ction of Reformation into that State, from the crime of rebellion.

As long as their Bishop lived, they could not have another, and durst not receive him, being manifestly convicted of selling the Cities liberty to the Duke of Savoy: And when the Bishop died, they had used themselves to live without a Bishop.

[Page 30]The first proof of our Adversary to indite the French Reformation of rebellion, is the enterprise of Amboise An. 1560. But the Protestant Religion had subsisted already forty years in France under the crosse: And the Professors of the same, though numerous, had ne­ver fought for their Religion, but by their constancy in asserting the truth and suffering for it.

The enterprise of Amboise was a [...] quarrel of State, not of Religion; and [...]and [...] the Leader was a man most averse from the Protestant Religion: The quarrel was this, King Francis the II. being about six­teen years of age, and younger in understanding then years, was altogether governed by some Lords of the House of Guise, then lookt upon as strangers, and the Princes of the blood were excluded from the businesses of State. These excluded Princes plotted to surprise the Court at Amboise, and remove strangers from about the Kings person, thinking themselves sufficiently war­ranted by their quality and interest; that plot was criedThuan. Hist lib. 24. Nullos ex conjuratis convictos fuisse ali­cujus mo­litionis in Regemaut Reginam, sed tantū in exteros sui in Aulâ tyrannicé omnia ad­ministra­bant nem­pe Guisia­nos. down as rebellious, because it did not take effect; and being discovered, the House of Guise did not fail to make it a matter of High Treason: although the great Thuanus depose for the conspirators, that, None of them was convicted of any attempt against the King and Queen, but onely against strangers, who governed all things a­bout the Court in a tyrannical way. Who so knoweth the interests of the Princes of the blood in France, will never call that attempt treason. And if they could do so much by the right of their birth, their right was never the worse for their being Protestants.

Francis II. being dead soon after, and his Successor [Page 31] Charls the IX. being under age, the Princes of the blood had more right then before, to claim the management of the publick affairs, being intrusted with them by the Laws of the Kingdome in the Kings minority, at least in conjunction with the Queen Mother. And being excluded from it again they raised an Army to recover their right. That right is not considered at all by Jesuites, that take upon them now a hundred years after to censure their a­ctions, but these Princes and their followers are repre­sented onely as Hereticks and Rebels that made Warre against their Sovereigne.

After the King was out of minority, the Princes and their party, seeing that the King was much incensed against them, and was of a dangerous and implaca­ble nature, durst not come neer him; and the fre­quent Massacres, made them keep themselves in a po­sture of defence, and repel force by force.

To be rid of them at once, the King used that fa­mous and unparallelled treachery of a feigned peace with the Protestants, sealed with the Marriage of his Sister with the Head of their party, the first Prince of the blood next to his Brothers, Henry King of Navarre; and having invited them to the Wedding, he slew them in their beds. The number of the slain in cold blood on St. Bartholomew's Day and since, within the space of three moneths, amounted to about a hundred thousand. An action publickly commended by the Pope, and the Murtherers rewarded with many spi­ritual graces by his Holinesse.

That the relicks of the party after that general ex­ecution, took defensive arms, as it is not to be com­mended, [Page 32] it is not to be wondred at neither: Men are not Angels, and there is nothing more natural, then to strive for life.

The House of Guise having formed the League pre­tended for the destruction of Heresie, but intended [...] them for the pulling down of the Royal House; King Henry the III. perceiving this too late, made [...]e of Henry King of Navarre, then the apparent Heir of the Crown, and of his Protestants Army, to oppose the League.

That King being stabbed by a Monk soon after, the Head of the Protestant party became lawful King, and his Protestant Army the Royal Army: yet their arms then though never so just, were as much condemned by the Pope as before, and as much taxed of rebel­lion. But that praise cannot be denied to their arms, that by them, as Gods chief instruments, the rebellion of the League was defeated, and the lawful King pre­served, raised, and setled upon his Throne, whilest the Jesuited Zealots exprest their zeal of religion, by at­tempting to stab him, and were too good Catholicks, to be good Subjects.

Since our Adversary alledgeth the words of King James of blessed and glorious memory, and sets himself forth under the name of Philanax, a Lover of the King, he must in duty stand to the judgement of that great and judicious King. This Sentence his Majesty pronounceth of that cause which this enemy calleth a Defence of the Right of Kings. most unanswerable rebellion, pag. 14. I never knew yet (saith the King) that the French Protestants took arms against their King. In the first troubles they stood onely upon their defence. Before they took arms they were burnt [Page 33] and massacred every where; and the quarrel did not be­gin for Religion, but because when King Francis the II. was under age, they had been the refuge of the Princes of the blood expelled from the Court, even of the Grand­father of the King now reigning, and of that of the Prince of Conde, who knew not where to take sanctuary: For which the present King hath reason to wish them well. It shall not be found that they made any other warre, nay, is it not true that King Henry the III. sent armies against them, to destroy them; and yet they ran to his help, as soon as they saw him in danger? Is it not true that they saved his life at Tours, and delivered him from an ex­treme peril? Is it not true that they never forsook neither him nor his Successour, in the midst of the revolt and re­bellion of most part of the Kingdome, raised by the Pope and the greatest part of his Clergy? Is it not true that they have assisted him in all his battails, and helped much to raise the Crown again, which was ready to fall? Is it not true that they which persecuted the late King (Henry the II.) enjoy this day the fruits of the services done by the Protestants? who are now maligned not for controversies of Religion, but because that if their ad­vice was followed, the Crowne of the French Kings should no more depend on the Pope, there would be no French­man in France, that is not the Kings Subject; there would be no appeal to Rome of beneficial and matri­monial causes, and the Kingdome should be no more tri­butary, under colour of Annats, and the like impositions. Even Cardinal Perron cleareth them from that imputa­tion (of rebellion) when he saith that the doctrine of the deposition of Kings by the Pope was received in France till Calvin: He doth then silently acknowledge that [Page 34] Kings were ill served before, and that those whom he calls hereticks, having brought forth the Holy Scripture to the publick sight, have made the Right of Kings known, which was opprest before. Such a judgement is of great weight, coming from a wise King, who was truly in­formed of the businesses of his neighbours: Certainly, si perito in arte sua credendum est: If a skilful Artist must be believed, when he speaketh within the com­passe of his Art, none can decide better what rebellion is, and what is not, then a great Monarch, jealous of the Royal Authority, skilled in the duty of Subjects, and one that had a long struggling with rebellious spirits.

This Sentence was pronounced by his Majesty in the year 1615, when France had peace at home and abroad.

Two years after they had the like testimony of their fidelity from their own King, by a Letter of his Majesty written to their Deputies assembled in a Synod at Vitre, in these terms: Nous avons receu bien volontiers les nouuelles assurances & protestations que vous nous auez faites de vostre fidelite & obeissance▪ En laquelle persistans comme vous devez & que vous auez sait par le passè, vous pouuez aussi estre assurez que nous aurons toussours soin de vous main­tenir & conserver en tous les avantages qui vous ont esté accordez. These Letters were printed and published with other Declarations. We have recei­ved with good satisfaction, the new assurances and protestations which you have made unto us of your fidelity and obedience: In the which if you persist as you ought and as you have done before, you may also be assured, that we shall alwayes have a care to main­tain and preserve you in all the advantages which have been granted unto you. These Letrers bear the Date of May 29. 1617. from Paris.

[Page 35]Cardinal d'Ossat speaking to Cardinal Aldobrandin, Nephew to Clement the VIII. about the execrable murther attempted by Iohn Chastel against Henry the IV. of France, told him, that if Sil y avoit lieu a de tels assassinats ce seroit aux Heretiques a les purchas­ser & executer, qu'il a quittez & a­bandonnez & qui avoyent a se crain­dre de luy & toutesois ils n'ont rien attenté contre luy ni contre aucun de cinq de nos Roys ses predecesseurs quelque boucherie que leurs Majestez ayent fait desdits Huguenots. Card. d'Ossat. Epist. 8. a Mr. de Velleroy, ▪Ian. 25. 1595. pag. 77. such attempts were allowable, they were more proper to execute for the Hereticks (so he is pleased to call the Protestants) whom the King hath left and forsaken, and who have reason to stand in fear of him: and yet they never attempted any such thing, neither against him, nor against any of the Kings, his predecessors, what slaugh­ter soever they have made of the said Hugenots.

But the greatest testimony of their fidelity, is that famous Edict of Nantes, which was expressely made to reward them with priviledges, for their constant adhering to their King, in the long calamities of France.

Seeing then that the French Protestants were ac­knowledged good Subjects by their Sovereigne, and have deserved by their signal loyalty and long services to the Crowne, those few priviledges which they hardly enjoy; it is evident how unjust the extraordinary ex­postulation is, That the Roman Catholicks have not the publick allowed exercise of Religion in Eng­land, as the Protestants have in France. There is great reason for that differing dealing. The French Pro­testants have deserved that liberty and more, by their constant fidelity and valour, having maintai­ned their King with their purses, and defended him with their swords, so many years, against the Jesuitical [Page 36] party, who had made a League with strangers to keep him from the Crown, and take away his life. It is known that the Grandfather of the King now reigning, was set upon the Throne by the swords of his Prote­stant Subjects: Let the Jesuitical party of England shew the like service to their Sovereigne, whereby they deserve the like recompence. What care did they take of the preservation of their Sovereigns lives, Queen Elizabeth and King Iames? How did they defend their Crowns against the claim and invasion of stran­gers? Did they further or hinder the return of our gra­cious King now reigning? If some few Roman Catho­licks have fought for our glorious King and Martyr Charles the I. their whole party fares the better by it now, and finds the King a grateful Prince, remembring good deeds, and forgetting injuries: Then the diffe­rence of their doctrine in point of Government, ought to make a great difference in the allowance of the pub­lick exercise of their Religion. The Jesuited Catho­licks acknowledge another Sovereigne over their King, both for the Spiritual and the Temporal, a forreigne power, which can dispense them of their Allegiance to him. The Protestants acknowledge no Sovereigne above their King, and give no jealousie by their do­ctrine to the Roman Catholick Princes and States un­der which they live, as the Jesuites have done, even to Roman Catholicks, by whom they have been ex­pelled out of their Dominions, as Teachers of a do­ctrine tending to rebellion.

Of the troubles that followed, who so will give an impartial judgement, must look upon the condition of the French Protestants since King Henry IV. bought [Page 37] his peace with the party of the League by the change of his Religion. That King seeing himself obliged to pro­vide for the safety of his Protestant subjects, by whose armes and long service he had been preserved in his ad­versities, and finally placed upon the Royal Seat, gave them some places of strength in several Provinces of the Kingdome for certain years; and by an Edict (called the Edict of Nantes) the free enjoying of their estates, and the open exercise of their Religion, with some limi­tation of places.

Of the priviledges granted them by that Edict, there were many infractions, especially since the death of Henry the IV. who both by his authority, and toge­ther by his ancient interest in the Protestant party, kept all quiet, and preserved them from those wrongs to which the weakest are alwaies obnoxious.

The term being expired of the grant of those places, King Lewis the XIII. renewed it for four or five years, after which he would have them out of their hands. That they were to be restored upon the Kings demand, was the opinion of grave Protestants, the severest exa­ctors of the obedience of subjects to the Sovereign; of my Reverend Father especially, who being eminent and respected in the party, was a principal means to keep the Protestant Churches on this side Loire in peace and in duty to their King, for which his Majesty sent him a con­siderable summe of money, which he refused to take, saying, that he could be loyal to his King without being bought.

But the necessity of their keeping those places, seem­ed to be justified by the reason of the first grant, which [Page 38] was to preserve them from the violence of their bitter e­nemies; for (said they) if so many places of safety could not keep us safe from their insolence, what will become of us when we shall lye naked of all defense, and exposed to the will of that party which used us before like sheep appointed to the slaughter?

Upon those terms they were when the Assembly ofThe As­sembly of Rochel was not an Ecclesi­astick but▪ a Politick Assembly, for those two sorts of Assem­blies they were al­lowed to keep, but now the Ecclesia­stick only is allowed. Rochel being once licenced by their King, and since for­bidden, sate against his will, and took order for a defen­sive war. Whereupon, my Reverend Father returning from the National Synod of Alais, of which he had been President, writ a Letter to them, which I insert here as very pertinent to my purpose.


I do not write to you to powr my sorrows into your bo­some, or to entertain you with my private crosses: up­on that I need no comforter, accounting it a great ho­nour, that in the publick affliction of the Church, God would have me to march in the front. And I would account it a great happiness if all the storm should light on my head, so that I were the onely sufferer, and the Church of God should enjoy peace and prosperity. A more smarting care hath moved me to write to you, and forced me to go beyond my nature, which was alwayes averse from medling with pub­lick businesses, and from moving out of the sphere of my pro­per calling. For seeing the general body of the Church in eminent danger, and upon the brink of a dismal precipice, it was not possible for me to keep silence. Nay, I cannot be [Page 39] silent in this urgent necessity, without drawing upon me the guilt of insensibility and Cruelty towards the Church of God. And I am full of hope that while I deliver my mind to you about publick businesses, my domestick afflicti­on will free me from jealousies in your opinion. And if I be not believed, at least I shall be excused. Indeed it doth not become me to take upon me to give counsel to an assem­bly of persons chosen out of the whole Kingdome to bear the burden of the publick affairs in a time so full of difficul­ties; yet I think it usefull for you to be truly informed what the sense is, and what the disposition of our ChurchesNone could have a more par­ticular know­ledge of it, then he who was lately come from the National Synod in the South of France, where he made it his busi­nesse to observe the po­sture of the affairs of the Prote­stants. by persons that have a particular knowledge of it.

The question being then, whether you ought to separate your Assembly to obey his Majesty, or keep together to give order to the affairs of the Churches, I am obliged to tell you, that the general desire of our Churches is, that it may please God to continue our peace in our obedience to his Majesty. And that seeing the King resolved to make him­self obeyed by the force of his armes, they trust, that you will do your best to avoid that storm, and rather yield un­to necessity, then to ingage them in a war which most cer­tainly will ruine most part of our Churches, and will bring us into a trouble, of which we see the beginning, but can see no end. By obeying the King you shall take away the pre­tence used by those that set his Majesty on to persecute us: and if we must be persecuted, all that fear God desire that it may be for the profession of the Gospel, and that our per­secution may truly be the cross of Christ. In one word, I can assure you, Gentlemen, that the greatest and best part of our Churches wisheth for your separation, if it may be with the safety of your persons: yea, that many of the Ro­mane [Page 40] Church desiring the publick peace, are continually a­bout us, beseeching and exhorting us that we do not by cast­ing our selves headlong, involve them in the same ruine.

Hereupon I need not represent unto you how terribly and generally our poor flocks are frighted and dismayed, casting their eyes upon you, as persons that may procure their rest, and by yielding to the present necessity, blow a­way the storm hanging over their heads. Many already have forsaken the land, many have forsaken their Religion; whence you may judge what dissipation is like to follow, if this exasperation go on further.

No more do I need to recommend unto you to have a tender care of the preservation of our poor Churches, know­ing that you would chuse death, rather then to draw that reproach upon you, that you have hastened the persecution of the Church, and destroyed that which the zeal of our Fathers have planted, and that you have put this State in confusion.

I am not ignorant, that many reasons are alledged to perswade you to continue your Assembly, they tell you that the King hath granted it; but for that grant of his Maje­sty you can show no Warrant, nor any written Declarati­on, without which all promises are but words in the air: for Kings believe they have power to forbid that which they have permitted, and to revoke that which they have granted, when they judge it expedient for the good of their affairs. Neither is there any of you, after he hath sent his servant, or given him leave to goe to some place, that thinks not that he hath power to call him back. So­vereign Princes especially, are very unwilling to keep their promises, when they have been extorted.

[Page 41]Also great number of grievances and contraventions to the Kings Edicts are represented unto you, which com­plaints, to our great grief, are too true. But that I may not urge that we have given occasion to many of those evils our own selves, the difficulty lyeth not in representing our griefs, but in finding the remedies. Consider then whether the subsistence of your Assembly can heal all these sores; whether your sitting can give a shelter to our Churches, pro­vide all things necessary for a war where the parties are so unequal, raise forces, and make a stock to pay them; Whether all the good that your sitting can produce can countervail the dissipation of so many Churches which lye open to the wrath of their enemies: Whether when they are fallen you can raise them again: Whether in the evi­dent division that is amongus, you are able to rally the scattered parts of that divided body, which if it were well united, yet would be too weak to stand upon the defen­sive.

Pardon me, Gentlemen, if I tell you that you shall not find all our Protestants inclined to obey your resolutions; and that the fire being kindled all about you, shall remain helpless beholders of the ruine which you have drawn on our heads. Neither can it be unknown to you, that many of the best quality among us, and best able to defend us, openly blame your actions, holding and professing, that suffering for this cause is not suffering for the cause of God. These making no resistance, and opening the gates of their places, or joining their armes with the Kings, you may easily judge what loss and what weakning of the party that will be. How many of our Nobility will forsake y [...]u, some out of treachery, some out of weakness? Even they who [Page 42] in an Assembly are most vehement in their votes, and toAnd so it proved. shew themselves zealous, are altogether for violent waies, are very often they that will revolt and betray their bre­thren. They bring our distressed Churches to the hottest danger, and there leave them, going away after they have set the house on fire.

If there be once fighting or besieging of our towns, what­soever the issue may be of the combat or the siege, all that while it will be hard to keep the people animated against us, from falling upon our Churches, which have neither re­treat nor defense. And what order soever the Magistrates of contrary Religion take about it, they shall never be able to compass it.

I might also represent unto you many reasons out of the state of our Churches, both within and without the King­dome, to shew you that this stirring of yours is altogether unseasonable, and that you set sail against wind and tyde. But you are clear-sighted enough to see it, and to consider in what posture your neighbours are, and from whence you may look for help; whether among you the vertue and the concord, and the quality of the heads is grown or dimi­nisht. Certainly this is not the time when the troubling of this pool can heal our diseases. And certain it is, that if any thing can help so much weakness, it must be the zeal of Religion, which in the time of our fathers hath upholden us, when we had less strength, and more vertue. But in this cause you shall find that zeal languishing, because most of our people believe that this evil might have been avoid­ed without breach of conscience. Be ye sure that there will be alwaies disunion among us, every time that we shall stir for civil causes, and not directly for the cause of the Gospel.

[Page 43]Against that it is objected, that our enemies have deter­mined our ruine; that they undermine us by little and lit­tle; that it is better to begin now, then to stay longer. Truly that man should be void of common sense, that doubt­ed of their ill will. And yet when I call to mind our seve­ral losses, as that of Lectoure, Privas, and Bearn, I finde that we ourselves have contributed to them, and it is no wonder that our enemies take no care to remedy our faults, and that they joyn with us to do us harm. But hence it fol­lows, not that we throw the helve after the hatchet, and set our house on fire our selves, because others are resolved to burn it, or take in hand to remedy particular losses by means weak to redress them, but strong and certain to ru­ine the general. God, who hath so many times diverted the counsels taken for our ruine, hath neither lost his pow­er, nor altered his will. We shall find him the same still, if we have the grace to wait for his assistance, not casting our selves headlong by our impatience, or setting our mind obstinately upon impossibilities. Take this for certain, that although our enemies seek our ruine, they will never under­take it openly, without some pretence, other and better then that of Religion, which we must not give them. For if we keep our selves in the obedience which subjects owe to their Sovereign, you shall see, that while our enemies hope in vain that we shall make our selves guilty by some disobedience. God will give them some other work, and af­ford us occasions to shew to his Majesty that we are a body usefull to this State, and put him in mind of the signal ser­vices that our Churches have done to the late King of glo­rious memory. But if we are so unfortunate, that while we keep our selves in our duty, the calumnies of our enemies [Page 44] prevail, at least we shall get this satisfaction, that we have kept all the right on our side, and made it appear, that we love the peace of the State.

Notwithstanding all this, Gentlemen, you may and ought to take order for the safety of your persons. For whereas his Majesty and his Counsel have said often, that if you separate your selves, he will let our Churches enjoy peace, and the benefit of his Edicts, it is not reasonable that your separation be done with the peril of your persons. And whenever you petition for your safe dissolution, I trust it will be easily obtained, if you make possible requests, and such, as the misery of the time, and the present necessity can bear. In the mean while you may advise before you part, what should be done, if notwithstanding your separation, we should be opprest, that order your prudence may finde, and it is not my part to suggest it unto you.

