The first Reason.

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

The Answerer. A moderate Answer to an iniurious and slan∣derous Discouerie.

aI answer, that this Position of the Discouerer, [All Prote∣stants in the censure of Catholikes are Heretikes and Excom∣municate,] is no generall assumption in Catholike Religion: from whence it will follow, that none of our Positions are to be iudged re∣bellious; because he telleth vs that all these are builded vpon this Assumption.

A faithfull Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The Reply.

We may not be ignorant, first, that, seeing the nature of He∣resie is such, that fIt is a vice proper to the mind; it may denomi∣nate the subiect whatsoeuer an Heretike without obstinacie, which is onely a peruerse obliquitie of the will: and therefore man may be an Heretike, though he be not obstinate. Se∣condly, because gThe Church, consisting of men, doth only iudge of outward actions of men; we must consider that there is diffe∣rence of the iudgement of an Heretike, hFori & poli, namely, of man iudging the outward act; & of God, who discerneth the inward thought. And may hereupon conclude, that iThere may be an internall Heretike, though not manifest vnto the Church. But because you do onely vnderstand outward Here∣tikes subiect to the censure of men, I approach to the Que∣stion, to disable both your Propositions by the generall and ordinarie, but (in some points) new and vnreasonable de∣terminations of your owne schoole, By a threefold euidence: from a Popish

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

The moderate Answerer in two other Arguments.

aSIxtly, before Excommunication no communion is forbidden with any, whatsoeuer this Discouerer obiecteth fromb Panor∣mitanus, [that where the crime is notorious;] such as the man telleth vs heresie is, [There needeth not any declaration of Ex∣communication.] For it is absolutely against the generall Coun∣cell of* Lateran, to the which consenteth Cunerus, and Nauarr.cSeuenthly, no Protestant or Heretike not Excommunicate by name (as none in England is) lieth subiect to any penaltie pretended.

The Reply.

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

I did also alledge a third, namely, Bannes, a man famous a∣mong your Doctors, and guarded in this point with the com∣mon consent of the schoole. His words are these: eIn this Arti∣cle do Felinus and Caietan, and the more common opinion of the Scholers of Thomas concurre: prouing that the euidence of the fact is as effectuall in this caese, as a publike sentence in iudgement. I did furthermore (pardon me if I must discouer your partiall concealements) adde yet another Iesuite, your Father Cres∣well, auouching that this opinion fHath the vniuersall consent of Lawyers and Diuines. I might haue cited more witnesse to appeare, if I had thought it as necessarie for euidence to the cause, as I feared lest it should be tedious to the iudicious Reader.

But lest you or I may seeme to unisconstrue (because you name it) the Lateran Councell, giue your owne Doctors leaue to interprete it. gIt is euident (saith your Iesuite) from this De∣cree of the Councell of Latèran; If the Prince fall into the sentence of the Canon, forthwith he falleth into the penaltie denounced, be∣fore any further iudgement. Your next Author, whom you name, hCunerus, doth onely report the sentence of Anathe∣ma: but that an Heretike is not to be exempted from all commu∣nion before a iudiciall and personall sentence, he lendeth you no voice, but proueth the contrarie. Wherein I further maruell that you dare match the the Councell of Lateran, and your Author Cunerus in one consent, because if you follow that corrupt Councell, you must necessarily be disloyall: if you yeeld to Cunerus, there is hope you may proue a good sub∣iect, as * hereafter will appeare in due place.

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

Those other also which (I say) I might haue cited, do now approach, as namely, your Cardinall, and sometime Iesuite, Tolet from the nature of iudiciall Excommunications in Coun∣cels, iThe Excommunication of the law is generall, not directly against any determinate person. Which will appeare presently in the vse of *Anathema: so that (as saith your Iesuite Sà)kA generall Admonition is sufficient to inferre a generall Excommu∣nication; and that which is generally published containeth in it a generall Admonition. So generall, that your Iesuite Azo•ius doth wickedly extend the censure not onely to the namelesse, but also blamelesse sonnes of his supposed Heretikes. lThe sonnes of Heretikes (saith he) are subiect to the punishment of he∣resie, if they be the sonnes of knowne Heretikes, whether knowne by euidence of their offence, or by sentence of the Iudge. And vpon this Assertion your Cardinall Allane is bold to conclude, mThe Canon lawes being Authenticall in all lawfull Tribu∣nals, do make all Heretikes, not onely after they be named particularly, but ipso facto, as soone as they be Heretikes, de Iure, by lawe excommunicate for the same to be depri∣ued. If this his (so intituled) Modest Defence be true, then doubtlesse in this your Moderate Answer (as you tearme it) your last Arguments you call Sixt-ly, and Seuenth-ly, must be taken as the sound of their last syllables do import. Hi∣therto we haue confuted your onely exceptions of an He∣retike, and an Excommunicate from your owne explicati∣ons. We furthermore disproue them by

The moderate Answerer.

aNO Protestant in England is, in our opinion, excommunicate by name; and therefore lyeth not subiect to the penaltie pre∣tended. Ergo The foundation of this Discouerer is ruinate.