If by propounding these things unto you, I have exceed­ed the limits of discretion, you will be pleased to impute it to my zeal for the good and preservation of the Church. And if this advice of mine is rejected, as unworthy of your consideration, this comfort I shall have, that I have dis­charged my conscience, and retiring my self into some fo­reign Countrey, there I will end those few daies which I have yet to live, lamenting the loss of the Church, and the destruction of the Temple, for the building whereof I have laboured with much more courage and fidelity then success. The Lord turn away his wrath from us, direct your Assem­bly, and preserve your persons. I rest, &c.

When this Letter was read in the Assembly, some a­rose immediately and left it: others continued to sit, and by their sitting turned these warnings into prophecies. This Epistle will give to the judicious Reader an insight into the affairs of that time and State; and together in­to the present question, which is altogether of fact, whe­ther and how far the French Protestants may be taxed of disobedience against their Sovereign. For it is justifi­ed by this relation, that when some of them resisted, they had the greatest temptation to it that a just fear can present unto flesh and bloud; and yet that even then they were disavowed by the best and the most of their Church, and exhorted to their duty by their Di­vines, which in points of conscience are the representa­tive persons of a party when they are solemnly met; and this was the sense of the National Synod, of which this eminent Divine was President but two moneths be­fore.

Here every wise and charitable Christian should lay David's doctrine to heart, Psal. 41. 1. [...] Blessed is he that considers with intelligence and judge­ment him that is in a low condition. It is easie for us that enjoy prosperity under a gracious King, to determine the point of passive obedience: not so for them that groan under the sad burden of the Cross. Christian equity ought to pity those that are exposed to the sad counsels of terrour and despair.

I am not without suspition, that when those places of safety were granted to them by Henry the IV. their ene­mies in the Kings Counsel suggested or furthered that grant for their undoing in the time to come; for they [Page 46] might well foresee, that on the one side a wise King would not suffer long such a disease in his own bowels as a party of his subjects armed with places of security a­gainst him: and that on the other side, the party so secu­red, would not part with that security for their Religion, Liberties, and Lives, without committing such actions as would make them obnoxious to their Sovereigns an­ger, and their ruine.

Three or four years after the rendition of all those places to the King, the Duke of Montmorancy raised a party against him in Languedock, of which he was Go­vernour, hoping to find the Protestants which are nume­rous there, prepared subjects for an insurrection; yet neither his solicitations, nor the resentment of their suffer­ings could move them to assist him. But they joyned u­niversally with the King, and did rare service in a battel where that Duke was defeated and taken, and with him a Jesuited Bishop. And it is to be noted, that old Mar­shal de la Force a Protestant, that hardly escaped the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, was one of the chief Com­manders of the Kings Army.

The Adversary gives a touch of the wars, begun in Germany, Bohemia, and Hungary in the year 1619. of which he imputes the whole cause to the Protestants. I undertake not to justifie their errours; I say onely, that whoso had looked with an ordinary judgement upon the face of those Countreys, as they were then divided and ballanced between the Papist and the Protestant party, might have foretold without a spirit of prophecy, that they should not enjoy a long peace, there being so many free spirits animated to liberty and revenge by the seve­rity [Page 47] of the superstitious house of Austria towards their Protestant subjects.

If Bethlem Gabor was a prodigious man, and a demi-Turk, as this man makes him, it is nothing to us: as Re­ligion justifieth no mans faults, no mans faults can con­demn Religion. The notion under which I fancy that man, is, that of a cannon-shot without bullet, which makes a great and short crack, and no effect. All that the Adversary saith of his dealing with the Turk, shew­eth, that the Protestants of Hungary were so opprest by the Emperour, that they wisht themselves the Turks subjects. I pray God they do not so still, and with them the other Protestants belonging to the Emperours here­ditary Countreys, seeing their brethren that live under the Turk enjoy the freedome of their Religion. The same reason might make the Protestants of the Empire slow to contribute towards the war against the Turk; yet I hear they are as forward as any. It is not declaiming against them (as the Adversary doth) but using them like Chri­stians that will make them joyn heartily with the Empe­rour in that war. The Spanish branch of the house of Austria hath lost great part of Netherlands by the inflexibleness of Philip the II. of Spain, to grant liber­ty of Religion to his Protestant subjects. Let the German branch of Austria which useth the like hardness, take heed of the like loss.

The Reformation of Religion in the United Provin­ces, is that upon which the Adversary triumpheth most, it being very apparent, to his thinking, that they brought it in by shaking the Yoke of the King of Spain. But there is great difference between reforming [Page 48] and establishing the Reformation. The first was done by the Word, the second by the Sword, and the first forty years before the second. The Reformed Religion was spred over the Seventeen Provinces many years, be­fore there was any thought of making an Union against the Spaniard; neither was that Union made upon the score of Religion, but of State, for maintaining their Franchises against the oppression of Spain; as it was sufficiently justified, by their choosing of Francis Duke of Alenson, a Roman Catholick, for their Prince;An. 1583. which they would never have done, if the Union had ever marched under the notion of Religion, as our Ad­versarypag. 32. affirmeth, or if the Protestants had been the greater number. And that Religion was not that which knit the party, and that there was no such thing in the Articles, it appeared again when some Provinces for­sook the Union, because the Prince of Orange had put Religion among the causes of their defensive Warre. If then the Union was unjust, the injustice must not be cast upon Religion, since it was not made upon that interest; and if it was just, it could not become un­just, by the accession of the interest of Religion, to the other interests. So that which way soever the Ad­versary takes it, the Roman Catholicks bear an equal share with the Protestants, in the right and wrong of the cause; Flanders and Brabant were as guilty as Hol­land and Zealand: The difference is, that Flanders and Brabant were beaten to obedience by the Duke of Parma, but Holland and Zealand proved too strong for him. The World beholds with amazement the successe of that Union, that these little Provinces should bring [Page 49] their Prince to be their suppliant, that he might be al­lowed to quit his right over them, and acknowledge them Free States, yea and to justifie their armes. It is that successe, not their guilt, that makes our Adversary so vehement against them; for ill Gamesters will be angry, when they are loosers.

Whether it be out of wilfulnesse or ignorance, this Gentleman mis-represents that businesse, speaking of the King of Spain, as of an absolute Sovereigne of the Low Countries, and of the people, as of meer Subjects. Philip the II. was not their King, but their Count. ButI have said something of that in my Clamor Regii San­guinis ad Caelum. it is besides my businesse, to inquire how the rights of Sovereignty were divided between the Prince and the People, which ought to be known before the case be stated.

If the cause of Religion made the quarrel irrecon­cileable, Philip the II. may thank himself for it. Stra­da the great friend of the Spaniard, tells us that the Great Council of Spain represented to the King, that unlesse he granted liberty of conscience to his Subjects of the Netherlands, the Countrey would be lost, and the Warre perpetual; whereupon the King fell on his knees before a Crucifix, and vowed that he would choose to lose his Dominions, rather then to permit heresie, so he called the Protestant Religion. If many years after they were offered to be secured for their Religion, as our Adversary saith (which I never heard before) it waspag. 39. too late. It is an unequitable motion, and more ad­vantageous for the Roman party than ours, that exces­ses happening by the ordinary course of humane busi­nesses be not imputed to Religion. Oppression will [Page 50] make subjects to shake off the yoke: And the prosperi­ty of their defection keeps them from returning to their former subjection.

From Holland the Adversary saileth into Scotland, and objects to us the Maxims of Knox and Buchanan, and the disorders of that time. Of which I have said e­nough in the Chapter before.

Of the Work of Reformation in England, and the publick actions of that age upon that interest, he speaks very scornfully; saying, that the Sect of Wicleff lay pag. 71. strangled in the cradle till King Edward the VI. his dayes, when some ends of it were taken up again, and set out with more ostentation then ever, in that Princes minority: and what rare effects of obedience were by that means produced in Queen Maries time, who brought them up again to the test, may be easily read in our Chronicles. Wherein it is plain, that in the poor five years of her Reign there was de facto more open and violent opposition and rebellion, made by her own subjects, then Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years; or any Prince before or since the Wicleffian doctrine, till the same smothered fire broke out at last in good King Charles his time, to his utter ruin, and the shaking of the very foundation of his Monarchy. Is this spoken like a most observant Son, and in every honest mans esteem a pious, reverend, and learned Priest of the Church of England, as this Author is tearmed in the Publishers Epistle to the Reader? Certainly a Son and a Priest of the Church of England would never have derived from Wickleff, but from the Holy Scripture, the Religion of the Church his Mother; nor ascribed to her Religion the cause of the late horrid rebellion. We see [Page 51] what a Son and Priest of the Church he is, the tree is known by his fruit. What better figs can be gathered from such a thorn? What better grapes from such a bramble? And what is that doctrine of Wickliffe which he imputes to the Protestants, to the English especial­ly? Impios nullum dominium habere, That the ungodly pag. 70. can have no right of dominion: Was that the doctrine set out with ostentation in Edward the VI. his dayes? Or was any of the Protestants found tainted with that doctrine, when Queen Mary burnt them, which this man calls bringing them to the test? Sure it was not up­on that ground that some oppositions were made a­gainst that Queen. It is a wonder that she met with no more, considering how her Father had declared by Act of Parliament her Mothers Marriage unlawful, and her self incapable of the Crown, and had mise­rably incumbred the Title and Succession of his Chil­dren.

That there was more open and violent opposition a­gainst her in her five years reigne from her own Sub­jects, then Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years, it is, because they that went to question her Title, went to work plainly above boord; but no secret Jesuitical conspiracies to stabbe or poyson her, as against Queen Elizabeth.

The means she made to reduce her dissenting sub­jects in Religion, when they made no opposition against her, was to make bon-fires of them. Three hundred of those burnt-offerings she sacrificed unto God: A farre greater number in her poor five years, then that of the Popish Martyrs of disobedience, since the death of that [Page 52] Queen, now above a hundred years. For no Papist was executed for his Religion, all for disobeying the Laws of the Land, and many of them for High Trea­son.

It is known that Queen Mary got the Crowne by the assistance of the Protestants of Suffolk, and what re­compence she gave them for it. And, whereas no fewer then eight rebellions did rise in Henry the VIII. his dayes, I find not that the Protestants had a hand in any of them. All were raised by Papists; and upon the score of Popery.

The principal colour of our Adversaries malice is his detestation of the late rebellion of England, and the execrable Murther committed in the sacred Person of our gracious Sovereigne. Upon this he makes several Panegyricks, which are very ill sorted with his Apo­logy for Mariana, and justifying of the Iesuites doctrine: Especially seeing that those actions were copied out up­on their principles. Felicia tempora quae te Moribus ad­morunt. Belike the curious pens of the wise States-men and learned Scholars of England, had need to be sup­plied by the boyish theames of a petty Novice of Doway, to learn the duty of Subjects, and to abhorre the guilti­nesse of rebellion.

The venome that lieth under that oratory of inve­ctives, is that all the mischief is imputed to the Prote­stants of Integrity, a term which he useth like a stirrup­leather, longer or shorter, according to his occasions, yet alwayes treacherously to cast the faults of some par­ticular person, or some heretical Sect upon the gene­rality of the Protestants. But let him know, that the [Page 53] King, the Church, and the State, are Protestants of Integrity: and that the parricides and troublers of our Israel will never give him thanks for calling them Pro­testants: Also that we acknowledge them not for such, unlesse it be upon a new score, because they protest a­gainst the Kings power and the duty of their obedi­ence.

When Jesuits or their Scholars, (as this Gentleman is) charge our Fanaticks with High Treason, they do but act that which they had prepared to do, if the Powder-Plot had taken. For they had a Declaration ready to indite the Protestants of that Treason. For these men would story the just clamor against them for their do­ctrine of rebellion and parricide, by laying the same charge with loud words upon others.

We have great reason to call upon the Justice of God and Men to condemne the unsincerity of this cla­mour. With what face or conscience can the Jesuits passe a hard Sentence upon the late Rebels and King­killers, seeing that these furious Zealots have neither taught nor done any thing in that horrible defection, but what they had learned of the Jesuits? For what do they blame them for?

Is it for teaching that the Sovereigne Power lieth in the Commons, and that they may alter the Govern­ment of a State? Did they not learnBellarm. de Laicis, lib. 3. cap. 6. Potestas immediate est tanquam in subjecto in tota multitudine, & si cau­sa legitima adsit potest multitudo mutare regnum in Aristocratiam, aut Democratiam, & è contrarie. that of Bellarmine? The Power (saith he) is in the whole multitude, as in its subject, and if there be a lawful cause for it, the multitude may alter the Royal State into an Aristocracy, or Democracy, and so on the contrary.

[Page 54]Is it for saying that the people makes the King, and may unmake him, and retains still the habit of power? Did they not learn of the same Bel­larmine, that, In the Kingdomes of Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 19. In regnis hominum potestas Re­gis est à populo, quia populus fa­cit Regem. Ibid. cap. 19. sect ad alteram. In Rebusp. temporalibus si Rex degeneret in tyrannum, licet caput sit Regni, tamen à populo potest deponi & eligi alius. Et Recogn. lib. de Laicis sect. Addo ex­perientiam laudat Navarrum qui non dubitat affirmare nunquam populum ita potestatem suam in Regem transferre quin illam sibi in habitu retineat; ut in certis quibusdam casibus etiam actu re­cipere possit. men, the Kings power is from the peo­ple, because the people makes the King. And in temporal Common-wealths, if the King degenerate into a Tyrant, though he be the Head of the King­dome, he may be deposed by the peo­ple, and another elected. And doth he not praise Navarrus for saying, that the people never so transferre their power to the King, but they retain it in the habit; so that in some cases they may resume it.

Is it for saying that the Common-wealth may take defensive armes against the King, and expel him? The Jesuite Suarez taught them that do­ctrine.Suarez Defens Fid lib. 6. c. 19. sect. 17. Resp. ex sola rei natura spe­ctatam prout fuit apud Gentiles & nunc est inter Ethnicos habet potestatem se desendendi à Tyran­no Rege. & sect. 15. Si Rex legi­timus tyrannice gubernat & reg­no nullum aliud sit remedium nisi Regem expellere & deponere, po­terit Resp. tota publico & communi consensu civitatem & proce­rum Regem deponere. The Common-wealth (saith he) considered in her meer nature, and as it was among the Gentiles, and as it is now among the Pagans, hath the power to defend her self against a Tyrant. If a lawful King governe ty­rannically, and that there be no other remedy for the Kingdome but to expel and depose the King, the whole Com­mon-wealth by the publick and common consent of the Cities and the Peers, may depose the King.

[Page 55]Or do the Jesuites inveigh against them for making a formal and aggressive Warre against the King? They have no reason for it, seeing that the Jesuite Mariana hath set them down the whole course which they have followed. The rea­diest Mariana lib. 6. de Rege, cap. 6. pag. 59. & 60. Expedita maximé & tuta via est si publici conventus facultas detur communi consensu quid statuen­dum sit deliberare, fixum ratum­que habere quod communi senten­tia steterit. Monendus in primis Princeps erit atque ad sanitatem revocandus, &c. Qui si medicinam respuat, neque spes ulla sanitatis relinquatur, sententia pronuntia­ta licebit Reip, ejus imperium de­trectare primum, & quoniam bel­lum necessario concitabitur, ejus defendendi consilia explicare, ex­pedire arma, pecunias in belli sumptus imperare populis: & si res feret neque aliter se Resp. tueri possit, eodem defensionis jure, ac vero potiori authoritate & pro­pria Principem publice hostem de­claratum ferro perimere. and the safest way (saith he) if the people may meet in a publick As­sembly, is to deliberate by common consent what is to be done, and then to keep inviolably that which is agreed on by common consent. The Prince must first be admonish't and exhorted to mend: But if he refuse the remedy, and there be no hope of his mending, the sentence being once pronounced (a­gainst him) it will be lawful for the Common-wealth to refuse to obey him. And because a Warre must necessarily follow, the counsels how to maintain it must be set down, armes must be quickly provided, and taxes laid up­on the people, to bear the expences of the Warre. And if it be requisite, and the Common-wealth cannot other­wise maintain it self, it shall be lawful, both by the right of defence, and more by the Authority proper (to the people) to declare publikely the King to be the common enemy, and then kill him with the sword.

Do the Jesuites look with horrour upon that Court of Justice erected to try the King? Let them remem­ber that they had Mariana's warrant for it. That the Common-wealth from which the Royal Power hath its [Page 56] original, may when the case re­quires Mariana Ibid. Certe à Rep. unde ortum habet regia potestas rebus exigentibus Re­gem in jus vocari posse, & si sanitatem respuat Principatu spoliari. Neque ita in Principem jura potestatis transtulit ut non sibi majorem reservarit potestatem. it, bring the King to judgement; and if he refuse to mend, deprive him of his So­vereignty: For the Common­wealth hath not so transferred the right of power unto the Prince, but it hath reserved a greater power to it self.

And why doth our Adversary, an earnest defender of the Jesuites, exclaim so much against the abomi­nable parricide acted upon our Sacred Sovereigne, see­ing that the people which made Warre against him, held him to be a Tyrant, andLessius lib. 2. de Iustitia & Iure cap. 9. dubio 4. scribit. Verum Principem qui tyrannus est rati­one administrationis non posse à privatis interimi quamdiu manet Princeps,—primum à Repub. vel comitiis Regni vel alio habente authoritatem esse deponen­dum, & hostem declarandum, ut in ip­sius personam liceat quicquam attentare. it is the currant opinion of the Jesuites, that a tyrant may be killed by any private man. A true Prince (saith Lessius) who is a tyrant by reason of his ad­ministration, cannot be killed by a private person as long as he remaineth a Prince,—but he must first be deposed and declared enemy by the Common-wealth, or the Parliament of the Kingdome, or some other, having Authority, that it may be lawful to attempt any Suarez contra Regem Mag. Brit. lib. 6. cap. 4. sect. 14. Post sententiam lutam domnino pri­vatur regno ita ut non possit justo titu­lo illud possidere; ergo ex tunc pote­rit tanquam tyrannus tractari & conse­quenter à quocunquè privato poterit intersici. thing against his person. And Sua­rez saith to the same purpose, that after the Sentence given (against a King) he is altogether deprived of his Kingdome, so that he can no more possesse it with a just title. Wherefore from thenceforth he may be used like a tyrant, and killed by any private person.

[Page 57]Neither ought the Jesuites to find fault with the pub­lick thanksgiving for murthering the King, and making of the thirtieth of Ianuary a Thanksgiving Day, see­ing that the Jesuites of Paris shewed the way for that to the Rebels in England, for in the time of the French League, they made Solemne Thanksgivings for the murthering of their King, as Pope Sixtus the V. did since at Rome, with a vehement oration, in which he applieth a Prophesie of the Incarnation of the Sonne of God unto that Kings Murther.

So much the late Rebels of England have learned of you, Fathers Jesuites, and no reason have you to chide your Scholars for following your doctrine and example; how far you are yet before them, I will shew before I have done with you. For they do not make the crown of their Kings obnoxious to be kickt down by the Pope, and have learned no further of your maximes, then will serve them to kill the King, and keep rhe crown for themselves. And by their gross dealing with their King, beheading him upon a Scaffold, whereby they have spun a halter for their own necks, they have shewed them­selves not skilled in the mysteries of King-killing, set forth by your Mariana, who to put a King to death with less danger to the Actours,Mariana lib. 1. cap. 7. Hoc temperamento uti in hac quidem disputatione licebit, si non ipse qui perimitur venenum haurire cogitur quo intimis medullis concepto pereat: sed exterius ab alio adhibeatur, nihil adjuvante co qui perin▪ endus est. Nimirum cum tanta vis est veneni in sella eo, autveste delibuta, ut vim interficiendi habeat. Qua artè à Mauris Regibus invenio saepe alios Principes mislis donis, veste pretiosa, linteis, ar­mis, ephippiis, suisse oppressos. then to stab him, will have him taken away by poison. Yet so mercifull he is to such a King, that least he should be accessary to his own death, by taking the poison himself in his meat or [Page 58] drink, he will have a strong and subtile poison put in a garment or saddle, which may spread its mortiferous quality into his body. And for that he propounds the example of Moore Kings, who have killed their enemies with poisoned presents. These Jesuitical curiosities about a murther are too fine for our Northern Fanaticks; but for going so far with you as they have done, you have reason to cherish them.

When the businesses of the late bad times are once ripe for an history, and time the bringer of truth hath discovered the mysteries of iniquity, and the depths of Satan which have wrought so much crime and mischief, it will be found, that the late rebellion was raised and fostered by the arts of the Court of Rome. That Jesuites professed themselves Independent, as not depending on the Church of England; and Fifth-Monarchy-men, that they might pull down the English Monarchy, and that in the Committees, for the destruction of the King and the Church, they had their spies and their agents. The Roman Priest and Confessour is known, who when he saw the fatal stroke given to our Holy King and Mar­tyr, flourished with his sword, and said, Now the great­est enemy that we had in the world is gone.

When the newes of that horrible execution came to Roan, a Protestant Gentleman of good credit was pre­sent in a great company of Jesuited persons: where after great expressions of joy, the gravest of the com­pany, to whom all gave ear, spake much after this sort: The King of England at his Marriage had pro­mis'd Which is most false. us the re-establishing of the Catholick Religion in England; and when he delayed to fulfill his promise, we [Page 59] summoned him from time to time to performe it: We came so far as to tell him, that if he would not do it, we should be forced to take those courses which would bring him to his destruction. We have given him lawful warning, and when no warning would serve, we have kept our word to him, since he would not keep his word to us.

That grave Rabbies sentence agreeth with this cer­tain intelligence which shall be justified whensoever Authority will require it: That the year before the Kings death, a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England; first to Paris, to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon, then altogether Jesuited; to whom they put this question in writing: That seeing the State of England was in a likely po­sture to change Government, whether it was lawful for the Catholicks to work that change, for the ad­vancing and securing of the Catholick Cause in Eng­land, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his heresie? Which was answered affirmatively. After which the same persons went to Rome, where the same question being propounded and debated, it was concluded by the Pope and his Council, that it was both lawful and expedient for the Catholicks to promote that alteration of State. What followed that Consultation and Sentence, all the World knoweth, and how the Jesuites went to work, God knoweth; and Time the bringer forth of truth, will let us know. But when the horrible parricide committed in the Kings Sacred Person, was so univer­sally cried down as the greatest villany that had been [Page 60] committed in many ages, the Pope commanded all the papers about that question to be gathered and burnt: In obedience to which order, a Roman Ca­tholick in Paris was demanded a Copy which he had of those papers; but the Gentleman who had had time to consider and detest the wickednesse of that project, refused to give it, and shewed it to a Protestant friend of his; and related to him the whole carriage of this negotiation, with great abhorrency of the practices of the Jesuites.

In pursuance of that Order from Rome, for the pulling down both the Monarch and the Monarchy of England, many Jesuites came over, who took several shapes, to go about their worke, but most of them took party in the Army. About thirty of them were met by a Pro­testant Gentleman, between Roan and Diepe, to whom they said (taking him for one of their party) that they were going into England, and would take Armes in the Independant Army, and endeavour to be Agi­tators.

A Protestant Lady living in Paris in the time of our late calamities, was perswaded by a Jesuit going in scarlet, to turn Roman Catholick: When the dismal newes of the Kings Murther came to Paris, this Lady, as all other good English Subjects, was most deeply afflicted with it. And when this Scarlet Divine came to see her, and found her melting in tears, about that heavy and common disaster; he told her with a smiling countenance, that she had no reason to lament, but rather to rejoyce, seeing that the Catholicks were rid of their greatest enemy, and that the Catholick Cause [Page 61] was much furthered by his death. Upon which the Lady in great anger put the man down the stairs: say­ing, If that be your Religion, I have done with you for ever. And God hath given her the grace to make her word good hitherto.

Many intelligent Travellers can tell of the great joy among the English Convents and Seminaries, about the Kings death, as having overcome their enemy, and done their main work for their settlement in England; of which they made themselves so sure, that the Bene­dictins were in great care that the Jesuites should not get their land: and the English Nunnes were contend­ing who should be Abbesses in England.

An understanding Gentleman visiting the English Friars of Dunkirke, put them upon the discourse of the Kings death, and to pump out their sense about it, said that the Jesuites had laboured very much, to com­passe that great work: To which they answered, that the Jesuites would engrosse to themselves the glory of all great and good works, and of this among others workes; whereas they had laboured as diligently and effectually for it as they. So there was striving for the glory of that atchievement, and the Friars shewed them­selves as much Jesuited as the Jesuites.

In the height of Olivers Tyranny, Thomas White Gentleman, a Priest, and a right Jesuite in all his prin­ciples about obedience, set out a Book entituled, the Grounds of Obedience and Government: Wherein hepag. 122. maintains that, If the people by any circumstance be de­volved to the State of Anarchy, their promise made (to their expelled Governour) binds no more. That the people [Page 62] is remitted by the evil managing or insufficiency of their Governour, to the force of Nature to provide for them­selves, and not bound by any promise made to their Go­vernour. pag. 123, & 124. That the Magistrate by his miscarriages abdi­cateth himself from being a Magistrate, and proveth a Brigand or Robber instead of a Defender. That word Defender he writes with a great D. that the Reader may take notice whom he means.

If the Magistrate (saith he) have truly deserved to be pag. 133. dispossessed, or if he be rationally doubted, that he hath de­served it, and he be actually out of possession. In the former case, it is certain the subject hath no Obligation to hazard for his restitution, but rather to hinder it: For since it is the common good that both the Magistrate and the Subject are to aim at, and clearly out of what is exprest, it is the common harm to admit again of such a Magistrate, every one to his power is bound to resist him. The next case is, pag. 135. if he be innocent, and wrongfully deposed, nay let us add, One who had governed well, and deserved much of the Commonwealth, yet is he totally dispossessed: And so that it is plain in these circumstances, It were better for the Common good to stay as they are, then to venture the re­storing him, because of the publick hazard.

And not to set down all his words, and follow his style, which is affectedly intricate and obscure, he main­taineth that a dispossessed Prince, whether by right or wrong, is obliged absolutely to renounce all Right and pag. 136. Claim to Government; and if he does not, he is worse then an Infidel.

He tells us, That Pope Ʋrban the VIII. published a pag. 151. Decision, That after five yeers quiet possession of an Estate, [Page 63] the Church was not bound to take notice whether the Title were lawful or no, but acknowledge the Possessor in Ecclesi­astical businesse.

That when the peoples good stands on the Possessors side, pag. 154. then clearly he begins to gain right and power. That when the people think themselves well, they manifestly consent to the present Government. Besides (saith he) who can an­swer they shall be better by the return of the dispossessed party? Surely by common presumption the gainer is like to defend them better then he who lost it. He comes so far as to conclude, That if the old Magistrate offer to re­turn, he must be repulsed by force of Arms. His rea­soning is this: What if an open enemy should come; could pag 1 [...]7. or ought the subjects joyn against him with their new Ma­gistrate? If not, the whole Publick must perish: If they may, then their case is the same against their old Magi­strate, since his right stood upon the common Peace; and that transferred from him to his Rival by the Title of quiet possession.

This was the Philosophy of that contemplative Gen­tleman, when the King lived in exile, and Oliver sate on the Throne. Having so well deserved of the King, he was not long since highly recommended to His Majesty, by a man of great Note: But the King who hath a Roy­al Insight into persons and businesses, stopt him with this short answer, No more of that, I know what man he is.

Father Bret was of M. Whites opinion, for the Castle of Jersey being surrendred after that resistance which for the length of standing out, and the height of Valour, shall be memorable in all ages: When the Gentlemen who had defended it were prest to take the Engage­ment, [Page 64] contrary to the Articles of their Rendition: That goodly Divine was very earnest with them at St Malo to take it; maintaining, That they were not to acknow­ledge any Supreme but the prevailing power.

When his Majesty cast himself upon the Spaniard, the Jesuitical party thought they had him sure enough from ever returning: But God disappointed their hopes, and deceived our fears by his miraculous mercy: For it was the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes, that he scaped out of those hands.

I cannot leave un-observed, That in rhe height of the late Tyrannie, two heads of the Gun-powder Traytors that were set up upon the House of Lords, were taken down; not by the high winds, but by the same zeal which had plotted that Treason, and with the leave of Traytors of another feather. We may hear in time that those holy Reliques are shrined up in gold, and are work­ing miracles.

CHAP. III The Doctrine of the Protestant Churches about the Obedi­ence of Subjects to the Higher Powers, as it is set down in the Publick Confessions of the several National Churches.

TO ease the search of those that would know what the Protestant Churches hold in the point of obe­dience to the Magistrate: And that some pickt periods out of private Authors unfaithfully alledged by their Adversaries be not taken for the Doctrine of their [Page 65] party, I have set down here their publick Confessions in that point. For whether some of those allegations be true or false, their word must not be taken for the opinion of their Church, before that of the General Confession.

The Augustan Confession.

Article XVI. sub finem. CHristiani necessario debent obedire prae­sentibus Magistra­tibus ac legibus, nisi quum jubent peccare. Tunc enim wagis debent obedire Deo quam hominibus. Act. 4.

Article XVI. sub finem. CHristians must neces­sarily obey the pre­sent Magistrates and Laws, but when they command to sinne. For then they must obey God rather then men. Act. 4.

The French Confession.

Article XXXIX DEus gladium in Ma­gistratuum manus tradidit reprimen­dis ni mirum delictis, non modo contra secundam Ta­bulam sed etiam contra pri­mam commissis. Oportet igi­tur propter illum hujus or­dinis authorem non tantum [Page 66] pati ut ii dominentur, quos ille nobis praefecit, sed etiam omni honore & reverentia eos prosequi, tanquam ejus Legatos & Ministros ad le­gitimum & sanctum munus obeundum ab ipso designa­ [...]os.

Article XXXIX [Page 65] GOd hath put the sword in the Magi­strates hands to re­presse offences, not onely against the Second Table, but also against the First. We ought therefore for his sake, who is the Author of this order, not onely [Page 66] to suffer those to governe whom God hath set over us, but also yield to them honour and all respect, as to his Lieutenants and Mi­nisters, appointed by him to bear a lawful and holy Office.

Article XL. Affirmamus ergo pa­rendum esse legibus & statutis, solvenda tributa & reliqua onera perferenda; subjectionis de­niqne jugum voluntarie to­lerandum, etiamsi infidelis fuerint Magistratus, dum­modo Dei summum imperi­um integrum & illibatum maneat.

Article XL. WEe maintain then that we ought to obey lawes and statutes, pay tributes, and bear other burdens of subjection, and undergo the yoke with a good will, although the Magistrates should be Infidels, so that Gods Sovereigne Authority remain entire and inviolate.

The Belgick Confession.

CƲncti homines cujus­cumque sint vel dig­nitatis, vel condi­tionis, vel status, legitimis Magistratibus subjiei de­bent, illisque vectigalia ac [Page 67] pendere, & eis in omnibus obsequi ac obedire quae verbo Dei non repug­nant: preces etiam pro eis fundere ut eos Deus in om­nibus ipsorum actionibus dirigere dignetur, nos vero vitam tranquillam & quie­tam sub ipsis cum omni pie­tate & honestate ducere pos­simus.

ALl men of what dig­nity quality or state soever they be, must subject themselves unto the lawful Magi­strates, pay unto them im­posts [Page 67] and tributes, and please and obey them in all things that are not repug­nant unto the Word of God: Also pray for them, that God be pleased to di­rect them in all their acti­ons, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life under them, in all piety and honesty.

The Helvetick Confessions.

SIcut Deus salutem po­puli sui operari vult per Magistratum quem mundo veluti patrem dedit, ita subditi omnes hoc Dei beneficium in Magi­stratu agnoscere jubentur. Honorent ergo & reverean­tur Magistratum tanquam Dei Ministrum. Ament eum, faveant ei, & orent pro illo tanquam pro patre. Obediant item omnibus ejus justis & aequis mandatis. Denique pendant vectigalia atque tributa, & quae alia hujus generis debita sunt, [Page 68] fideliter atque libenter. Et fi salus publica patriae & justitia requirat, & Magi­stratus ex necessitate bellum suscipiat, deponant etiam vitam & fundant sangui­nem pro salute publicâ Ma­gistratusque, & quidem in Dei nomine, libenter, for­titer & alacriter. Qui enim Magistratui se opponit iram gravem Dei in se provocat.

AS God will work the safety of his people by the Magistrate, whom he hath given to the World as a Father, so all subjects are comman­ded to acknowledge that benefit in the Magistrate. Let them honour and re­verence the Magistrate as the Minister of God. Let them love and assist him, and pray for him as their Father. Let them obey him in all his just and equi­table commands. And let them pay all imposts and [Page 68] tributes, and all other dues of that kind, faithfully and willingly. And if the publick safety of the Coun­trey and Justice require it, and that the Magistrate undertake a Warre by ne­cessity; let them also lay down their lives, and spill their blood for the good of the publick and of the Ma­gistrate, and that in the Name of God; willingly, valiantly, and cheerfully. For he that opposeth him­self to the Magistrate, pro­voketh the heavy wrath of God upon himself.

The Bohemian Confession.

UNiversi & singuli in omnibus quae Deo tantum non sunt contraria eminenti potestati subjectionem prae­stent; primum Regiae Ma­jestati, postea omnibus Ma­gistratibus & qui cum po­testate sunt, in quibuscun­que muneribus sint collocati, [Page 69] sive ipsi per se boni viri sint sive mali; itemque omnibus Administris & Legatis ho­rum, & ut eos revereantur, colant, & quaecunque eis jure debentur ea omnia ut praestent, etiam honorem eis tributum, vectigal, simi­lia alia ad quae pendenda obligantur ut praestent & pendant.

[Page 68]LEt all every one yield subjection in all things that are no wayes contrary to God, unto the higher power; first to the Kings Majestie, and next to all Magistrates, and those that are in Au­thority, in what Offices soever they be placed, whe­ther [Page 69] the men be good or bad; as also to all their Officers and Deputies. And let them deferre unto them all honour, and performe all things which are due unto them by right; let them pay unto them also the homage, imposts, tri­bute, and the like, which they are obliged to pay and performe.

The Saxonick Confession.

MAgistratui Politico subditi debent o­bedientiam sicut Paulus (docet) Rom. 13. Non solum propter iram id est metu poenae corporalis, qua afficiuntur contumaces ab ipsis Magistratibus sed etiam propter conscientiam, id est contumacia est pecca­tum offendens Deum & a­vellens conscientiam a Deo.

SUbjects owe obedi­ence to the Politick Magistrate, as St. Paul teacheth Rom. 13 not one­ly for wrath, that is for fear of the corporal pu­nishment which the Magi­strates inflict upon the dis­obedient, but also for con­science sake; that is, diso­bedience is a sinne offend­ing God, and separating the conscience from God.

The Suevick Confession.

NOstri Ecclesiastae o­bedientiae quae ex­hibetur Magistra­tibus inter primi ordinis bona opera locum dederunt, docentes hoc unumquemque studiosius sese accommodare publicis legibus quo sinceri­or fuerit Christianus, fide­que ditior. Juxta docent fungi Magistratu munus esse sacratissimum quod quidem homini contingere possit. Ʋnde & factum sit quod qui gerunt publicam potestatem Dii in Scripturis vocentur.

OUr Divines have placed the obedi­ence which is done to the Magistrates, among the good works of the first rank, teaching that the more a Christian is sincere and rich in faith, the more careful ought he to be to subject himself unto the publick Laws. They like­wise teach that to be a Magistrate, is the most Sa­cred Office that a man may have. Whence also it co­meth, that they that bear a publick Authoriry, are called Gods in the Scrip­tures.

After all these, the English Confession shall speak last, to give the Sentence; as the Apostle St. James spake the last in the Synod of the Apostles at Ierusa­lem, because he was the Bishop.

Article XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate.

THe Kings Majesty hath the chief power in this Realme of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realme, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Causes, doth appertain: And it is not, nor ought to be subject to any forreigne Jurisdiction.

Where we attribute to the Kings Majesty the chief Go­vernment, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous persons are offended, we give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth Our Queen, do most plainly testifie; but that onely Prerogative which we see to have been gi­ven alwayes to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture, by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God, whe­ther they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restraiz with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers.

The Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

The Lawes of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous crimes.

[Page 72]It is lawful for Christian men, at the Commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the Wars.

The XXXV. Article appoints Homilies against Rebellion to be read in Churches. The summary of these Homilies, and the whole drift of them, is con­tainedFirst part page 2. of the first Homily against wilful dis­obedience and rebel­lion. in these words, In reading of the holy Scriptures we shall finde in very many and almost infinite places, as well of the Old Testament as of the New; That Kings and Princes, as well the evil as the good, do reigne by Gods Ordinance, and that subjects are bound to obey them. And that Doctrine of the Church of England, which is that of the Word of God, is fully demonstrated in these godly Homilies, published and enjoyned to be read in Churches by Royal Authority.

CHAP. IV. Proving by the Bulls and Decrees of Popes, That the Do­ctrine of the Roman Court in the point of Obedience to Sovereignes, is a Doctrine of Rebellion.

HItherto we have stood upon the Defensive, and have with no great labour wiped off the false and foul aspersions of Rebellion cast upon the Do­ctrine of the Protestant Churches: Let us try whether we can use the Sword as well as the Buckler. And we will use no other then the Popes own Sword; For as Da­vid [Page 73] said of Goliah's sword, There is none like that, give it me: In this Combate the enemies sword is the right weapon, none like it. The Adversary to disgrace our Doctrine, hath objected to us some passages of our Au­thors, most of them false or wrested, and some actions of persons of the Protestant party. But though he had proved all these to be true, he had done no harm to our Doctrine, which is not built upon private opinions, or upon private or publick actions. He should have taken our Confessions in hand, and Indicted them of rebellious Tenets, if he could have found any: Or finding none, he should have given glory to God, and confessed the Truth of God with us.

But if I bring him the Bulls of his Popes, and their Decrees, can he scape as we do, when he urgeth us with maxims of Buchanan or Goodman? Can he say, The Pope speaks Treason, and prescribes Rebellion, as we say of these men; and my faith is not tyed to his authority? Can he as freely go off from the Popes judgement, as we do from the best of our party, when their Tenet is re­presented to us aberring from the rule of Gods Word, and dissenting from the Articles of Religion, consented unto by the Provincial Convocations of the Church? We will then object to him and his party that which they cannot disown, unless they disown their Faith and Religion, since their Faith and Religion depend upon the Popes Decrees; and that so strongly, and with such a spirit of delusion, that the most pestilent opinions pass with them for Evangelical Truths, and the most abominable actions for patterns of Holiness, if they be once marked with that stamp; according to Bellar­mines [Page 74] sentence, which no Romanist hath yet disallowed for any thing I know. If the Pope did Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontifice, ca. 5. Si Papa erraret in praeci­piendo vitia, vel prohiben­do virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & vir­tutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam loqui. Idem cap. 31. in Barklaium. In bono sensu dedit Chri­stus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum. erre in commanding vices, or prohibiting vertues, the Church should be obliged to be­lieve that vices are good, and vertues evil, unless she would speak against Conscience. And to the same purpose he affirmeth, That in good sense Christ hath given to St. Peter the power to make sin to be no sin, and that which is no sin, to be sin. And he takes it for granted, That the power which Christ hath given to St. Peter, he hath ipso facto given it to the Pope his Successor. If then we prove that sedition, re­bellion, and murther of Kings, is justified, promoted, yea and commanded by that Head of their Faith, the Papists must either approve it as good and holy, or cease to be Papists, and learn to have the Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, without respect of per­sons.

Since the Roman Church stands much upon her An­tiquity, we will begin by the ancientest example of approving the murther of Kings that can be chargedAnn. Chr. 611. upon the Roman See. It is that of Gregory the I. who hearing that Phocas had slain the Emperour Mauritius his Liege Lord, having first killed his children before his face, and that he had invaded the Empire, writ a gratu­latory Epistle to that monster, where these words are found. We are glad that the benignity Greg. 1. lib. 11. Epist. 36. Benignitatem pietatis vestrae ad Imperiale fastigium perve­nisse gaudemus: Laetentur Coeli, & exultet Terra, & de benignis actibus vestris uni­versae Reip. populus hilarescat. of your Piety hath attained to the Impe­rial Dignity: Let the heavens rojoyce, and let the Earth be glad, and let the people of [Page 75] the whole Commonwealth be joyful for your gracious deeds.

The next example shall be that of Gregory the II. who rebelled against his Sovereigne, the EmperourAnn. Chr. 726. Leo Isaurus, and made Rome and the Roman Dutchy do the same: And while the Emperour was sore afflict­ed with the wars of the Saracens in the East, he made himself Lord of that part of his Masters Dominions in Italy; for which Sigonius giveth an ad­mirableSigonius Hist. de Regno Italiae, lib. 3. Ita Roma Romanusque Du­catus à Graecis ad Romanum Pontificem propter nesandam eorum haeresim impietatem (que) pervenit. reason. That Rome and the Ro­man Dutchy were lost by the Grecians, and got by the Pope of Rome, by reason of their wicked heresie. A strange kind of penance from a Pastor, to turn the sinner out of his house, and possess himself of it. That wicked heresie of Leo Isaurus was, That he prohibited the adoration of Ima­ges, and pulled them down every where: For that Heresie and Impiety, the holy Father Gregory the II. imposed this penance upon the Emperour; He made him lose his Estate, and himself seized upon it. This is the beginning of the Popes Temporal Principality. This is the Title whereby he holds Rome and the Territory of it to this day; even plain Rebellion, and Tyrannical Invasion of his Sovereigns Estate and Dominion.