The Reply.

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

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

The Minor proued by Popish

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

The Reply.

Thus haue you prooued your selfe a distressed, or rather de∣sperate Answerer; and such an one as may be thought rather vinolently then cōsideratly to haue vndertaken this taske. Not∣withstanding as Caiphas uDid deliuer a good sentence with an euill mind: yet must we thinke that the spirit of grace might vse his tongue, which neuer touched his corrupt heart, saith Saint Au∣gustine. So you, though in your mind you gaine say that which with your pen you publish, yet will we acknowledge grace in your pen, and leaue the spirit of dissimulation to your equiuo∣cating mind, and with good consciences concurre with you in this conclusion, Protestants are no Heretikes.

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

The moderate Answerer.

xThus is his chiefest building of sclanders against vs ruinate.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

aHIs Assumption being ruinate, that Protestants are not estee∣med of vs Heretikes, or Excommunicate: it followeth, that no positions, which we maintaine, are rebellious; because he telleth vs that all such are built vpon this Assumption.

The Reply.

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

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

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

The moderate Answerer.

aMy answere is absolute before, that no learned Catholike reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this Kingdome an Heretike.

The Reply.

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

The Discouerie in the Minor.

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

The Minor hath two parts, both proued,

• Crimes slande∣rously obiected.
• All humane so∣cietie detracted.

The first part proued.

First a Stranger saith, that bProtestants beleeue not one article of the Apostles Creed. Our countryman more strangely: *Pro∣testants Page  17 haue no faith, no Religion, no Christ, but are meere Infi∣dels. The Master of the Seminarie at Rhemes writeth, and entituleth his booke cCaluinish Turcisme, and pla•…e Mahome∣tisme. Which booke Deane Gifford doth no lesse impudently then impotently maintaine, saying, that dCaluins doctrine is worse then the Alcoran of the Turks. The Iesuit ePossiuinus with the same spirit of blasphemie doth compile a booke, wherein he calleth Protestants doctrines, concerning Christ, meere Atheismes. And all to this end, that all humane societie with Protestants may be vtterly dissolued.

The moderate Answerer.

*This is no more then other Protestants charge Caluine, and such like with: as first the Deane and Colledge of Tubinge, wri∣ting a booke of this subiect, giueth it for a title, Fundamentorum Caluinianae sectae cum veteribus Arianis & Nestorianis com∣munium detectio.

The Reply.

That which they did in the spirit of opposition, and con∣tention, is not much to be regarded; especially, seeing (as it may seeme by their obiections) their iudgement hath beene depraued by your malignant Doctors. For first concerning Arianisme, fCaluine (saith your Iesuites) doth plainely teach Arianisme, saying, that the Father is by a kinde of excellencie God. Whereas both the speach and sence is most orthodoxall, and agreeing with the tenor of holy writ, and iudgement of all ancient Fathers, as your owne learned Iesuits confesse. For the words of our Sauiour are plaine, gIoh. 14. [My Father is greater then I:] in the true sence, Is, (say your Iesuits, and truly) The Father is greater not in substance and being, but by reason of Birth & begetting. For their Authority they produce an inquest of Fathers of free Caluine in this point: who was so far from Page  18 Arianisme, that your own Bellarmine doth acknowledge that hCaluine did impugne the doctrine of the Arians. Your Iesuites likewise impute iNestorianisme: whereof Caluine doth free himselfe saying, kWe must therefore abandon the heresie of Ne∣storious, who rather distracted then distinguished the nature of Christ, against the doctrine of the holy Ghost in Scripture. It would therefore become your modestie, to haue omitted these impu∣tations: but we shall find your moderation immoderate in this kind.

The moderate Answerer.

lI will next bring in Master Hugh Broughton, a man greatly commended by Master Willet, who telleth the Bishops of England that their translation of the Scripture is corrupt; and that Christi∣anitie is denyed here in England.

The Reply.

Master Broughton (which I am able truly to witnes) was as greatly commended and reuerenced for his learning among your greatest Iesuits at Mentz, and the Bishop elector there, yet he neuer allowed your Translation, but debaseth it more then any other: neither did he euer go to Italy or Spaine to learne Christianitie there. How you ought to esteeme of our Translation, I haue made it elsewhere euident from your owne mRomish censures, who haue giuen the translation of Treme∣lius as good an approbation, as any Protestant would require. Where also may appeare, by confession of your most learned Iesuites and others, the nmanifold deprauations of your vulgar, falsely intituled oS. Hieromes Translation. But what modestie can this be in you, to obiect vnto vs a man, whom you know to be sequestred from vs rather by impotencie of passion, then any difference of Religion; liuing now among them who main∣taine both the same profession, and the same Latine Transla∣tion? so immoderate in speech (to confesse that which all, that know him, can witnesse) that the least error he heareth he na∣meth heresie, and the least opposition to his opinion, infide∣litie. Page  19 This is but the language of passion, which no moderate Answerer may mention to preiudice the moderate.