The next Successor of Gregory the II. was Gregory the III. of whom Platina writeth thus. This Pope as soon as he attained to the Pa­pal Platina in Greg. III. Hic statim ubi Pontificatum iniit Cleri Romani consensu Leonem tertium Imperatorem Constantinopolitanum Imperio simul & communione Fideli­um privat, quod sanctas Ima­gines è sacris aedibus abrasis­set. Degree, by the consent of the Roman Clergie, deprived Leo the III. Emperour of Constantinople, both of his Empire, and of the Communion of the faithful, be­cause [Page 76] he had swept away the holy Images out of the Churches. Observe that Pla­tina that writ about the year 1472. at Rome, speaks ac­cording to the great interest of that time and place, which was, That an Emperour excommunicated, was ipso facto deprived of his Empire: Whereas the Popes that lived 700 years before, either had not that ambi­tion, or wanted the courage to depose Emperours. But the Popes that reigned two or three hundred yeers ago, made that power of deposing Princes, as ancient as they could by their Historians.

The same must be said of the pretended deposition of Chilperick King of France by Pope Zachary, the next Successor of Gregory the III. Cardinal Perron sets forth that example to fright Kings, in his Oration before the three States of France, and saith that the Pope absolved the people of France from their Allegiance to that King, for which he alledgeth the testimony of two new Au­thors, Paulus Aemilius and Du Tillet. But Ado Bishop of Vienna in his Chronicle saith, That the French by the counsel of Embassadors, and of Pope Zachary, established Pepin their King. And Trithemius in his Abridgement of Annals speaks thus: Chilperick King of the French, is put out from the Kingdome, as incapable to reigne, by the common consent of the great persons of the Kingdome, Pope Zachary giving them counsel.

But although the Champions of the Court of Rome ascribe to these ancient Popes that power which they never exercised or pretended to. That assertion of theirs is very favourable to my purpose, which is to shew that the Roman Court is, and delights to be the Trou­bler [Page 77] of Christendome by that usurpation of deposing Kings, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance: For the more they strive for it, and labour to root it in Antiquity, the more they shew the stirring of Rebelli­ons to be essential and original unto their wicked Throne.

After Zachary followed Stephen the II. who set on Pepin to expel the Exarchs out of Italy, and obtainedPlatina. of him the Exarchat for himself, though belonging to the Emperour of Constantinople his true Sovereigne: So there was both Rebellion and Robbery in that pro­ceeding. Wherein he followed the steps of Gregory the II. who thirty yeers before had robbed the Emperour his Master of the City of Rome, and the Roman Dutchy.

Yet in these Dominions the Emperours of the West, (which then begun again) kept the Imperial power.Platina in vita Eugenii II. Lotharius in Italiam veniens Magistratum delegit qui po­pulo Romano jus diceret. Platina affirmeth, That when Lotha­ry came into Italy, he chose Magistrates to judge the people of Rome: For in the partage between the sons of Lewis the Meek, Italy and Rome fell to the share of Lothary the eldest. But above all, the testimony of Sigonius is express, who speaking of the posture of Italy in the yeer 973. saith, That the Pope kept Rome, Ravenna, and the Sigonius de Regno Italiae, lib. 7. ann. 973. Pontifex Romam, Ravennam, & ditiones reli­quas tenebat authoritate ma­gis quam imperio: quod Ci­vitates Pontificem ut Reip. Principem, Regem vero ut summum Dominum intueren­tur, atque ei tributa obsequia­que praeberent. rest of his Territories, rather by Authority then Soveraignty; because the Cities look'd upon the Pope as a Prince of the Common­wealth, but upon the King as their Sove­raigne Lord, and to him they payd Tri­bute, and yeelded Obedience. It appear­eth [Page 78] by the Histories of Volaterranus, Blondus, and Sa­bellicus, that it is but about two hundred yeers since the Pope is absolute Master in Rome. And for the Spi­ritualIt was a­bout the year 800. power, Sigonius affirmeth, That Pope Hadrian the I. yeilded to the Emperour Charlemagne, the power of ordering the Church, and electing the Pope, which was so approved by Pope Leo the VIII. eightscore yeers after, thatSigonius de reg. Ital. ad an. 963. Non sine causa Adrianum I. Carolo magno tribuisse ut Ecclesiam ordinaret, & Pontificem eligeret. Platina in Paschalis I. Paschalis nulla interposita Imperatoris authoritate Pon­tiséx creatur: Hanc ob rem ubi Pontificatum iniit statim Legatos ad Ludovicum misit, qui ejus rei culpam omnem in Clerum & populum rejice­rent, quod ab his vi coactus esset pontisicium munus obi­re. Accepta hac satisfactione Ludovicus respondit populo & Clero, majorum instituta & pacta servanda esse, caverent ne dein ceps Majestatem lae de­rent. he said that it was not without cause that Hadrian the first had done so.

Yet Pope Paschalis the I. got into the Roman See without the Emperours Au­thority and consent, (as his Predecessor Stephen the IV. had done before him) and then sent to Lewis the Meek to purge himself, and cast the fault upon the impor­tunity of the Clergie and the people. The Emperour accepted the excuse, but said withal, That the Clergie and the people should no more offend the Emperours Ma­jesty in that sort. Let it be then remem­bred, that the Popes power is an usurpation, first upon the Emperours of the East, and since upon those of the West; that it be not found strange that his power having begun by Rebellion and Usurpation, is maintained in the following ages by answerable means, and liveth by the same elements of which it was composed. This also will give an evidence to the judicious Reader of the true cause why the Popes had such a long and pertinacious quarrel with the Emperours, and thundred continually [Page 79] upon them with Excommunications, created to them enemies, and tore the Empire with Factions; even that they might strip the Emperour of all his right in Italy, make themselves independent both for the Spiritual and the Temporal, and raise their greatnesse upon the fall of the Empire. So the many examples which I shall bring of excommunicating and deposing of Emperours, and absolving their subjects from their Allegiance, shall lay a double guilt of rebellion upon the Popes, both as commanding rebellion abroad, and practising rebellion at home against their lawful Sovereigns.

The first Pope that offered to excommunicate the King of France, was Gregory the IV. who joyned withSigebert. An. 832. the Sonnes of Lewis the meek, who had conspired a­gainst their Father. But the French Bishops threatned to excommunicate him, so he desisted.

The first Pope that attempted to draw his spiritual Sword against the Emperour, was that honest man Gre­gory Anno circi­ter. 1080. the VII, called before Hildebrand, who excommu­nicated the Emperour Henry the IV, but deposed him before. The Empire he translated to Rudolph Platina in Greg. VII. Imperatorem ipsum anathemate notavit, privatum prius omni Regia administrati­one. Duke of Suevia. But you must understand that though he gave him the Empire, he did not deliver it. For Rudolph was slain in battel by the Emperour. Rome was taken by the Emperour, and Gregory died for grief. The last words of Rudolph are notable: Seeing his hand cut off, heMarianus Scotus. Sigebertus. Vspergensis, said to the Bishops that had made him take armes. You see my hand which I had lift up to God with an Oath of fidelity to my Sovereigne, now punisht for fighting traiterously against him by your instigation. It seemes [Page 80] that the Popes command could not cleer his conscience of the crime of rebellion.

Ʋrban the II. did also excommunicate and perse­cutePlatira. Sigebertus. that worthy Emperour Henry the IV. This is that Ʋrban who made thatƲrban II. Causa 15. q. 6. Can. Iuratos. Iuratos mili­tes Hugoni Comitine ipsi quandiu excommunicatus est serviant prohibemus. goodly Decree, That an Oath made to an excommunicated person, must not be kept. The quarrel which made these Popes excommunicate the Emperour was about colla­tion of Benefices.

Pope Paschal the II. who succeeded Ʋrban, made that Emperours Sonne to take armes against his Father.Aventinus. [...]ttho Fri­sengensis. And that ungracious Sonne was such an obedient Sonne to his Holinesse, that he gave battel to his Father: Who being overcome, and in his enemies hands, was deposed in a Synod held at Mentz, by the Popes com­mand to that purpose, and the Crowne and other Im­perial ornaments, were taken violently from him by three Bishops, of Mentz, of Collen, and of Worms, and given to his Sonne Henry the V. The old Empe­rour being soon after dead for grief, the Pope would not suffer his Sonne to bury him, but he lay five years unburied. These are the holy actions of him that can­not erre, and hath all right shrined up in the closet of Platina in Paulo II. his breast.

It is worth relating how that Paschal sped by these wicked acts. The new Emperour came to Rome to be crowned by him. There the quarrel was renewed a­bout collation of Benefices. And because the peopleBaronius An. Chr. 1111. of Rome rose in a mutiny against him, he made a great slaughter of them, and took his Holinesse prisoner; [Page 81] using Iacobs words, I will not let thee go, till thou hast given me thy blessing. That blessing was the yield­ing of the Collation of Benefices, which Paschal grant­edObserve that the Roman Church hath al­tered her belief in that point, for they hold now that the body of Christ in the Sa­crament cannot be divided. and confirmed it by Oath. But he revoked that Grant as soon as he was free again, although the Oath was taken by the Altar, where Paschal dividing the Host between the Emperour and him; used these words, which Baronius relates: Sicubi pars haec vivi­fici corporis divisa est, ita divisus sit à regno Christi qui pactum hoc violare tentaverit. As this part of the vivify­ing body is divided, so let him be divided from Christs Kingdome, that will go about to break this Covenant. But what! the Pope absolveth others from their Oath, much more himself, when he listeth.

This horrible action of a Son giving battel to his Fa­ther, and keeping him prisoner till he die, through hardnesse and anguish, is highly commended by Baro­nius. Why? the Son did it in obedience to the Pope, who would not pardon his Father, no not after his death. These are Baronius his words; In this action, the Son is no more to be condemned, Baron. loco citato. Nihil habes in quo damnes filium, magis quam si insanienti surentique pius fili­us vincula injiciat patri. Quis negare potest summum suisse hoc pietatis genus? then if a pious Son should bind his Fa­ther, who is fallen mad. And again, Who can deny that it was the highest kind of piety, to have shewed himself cruel in this case? Here is rebellion in the height, of a subject against his Sovereigne: Here is a most horrible parricide, of a Son armed against his Father: both commanded by the Pope, and at his command executed. And both praised and recommen­ded by a Jesuite and a famous Cardinal, as a pattern for posterity.

[Page 82] Calixtus the II. his next Successor but one, excom­municated Henry the V. and forced him to compound.

How the Pope could be so bold abroad, being soFrinsin­gensis, Platina. weak at home, it is a wonder to me; for the Romans rebelled against Innocent the II. and created a Magi­strate which they called Patritius, to whom they de­ferred the Government, whereby they broke his heart, and made him die for sorrow. And when Pope Lucius the II. went about to put down that new Magistrate, he was answered, that the Senate would recover that right which the Popes had invaded by the help of Char­lemayne. Lucius called upon the Emperour Conrad for help, who either could not, or would not help him. Lucius raiseth Souldiers, and assaults the Capitol, but in that assault he was so bepelted with stones, that he died few dayes after.

And although Pope Eugenius the II. came to some composition with the Romans, yet both he and his Suc­cessors, Anastasius the IV. and Hadrian the IV. were kept under by them, and Hadrian was in the end forced to flie from Rome. Yet the same Hadrian suffered the Emperour Frederick the I. to hold his Stirrup, and quar­relledHelmodi Chron. lib. 1. cap. 81. with him for taking the left instead of the right.

That brave Emperour was more coursly used yet by the next Pope Alexander the III. who trod upon his neck when he stooped to kiss his Holinesses Foot, using these words of the Psalm 91. Thou shalt tread upon the Lion and Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon shalt thou trample underfeet.

And when the Emperour said, Non tibi sed Petro, This submission I do not to thee, but to Peter; the [Page 83] Pope treading upon him again, said, Et mihi & Petro, Both to me and to Peter.

Such was that Popes humility. So did he obey Saint Pe­ters command. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake. The Pope had before excom­municated Frederick; and when he came to submit and reconcile himself unto the Pope, his Holiness gave him this wellcome.

This so memorable passage, so known and so odious to all the World, is left out for shame by Platina and his Commentator Onuphrius. And all that Platina saith of that meeting is, that Frederick kist the Popes feet in Platina in Alexandro III. the Porch of Saint Mark of Venice, and then they went together to the great Altar. But it is attested by twenty Historians alledged by Hieronymo Bardo in his Historia Navalis. The great Jurisconsult Duarenus lib. 1. de sacris Ec­clesiae Ministeriis, cap. 2. Du­arenus relateth it with great detestation of so great a pride and tyranny. For which Joseph Stevan Ioseph Stevan. Epist. ad Gregor. XIII. de osculo pe­dum Papae. Iure meritoque in Religi­onis & Ecclesiae infensissimum hostem Fredericum Barbaros­sam, non ut in salem insatua­tum quem jubet Christus pe­dibus proterere sed potius ut horrendam belluam calcibus insultavit. who writ at Rome to Gregory the XIII. of kissing the Popes feet, checks Duarenus, saying that Pope Alexander the III. trod the Emperour Frederick un­der foot, not onely as salt which hath lost its savour, but as an horrible wild beast. And Otho Frisingensis both relates it and commends it, Otho Frising. lib. 5. cap. 14. Quod sactum summis libe­rum est sacerdotibus, cum Principum tyrannidem, aut violatam fidem aut Ecclesiae imminutam dignitatem vi­dent. and saith, That the Popes have the power to do so much, when they see the tyranny of Princes, or that faith is violated, or the dignity of the Church imbezelled. So though the Hi­story were not as it is, most undoubted­ly [Page 84] true, the approving and exalting of the fact in the Court of Rome makes that Court as guilty, as if it had been done. But it was done, and as bad was done by o­ther Popes.

Pope Celestin the III. gave Constantia a Nunne in marriage to the Emperour Henry the VI. and gave him for her dowry the Kingdome of both the Sicilies, uponPlatina Usper­gensis. condition he should expell Tancred, who was possess'd of the Kingdome. Hence a bloody War between Henry the VI. and Tancred. It is ordinary to the Pope to give that which is none of his. When the Pope giveth a Kingdome from a Prince that enjoyeth it, he commands together the people to resist him, making a sport to spill their blood, and damn their souls.

Baronius commends very much that Popes behaviourAnnal. Roger. an. 1191. Sedebat Dominus Papa in Cathedra Pontificali tenens coronam auream inter pedes suos; & Imperator inclinato capite recepit coronam, & im­perator similiter de pedibus Domini Papae: Dominus autem Papa statim percussit cum pe­de suo coronam Imperatoris, & dejecit eam in terram, signi­ficans quod ipse potestatem ejiciendi eum ab Imperio ha­bet, si ille demeruerit. in the Crowning of the Emperour Henry the VI. and his Wife, thus related in the Annalls of Rogerius. The Pope was sitting in his pontifical chair holding an Imperial golden Crown between his feet; and the Emperour bowing his head, received the Crown, and the Empress likewise by the feet of the Pope. And the Pope presently hit the Emperours Crown, and kick'd it down to the ground, thereby signifying that he had power to cast him down from the Empire if he deserved it. Ba­ronius having related this, amplifieth it with this morality

Baron. Tom. 12. Anno 1191. sect. 10. Ut fixum menti [Caesaris] haereret, nempe dare, custodi­re, conservare, & auserre, si causa exigeret, imperium esse in voluntate Romani Pontifi­cis, ejusmodi voluit comme­nere eum exemplo. That it might remain fixed in the Emperours mind, that it lieth in the Popes pleasure to give, keep, preserve, and take away the Empire if there be cause [Page 85] for it, he would admonish him with such an example.

Could the Devil have set up pride to a higher pin? to put the Emperours Crown at his feet, as a foot-stool for him to tread upon; put the Crown on the Empe­rours head with his feet, as an office too low for his hands: and then with his foot kick'd it down, as having a quarrell against the Imperiall Crown, and together a contempt for it. This and the treading upon the Em­perours neck were significant ceremonies with a witness. And what more effectual course could have been taken to raise rebellion in all the States of Christendome, then thus to blast the respect of Majesty? For thereby all Nations were taught, that their Princes were not Sovereigns, but the Popes Vassalls and Liegemen: That themselves were not their Kings Subjects, but the Popes, who could kick down their Crowns when he listed; and that when that supreme Head shall com­mand it, the Feet, that is the inferiour Members of the State, must make Foot-balls of the Crowns of Empe­rours and Kings.

After Celestin the III. came Innocent the III. as proud, but more active then he. England hath reason to remember this Pope. For he excommunicated King John, deposed him, absolved his Subjects from their allegiance to him, and cast an Interdict upon England, which lasted six years. All which time no Divine Ser­vice was said in the Kingdome, but in some priviledged places, no Sacrament was administred, and no corps buried in Consecrated Ground. The Kingdome of Eng­land he gave to Philip August of France, if he could [Page 86] take it; and that by a formal order, thus related by Matthew Paris; The Pope by the coun­sell Matth. Paris in vita Reg. Johan. Papa ex consilio Cardinali­um, Episcoporum, & aliorum vivorum prudentium, senten­tialiter definivit ut Rex a solio deponeretur. Ad hujus quoque sententiae executionem scripsit Dominus Papa potentissimo Regi Francorum Philippo, qua­tenus in remissionem peccato­rum suorum hunc laborem as­sumeret. of the Cardinalls, Bishops, and other prudent men gave a definitive sentence, that the King should be put down from his Throne: For the execution of that Sentence, the Pope writ to the most po­tent King of the French, Philip, that for the remission of his sins he should take that labour upon him. A new way for that King to get the remission of his sins, to invade his neigh­bours estate. As in the age of our Fathers Pope Sixtus the V. gave nine years of true indulgence to all the French that would bear Arms against their King Henry the III. Thus the remission of sins purchased by the blood of the Son of God, and presented by his Gospell to all that repent and believe, is by the Pope given as a reward of Invasion and Rebellion.

Matthew Paris writes, that, The Pope having gotten the Kingdome of England to himself (to his thinking) sent to Philip August, to enjoyn him to be reconciled with King John, else he would put France to Interdict. Philip answered, that he feared not his sentence, and that it belonged not to the Church of Rome to pro­nounce a sentence against the King of France.

It is a long and a sad story, how King John was per­secuted by Pope Innocent the III. his Barons made to rise against him, his Neighbours to fall upon him, his Clergy to revile him, and his people to despise him; till that unlucky King was brought to such an extremi­ty, that to buy his peace he gave his Kingdome to the [Page 87] Pope, and yet could not get his peace that way. The Gold which he laid at the Legats feet in sign of sub­jection, the Legat trod under his feet in scorn, yet took it in his hand after, so great was his clemency.

What a cruel tyranny did the following Popes exer­cise over his Son Henry the III. in his long and unfor­tunate Reign, insulting over his weakness and supersti­tion? How licentiously did these Wolves tear and ra­ven in England, while the publick cry of the oppressedMatth. Pa­ris in vitae Hen. III. people represented unto the King, that his Kingdome was become like a Vine, whose fence is pulled down, and rooted out by the wild Bear.

These Histories which make the usurpations of the Roman Court to be abhorred, yet are set forth by the Jesuite Petra Sancta as examples for all Princes; AndPetra San­cta Not. in Epist. ad Balzac. he would have all Kings to imitate King John and Henry the III. of England in their subjection to the Pope. He could not have chosen more frequent examples to dehort them from it, considering the gulf of miseries which they sunk into, by their stooping under the Popes tyranny. But they have more reason to follow the ex­ample of the next King, brave Edward the I. who re­covered his own and his Kingdomes liberty, by expel­ling all the Roman Exactours out of England; and by his contempt of Rome reigned peaceably and glorious. For the Pope, who in the Reigns of his Father and Grandfather was thundering continually, and cudgel­ling both King and people, never spake a word against this stout King.

Pope Innocent the III. played with his Spiritual Sword in Germany as well as in England, for he excom­municated [Page 88] the Emperour Otho the IV.Platina in Innocent III. Otho iram Pontificis in se concitavit à quo & ana­themate notatur & Imperii titulis privatur. and deprived him of the titles of the Em­pire, as Platina speaks warily, for Popes cannot take away Kingdomes, but onely deny to acknowledge the titles.