The very moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The very moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

Deny Christ to be God? God forbid: but to be God of God only in a particular sence, this indeed they do; but can you finde no more Protestants of this opinion? Your r lesuite reckneth vp Caluin and Beza; and I thinke he saith truly: I would either he or you did as truly vnderstand them. But yet we wish to heare what your Doctors thinke of this Prote∣stants opinion: your Campion calleth it smonstrous: your t Genebrard, Lindan, Canisius name it Heresie: your u Staple∣ton and Feuardentius do aggrauate it by an epithet, Heinous heresie: your x Possiuinus noteth it of Atheisme: and your y Col∣ledge at Rhemes of Blasphemie. And now, belike, this is that doctrine which deserueth your generall clamors, which be∣ing examined with the eye not ouercast with the web of pre∣iudice, zDoth (in the iudgement of your famous Bellarmine) seeme Catholicall: because they denie not the Sonne to be from the Father; but they denie the essence of the godhead to haue any ge∣neration. This likewise is not the part of common modestie, to blind-fold your selfe, and strike you know not whom.

To the former inuectiues I must adde another of the same die, euen deepe black mallice: aLooke vpon England (saith your french Rabsacah) and you shal find it to be an Ile of men, who cate mens flesh, and who haue not among them (yet they professe Iesus Christ and the Apostles creed) the least footstep to Catho∣like Religion. This we see written, which giueth vs cause to be∣leeue that which is reported by our Trauellers, who affirming, that in our last Embassage into Spaine, the people there gazed vpon our English Nobles and Gentlemen with that eye which Pope Gregory a thousand yeares since beheld them, when they were Pagans; and admiring the comely feature of their personages, and the fairenes of their complexions, asked Page  21bWho they were, and hearing they were named English, they may well be called Anglish, (quoth he) as it were Angels But, alas, what faire faces doth the vgly feend and Prince of darknesse now possesse? Thus the vulgar in Spaine are said in their Christian charitie to haue bewailed the miserie of the English, Alas, that these men haue not the knowledge of Christ! Being perswa∣ded by their Monkes that we worship the diuels, which is more probable by their writings, as, cCaluinists are Heretikes detesting our Lord Christ.dCaluinish heresie is more detestable then the Religion of Turkes and Paganes. What is this else then to dissolue all communion with Protestants?

1. In Neigbors.

aNEighbors, if Heretikes, may lawfully be spoiled of their goods (by force:) though it be better to be taken from them by au∣thority.

2. In Parishioners.

Where the question is concerning paying of Tithes, it is resolued: bParishioners may lawfully defraud Protestant Mini∣sters of their Tithes.

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

cSuch are not bound to restore that which they haue receiued, or to satisfie their Creditors, who are Heretikes.dThey are not bound thereunto.*This is an ancient Decree.

4. In Seruants.

fAlso keepers of forts, and all other vassals and slaues are freed from the oath of subiection to their Lords.

5. In Wiues.

gWiues are not bound to render due beneuolence to their Hus∣bands, if Heretikes.

6. In Parents.

hThe father must disinherite his sonne, if he will be a Prote∣stant.

7. In Children.

iA Priest returning into England, if his father be a Prote∣stant, he may denie him to be his father: meaning that he is not such an one, as he ought to acknowledge his father.kFor by the heresie of the father the child is freed from obedience.

8. In all Kindred.

lHeretikes may not be termed either Children or Kindred, but according to the old law, Thy hand must be against them to spill their bloud.

9. In Natiues.

mIf any find his natiue Citie to be most part infected with here∣sie, he may denie it to be his Countrey.

Finally, by nPope Gregorie his Constitutions; By heresie a man is depriued of all his iurisdiction, whether naturall, ciuill, or poli∣tike. So that the tenor of the oath of the Leaguers in Fraunce is this: oIf euer I make mariage, vse trafficke, yeeld ayde, hold friendship, giue credence vnto Heretikes, or once salute them; then let God confound me. Shall we call this Religion which dissol∣ueth Page  23 the dutie of Seruants, Subiects, Debitors, and strangleth the vitall spirits of humane societie? and by not acknowledge∣ment of naturall duties of Wedlocke, naturall Parents, natural Children, naturall Countrey, doth bowell vp nature, as it were, and depriue men of humanitie it selfe? O Babylon! to proue this in all particulars were needlesse; one kind may satisfie.

Practise.

The Papists in France did libell against pHenry the third as hereticall, a manslayer: so likewise against this Henry the fourth, callinghim a qKitchin-dogge, long-bearded Iulian, most heathe∣nish Apostate, and the very excrement of Satan. No lesse was the rank or of our Cardinall Poole against his Soueraigne, rDesi∣rous to diuert the Emperors forces from the Pagans, and to inforce them vpon Henry the 8. as vpon an enemie more pernicious then the Turke.

The modest Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

yWe haue not now another Queene Marie inheretrix to the Crowne, to be ioyned in mariage with a potent Prince, symbolizing with husband, conformitie in countrie discipline: to breed scruples in this behalfe.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

aTo the Maior. I would wish him to except the Emperor of Germanie, and such as be subiect to the Empire, and such cases: I say Transeat Maior for Christendome.

The Reply.

Why Transeat? Do you then make all Kings in Christendome subiect to the Emperor? I know you dare not proclaime this in bFrance or Spaine. Dare you, (who thus insinuate your selfe into grace with his Maiestie: cI, one of your Highnesse obedient subiects) subiect your Soueraigne to a forreine State? as namely, to the Emperor, so farre from Imperiall, that (as one Iesuite confesseth) dIt is almost ruinate: Yea, considered as it is called Romane Empire,eIt is (as another Iesuite ac∣knowledgeth) long ago (an vnfallible note of the prophecied time of *Antichrist) vtterly extinct.fWhereunto (saith your Page  27 Costerus) scarce the Germans (whom you obiect) do obey. Which is very true; for, in the tenor and forme of Election and Coronation of the Emperor, you may find, as I remember, this power ascribed to the Prince Palatine Elector, that he (as being Steward rather to the Empire, then Emperor) may cite the Emperor to the diet of the State, and constraine him in some case to yeeld satisfaction. And therefore my Maior may still re∣cide in Christendome.

To the Minor Proposition.

The moderate Answer is of two kinds,

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

1. Recrimination or Accusation.

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

The Reply.

This kind of Answer of retorting, which you call returning the Argument vpon Protestants, you vse in euery Answer: if tru∣ly, you shall proue your sinne to haue bene more common, which cannot iustifie your selues; If vniustly, you shall but slan∣der them and multiply your wickednesse. Which will be pro∣ued, when we come to giue the * Iustification of Protestants in answering your blindfold exceptions.

The moderate Answerer in Apologizing for his fellowes.

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

The Reply.

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

The Discouerie. First, of the peoples power.

Parsons. gThe Common-wealth hath authoritie to chuse a King, and to limit him lawes at their pleasure. The French Iesuite sheweth a Reason. hFor Maiestie (saith he) is rather seated in the Kingdome, then in the King. Like to Stapleton his Glosse. iPeople are not ordained for the Prince; but the Prince for the peo∣ple. But more finely Reinalds. kA King is but a creature of mans creation.

The moderate Answerer.

*People were in the beginning without Kings, and made Ele∣ction of diuers kinds of Regiments, as they thought meete and most secure for their defence: for as I haue made demonstration, and his Maiesties words in the Parliament do conclude: Although a King∣dome and people be relata, yet can he be no King if he want people and subiects.

The Reply.

This Position, People, as subiects, were before their Gouernor, doth tast too much of Machiauellisme: for in nature the birth Page  29 is called prodigious, which is deliuered with heeles forward, from whence some haue receiued their names to be called Agrippa: such is this politike curse which you fancie, but remember that though, as you trulie affirme, King and sub∣iect be relatiues, euen as Father and Sonne: yet consider them in the nature, in the reall foundation as things, and not of accidentall relation; and then (I hope) you will suf∣fer the Father to goe before the Sonne. And so Adam, as an Oecumenicall King, was before his familie; after his decease, alwayes the right of gouernement was inuested in the first-borne, as a birth-right: so God did signifie to Caine, [*And thou Caine shalt rule (meaning Abel) ouer him. And that Kingdomes haue bene successiue by lawe of nations in the first-borne, is confirmed by a grand inquest of your owne 〈◊〉Lawyers: not that wee denie Election of people to haue bene vpon necessitie vsuall; but so to magnifie the power of a people electing, as to continue still Soueraigne ouer the Prince elected, this is that which we call a position re∣bellious: the very intent of your forenamed Authors, ma∣king regall power to be from the common-wealth, but as mPotest as vicaria & delegata: delegate and by commission; to this end, that establishing the peoples dominion, they may vse them at their assignement for the subuersion of the King, as their places alledged do manifest, and is yet more am∣plie auouched by another Iesuite, saying, that nIf any King Catholike shall prooue an Heretike, it is reason for the people to depose him: because this power is in the people, which is de∣riued vnto the King from the people. This is that position which we called rebellious, and yet behold Abyssus abys∣sum inuocat; one depth of rebellious disloyaltie, in de∣posing, doth drawe one another of crueltie, in murthe∣ring their Kings, where the French yeeldeth them oPower of life and death ouer their Soueraigne. To ouerthrow this ma∣ny-headed beast, by weapons borowed from your owne men.

The Confutation.