The Emperour Fredericke the II. was worse used by the Popes, though much deserving of the Roman See, to which he had given the County of Fundi. For he was excommunicated and deposed by Pope Honorius the III. and again by Gregory the IX. for that Mon­sterPlatina. of pride and greedinesse, when the Emperour was gone on his errand into Palaestina, anathematized him, raised him enemies in Germany, by his preaching Fri­ars,Matth. Pa­ris in Vita Hen. III. Reg. Angl. Vspergensis. Trithemius and taking advantage of his absence, sent an ar­my into Appulia, and seised upon the Emperours Lands. Twice he shewed himself reconciled with the Empe­rour, and twice again broke with him, and excom­municated him; but with ill successe to himself: For by all these Excommunications and Depositions the Emperour thrived; who after a long patience fell upon the Pope; made his Interdicts laid upon the Empire, to be hissed out; and so distressed the Pope by his armies, that he died for wrath and sorrow.

The same Emperour was also excommunicated andPlatina. Matth. Pa­ris. persecuted by Pope Innocent the IV. And when after the Emperours death, the armes of his Son prospered in Italy, he gave the Kingdome of Sicily to Richard bro­ther to Henry the III. of England; Richard not ac­quainted with the Popes giving of Kingdomes, asketh that the Forts and the Treasure and Hostages be given to him. Herein wiser (if he had stayed there) then [Page 89] others, who accept that which the Pope cannot de­liver.

I will passe by many Popes that came after, who sent their Excommunications no further then the King­dome of Naples and Sicily, and filled Italy with facti­ons, that they might fish in troubled waters: Let us fix our contemplation a little upon that high pattern of Pontifical vertues, Boniface the VIII. upon whom Pla­tina bestoweth this Character. That Bo­nifacePlatina in Bonifacio. Bonifacius ille qui Impera­toribus, Regibus, Principibus, Nationibus, Populis, terrorem potius quam religionem inji­cere conabatur; Quique dare regna & auferre, pellere homi­nes ac reducere, pro arbitrio conabatur; aurum undique conquisitum plus quam dici potest sitiens. who studied to give terrour ra­ther then religion, unto Emperours, Kings, Princes, and Nations, and la­boured to give and take away King­domes, drive men away, and bring them again, according to his pleasure. One that was thirsty of goods scraped up from all places, more then can be exprest.

The passages between him and the French King Philip the Fair, are known, yet perhaps not to all. This is the History in short: This Pope having a grudge a­gainst him about the Collation of Benefices, and desi­ring to pick a quarrel, sent to him the Bishop of Pa­miers, Stella. Hi­stoire de France. to command him to undertake an expedition to the Holy Land, and to threaten him if he refused. The Bishop did that errand so malapertly, that the King offended, committed him to prison. The Pope angry, demanded the Bishop again, and had him; and sent this Letter to the King. Fear God, and keep his Com­mandements, We will have thee to know that thou art our Subject, both for the Spiritual and the Temporal. That no Collation of Benefices and Prebends belongs to [Page 90] thee. And if thou hast the custody of any of them that are vacant, we will have thee to reserve the fruits for their Successors. And if thou hast granted any (Benefices) We declare all such Collations null, and as far as they are ex­ecuted de facto, We revoke them. Those that believe o­therwise, we hold them for Hereticks. These goodly Let­ters being brought to Paris by a Legate, were pluckt from him by the Kings Council and Judges, and cast into the fire by the Earle of Artois. And to them the King returned this Answer, Philip by the Grace of God, King of the French, to Boniface, calling himself Sove­reign Pontife; but little greeting, or rather none at all. Let thy most egregious folly know that in temporal things we are subject to no man. That the Collation of Churches and Prebends belongs unto us by Royal Right, and con­verting the same to our use, during the vacancy. That the Collation by us made, and to be made, shall be valid; and that in vertue of the same, we will couragiously de­fend the possessors. Those that hold otherwise, We hold to be idiots, and bereaved of their sense.

The Pope inraged excommunicates the King, but none durst be the publisher or bearer of that Bull. The King assembleth at paris his Knights, Barons, and Pre­lates, and asketh them of whom they hold their Lord­ships, and the temporal of their Ecclesiastical prefer­ments. All answer that they hold them of the King, not of the Pope, whom they charge with heresie and ma­ny crimes, The Pope assembleth a General Council (as Platina calleth it) though it was gathered out of fewPlatina. Countries) and by a Decree of that Council, depri­veth Philip of his Kingdome, and giveth it to the Em­perour [Page 91] Albert; and laboureth to arme Germany and Netherlands against France. But that vigorous King sent Nogaret into Italy, who by the help of Sciarra Co­lumna, whose Family Boniface had cruelly opprest, got two hundred horse, and surprised the Pope at Anagnia, whom they mounted upon a poor jade, and brought him prisoner to Rome, where he was so ill beloved, that no body stirred to rescue him. With this adversity his proud heart was broken, and he died five and thirty dayes after.

Benedict the XI. who was elected in his place, ab­solved Philip presently. And his Successor Clement the V. to that Absolution added a complemental Bull, in which Philip is exalted as a pious and religious Prince,As it may be seen Extrava­gante Me­ruit. and well deserving of the Church; as it may be seen Extravagante Meruit. For the Popes easily pardon the sins of those whom they fear. Truly that vertuous King hath left a fair lesson to posterity, by what wayes the favour of that Holy See ought to be purchased and pre­served. And since Lewis the XIV. now reigning is ta­king the like course with the Pope, he is like to be in time the favourite of his Holinesse, and to obtain from him another Bull meruit; declaring how well that eldest Son of the Church hath deserved from the Church his Mother.

Pope Iohn XXIII. angry that Ludovicus Bavarus had taken upon him the administration of the Empire, be­forePlatina Hierony­mus Mari­us. he got his leave, refused to crown him, though many times desired by him. The Emperour did nothing the lesse continue his power and imperial care both in Germany and Italy, and going to Rome (the Pope [Page 92] then sitting at Avignon) was crowned by the joynt con­sent of Clergy, Nobles, and People. Upon which he was excommunicated and deprived of the Empire as far as words could do it, by this Pope. And the same Sentence was confirmed against the Emperour, by the Successor of Iohn, Benedict the XII.

Clement the VI. who came next after, was more in­clement then his predecessors, in persecuting Ludovicus Bavarus. For he excommunicated all the Bishops thatNauclerus. adhered to him; and set Bulls at the doors of all the Churches, to raise rebellion against him. And when the Emperour would submit to him, and sue for peace, he required such conditions of him, as neither he, nor the Princes of the Empire, would or could yield unto, as that he should depose himself, put all his Estate, and his own Sons in the Popes power, and promise to un­dertake no more any thing, without the Popes leave. These conditions being rejected by the Emperour, Clement charged the Electors to elect another. Which when the Archbishop of Ments refused to do, repre­senting the Emperours innocency, he deprived him of his Archbishoprick, and of his Electoral dignity. The o­ther Electors corrupted with money by John King of Bohemia, elected his Son Charles King of the Romans, whom Clement approved; whence great and bloody Warres followed, and the Emperour Ludovicus Bava­rus, was taken away by poyson by Clements means, as some Authors write.

That Election of Charles the IV. was the breakingFasciculus temp. Volatterran of the back of the Empire, which the Popes had been long labouring for. For this Charles, that he might be [Page 93] elected Emperour, pawned the tributes of the Empire to the Electors. And the Electors made him swear that he would never disengage that pawne. Then they made him make that authentical Capitulation, which I have produced in my first Chapter. The Empire being thus weakned, and losing the Tributes, which are the si­newes of Warre, was disabled from resisting the Turk, who hath since wasted the Christian Provinces with lit­tle opposition, and hath destroyed so many Churches, or turned them into Moskites. For all these distracti­ons, the Church and the Empire may thank the See of Rome, which had a hand in all the Negotiations of the Princes of Germany and Italy; and whose Authority acted alwayes for the depression of the Emperour. Nei­ther could all these conditions, so hurtful to the Impe­rial Dignity, and the publick subsistence, have past into standing laws, if the Pope had not promoted them, or if he would have shewed himself against them.

Since this Pope Clement the VI. for about fifty or threescore years, I find not that the Popes had many irons in the fire out of the limits of Italy, the Papal power being much broken with Schismes. So that the Popes instead of fulminating Bulls against Emperours and Kings, courted its several Monarchs of Christen­dome, to take their party against their Anti-popes.

Benedict the XIII. in the year 1408. being incensedTheodoricus à Niem in nemore uni­onis. against Charles the VI. of France, for inhibiting the exactions of the Papal Court, sent a Bull of Excom­munication against the King and his Princes. The Uni­versitySomnium Viridarii▪ of Paris required that the Bull should be torne, [Page 94] and that Pope Benedict, (whom they called Peter de Luna) should be declared Heretick, Schismatick, and disturber of peace: Which was done. The Bull was torne by Sentence of the Court. And two Bullists, bea­rersCarolus Molinaeus contra par­vas datas, relates that Sen­tence of the Court. of that Bull, made that which they call Honourable amends, upon the Pallace stairs, then were carried in two dung carts, arrayed in Jerkins of course linnen cloth painted, with paper Miters on their head, the trumpets sounding before them, and the common peo­ple howting upon them, and abusing them. So little account did they make of the roaring of the Popes Bulls.

For a hundred years after Benedict the XIII. I find not that the Popes made use of their spiritual Sword against any Prince out of Italy and Sicily; partly by reason of Schismes, when that Roman Beast had many heads; partly by reason of the Councils occasioned by these Schismes. For they had three Councils in lesse than for­ty years, at Constance, at Basil, and at Florence; and the first and second of them took upon them to depose Popes, and gave credit to that dangerous opinion, so odious to the Court of Rome, that the Council is a­bove the Pope. This kept the Popes for a time in some order and respect to the Princes of Christendome, but for some wrangling about pragmatick sanctions, which grew not so high as to Warre or Excommuni­cation.

But in recompence, Julius the II. raised warres and tumults, as much as would serve for a hundred years. He drew both his Swords against several Princes and States of Christendome; especially against that excel­lent [Page 95] King Lewis the XII. of France. For having drawn him into Italy for his ends, he makes a LeagueO [...]phrius Paul. [...] ­us. to drive him out; excommunicates him, and puts his Kingdome to Interdict. Excommunicates the Venetians, giveth their dominions to any that will take them. Dri­veth the Bentivogli out of Bononia; exposeth their hou­ses to pillage: Excommunicates the Duke of Ferrara, and invades his Countrey by Armes; goes to Warre in person. Makes the English, the Spaniards, and the Switzers, to fall upon the French; takes many Imperial Cities. Excommunicates the King of Navarre, and giveth his Kingdome to the King of Arragon, who up­on that invades and takes it: And this is all the title that the Spaniard hath to Navarre, which he keepeth to this day. So much blood was shed in Christendome by the meanes of that plague of mankind Pope Julius the II. that it is thought that he was the death of two hundred thousand Christians, in seven years time.

In a Synod of the Gallican Church at Tours, it wasNicol. Cilles in Vita Ludov. XIII. Thuan. lib. 1. declared that the Pope hath no power to make warre against a Christian Prince; and if he do so, that the Prince hath power to invade the Popes Territories. This the King signifieth to Julius, and cites him to an­swer to a General Council, which both the Emperour and he had called to be held at Lyons. The Council was held there, but soon removed to Pisa; where the Council cited Julius to appear; and he not appearing, was condemned as an Incendiary, unworthy to sit at the Helme of the Church, and declared deprived of the Papal Dignity. There also Lewis coined golden Crownes with this Motto, Perdam nomen Babylonis. [Page 96] I will destroy the name of Babylon. For it is observable, that all that have quarrelled with the See of Rome these thirteen hundred years, have called it Babylon, and SaintHierom ad Marcellam. Hierome was he that began.

We cannot charge the Successor of Iulins, Leo the X. to have stirred Wars abroad; he loved too much his ease at home for that. But I could not pass by him, for indeed his memory is precious to all Protestants, for giving occasion to the Reformation by his Indulgences. And he is worthy to be recorded for his sentence spo­ken to his Secretary Cardinall Bembo, Quantum nobis Crispinus. nostrisque ea de Christo fabula profuerit satis est omnibus saeculis notum, an anxiome of too high a nature to be Englished.

After him came next but one Clement the VII. the Fomenter of the quarrell between the Emperour and the French, joyning sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other, and playing false with both, whereby he gave occasion to the taking and sacking of Rome. The thundering of this Pope, and of his SuccessorIovius. Paul the III. against Henry the VIII. did him no harm, but to themselves, and to the Roman See very much.

Of the following Popes till Pius the V. the Prote­stants have much to say, as of men that sought their own pleasure, and wrought their ruine. Hence so much blood split in horrible Massacres. But these are besides my subject, which is to make the Popes to ap­pear Authors of rebellion.

But now in a good time we are come to Pius the V. that Pope whom the English Protestants have most rea­son [Page 97] to remember. For without admonition or citationCambdens Hist of Qu. Elizabeth. premised, he pronounced a sentence of anathema a­gainst that blessed and glorious Queen Elizabeth, to raise rebellion in the Kingdome against her Authority and Life, and caused the same to be published and set up upon the Pallace Gate of the Bishop of London: the Title was this; A sentence declaratory of our holy Lord Micolaus Sanderus de schisma­te Anglica­no, lib. 3. Pope Pius against Elizabeth Queen of England, and the Hereticks adhering unto her, Wherein her Subjects are declared absolved from the Oath of Allegiance, and every thing due unto her whatsoever; and those which from thenceforth obey her, are innodated with the anathema. In that Bull Pope Pius having first styled himself Ser­vant of Servants, declareth that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build. Then he calleth Elizabeth the pretended Queen of Eng­land, the servant of wickedness. And having declared her crimes, which are to have taken upon her self that supremacy which his Holiness pretended to, and to have establish'd the true Catholick Orthodox Religion in her Kingdomes, he doth thunder out this seditious Decree against her and all her loyall Subjects. We do out of the fulness of our Apostolick power declare the aforesaid Eli­zabeth, being an Heretick, and a favourer of Hereticks, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have in­curred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And moreover we do de­clare her to be deprived of her pretended Title to the Kingdom aforesaid, and of all Dominion, Dignity, and Priviledge whatsoever. And also the Nobility, Subjects, [Page 98] and People of the said Kingdome, and all other which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such Oath, and all manner of duty of Dominion, Allegiance, and Obedience, as we also do by authority of these presents absolve them, and do deprive the same Eli­zabeth of her pretended Title to the Kingdome, and all other things abovesaid. And we do command and inter­dict all and every the Noblemen, Subjects, People, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her Monitions, Mandates, and Laws: And those which shall do to the contrary, we do innodate with the like sentence of anathema.

This Bull was the fire and the roaring of the Canon, and the bullet came forth immediately; which was the rebellion in the North, for which Chapino Vitelli was sent into England from the Duke of Alva, under pretence of compounding some controversies about commerce. And Nicholas Morton was sent from the Pope to knit the rebellion. Which he did, denouncing from his Master, that Queen Elizabeth was an Here­tick, and thereby had forfeited to the Pope all her do­minion and power. At the same time a rebellion broke out in Ireland, kindled or blown by a Spaniard, Iuan Mendoza. And when the Rebells of England were de­feated, they found refuge among the Papist Rebells of Scotland, who set up again the English rebellion. All these in vain, by the gracious assistance of God to poor England, as if his compassion had been stirred up by his jealousie, after that the Pope had declared himself so insolently, Prince over all People, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build. And [Page 99] God would shew, that to himself, not to the Pope, be­longeth the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory for ever.

Neither did Pius the V. fight onely by Bulls, but at the same time that the Bull was published, he laid down a hundred thousand Crowns to raise the rebellion, and promised fifty thousand more, yea, and to bear the whole charge of the War. That money was distributed by one Ridolpho. And how active that Pope was to stirre Spain, France, and Netherlands against the Queen, and to put her Kingdome in combustion, is related by Hieronymo Catena, an Authour of great credit at Rome in his life of Pius the V.

Gregory the XIII. succeeded Pius the V. in all his plots against England. He gave to Thomas Stukely, an English Rebell, a Commission to help the Rebells of Ireland, and get that Kingdome for the Bastard-Son of his Holiness, Iames Boncompagnon; and gave him the command of eight hundred Italians to joyn with King Sebastian of Portugal, who had engaged his word to the Pope to serve him with his whole power against Queen Elizabeth, and had raised a great Army for that expedition. But when Stukely came to Sebastian, he found him possess'd with a new project to help a Moor King of Fez, against another King who kept him out of possession, and to get the Kingdome from them both. To that War he invited Stukely, promising that presently after that work done (which he represented to him most easie) they should go together to the War against England and Ireland. So they sailed over into Africa, where Sebastian and his whole Army were de­stroyed; [Page 100] and with him Stukely and the Popes Italian Souldiers were cut in pieces. A deliverance of England ever to be remembred with praise and admiration. So let thine enemies perish, O Lord.

This Pope had a great hand in that unparallelled villany wrought by the marriage of Henry King of Na­varra, with the Sister of Charles the IX. of France. A marriage which Pius the V. would never consent un­to, by reason of their difference in Religion. But when his Successor Gregory the XIII. was told by the Car­dinall of Lorrain, that this marriage was intended as a trap to destroy Henry and his Protestant party, he pre­sently gave his dispensation for the celebrating of it, and encouraged the design. The horrible massacre which attended the jollity of that marriage, was received atThuanus. Rome with triumphant expressions of publick joy. And Cardinal Ʋrsin was sent Legat into France, to praise the Kings piety and wisdom in that great action, and to be­stow blessings and spiritual graces upon the King and the Actors of that fearful Tragedy. The Court of Rome might well praise what themselves had procured, if not contrived; and truly the plot hath an Italian garb, and looks not like a production of the French soil.

Not long after this Pope sent to Henry the III. of France and to his people Indulgences for millions of years, which were to be obtained by making processi­ons to four Churches in Paris, and by being zealous and diligent in the extirpation of heresies, that is (in his style) to extermine the Protestants.

The male line of the Kings of Portugal being extinct, [Page 101] this Pope laid a claim to the Kingdome, as depending from the holy See, and would have the Nation to have taken Arms for him against the heirs from the females: But his claim was hissed out with great scorn.

In the year 1580. this Pope sent an Italian called San Iosepho with some Italian Troops into Ireland, to joyn with the Irish Rebells. When they were demanded by a message from the Lord Deputy who they were, and what they came for, they answered, Some that they were sent by the most holy Father the Pope, and some from the Catholick King of Spain, to whom the Pope had given Ireland, because Queen Elizabeth had justly forfeited her Title to Ireland by her heresie. A doctrine which at the same time was preach'd in England and Ireland by Jesuites and other Seminary Priests; with great boldness and vehemency: till the Queen and her Councell perceiving what danger the State was running into by these mens activeness and impunity, Campian and some others sent by the Pope on that errand were apprehended. And being examined, they obstinately defended the Popes authority over the Queen, and main­tained that she was no Queen, as being lawfully depo­sed by the Pope; upon which they were condemned and executed. That Crown of Martyrdom the Pope procured to his Confessors. And the greater the number is of those Martyrs that the Papists muster, the more they exaggerate the Popes cruelty to his truest Vassalls. For could the Pope expect, that persons sent to perswade the people to dispossess and kill their Sovereign, should have other dealing from the hand of Justice.

The principal Article of the late Papal Creed is, [Page 102] that which Pius the V. sets forth in his Bull against the Queen, that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people and all Kingdoms. But the English Pa­pists are taught that besides that general right over all Kingdomes, the Pope hath a peculiar right over Eng­land and Ireland as his proper Dominions. This is Bel­larmins doctrine which he hath made bold to maintain unto King James himself. The King Bellarm. lib. cui Titulus Tortus pag. 19. Rex Anglorum duplici jure subjectus est Papae, uno communi omnibus Christianis ratione Apostolicae potesta­tis quae in omnes extenditur, juxta il­lud. Ps. 44. Constitues eos Principes super omnem terram: Altero proprio, ratione recti dominii. of England (saith he) is subject to the Pope by double right. The one by reason of his Apostolick power, which extends over all men, accor­ding to that (Charter) Ps. 44. Thou shalt establish them Princes over all the earth. The other proper, by a right dominion. Then he pleadeth that England and Ireland are the Churches dominions, the Pope the direct Lord, and the King his Vassal. This then being become an Article of Reli­gion, in which the English Papists are instructed; and this in consequence, that if the Pope disallow the King, he is no more King of England, but an Usurper, and must be used accordingly: Let any man judge, who hath some equity and freedome of judgement left, whether a prudent Prince and Council of State, ought to suffer such an instruction to be given to the people. Truly the more Religion is pretended for that doctrine, and the practice of Rebellion obtruded as a comman­dement of the Church, the more it concernes the loyal Magistrate to oppose it vigorously.