There is one honest Frier that dare aduenture to light a candle to discouer the murderous: for speaking of the power of and by Election, pThough there be (saith he) in the people a freedome of Election, yet after they haue chosen their King, they haue no more power to remoue the yoke, but stand in necessitie of subiection. This man was but a Frier, and therefore peraduen∣ture in your Synods may not haue any definitiue sentence, qwhich (you say) is proper to Bishops. Here is therefore (one of this order) Bishop Cunerus, who from the holie writ doth mainely impugne your former assertion, rSome there be (saith he) who imagine that the authoritie of Princes dependeth vpon the courtesie of people, as to thinke that they, who gaue consent to choose Kings, haue likewise now a power to depose them: But the blessed Apostles, who by the holie Ghost were inabled to search the myste∣ries of God, haue more profoundly enquired into the foundation of the state and autoritie of Kings. * Saint Peter (saith he) entering into this argument, doth thus admonish Christians. Be ye subiect vnto the ordinance of man, whether to the King, as to the more ex∣cellent, or his messengers sent from him; to the punishment of wic∣ked, and praise of the godly: so is the will of God as free, and not as hauing libertie as a cloake of maliciousnes, but as the seruants of God. And S. Paul,*There is no power but of God; and whosoeuer resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God &c. From whence he inferreth, Though all meanes whereby Kings come to the Crownes be not commanded of God, yet whatsoeuer meanes they vse, whether by Election, Succession, or inuasion, whensoe∣uer they are by consent of the Kingdome once established, this is the ordinance of God: and henceforth he, as sent from God, is to rule, and people to obey; the Apostle saying of the people,*It is ne∣cessary to be subiect. This witnesse your selfe called for, saying, [*As saith Cu•erus,] so I, thus saith Cunerus. You may not in equitie refuse him. For this was iustice in the Gouernor, when S. Paule said, [*I appeale to Caesar, to answere, And to Caesar shalt thou goe. Yet if he be not sufficient, behold a Iesuite will Page  31 pleade our cause, sThough it be better to haue a more wise King, then a simple; yet when he, whom we haue is but sillie, then may he no more be depriued of his Kingdome, then an vnlearned Pre∣late of his Bishoprick: otherwise the state of mortall men should be exposed to rapines and bloodshed. But to returne to the Oracles of God, S. Peter called mans entrance into the kingdome by consent of people, mans creation; vpon this ground, it may be, your Reinolds did descant, where he called the King, mens creature: as though he could see in mans election nothing but man, whereas S. Peter in the same place saith to man creating, Be ye subiect vnto the creation of man, Propter Deum, for the Lords sake, in the creature beholding God: Why? S. Paule will satisfie, Because the powers that are, be ordeined of God. Rom. 13. So that mans creation is but the bodie of souerain∣tie, Gods ordinance in that meanes is the very soule thereof, and ought in all Christians to be the life of loyall subiection.

The Answer retorted.

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

The moderate Answerer.

bIt will be obiected from the second Reason, that Catholikes hold the Pope head of the Church in ciuill power; and also ouer Kings, & circa omnia temporalia: Therefore he may depose Prin∣ces, and command Subiects to take armes against them once excom∣municate. First I answere.

The Reply.

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

The very moderate Answerer.

cI answere for all Catholikes in generall to the maine Obiection, that Henricus, Victor, Iohannes de Turrecremata, Couor••ius, & the common opinion of Schooles do teach, that there is no such tem∣porallor regall power in Popes ouer Princes in ciuill affaires. And againe: dThese Autors do not say that this ciuill power is simplie and absolutely subiect to the Papall autoritie. And yet againe, eThe discouerer cannot sinde any such power soueraigne ouer Kings challenged by Popes, against which he so much inueigheth.

The Reply.

The summe of your Answere is, that the generall doctrine of Papists is to denie all temporall and ciuill power absolutely ouer Kings; and that no Pope did euer challenge it. And yet behold, before your eyes, in this Reason to which you now would answere, your owne Doctor Bozius produced against you, who in his booke inscribed, fOf the temporall monarchie of the Church, and dedicated to the last Pope Clement the 8. is so absolute for this absolute temporall iurisdiction of the Pope aboue all estates whatsoeuer, that he extendeth it throughout the vniuersall world, euen gOuer all Infidels, to punish them for some causes with corporall punishments. And he challengeth herein the consent of Andraeas, Syluester, Antoni∣nus, and other Doctors Canonists; yea also (which you denied, that it can be showen) Pope *Innocentius doth challenge it. A doctrine so common, that Bellarmine doth confesse, that hAluarez, Syluester, and many others do affirme it. Furthermore (because you say, Your Discouerer cannot show &c.) I must yet Page  34 discouer a greater and grosser consent amongst your Schoole in this point. Alexander Carerius Patauinus of late hath writ; the title of his booke is this, iConcerning the power of the Pope of Rome against all wicked Polititians and heretikes of this time. This sure will be something to the purpose: say on. kThis opinion, namely, that the Pope by the lawe of God hath most full power throughout the world euen in all temporall or ciuill cau∣ses, I defend: and hereunto the common Schooles of Diuines do subscribe. He numbreth two and twentie Authors, and among others one called The illuminated Doctor, and an other called Celsus, by interpretation, High or Aloft; and therfore insignes him with Verè Celsus, as truly so named, and so truly he may be, if we iudge him by the loftinesse of his style and cōclusion, which only this Carerius doth therfore expresse, as being more eminent then any other. Such and so great is the spirituall and ciuill power of the Pope (saith Celsus) that as Plato to one asking what God was, answered, he is not man, not heauen, not good, but what? more excellent: so if any shall demaund what the Pope is; by a kind of resemblance one may warily answere, he is no Duke, no King, nor Emperour, but more excellent. What can this be else (seeing God only is for excellencie called *King of Kings, and Lord of Lords) but an other God? Warily answered, but wickedly. Next he assumeth for autoritie of his defence lThe common iudgement of Canonists, all building this opinion vpon the Decrees of Popes. As if they should say, if we be deceiued in our opinion cōcerning the Popes iurisdiction, then the Popes haue deceiued vs. What is that which Pope Innocentius de∣creed? Page  35mThat God created two great lights, the Sunne to rule the day, and the Moone to gouerne the night: signifying two dignities, the spirituall, which is the Papall, and the temporall, belonging to to the Emperour like the Moone. Yet so, that there is as great dif∣ference of excellencie betwixt the Emperour and the Pope, as be∣twixt the Moone, and the Sunne. What can you inferre from hence? nThat as the Moone hath no light, but that it borroweth of the Sunne: so the Emperour hath no power, which is not depen∣ding of the Pope. Thus Pope and popish by too much gazing on the Moone, are become lunatike, who by a spirit of pride carnally peruert the literall sence of the holie Ghost, as it is oProued. And the whole doctrine will be plainely confuted in the *Confutation. Wherefore seeing that this temporall vniuersall iurisdiction of the Pope, some Papists with great consent, euen from Popes, haue proclaimed, all which you haue vnlearnedlie denied, which will yet be further confir∣med in the next Chapter: learne henceforth a necessarie point of modestie, not to auouch a negatiue, No one Papist saith so, till you haue read sufficiently what they say. Thus much of the temporall power popish, considered directly: Now must we enquire how it may concerne him indirectly.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

Vse my words, but abuse not my meaning, to make the Rea∣der thinke I only intreated of the power temporall ouer Kings directly: whereas in the Discouerie there is expresse mention of the temporall iurisdiction challenged of Papists both di∣rectly, and also indirectly, both which are hereafter confuted. Here only we are to explaine them, and to shew, how both of them challenge a power in the Pope at his discretion to de∣pose Kings. This hath bene manifested in the former, now it will appeare in the second, which you, forsooth, dHis Maie∣sties most loyall Subiect, do now mainteine, namely, A power spi∣rituall (say you) in temporall causes, as it may be behoofull for Gods cause. And how that is meant, your Bellarmine doth in∣terpret. eProtestants denie (saith he) that the Pope hath any temporall or politike iurisdiction and power ouer Kings by the law of God, as to be able to command Kings, much lesse to depose them from their thrones, and dispose of their Kingdomes. But the com∣mon consent of Catholike Diuines is, that indirectly and mediatly, that is▪ so farre as it may concerne the spirituall good of the Church, the Pope hath a supreme power euen in temporall causes, to put downe Kings, and bestow their Kingdomes. And yet you denie, fThat he hath directly any temporall gouernment by the lawe of God. A spirituall cosenage, as is proued by arguments in the *Consutation, & only in this place to be exemplified. You may peraduēture remember that King, whose name I haue forgot, who being desirous to decree something cōtrary to that lawe Page  37 whereunto he was sworne, required counsell in this case: Sir (saith his counseller) the Lawe directly forbids you this; yet there is another law which permits the King to do what he list. A dangerous State, where the Kings lust is his law. Now how is it in this your controuersie? to say the Pope can directly iudge and depose Kings. O no, you will not, For (say you) we de∣nie: This opinion (saith Bellar.) is the first extremitie, as though you would acknowledge that to be directly a ground of trea∣son: yet you hold it lawfull, When the Pope shall thinke it be•oo∣full for the spirituall good, then he may iudge, depose, and kill. Herein giuing vs a speciall argument of your singular mode∣stie; whereas being ashamed to giue the Pope Direct Soue∣raigntie ouer Kings, haue closely conueyed vnto him the same power by the other tearme, called Indirectly. It were to be wished you would leaue that subtill modestie, and learne ho∣nest simplicitie. It may be we shall perceiue some dragme thereof in your fourth-ly.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

Wherein I dare appeale to any equall, or almost any vne∣quall iudgement of my greatest aduersaries, to determine whe∣ther this your answer be not absurdly false in two degrees.