Pope Sixtus the V. to favour the enterprise of Philip the II. upon England, renewed the Excommunication [Page 103] of Queen Elizabeth, pronounced by Pius the V. de­prived her (verbo tenus) of her Kingdome, absolved her subjects from all Allegiance to her, and published a Croisada against her, as against the Turk, giving ple­nary Indulgence to all that would make warre against her. But the Popes Curses provoked Gods blessings upon the Queen, who might say as David, when Shi­mei cursed him; The Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day. All the storms raised against England, were blown over without harme. The great preparati­ons of Spain served onely to disable it, and secure Eng­land. And the many attempts against the Queens life upon that Bull, contributed to her safety, by manifest­ing to the World the wickednesse of Rome, and the pernicious effects of the Roman principles. For which I might produce the Examinations and Confessions of many that suffered for attempting to murther the Queen, but I will bring but one for all. William Par­ry acknowledged that he had promis'd at Rome to kill the Queen, about which he was most troubled in his con­science, till he lighted upon Dr. Allens book, which taught that Princes excommunicate for heresie, were to be depri­ved of Kingdome and life: Which book (saith he) did ve­hemently excite me to prosecute my attempt.

This Popes Excommunications had more effect in France, for after that he had excommunicated King Henry the III. and absolved his subjects from all Alle­giance to him; in consequence of that Bull many of the French rebelled against their King, and he wasslain upon that account, by a Dominican Friar. Which when this Pope heard, he commended the action [Page 104] highly, in a full Consistory at Rome, and forbad that any funeral rites should be celebrated for him. Which fu­neral rites (usually celebrated at Rome for departed Princes) consisting most in prayer for their souls, it appeareth that his Holinesse was not contented that he had slain that King by his Bull, but would also damne his soul.

Gregory the XIV. excommunicated by his Bulls Henry the IV. of France, forbidding all Peers, No­bles, Cities and Commons, to yield him obedience, and declaring him incapable of the Crown, as an Heretick and relapse. But that Bull was by the Court of Parlia­ment, then sitting at Tours, condemned to be torn and burnt by the Hang-man.

Clement the VIII. did the same over again, and excommunicated Henry: The Bull was condemned as the other, to be burnt by the hand of the Hang-man▪ But the effect of these Bulls appeared by the attempts against the Kings life, which soon after followed; first by a woman, next by Peter Barriere, and again by John Chastel; all denying him to be King, because he was not absolved by the Pope. Neither did the effects of these Bulls cease, after that the King was absolved by his Holinesse: For by them the King got his death. Ravilliac who killed him, could alledge them when he was examined; and say that the King was an Heretick in his heart, and deserved to be slain, as an enemy of the Church.

Paul the V. was as turbulent as his predecessors, as he shewed it in his insolent and impertinent quarrel with the Venetians, because they had stopt by Edict [Page 105] the giving of Lands to the Church, whereby the State lost many tributes and services. He threatned them of Excommunication, if they did not recal that Law. And upon their maintaining of it, he excommunicated them, and put their State in Interdict. But it took no effect, for none of their Clergy would or durst obey it; the Jesuites onely excepted, who therefore were expelled out of their dominions. They condemned the Popes Bull by Edict, and forbad the bringing of it into their Territory, upon pain of hanging: Neither did they give any satisfaction to the Pope, when the businesse came to an Arbitrement: but forced him to make a­mends to himself, and to come to their terms.

In the beginning of this Popes reigne, was detected that Treason, not to be matcht in any age for cruelty and depth of villany, the Gunpowder-plot, to have destroyed in one blow the King, the Parliament, the Judges of the Land, and all the flowre and strength of the Kingdome of England. This horrid Treason was the effect of the several Bulls of the Pope before the Reigne of our gracious King James of glorious memo­ry; who coming into his Kingdome of England, found it lying under a Papal Interdict; and himself excluded from the Crown, by a Bull sent into England, a little before the death of Queen Elizabeth, whereby all that are not Roman Catholicks, are declared incapable of, and excluded from the Succession: of which his Maje­sty complains in his Apology. And that Bull was pro­duced in the Indictment of the Jesuite Garnet, as the principal motive of the Gunpowder Treason.

This gave occasion to the Oath of Supremacy, set [Page 106] forth by the King and his Parliament then sitting, for the security of his Majesties Life and Dignity; where­in it is required of all to whom it is administred, to ac­knowledge his Majesty to be the lawful King of the Realmes of England, Scotland and Ireland; and that the Pope hath no right to depose him of his Kingdoms, or dispense his Subjects from their obedience to him. Also that they abhorre as impious and heretical, this doctrine, That Princes excommunicated by the Pope, may justly be deposed or slain by their owne Sub­jects.

This Oath being presented to the Roman Catholicks, some of them made no difficulty to take it, among o­thers, Blackwell the Arch-priest. Whereupon the Pope sent Apostolical Letters into England, declaring thatDated Sept. 22. 1606. this Oath could not be taken with a safe conscience, and exhorting the English to suffer all kinds of torments, and death it self, rather then to offend Gods Majesty by such an Oath. To imitate the constancy of other English Mar­tyrs. To have their loins girt about with vertue, to put on the Brest-plate of righteousnesse, and take the Buckler of Faith. He tells them that God who hath begun in them that good work, will perfect it, and will not suf­fer them to be Orphans, &c. And he injoyneth them to observe diligently the precepts contained in the Letters which Clement the VIII. his predecessor had written a little before to Mr. George Arch-priest of England. By which Letters all Princes of a Religion contrary to the Roman, are excluded from the Crown of England.

These Letters whereby the English were exhorted to be Martyrs of the Popes Sovereignty in England, and [Page 107] to make it an Article of their faith, which they must signe with their blood, that the Pope hath power to de­pose Princes, and expose them to be expelled and slain by their own subjects, did not receive that entertain­ment which he expected among the English of his Reli­gion: For some rejected them as supposititious, & forged by the Hereticks, to draw persecution upon them, and kindle their Kings wrath against them, he being already justly provoked to revenge by the late conspiracy. The Pope hearing of this, sends other, and more express let­tersDated Aug. 23. 1607. into England, to expostulate with the Roman Ca­tholicks; saying That he wondred at their doubting of the truth of the Apostolick letters, to dispense themselves upon that pretence from obeying his commandments: And therefore he declareth, That those Letters were writ­ten by himself, not only motu proprio & ex certa scien­tia, by his own motion and certain knowledge, but also after a long and grave deliberation, enjoyning them again to obey those Letters, because such is his plea­sure.

To these letters which set up rebellion with a high hand, as an Article of the Roman Faith, were joyned letters of Cardinal Bellarmine to Blackwell the Arch­priest, wherein he chides him bitterly for taking the Oath, which under colour of modifications, had no other end, but to transport the Popes authority to a Successor of Henry the VIII. And by the examples of his Pre­decessors, he exhorteth him to defend the Popes pri­macy, whom he calleth The Head of the Faith.

Of this Oath thus prohibited by the Pope, and cryed down by Bellarmine, the Jesuite Becanus saith, That [Page 108] both of them [the Pope and Bellarmine]Beean. de dissidio Anglic. Vterque negat salva consci­entia praestari posse hoc jura­mentum quia abnegarent fi-Catholicam. deny that it may be taken with a safe Con­science; because by taking it, the Catho­lick Faith is denyed.

Is it then an Article of the Catholick Roman faith, that Princes excommunicated by the Pope, are ipso facto deposed, and their subjects absolved from all obedience and fidelity to them? It is directly, though not believed but by few: You have that fundamental Law authenti­cally pronounced by Gregory the VII. and it is made a Canon of the Roman Church. By Apo­stolical Causa 15. Qu. 5. cap. Nos San­ctorum. Eos qui excommunicatis fide­litate, aut Sacramento constri­cti sunt Apostolica authoritate a juramento absolvivimus, & ne sibi fidem observent omni­bus modis prohibemus. authority we absolve from their oath, all them that are bound by fidelity or oath to excommunicate persons, and by means we forbid them to keep faith unto such persons. I would ask the Roman Catholicks, Seriously do you believe this? And are you ready to seal that faith with your obedience or suffer­ings upon occasions? If you believe and will maintain it, you are not good subjects, but dangerous persons in the State. If you deny faith and obedience to that Pa­pal Decree, you are not good Roman Catholicks; for if you were, you would acknowledge the Pope the Head of the Faith, with Bellarmine, and that the Pope can­not erre in his Canons, and that it is in the Popes power to make Articles of faith, according to the determina­tion of the Council of Trent. Now the Pope hath made this an Article of your faith, the denying of it an heresie, and the resisting of it a crime punish'd in the persons of Kings by the deprivation of Kingdom and life.

[Page 109]Open your eyes, Christian souls, that are so much blinded as to pin your faith upon the Popes Decrees; And reading in your own Authors the histories of the Popes behaviour which I have here represented, ac­knowledg that those Decrees for many hundred years have been the powerful stirrers of rebellion in Christen­dome, and the ambition of Popes the first Intelligence that sets the great Orb of sedition on going.

After that the Popes have thus commanded and wrought rebellion by express Decrees, and filled the Christian world with fire and blood these five or six hun­dred years, have the Jesuites the face, when we object this against the Head of their Faith, to object unto us in exchange some passages out of books either false, or dis­owned by us, if true: And the defensive Arms of a few persons, living under the Cross, and driven by them­selves upon the brink of despair? The evil which men of our Religion have said or done, we condemn freely and openly. Let the Romanists condemn also so many Decrees of the Popes which have been the Incentives of war, and brands of rebellion: But that they cannot, as long as they remain Papists, sworn to approve all that the Pope saith or doth.

The difference between the faults of the Pope and those of Protestants about the point of obedience, is this; That disobedience with us is a crime, but with him it is a Law. We punish rebels, but the Pope rewards them. We say to rebels after St Paul, That they that So did Sixtus the V. of which be­fore. resist the higher powers, shall receive to themselves dam­nation. But the Pope promiseth eternal life to make subjects rebel against their King. We abhor the mur­therers [Page 110] of Kings, but the Pope sets them on by his ex­communications, and after the murther committed, makes panegyricks on their praise.

Can the Romanists produce among us a Priest that hath made himself a Temporal Prince by robbing his Master of his land, who hath kickt down the Emperors crown, trodden upon his neck with his foot, deposed him from his Kingdom, made his son rise in Arms against him, absolved his subjects from their obedience, and given his Dominions to another; One that makes him­self the absolute disposer of Kingdoms, and Master of the Universe? Such a Priest is no where to be found but at Rome.

After this true account of so many Emperours and Kings deposed and killed, and so much rebellion, slaugh­ter, and desolation wrought in Christendom by the Pa­pal excommunications and factions; let the consciona­ble Reader, who is not altogether ignorant in modern History, judge what truth there is in our Adversaries as­sertion, That in this last Century of years there have been pag. 93. more Princes deposed and murthered for their Religion by those Protestants of Integrity, then have been in all the others since Christ's time by the Popes excommunications, or the attempts and means of Roman Catholicks. He should have set down a list of those Princes deposed and murthered by Protestants, and for their Religion. For my part I have heard of none. Indeed Charles the I. our holy King and Martyr, suffered for his Religion: and the Adversary may take that one for many, because he was [...], worth alone many Princes. But they that murthered him were not Protestants, they dis­avow [Page 111] that name; And it was for the Protestant Religi­on that he suffered.

But since he speaks of the means and attempts made by Roman Catholicks against Princes, he shall hear a little more of them.

CHAP. V. The Adversaries Defence of the Jesuites examined. Their Doctrine and Attempts against the Crown and life of Kings.

THe Adversary who is commended in the Epistle to the Reader, as a most observant Son of the Church of England, takes upon him the defence of the Jesuite Mariana, so infamous for his doctrine of killing of Kings, and saith three things about that.

The one is, That he handleth that matter only pro­blematically.page 94. But the Court of Parliament of Paris, composed of grave heads, did not understand it so, when they condemned his book to the fire. Neither doth he speak of the murther of Henry the III. of France problematically, when he exalteth the murtherer in these words. Making a shew of deli­vering Mariana lib. 1. de Rege & Regis Iustitutione, cap. 6. Specie lit­teras in manus tradendi cul­tro quem herbis noxiis medi­catum manu tegebat supra ve­sicam altum vulnus inflixit. Insignem animi confidenti­am! Facinus memorabile—Caeso Rege ingens sibi nomen fecit. letters [to the King] he gave him a deep wound above the bladder with a poysoned knife which he hid in his hand. O admirable confidence of minde! O memorable action! by killing the King, he got to himself a great name, And in the same place he taxeth the Kings servants, who pre­sently [Page 112] killed that murtherer, of cruelty and barbarous­ness.

The second answer for Mariana is, That the question was not for killing of Kings, but for killing of Tyrants. page 94. This man shews himself a right scholar of the Jesuites, for this is their distinction. But if a King deposed by the Pope keeps his Kingdome in spight of him, they ac­count him no more a King, but a Tyrant. And whereas there are two sorts of Tyrants, some by usurpation, which they call Tyrannos in Titulo, Tyrants in the Title; some Tyrants by administration; the Jesuites hold, That a lawful King when he is once deposed bySuarez desens. lib. 6. cap. 5. Incipit esse Tyrannus in Ti­tulo quia non est legitimus Rex, the Pope, begins to be a Tyrant in his Ti­tle, because he is no more a lawful King. And being thus become a Tyrant, it is by their doctrine lawful to kill him. Therefore Henry the IV. of France, whom no body durst have called King at Rome before his absolution, was so often assaulted by murtherers at that time, because he was accounted a Tyrant as long as he reigned without the Popes approbation. Upon that account Bellarmine saith, That theBellarm. in Barklaium, cap. 3. Non permitto tibi (inquit Papa) ut regi non pareas, quod esset contra jus divi­num, sed sacio ut ille qui tibi Rex erat non sit sibi deinceps Rex. Pope deposing a King, doth not permit the people to disobey their King, but he makes him that was their King, to be their King no more.

The third answer is, that the whole order of Jesuites disavowes Marian's position, and have categorically determined the contrary. But why then did the same General of the Jesuites, who disavowed it when de­struction was hanging over the head of his Order, ap­prove and licence it before? For the Book was appro­ved [Page 113] by Aqua viva General of the Jesuites, and Stephanus Hoyeda Visitor of their Society in the Province of Tole­do. And theapprobation mentioneth thatQuippe approbatus prius à viris doctis & gravibus ex eo­dem ordine. other Jesuites had approved it before.

The Adversary brings some allegations out of Books of Jesuites that disown that position, that it is lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince. The Jesuite Eu­demono-Johannes had made those allegations ready for him. He makes Tolet say in his Summary, lib. 5. cap. 6. that it is not lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince, though he never so much abuse his Power, and that is flat heresie to maintain the contrary. But these are Tolets words in the alledgedTolet Sum. lib. 5. cap. 6. Tyrannum administratione qui quidem habet verum titu­lum sed tyrannicé tractat sub­ditos non licet absque publicae authoritate occidere. place, That, It is not lawful to kill with out publick authority a Tyrant by admistration, who hath indeed a just Ti­tle, but useth his Subjects tyrannycally. Now what publick authority doth he mean, but that of the Pope? And that is meant also bySuarez Defens. ful. lib. 6. cap. 4. Dicimus Principem propter tyrannicum regimen vel pro­pter quaecunque crimina non posse ab aliquo privata autho­ritate occidi. Suarez, who saith, That a Prince may not be killed by any out of private autho­rity for his Tyrannical Government, or for any crime whatsoever. He will have a publick authority for it, which is that of the Popes. For both Bellarmine and Becan main­tain,Bellarm lib. 5. de Romano Pon­tif. cap. 8. Becan lib. de controversia Angli­cana. Jojada Pontifex prius pri­vavit Athaliam regno deinde vita. Et paulo post, Quicquid potestatis & jurisdictionis per­missum fuit Pontifici in Veteri Testamento, hoc etiam in No­vo promissum est illi. that the Pope hath the same right over Kings, as Jehojada had over Athalia. Now Jehojada the high Priest (saith he) first deprived Athalia of her Kingdome, and next of her life. And a little after, All the power and jurisdiction that was granted to the high Priest in the Old Testa­ment, [Page 114] is promised to him also in the New. This is then that authority without which they will not have a King kill'd, and by which he may be kill'd, even the Popes authority.

Our Jesuite alledgeth Salmeron, expounding the 13. Chapter to the Romans, Where (saith he) he refer­reth the act of Ehud against King Eglon to Gods express commandment. That's granted. But hear him further. It is not lawfull for a pri­vate Salmeron in Rom. 13. Disp. 5. Non licet privato propriá authoritate Tyrannum inter­ficere, maxime si in pacificá possessione sit & armatus sa­tellitio regnet. person to kill a Tyrant by his own au­thority, especially if he be in quiet pos­session and reign armed with Guards a­bout him. All the security which he gi­veth to Kings, whom the Pope will call them Tyrants, is, that no man by his private authority can kill him; but by the publick authority, which is that of the Pope, any man may. And he giveth a good warning to such Kings to keep a strong guard about their persons, with­out which a Jesuite will soon find it lawful to kill them.

Gregorius de Valentia alledged by the Adveasary,Greg. de Valent. part 2. q. 64. saith indeed, It is no way permitted, for a man to attempt upon the life of his Prince, albeit he abuse his authority: But he addeth, If it be not done by publick judgement. Now that publick judgement is either that of the State, or of the Pope, or of the General of the Jesuites. But let us hear the same Gregory speak more home. Temporal domination and superiority over Greg. de Valen. Tom. 3. disputatio­num in Thomamdis. 1. q. 12. pan. 2 Dominatio temporalis & superioritas in subditos per sententiam Papae potest om­nino adimi haereticis. Ratio est quia si possunt privari vitá multo magis omnibus bonis, & per consequens omni supe­rioritate in alios. Subjects, may by the Popes sentence be ta­ken away from Hereticks. The reason is, that if they can be deprived of life, much more of all goods, and by consequence of all superiority over others; taking it for [Page 115] granted and presupposed that Kings may be deprived of life by the Popes Authority.

Bellarmin alledged by the Adversary, may have de­clared his opiniòn as the other Jesuites, that a King must not be deposed and slain by private authority; then it may be done by publick authority. And we have shewed before that Bellarmin allow­eth the same authority to the Pope over Kings, as Jehoiada had over A­thalia, whom he deposedand kil­led; but he speaks more plainly, when Bellarm. sub nomine Matth. Torti▪ pag. 84. & 85. Edit. Colon. Ultus est Deus Christum suum dum per alium sacratum virum a­lioqui militiae imperitum & iner­mem regem eundem non mani­festo divinae providentiae miracu­lo interfecit. he commends the murther committed by a Monk against the person of Henry the III. of France, and calls the Murtherer Sacratum Virum, a sacred person. It seems then he had forgotten him­self,Idem contra Barckl. cap. 7. Non pertinet ad Monachos aut alios Ecclesiasticos viros caedes facere multo minus per insidias Reges occidére; Neque summi Pontisi­ces consueverunt ista ratione Re­ges coercere. Mos est primum paterne corrigere, deinde per censuram Ecclesiasticam sacramen­torum communione privare. De­nique subditos eorum à juramento fidelitatis absolvere, eosque digni­tate atque authoritate regia priva­re: Executio ad alios pertinet. when he would not have Ecclesi­astical men to kill Kings with their own hands, but to stand to the me­thod that the Pope observeth. Which is first to admonish Kings fatherly, Then deprive them of the Communion of the Sacraments by Ecclesiastical censures. Finally to absolve their subjects from the Oath of their Allegiance, and if needs be, deprive them of the Royal Authority. The execution belongeth to others.

The Adversary also alledgeth Les­sius in his book de Scientia & Jure, he meaneth de Justitia. It seemeth the man had heard of the book, but never seen it. But for that mistake, his quotation is rightLessius de Iustitia & Iure, lib. 2. cap. 9. dubio 4. Talis non potest à privatis inte­rimi quandiu manet Princeps, &c.. [Page 116] In that place speaking of such a King as is not a tyrant by usurpation, but by administration, he saith, Such a Prince cannot be slain by private persons, as long as he remains a Prince. Which is altogether against the secu­rity of Kings lives: For the Popes Decrees and the writings of the Jesuites having so many times determi­ned that a Prince deposed by the Pope, is no more a Prince, but a private person; this goodly Aphorisme of Lessius exposeth the lives of all Kings deposed or excommunicated to the attempts of all private menIdem Ibid. dubio 11. Princeps non potest à subdito interfici ni­si forte ob necessariam vitae suae desensionem.. He alloweth also a sub­ject to kill his Prince in the defence of his own life, contrary to the Evangeli­cal precept of not resisting the higherDub. 12. Si tantum excrescat tyrannis ut non videatur ampli­us tolerabilis nec ullum aliud remedium supersit, primum à Rep. vel comitiis regni vel alio habente authoritatem esse de­ponendum & hostem declaran­dum ut in ipsius personam liceat quicquam attentare. Tunc enim desinit esse Princeps. powers. And that you may know him to be like his confreres in treasonable doctrine. He concludes that question thus: If the tyranny groweth to that point, that it seem not to be tolerated a­ny more, and that there be no remedy; He must first be deposed by the Common­wealth, or the States of the Kingdome; or by another that hath authority; and declared an enemy, that it may be lawful to attempt any thing against his person. What is that other person that hath authority over King, Com­monwealth and States? It must be one that belongs not to the State, else he should be a subject, and could not pretend to that authority of deposing the King, and exposing his life to all attempts. And what other person pretends to that authority, but the Pope.

[Page 117]He alledgeth also Azorius in his Moral Institution, but doth not quote any place. This is his doctrine, All that were bound to an heretick in any Azorius hist. Moral. part 1. lib. 8▪ cap. 13. Eos omnes qui erant haeretico aliqua ratione obstrict jusjurandi seu fidelitatis seu al­terius pactionis liberari—Ab­solutos se noverint à debito fi­delitatis Domini, & totius ob­sequii quicunque lapsis manifesto in haeresin aliquo pacto qua­cunque firmitate tenebantur a­stricti. manner, whether with oath or fidelity, or any other paction. Let them know that they are absolved from all debt of fide­lity or obedience, &c. The Pope may take away or give a King for just causes, and then the people may obey the Pope as their superiour, who hath sovereigne power both upon the King and Kingdome. IfIdem Ibid. part 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. - A Romano Pontifice Rex au, fertur vel datur justis de causis & tunc populus tanquam supe­riori Romano Pontifici parere debet—Habet in Regem & regnum summam pote­statem. he hath sovereigne power over them, he hath power of life and death.

And whereas this Gentleman alledgeth Gretzer as one that confuteth all Mariana's grounds, I find that he defends them all in that very place which he quo­teth. We are not such dastards (saithGretzer-Vespertilio Haereticopoliti­cus, pag. 159. Tam timidi & trepidi non sumus ut asserere palam vereamur Romanum Pontificem posse si necessitas exigat subditos Catholicos sol­vere juramento fidelitatis, si Princeps tyrannice illos tractet. he) as to fear openly to affirme that the Pope of Rome may, if necessity so re­quire, free his Catholick subjects from their oath of fidelity, if their Sovereigne handle them tyrannically. Yea he takes openly Mariana's cause, saying, pag. 160. that Mariana is wrongfully traduced, for writing that it is lawful to kill any Prince that disobeyeth the Pope; since he maintains that a lawful Prince who dis­obeyeth the Pope, notwithstanding ought not to be made away by any private man, if sentence be not pronounced [Page 118] against him. And he that must pronounce that Sen­tence is the Pope. He complaineth also that Mariana is unjustly accused for affirming that a ty­rant ought to be poysoned; seeing heIdem pag. 162. Ne tyannum quidem primi vel secundi gene­ris etiam post judiciariam con­tra illum latam sententiam ve­neno licite tollis, si Tyran­nus ipsemet venenum illud su­mere & sibi applicare debeat. maintains the contrary; affirming that a tyrant cannot lawfully be made away by poyson, if himself take it, and apply it to himself. Which cannot be avoided, when his meat and drink is poysoned. So in the end he agreeth with Mariana, whose words I have produced in my second Chapter, and is content that a tyrant be poysoned, so that he takes not the poy­son himself. Is not that straining the gnat, and swallow­ing the camel? These holy murtherers make nothing of killing a King, onely they are scrupulous about the circumstance.

Thus I have shewed what those Jesuites say, which this Gentleman alledgeth: All but Serarius and Ri­cheome, which I have not by me, no more then he that quoteth them. And I have made it plain, that they all consent with Mariana, and speak the same lan­guage.

But what! he tells us that the opinion of Mariana was condemned by a Provincial Congregation of the Jesuites; and that condemnation ratified by the Gene­ral of the Jesuites Claudius Aquaviva. So it was, with shame enough, to Aquaviva and his confreres, who had approved and licenced it before. But see what that condemnation comes to, the Jesuites seeing their Sect made odious by the writings of Mariana, Suarez, Vas­quez, and others, and more by the murthering of [Page 119] Kings, by persons died with their principles, madeNe quis­quam scri­pto vel sermone doceat li­citum esse cuicunque personae, quocun (que) praetextu, tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere. an order among themselves, whereby they forbad to write or teach that doctrine any more. The words of the Ratification are those, That none teach by wri­ting or speaking, that it is lawful for any person, or upon any pretence of Tyranny, to kill Kings and Prin­ces.

Was it not time, think ye, to forbid teaching so any more, when they had been expelled for it out of France, and made the objects of the publick execra­tion? But how grosse is their fraud in that order! Do they forbid their Society to believe so? By no means, but to teach so. Neither will they have it lawful for any person to kill Kings, but to such as are commissioned for it. Neither will they have the execution done upon any pretence of tyranny, but onely upon the definitive Sentence of the Pope or the States. And how are the lives of Kings and Princes more secure then before by their declaring that it is not lawful to kill Kings and Princes, seeing that in their account they are no more Kings and Princes, when they are once excommunica­ted and deposed by the Pope?

The Adversary alledgeth also the Council of Con­stance, which condemneth the doctrine of killing ty­rants as erroneous. But if this Gentleman be a true Pa­pist, and hold that the Pope isMariana lib. 2. cas. 6. p. 62. Id decretum Ro­mano Pontifici Martino V. probatum non invenio, non Eugenio▪ aut successoribus quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesia­sticorum sanctitas stat praesertim quod non sine Ecclesiae motu tricipiti Pontifi­cum dissidio de summo Pontificatu con­tendentium celebratum fuisse scimus. above the Council, he shall make nothing of that Councils Autho­rity, seeing that it is not liked by the Popes; for we learn of Ma­riana, that neither Martin the V. [Page 120] then elected, nor Eugenius nor his Successors approve it, and he disgraceth it as assembled in a tumultuous time, when there were three Popes reigning together.

But the truth is, That the Decree of that Councell is rather against the safety of Kings. For the case pro­pounded to the Councel by Gerson, was not about the murther of Sovereigne Princes, but about the killing of a great Officer of the Crown who ruleth tyrannically, and exalts himself above his King: for John Duke of Burgundy who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans, pre­tended him to have been a Tyrant in that kinde. If then such Tyrants be declared inviolable persons by the Councel, the Councel by its authority guards them against the attempts of loyal subjects, and strengthneth them against their King.

Suarez goeth another way to work to elude the au­thoritySuarez in Keg. Mag. Brit. lib. 6. cap. 4. sect. 20. Vbileget Rex in Concilio Constantiensi particulam il­lam, Principis per Papam ex­communicati vel deprivati? aut illam per suos subditos aut ali­os quoscunque. of that Decree, saying to our Most Excellent King James, That the Council of Constance forbids not the kil­ling of a King excommunicated by the Pope; for indeed that was not the case agitated in the Council.

And now we are upon Suarez, we will set down here one of his golden sentences to this purpose. If (saith he) under the word of Excom­munication Ejusdem lib. cap. 6. sect. 24. Si sub voce excommunica­tionis comprehendatur depo­sitio & diffidatio quae per sen­tentiam cononicam interdum fit, sic veritatem continere il­lam propositionem Regem excommunicatum impune de­poni vel occidi quibuscunque posse. you comprehend deposition and devesting a Prince of his right, which somtimes is done by a canonical sentence, then there is truth in that proposition, that a King excommunicated may be deposed or slain by any persons whatsoever impu­nedly.

[Page 121]The Adversary concludeth his justification of the Je­suites, by alledging the Decree of Sorbon against the doctrine of King-killing, and the Arrest of the Parlia­ment of Paris against the book of Mariana. What style must be given to this mans confidence? Could he pre­sume so much upon the Readers ignorance, as to bring that for the Jesuites which is most against them? Who knows not that the Decree of Sorbon was directly made against the Jesuites, as the assertors of the doctrine of King-killing? Who knows not that the Arrest of Par­liament which condemneth Mariana's book to the fire, blasteth expresly the doctrine and the sect of the Jesu­ites? If he say that he brings that to clear the Roman Religion, he changeth the question, for he had under­taken to defend the Jesuites. And these allegations are for us, who desire to shew to the world, that many Pro­fessors of the Roman Religion abhor these principles, overcome by the evidence of honest truth; and there­fore are not true Papists, since their belief is not ruled by the Head of the Roman Faith in the point which most neerly concerneth his power and grandeur. This Gentle­man might be ashamed to alledge the Sorbon, if he knoweth what Decree was made by them Apr. 4. 1626. against the book of the Jesuite Santarel, and the Jesuiti­cal doctrine of King-killing: A Decree confirmed the 8. of May following by the University of Paris.

After these Allegations wherewith this Gentleman cuts the throat of his cause with his own sword, Judgepage 96. ye what reason he hath to cry up, By this time I hope the tempest is pretty well laid. But he must have a little more of that tempest about his ears: And having so [Page 122] marred his own market, and given me occasion to lay open the iniquity of his sect, he must labour once more to satisfie divers of his good friends whom he hath found ibid. scandalized at the Fathers of the Society, for protecting so villanous and treasonable a Thesis.

If now I bring upon the scaffold some more of their most notorious expressions and actions, they may not blame me, as I do them, for charging the whole party with the faults of particulars: For whereas this Gen­tleman chargeth the generality of the Protestants with the opinions of Knox and Paraeus, I charge not all the Roman Catholicks with these villanous doctrines and actions, but only the Court of Rome, and the Jesuites. These two I put together, for all that the Jesuites have taught or done to promote rebellion and high Treason was undertaken to advance the Court of Rome, and by a particular influence from that Court, whose especial favourites and most devoted champions they are.

Since this Gentleman stands upon the sentence of the Court of Parliament of Paris, let him hear that great man Achilles de Harlay, the first President of that Ve­nerable Court; who, when King Henry the IV. of France, after long sollicitations of the Court of Rome, was perswaded to recall the Iesuites banished before out of the Kingdome, made an Oration to disswade him from it. That Oration is related by Thuanus another President of that Court, who was then present. There that vertuous Achilles represents to the King the doctrine of the Iesuites, which is, That the Pope Thuanus Hist. lib. 130. ad ann. 1604. Iesuitae docent. Pontisi­cem jus habere Reges extra communionem Ecclesiae po­nandi; excommunicatum Re­gem tyrannum esse, & subdi­tos impune contra eum insur­gere. Ipsorum unumquem­que qui vel minoribus Eccle­siae Ordinibus sit initiatus quodcunque crimen admiserit in laesae Majestatis crimen non posse incidere, quippe qui mi­nime sint amplius Regis sub­diti nec jurisdictioni ejus sub­jecti. Ita Ecclesiasticos per eorum doctrinam a seculari potestate eximi, & Manus cruentas licere impune Regi­bus sacro-sanctis afferre. Hoc eos libris editis asserere. hath that right to put Kings out of the communion of the Church; that an ex­communicate [Page 123] King is a tyrant, and that his subjects may impunedly rise against him. That every one of those that have but one of the least Orders of the Church, cannot be guilty of Treason, what crime so­ever he commit; because Clergy-men are no more the Kings subjects, nor under his ju­risdiction: So that Ecclesiastick persons are by their doctrine exempted from the secu­lar powers, and may impunedly fall upon their Kings with their sanguinary hands. This they affirm in their published books. That grave Iudge spake that upon good ground; for the books of the Iesuites insist much upon the exemption of Clerks from Temporal Iurisdictions. Whence the Iesuite Emanuel Sa draweth this conclusion, That Emanuel Sa in Aphorismis tit. Clericus. Rebellio▪ Clerici adver­sus Principem, non est cri­men lesae Majestatis, quia Principi non est subditus. the Rebellion of a Clergy-man against the Prince, is not Treason, because he is not the Princes subject. Which words are omitted in the Edition of Paris, but they remain in that of Collen, and in that of Antwerp. For that rea­son Bellarmine findes great fault with those that slew the Monk who had murdered Henry the III. of France, (as I alledged before) because they had slain sacratum virum, a consecracred man. A more sacred man in his opinion, and more inviolable then the Sacred Majesty of a King. The murder of that great Prince, the Vene­rable Harlay represented unto the King, and how it wasThuanus▪ ibid. exalted as a holy Act by the Iesuite Guignard, who had writ a book in the commendation of the murtherer. And puts his Majesty in minde of the Attempt made upon [Page 124] his person by Peter Barriere suborned by the Iesuite Varade.

He might also have put him in minde of John Chastel Thuanus a Scholar of the Iesuites, who hit him in the mouth, and struck out one of his teeth, intending to have cut his throat. In his examination he confess'd that he being guilty of a great crime, was kept prisoner by the Iesuites in the chamber of Meditations, where after they had long terrified his soul, they propounded to him a way to Iessen his torments in hell which he had deserved by his crimes; and that was to kill the King, which the mi­serable youth promised and attempted.

Upon this the Colledge of the Iesuites was searched, and many persons seized on, among which was found a book in the praise of James Clement the murtherer of Henry the III. written by the Iesuite Guignard, as him­self confess'd, containing many arguments and reasons to prove that it was lawful and just to kill Henry the III. together with many inductions and incitements to make away his Successor, who was Henry the IV. then reign­ing. The Theams given to young Scholars, were found to be about killing of Tyrants, with praises of the at­tempt, and exhortations to it. And it was found, that after that Paris was reduced to the Kings obedience, the Masters of the Forms had forbidden their scholars to pray for the King.

The yeer before, Barriere being examined, had confess'd that the Iesuite Varade, Rector of the Col­ledge of the Iesuites, had incited and adjured him up­on the Sacrament of Confession, and the Communion of the Lords Body, to kill the King; assuring him, thatThuanus. [Page 125] if he suffered for it, he should obtain the Crown of Martyrdome. Upon all these evidencesVpon that Pyramide the Iesu­ites were called Homines norae & maleficae superstitionis, qui Remp. turbabant, quorum in­stinctu piacularis adolescens dirum facinus instituerat. the Jesuites were expelled out of France by Arrest of the Court of Parliament, and a Pyramid erected with inscriptions declaring their expulsion and the causes of it, for a memorial of perpetual execration to po­sterity.

Ten years after, they returned from their exile, the same men, corrupting the youth, and working rebellion; till in the end they got what they would have, even the Kings heart, which they keep in their principal house la Flesche, after he had been stabbed by Ravaillac, a wretch, who in his examination and confession shewed sufficiently by whose instructions he was perswaded to that parricidial act, for he gave this reason why he did it, because the King would make War unto God, in asKing James de­fence of the right of Kings. much as he prepared warre against the Pope, and that the Pope was God, which is the plain doctrine of the Jesuites. And being inquired whether he had ever con­fess'd his design to any, he named the Jesuite Aubigny, and that he had shewed him the Knife: Which when Aubigny denied, Ravaillac maintained it to him be­fore his Judges.

To favour the design of killing that great King, and prepare the World for it, four moneths before he was murdered, the Arrest of the Court of Parliament of Pa­ris Note this. against John Chastel, who had attempted to murder him, was censured and forbidden to be read by an Act of the Consistory at Rome, and together the History of Thuanus for relating too plainly that horrid action, and [Page 126] the part which the Jesuites had in it. By the same Con­sistorial Act a Book of Mariana was censured; not that which approveth the murthering of Kings. The Court of Rome was not so unkind as to disgrace a work which doth their work; but another Book which treats of Coynes. Certainly had they disliked that notorious Book condemned to the fire by the Court of Parliament of Paris, they would not have forgotten to censure it while they were in hand with Mariana.

As soon as Henry the IV. was stricken, the Colledge of the Jesuites was environed with a Guard, the Ma­gistrate and the people looking upon them as the Do­ctors and Contrivers of high Treason. And presently they were sued by the University of Paris, as corrupt­ers of the youth, and teachers of treasonable doctrine. Peter Marteliere a famous Advocate pleaded for the University, and maintained that in the Confession of Ravaillac evident marks were found of the Doctrine of the Jesuites. The Jesuites were cast, and commanded to shut up their Colledge, and not to teach Schollars any more. The Kings Councell required their expulsion, but they had friends about the Queen Regent, and were suffered to stay; and in time recovered also the liberty to teach.

Five years before that Kings death, it was a famous History how Father Cotton a Iesuite and his ConfessorThuanus▪ Hist. lib. 123. ad an. 1604. had written in a paper some questions which he had propounded to a Maid, who was said to be possessed with a Devil who told strange things. Among other things about which he would be resolved, these were some, What should be the issue of the conversion of Monsi­eur [Page 127] de Laval, and of the enterprises against Geneva, and the continuance of Heresie, and of the estate of Madamoi­selle Acarie, and of the life of the King. Which last question is a matter capital by the Lawes, for which Tertullian giveth the same reason that anTertul. Apologet. Qui de salute Principis vel summá Reip. Mathematicos ariolos, aruspices, Vaticinato­res consulit, cum co qui re­sponderit capite punitur. Cui autem opus est scrutari super Caesaris salute nisi à quo ad­versus illum aliquid cogita­tur, aut post illam speratur & sustinetur. English Lawyer would give, because it is imagining the Kings death. This pa­per he had laid in a Book which he had promised to Monsieur Gillot a Councel­lor of the Great Chamber, and through oversight he gave that paper with the Book.

Two years after this Monsieur de la Force, Vice-Roy of Bearn and Navarre, by the intelligences which he had from Spain, by reason of his neighbourhood unto it, was advertised that a Spaniard of such a stature, of such a hair, and in such apparel, departed such a day from Barcelona, to go into France with intendment to make away the King by poyson or other means. This Spaniard came to Paris, and address'd himself to Fa­ther Cotton, who brought him unto the King, and gave great commendations of him. A while after came the Letters of Monsieur de la Force, giving warning to his Majesty against that Spaniard, with the foresaid descri­ption. The King shewed the Letters to Father Cotton, and commanded him to bring back again that Spani­ard. But Cotton returning a good while after, told the King that he could not find the man, and that he was gone.

Not a year before the Kings death, Cotton writ unto a Provincial of Spain, divers things which the King [Page 128] had revealed unto him in confession: Which treachery being discovered, Cotton was in disgrace for six moneths, and then was forgiven. But he did not forgive the King, who was stabbed soon after. A few dayes after the young King being importuned by him, put him off with this gird, I will tell you nothing, for you will write it into Spain, as you did my Fathers Confession.

Half a year after the Kings death the Court of Par­liament seeing evidently, that the murther of the King, and that of his next Predecessor, were the productions of the doctrine of the Iesuites, condemned the Book of Bellarmine against Barklay, as containing a false and execrable proposition, which tends to the overthrowing of the Powers ordained and established by God, inciting Subjects to rebellion, and withdrawing them from the au­thority of Princes, to plot against their Lives and King­doms, and trouble the publick peace and tranquillity.

I have spoken before of the Decree of the Theologi­calSantarel­lus de Hae­resi & Schismate Faculty of Paris, against the Book of the Iesuite Santarel, confirmed by the judgement of the Univer­sity in May 1626. The same Book had been condemned by the Court of Parliament of Paris Martii 13. of the same year to be burnt. And because the Book was printed at Rome by permission of the Superiours, and with the approbation of Mutins Vitelescus General of the Iesuites, and Master of the Sacred Palace, the Ie­suites of Paris were sent for by the Court and demand­ed, Whereas their General had approved that Book, and declared his opinion, that the contents of it were certain and good, whether they believed as he did. They answer­ed, that Since their General lived at Rome, he could [Page 129] not but approve that which the Court of Rome approveth. What do you believe then? said the Court; The clean contrary, said the Iesuites. And what should ye do if you were at Rome? As they do at Rome, said they. To which some of the Court answered, What then! Have these men one conscience at Rome, and another at Paris? God keep us from such Confessors.