First: hThose (you say) who vrge this opinion, of deposing Prin∣ces in case of heresie, offer no more indignitie to any sheepe, then to the chiefe shepheard vnder Christ the Pope: and yet Page  38 in the same Chapter, I Answer (say you) if any man hold that o∣pinion of such power ouer Princes in Popes, yet they will pleade it more tolerable in the authoritie of one supreme Pastor in the Church, whereof Princes be sheepe, &c. The argument then of these men, as you confesse, and * is hereafter shewed, is this, As the shepheard to the sheepe, so the Pope to Kings: but shep∣heards haue power ouer sheepe, and not sheepe ouer shepheards. Er∣go Popes may depose Princes, and Princes may not remoue Popes. This is your Popish and (as it is * after proued) your sheepish conclusion: wherein whether there be not offered greater in∣dignitie to Princes, then to Popes, let the equall Reader iudge.

Secondly, the Authors of the doctrine of deposing of Kings in case of heresie, do professe concerning Popes, iThat they cannot possibly be Heretikes, as Popes, and consequently cannot be deposed: Not (saith k Bellarmine) by any power whether Ecclesia∣sticall or temporall, no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell. Not though (saith l Carerius) he should do any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall stat• of the Church: Not though (saith m Azo∣rius) he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall, or peruert the lawes of Kings: Not though (saith your n Gratianus Glosse) he should carrie infinite multitudes of soules headlong with him into hell. And these forenamed Authors do auouch for the confir∣mation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Di∣uines, and Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares. Whe∣ther therefore to affirme, that Kings may be Heretikes, and for that cause deposed, and that Popes cannot be deposed, be∣cause as Popes they cannot be Heretikes, be equall indignitie to Popes and Kings, let (if you will) your vnequall Reader iudge. And now (not to stand vpon other transparent absur∣dities of these Authors) your modestie is to be put in mind, not to appeale vnto equall iudgement in that, wherein you ma∣nifest your totall eclypse of iudgement. Hitherto haue we dis∣puted of the power of people and of the Pope, considered as it were intensiuely. Now we approach to examine both of them in their extent and execution.

In Election.

1. The Romish Cardinall: aThere is no election, whether of King or Emperor, of any force, if he that is elect (such as they e∣steeme all Protestants) be excommunicate.

In Succession.

Reinalds: bThe right of Kings Christian must depend rather vpon their Religion, then vpon order of Succession: and therefore all Christians are bound to cut off all hope, lest that any such (spea∣king of Protestants) may aspire to the throne.cOtherwise (saith Stapleton) what do people else but euen preferre man before God. Hereupon doth Simancha conclude, that dThe Kingdome of an Heretike departed doth lineally descend vpon his sonne: but if the sonne in the race Royall be hereticall, the Catholike Common∣weale may chuse him a Prince: but if also the Kingdome be here∣ticall, then the choice of the King belongeth to the Pope: and so the Kingdome may be taken by Catholikes. And lest, peraduenture, any should consent to the lawfull Succession, father Parsons doth pronounce sentence. eWhosoeuer shall consent to the suc∣cession of a Protestant, is a most grie•ous and damnable sinner. Thus farre of the Position. Now behold their

Practise.

Page  40 1. In France. Reinalds doth forewarne the French. fWill you proclaime Nauarre a Caluinist King of Fraunce? What is this else then to aduance a dogge to be Soueraigne ouer men?gShall Catholikes pray, God saue that King, whom they may not admit in∣to their houses?hFor suppose (saith Father Creswell) that he pro∣fesse to bring in a more sound Religion; what is this to the purpose? he is bound to defend the Romish faith. From France we will re∣turne home, where father Parsons busieth himselfe to disable the title of Succession of our most dread Soueraigne King Iames:* with intent to aduance the Infanta of Spaine thereun∣to. Thus much of Successors, now of Possessors.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

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

The most moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

If his Maiestie was not excommunicate by the Pope before his Election, (which you should rather call Succession) then was he vniustly (that I may so say) excommuned by the Pope before his Election: but your Superior Garnet confes∣sed, that he had receiued two Breues from the Pope, to make vse of, whensoeuer our late Queene Elizabeth should depart out of this mortalitie. The content of those Breues was this: that cNone should be acknowledged King of England, but such as was a professed and resolute Catholike: Nulli, quantâcunque sanguinis propinquitate nitantur: that is, No other, though neuer so nigh in bloud. Which Breues, he (perceiuing the generall applause of people yeelding to the right of Succession according to neare∣nesse in bloud) burnt. Thus we see if the Popes power had not bene disappointed by want of force, his Maiesty, though nea∣rest Page  42 in bloud, might not haue entred but with bloud. Now therefore what a case am I in? If I shall denie my fonner asser∣tion, then your superior Priest Garnet will accuse me for a liar; for his Maiesties case was not different from others, seeing The Pope gaue contradiction to his succession: if I still defend it, then your Priestship doth accuse me for a Slanderer of holy Priest∣hood.

The very moderate Answerer.

dBecause the Pope gaue a Iubet of all obedience, and prohibet restraint of disobedience.

The Reply.