The same Court sent for Father Cotton, and com­manded him to confute the Book of Santarell. Cotton being put to a sad dilemma, either to offend the Pope his Master, and his General and the whole Society; or to answer an Indictment of high Treason, freed himself by a sudden death, being in perfect health before; or some of his Society took that pains for him. It seems that the Court were more peremptory with him, then King Henry the IV. who shewed him once that Book of Mariana, which since was condemned to the fire, and commanded him to confute it. But he gave some ill excuse to the King, who press'd him no further about it.

About the same time that this great Prince was slain by the faction of the Iesuites, the Prince of Transylva­nia was in the same danger by them. So much is certifi­ed by Letters of the Baron of Zerotin, May 2. 1610. that a Iesuite perswaded a Lord of Transylvania in whose house he lived, to kill the Prince. But the Prince having discover'd the Plot, killed the Conspiratours, and the Iesuite the Author of the conspiracy.

This Jesuite was taken tardy, and had not the luck of many of his Confreres, who frame the plots, and look standing out of the reach of the blows, the acting of the desperate attempts upon which they have cast [Page 130] others. Yet there was a Scottish Jesuite of the Colledge of Clermont in Paris, his name Alexander Hayes, who was so zealous, as to wish openly, and that often, that King Henry the IV. would passe by his Colledge, that he might throw himself down upon him from the win­dow and break his neck. But by that crosse caper he might be sure to break his own. For these words, and for teaching openly, that it was good to dissemble and performe obedience in shew for a while, he was con­demned by Sentence of the Court to perpetual banish­ment, and (if ever he returned) to be hanged without any other forme of arraignment.

Now if from their feats in forreign Countries, we look to their doings in England, what troubles they have stirred, and what mischiefs they have plotted continu­ally against this State, now above a hundred years. We are at a losse in that prodigious heap of iniquity. They have afforded matter to large Volumes of Histo­ry, and the labour of the worthy writers, need not to be seconded by mine. And when the Jesuite Eudemo­no-Iohannes in his Apologetick for Garnet, would ex­cuse or deny the treasons wrought under the pretence of a Catholick zeal, the truth of them was asserted by the R. Reverend and Learned Robert Abbot Bishop of In his An­tilogia. Salisbury, out of the publick Acts and Records of Courts, and out of the very books of Adversaries, Blu [...]t and Watson. How many attempts were made a­gainst the life of the Blessed Queen Elizabeth? And in what treason was there a Jesuite wanting? Parry, Cul­len, Williams, York, Squire, Hesket, Lopez, Babington, with his associates, and how many more? All were [Page 131] assisted and prompted by Jesuites, as the judicial exa­minations will justifie.

And now we speak of Babington and his associates, I find two brothers Bellamy's, both apprehended for hi­ding them, after they were openly proclaimed traitors, in their house neer Harrowhill, where they were kept ten dayes, and clothed in rustical habits. There they were all taken and thence carried to prison, where one of the Bellamies strangled himself, the other was exe­cuted with the conspirators; his name Hierome Bella­my. From which of the two brothers our Adversary Thomas Bellamy is descended, and whether from either or neither, himself best knows. But it seems by his behaviour, that the crime of hiding and disguising traitors runs in the blood: For what is his covering of the parricidial doctrine of Jesuites with falfe constru­ctions, but hiding and disguising traitors; whose do­ctrine is declared treasonable by sundry Acts of Parlia­ment? Let him take warning by the crime and the ill successe of these men of his name, and apply to him­self that Sentence of Tully, which he misapplyeth to the Protestants of Integrity. Mirror te Antoni quorum facta imitere corum exitus non pertimescere. Since you imitate the actions of men of your name, Sir Bellamy, I wonder you are not frighted, with thinking of their ends.

The Devil and the Jesuites having been so often dis­appointed of their attempts against England, in the end contrived the foulest plot that ingenious cruelty did in any age imagine; the Gunpowder-Treason, which shall be to the Worlds end, the wonder of suc­ceeding [Page 132] ages, and the shame of ours. This was the godly product of the English Seminaries abroad, and the Roman education. It is easie to judge that the plot­ters of it had been bred long in another Climate then the middle aire of England; for it looks like one of the feats of Caesar Borgia. Non nostri generis monstrum nec sanguinis. Of that attempt to cut off King and King­dome with one blow, none could be capable, but such as had many years breathed the same aire where he reigned, who wished that the Romans had but one neck, that he might cut it off with one stroke. But a Jesuite is capable of devising, and the Romish zeal of executing any mischief, though never so prodigious, to promote the Papal interest. And they have law for it, even the Roman Decree, the Oracle of the Pope him­self. We do not account them for Causa 23. qu. 5. Can. Excommunicato­rum. Non enim eos homicidas arbi­tramur quos adversus excommuni­catos zelo Catholicae Matris Eccle­siae ardentes aliquos eorum trucidas­se configerit. murtherers (saith his Holinesse) who burning with the zeal of our Catho­lick Mother the Church against ex­municate persons, shall happen to kill some of them. Now England was lying under many excommnnications, when the Gunpowder-Treason was plotted, and lyeth under them still, for they never were repealed.

Truly so far we must excuse Campian, Garnet, Hall, Hamond, and other Jesuites, who have plotted or in­couraged rebellions and treasons in England. They have done no more then they were commanded or al­lowed by the Pope. And here I must be a suitor to all the conscionable Roman Catholieks, who abhorre these wicked wayes, to acknowledge ingenuously that the [Page 133] Actors were grounded upon the fundamental Laws of the Court of Rome. And that the Pope the Head of their Faith, is he that commands by his Canons and Bulls the slaughter of those that displease him, the breach of faith, the deposing of Kings, and the rebel­lion of the people, as I have sufficiently demonstrated before. If after that they adhere to the other points of the Roman Religion, upon this main ground of the Roman Faith, That the Pope cannot erre, they blinde themselves wilfully, and building their faith upon an unsafe ground, they may come short of the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls.

This power of deposing Kings, and exposing them to the attempts of their enemies, so peremptorily assumed by the Pope, and so boldly executed by his zealous agents, ought to be grounded upon some proof out of holy Writ. In all the passages which I have alledged out of Jesuites books, I finde but two of those proofs.

The one of Bellarmine, who pro­vethBellarm. lib. cui Titulus Tortus, p. 19. Rex Anglorum subjectus est Papae jus omnibus Christi­adis communi, ratione Apo­stolicae potestatis juxta illud Ps. 4. 4. Constitues eos Prin­cipes super omnem terram. that the King of England is subject unto the Pope by a right common to all Christians, by reason of the Apostolick power; according to this Text, Psal. 44. Thou shalt make them Princes over all the earth. In that Psalm, which with us is the 45. this pro­mise is made to the Kings Spouse, which is the Church, the Spouse of Christ our King; Instead of thy Fathers house shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make Prin­ces over all the earth. Answerably to that we learn Rev. 1. 6. That God hath made us Kings and Priests unto God our Father. That blessing then (to be understood and fulfilled in Gods good time) belongs to all the true children of the Church. The ingrossing of it to the Pope [Page 134] alone, to the exclusion of all Christians, is a bold, and indeed a ridiculous inclosing of Commons without any warrant.

Suarez brings a proof of the like validity. After that horrid assertion alledged before, that after that a Prince is excommunicated, he may be dispossess'd or slain by any persons whatsoever. He prevents the objection out of Rom. 13. 1. Let every soul Suarez adversus sect Anglic lib. 6. c. 6. sect. 24. [...] Paulus his verbis Omnis a­nima potestatibus sublimiori­bus subdi. a sit Rom. 13 nun­quam addidit, etiam potestati­bus excommunicatis vel depr­vatis a Papa omnes subditisint. be subject to the higher Powers, and saith that the Apostle never added, Let all be subject also to the Powers excommunica­ted and deprived by the Pope. A re­creative proof which would make but a poor enthymema. The Apostle addeth not, that we must be subject also to the higher Powers deprived by the Turk; Ergo if the Great Turk pronounce a sen­tence of deprivation against a Christian Prince, the Sub­jects of that Prince are free from their allegiance, and may dispossess and kill him when they think good.

But what! These proofs are as concluding as those that the Popes themselves bring to prove their power,Nicholaus 1. Epist. ad Michael Imp. Constant. Petro specialiter ostensum est ut ea mactaret & manduca­ret Illi soli jussum est ur rete plenum piscibus ad littus tra­heret. as when Pope Nicholas the I. proveth the Papal power, because it was said to Saint Peter, Kill and eat; and because to him alone was granted that power to draw a Net full of Fishes to Land.

Likewise Bonifacius the VIII. proveth his primacyBonifac. VIII. Extravag. Vnam Sanctam. and Sovereignty, because it is written, that in the be­ginning God created heaven and earth. Joseph's Coat of many colours, and the Head of Holofernes would have been as pertinent to prove the Popes Temporal [Page 135] and Spiritual powér. Yet see how resolutely and syllo­gistically his Holiness concludes upon those premisses; Wherefore we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is of necessity of salvation to be subject to the Roman Pre­late.

After these scientifical proofs of the Popes power to dispose of the Crowns and Lives of Princes, Who should make any more doubt of it! Who would not in the strength of these reasons venture his life to dethrone Heretick Kings, and spill their hearts blood for a sacri­fice of sweet savour unto his Holiness!

CHAP. VI. Some Assertions of the Libeller are examined.

AFter I have vindicated the Protestant Religion from the aspersion of Rebellion, and laid that charge in its proper place, I have done my main business. And now partly out of compassion, partly out of contempt, I will pass by most of the untruths of this Libeller, which are well nigh as many as his lines, contenting my self to have disproved two ofpag. 109. them. The one, That the Rebel-doctrines are back'd by the generality of them that call themselves Protestants. But I have proved the contrary by their publick Con­fessions.

This plain dealing of his is towards the latter end of his Book: He durst not have spoken so in the beginning. But he must amuse the Reader a great while with rail­ing against the Presbyterians, or the Protestants of In­tegrity, [Page 136] before he charge the generality of the Protestants with rebellion. Besides, he might hope tha few would have the patience to read his book so far.

This is worse. In this Century of years (saith he) there have been more Princes deposed and murthered for their Religion by these Protestants of Integrity, then have been in all the others since Christs time by the Popes ex­communications, or the attempts and means of the Roman Catholicks.

It is not easie to determine whether malice or igno­rance be prevalent in that assertion. I have shewed by unreproachable testimonies, that the Popes have filled Christendome with sedition and rebellion for many centuries of yeers; and what the Jesuites have been act­ing undet them in this last Century. To which since the Libeller confines himself, it had been no hard task to name those many Kings deposed and murthered by the Protestants so lately, if the assertion had any truth in it.

When did a Protestant Minister thrust his knife into his Sovereignes body, as the Monk James Clement did to his King Henry the III. and as the Jesuite Campian would have done to his Sovereigne Queen Elizabeth? When did a Minister instruct any to kill his King, as the Jesuites did Parry, the Jesuite Walpole, Edward Squire, The Jesuite Holt, Patrick, Cullen, York, and Williams; The Jesuite Parsons, Heskec to tempt the Earl of Darby to rebellion? Or as the Jesuite Varade instructed Bar­riere to kill Henry the IV. of France, and the whole Colledge of the Jesuites John Chasiell: Or what Prote­stant, either of the Clergie or Laity was known to have [Page 137] made an attempt against the life of his Sovereigne? For the late English Traytors who brought their most excellent Sovereigne to the Scaffold, are no more Pro­testants then they are Papists, and are Jesuites in the point of obedience.

When this Libeller called the Ministers of Scotland rare Saltpeter men, fit for fireworks, and to prepare matter to blow up both Church and State, Did he re­member that he gave them the right style belonging to the Jesuites Garnet, Hall, Hammond, Gerard and Greenville? For these were Saltpeter-men with a wit­ness; and without metaphor, prepared matter to blow up Church and State.

Was it ever put to the charge of a Protestant Divine, Chaplain to his Prince, that he recommended to him a man sent by his enemies to make him away? Or that he made questions to the Devil about his life? Or that he sent word to his enemies of such things as he had re­vealed unto him to ease his Conscience, as the Jesuite Cotton did? Or did ever our Divines blow the doctrine of King-killing into ignorant souls, as the Jesuites did to Ravaillac; who being most rude, and a very Brute in all other points of Religion, was found by his exa­miners exquisitely skilful in all the evasions and distin­ctions of the Jesuites about that horrible doctrine? Or did any convicted Traytor depose that he had declared his purpose to a Minister, and shewed him the knife for the execution, as Ravaillac maintained to Father Aubigni before his Judges? Some such charges which might be justified by Records of Courts, and Judicial proceedings, this Accuser would have brought, if there [Page 138] had been any; and we are sure that he would not have spared us. If ever any man deserved to be sued upon an Action of Slander, it is this Libeller; for thus slan­dering the generality of the Protestants, and the State, of which he is a Subject. But I fear that if a Pursui­vant were sent for him, he would return and answer, Non est inventus.

As for his saying, That the doctrine of Rome, with the page 110. opinions and practises of all its Doctors, are (as he hath shewed) quite contrary to rebellion, and all that is said a­gainst that Church in this particular is meer calumnly. Let the world judge whether he hath shewed what he saith, and whether is more credible, his saying, or my proving. Yet because he stands for the Roman Church, I desire my Reader to take notice, that in this point of obedience, my quarrel hath been with the Court, not with the Church of Rome; between which I conceive as much difference, as between the Wind and the Sea. The Church might be quiet enough from storms of rebellion, did not the boysterous wind of sedition make it foam, blown from the Court of Rome by its agents the Ie­suites.

After that the Libeller had railed against us, he falls upon a common place of loyalty, and brings some texts of S. Austin, taken out of Protestant books made by our Reverend Divines against the late Rebels. For that he is not acquainted with S. Austin, he shews it by the commendation he giveth him, calling him the most an­cient pag. 119. and learned Father of the Christian Church. S. Au­stin deserveth a better commendation, but he is neither the most ancient, nor the most learned of the Fathers. [Page 139] Most of those whom the Church calls Fathers, were be­fore him, for he dyed in the fifth Century; And as for Learning, Origen and Hierome were far beyond him. Could the English Seminaries pitch upon no abler Champion to fight against us then this raw souldier? A more passionate and less reasonable Writer I never met with. His style is a perpetual barking, and biting too, but without teeth. I could lay up a great heap of his untruths, ignorances, and impertinencies, if I would make such a wilde-goose-chase as to follow him in all his false turns: But both my Readers and I have better businesses then to heap up dung, or search all the Impo­stures of a Novice of the Iesuites.

For the end, he brings some rules of Law concerning the nature of the English Monarchy; which if he had studied well, he had never taken upon him to defend the doctrine of the Iesuites, which is inconsistent with them: For they allow not that which he affirmeth; That the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no superiour; and that the Crown of England is inde­pendent, and his jura Regalia are holden of no Lord but the Lord of heaven. Bellarmine saith the clean contra­ry, and makes the Pope Sovereigne of England by dou­ble right, as we heard before. Yet this Scholar of the Iesuites may give Bellarmines sense to that assertion, that the Crown of England is independent; for holding with his Masters, that the Crown of England belongeth to the Pope, he will say also that it is independent, and oweth homage to none but God; meaning, that the Pope, the right Sovereigne, oweth homage for it to none but God. The man being evidently a Scholar of [Page 142] the Jesuites, cannot but be instructed in the doctrine of equivocations, about which To­let Tolet, lib. 4. Instruct. Sacerd. cap. 21. Ali­quando uti licet aequivocatione, & decipere audientem, ut cum Iudex petit juramentum ab aliquo ut dicat crimen vel proprium vel alienum si omnino est occultum, & jurare cogatur, utatur aequivocatione puta, Nescio, intelligendo intra se, ut dicam tibi vel simi­le. Et lib. 5. c. 38. & lib. 4. c. 21, 22. gives large instructions in his book of the Instruction of Priests, saying expresly, That it is law­ful sometimes to use equivocati­ons, and to deceive the hearer. And Sanchez tells us in what case it is lawful to equivo­cate: There is a just cause (saith he) to Sanch. oper. Mor. l. 3. c. 6. num. 19. Causa jure utendi his amphibo­logiis est, quoties id necessarium aut utile est ad salutem corporis honorem, tes familiares tuendas use these equivocations, whensoever it is necessary or useful for the preservation of body, honour or estate. Since then the sect and Religion of the Jesuites, which subjecteth the Crown of England unto the Pope, cannot subsist in England without palliating that criminal doctrine with equivocation: They finde it necessary for the preserva­tion of body, honour, and estate, to profess that the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no supe­riour; and that the Crown of England is independent: but to whom that independant Crown belongs, that they will reserve in their thoughts. Or if they say they will be true to the King, they will by the King under­stand the Pope, or the King of Spain, to whom the Pope gave the Kingdome of England fourscore years ago, and never recalled that gift since.

Wherefore if this Gentleman appear in Print again, or any of his confreres for him about this point of obe­dience, we must desire him to speak more home, before he can justifie himself to be a true Philanax Anglicus, and a good English subject of his Majesty. To that end let him declare that he acknowledgeth the following Ar­ticles [Page 143] as true and just, and is ready to subscribe unto them.

I. The Kings Most Excellent Majesty Charles the II. hath no superiour on Earth, de jure, in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and other His Majesties Dominions.

II. All Roman Catholicks born in these His Majesties Dominions, are his subjects, de jure, and of none else, although they have taken the Orders of the Church of Rome, or have a General of some Religion to whom they have sworn obedience.

III. The Doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine is false, that the King of England is subject to the Pope by double right, besides his pretended subjection in matters spi­ritual.

IV. The Pope hath no power to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms, or any way to dispose of their Crowns or their Lives.

V. The Pope cannot absolve the subjects of His Majesty King Charles the II. or of any of His Successors, from the Oath of their Allegiance. Neither are they now absolved from it by any precedent Decree from the Popes.

VI. A King declared heretick or excommunicate by the Pope, is not thereby disabled from exercising his Kingly jurisdiction.

[Page 142] VII. The excommunicating or depriving of a King by the Pope, doth not exempt that Kings natural subjects from the duty of their Allegiance.

VIII. King John had no power to give his Kingdome to the Pope, without the consent of his Peers and Commons: Neither is that Contract of any validity.

IX. A Priest having learned in Confession a Conspiracy against the Kings life, ought to discover it to the King or his Councel.

X. The Peers and Commons of England, and other His Majesties Dominions, have no power to judge their King, much less to depose him, or put him to death, or to choose another King, or to alter the Government of the State.

He that will refuse to subscribe these Articles, and openly profess his consent unto them, cannot justifie his love and fidelity to the King, and is altogether unfit to charge the Protestants with rebellious tenets. Vacuum culpa esse decet qui in alium paratus est dicere. He that is in an error cannot justifie himself but by forsaking it. That yeilding is glorious; and to be overcome by the truth is a great victory. Without such a justification, lessons of loyalty given by a Iesuite are unsuitable, and of as little effect as a Lecture of Chastity preach'd by an allowed Curtizan of Rome.

JOH. VIII. [...]
CAROLE qui Latias artes & fulmina bruta,
Et Capitolini contemnis Vejovis iras,
Macte manumissus coelesti lumine Princeps,
Lumine Romuleas tibi dispellente tenebras,
Assertamque sacro capiti firmante coronam.
Dum trepidi Reges & sancti luminis orbi
Serva Quirinali submittunt colla tyranno,
Tu liber specta stantes ad fraena Monarchas
Stratorum officio, succollantesque cathedrae
Augustos lixas, mox flexo poplite curvos
Turpia purpureo libantes oscula socco.
Erige tu curvos rectus; fratresque doceto
Quos Regum Pater agnoscit Natosque Deosque,
Quàm male prostituat divum Rex sanctus honorem
Tarpeiam lambens crepidam; solosque pudendum
Excussisse jugum, libertatique litasse,
Gnaviter amplexos coelestia lumina Reges.


PAge 8. line 17. Galileo. p. 9. l. 5. put out which. p. 11. in the margent, l. 10. tenerentur, p. 19. l. 12. matter. p. 24. l. 14. Popes. p. 26. l. 10. by the preach­ing. l. 12. oppressing. l. opposing. p. 30. l. ult. Francis the II, p. 31. l. 7. Iesuites. p. 33. l. 20. Henry the IV. l. 22. because▪ p. 3 [...]. l. [...]4. the ordinary. l. 13. any of five Kings. p. 49. l. 28. unequitable. l. equitable. p. 53. l. 13. stonie the just. p, 87. l. 13. frequent. l. pregnant. p. 113. l. 24. Pope. p. 115. in the margent, 1. 6. non sine ma­nibus. p. 124. l. put out persons, put letters. p. 128. l. 25. Mutius. p. 137. l. 26. depose.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.