Yea, Iubet of obedience? Iubet? what is that? Euery child can expound it literally to signifie To commaund, but by Popish Glosse may happily signifie to forbid: for we must not be igno∣rant of your like glozing in the publike Decrees of Popes. Whereas your Canon is eStatuimus, We decree: that is, (saith your Expositor) We abrogate, or disallow. Is it not as easie for you to turne Iubet, to an id est, prohibet? Howsoeuer we per∣ceiue your subiection stands still vpon the Popes Iubet, that (as it is recorded of the French) fIf he shall commaund to kill the King, you must be his subiects. Lastly, there is but one of these Authors aboue mentioned, who speaketh expresly of the ex∣communicate: and there is not one of them, but iudgeth a pu∣blike professed Protestant in the state of an gExcommunicate. To conclude therefore, be you admonished not to preiudice your modestie so much, as to taxe any for an Vniust Accuser, a∣gainst whom you can shew no iust exception. Yet there re∣maineth two other mysteries to be vnfolded, the first is yours, the second is your Superiors.

The Reply.

We might peraduenture be beholden vnto you for this di∣stinction, if we could presume you knew what you said: being guiltie herein of a double falshood, first, to thinke, That the Emperor hath no power, but from the Pope: the second, to say you thinke, That other Kings haue not any power, which is not from the Pope. The former is confuted * hereafter: the other now in this place. For your Carerius, making vnction by Ro∣mish Bishops in Coronation of Kings to be essentiall to royal∣tie, without which they be no Kings, saith: bThat this is a do∣ctrine most commonly knowne of all, that the Kings of France, En∣gland, Scotland, &c. were neuer esteemed Kings before their Vn∣ction:cNo more (saith your Parsons) in the rigor of iustice before (Popish) Coronation, then the Maior of London can be called Ma∣ior before his oath.dWhich Ʋnction whosoeuer shall refuse (saith Reinalds) can haue no right to gouerne Christians annointed in Baptisme. In briefe: eNone is lawfull King or Queene of En∣gland (saith your Cardinall) without the approbation of the See Apostolike. All grosly false: for first: fIn France (saith your Bar∣clay) Kings who are to succeed by inheritance, are iudged as con∣secrate and inaugurate before they be solemnely annointed. And shall we thinke the French Kings to exceed our English here∣i•? No, I haue heard Lawyers say, The King of England neuer dyeth. I thinke they speake not without booke; otherwise Q. Mary could neuer haue iustified her act, when she beheaded the Duke of Northumberland, some moneths before her Co∣ronation, for high treason against her royall person, I returne Page  44 to your argument. gIf the Emperor (saith your Carerius) who is held more eminent, at least in dignitie, then any King, may be reie∣cted by the Popes: then much more other Kings may be punished by the Popes authoritie. For he that can tame an Eagle, may much more command Hawkes. Here we obserue your spirits of contra∣diction: you from comparison of disparitie betweene the Em∣peror and other Kings, would seeme to free Kings, and inthral the Emperor: your Doctor Carerius from the contrarie dispa∣ritie would bring all Kings into subiection. But know, that howsoeuer now the Eagle be entangled, whom you esteeme no better then the Popes vassall, yet Non facile Accipitri rete sternitur. And that neither Emperor nor King are lawfully sub∣iect to this yoke, is afterward made manifest.

A second new deuice.

hHis Maistie is not in the case of Excommunication, as other relapsed Protestants, because he was borne in that faith which he professeth.

The Reply.

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

Their Positions.

First one of their Bishops resolueth, that aAs soone as a Christian King becomes hereticall, forthwith people are freed from subiection.

Secondly their Cardinall. bAs long as the Prince continueth excommunicate, the subiect is freed from the oath of subiection. By whom are they freed? cBy the Pope (saith the lesuit) who vpon iust cause hath iust power to absolue from oathes both him∣selfe and all others. Sometime the Prince is personallie excom∣municate, what then? dThen (saith their Lawyer) Subiects are freed from their allegiance: and all his hereticall Assistants to be rooted out, and their land to be exposed to be possessed of (Strangers) Catholikes. But how if he be not excommuni∣cate by name? yea, what though not excommunicate? eIf (saith an other) his heresie be publikely knowne, there needeth no pronunciation of the sentence of Excommunication.fSo that (saith the Iesuite) Subiects may lawfullie denie him obedience.〈1 page duplicate〉Page  44〈1 page duplicate〉Page  45Page  46 How so? gFor the euidence of the crime (saith their whole schoole) doth inferre a sentence of condemnation, because (as the more common opinion defineth) there must we vnderstand the Pope his will is to haue him excommunicate, whom vpon the know∣led•e of his fault he would excommunicate. Say, Father Creswell, is this true? hIt is certaine and of faith auouched by the vniuer∣sall voice of Schooles. Satisfie vs yet in one question more: Sup∣pose that the Protestant Prince haue a iust quarrell, what then? *No warre can be lawfullie denounced or waged by the Queene (being excommunicate by name) though otherwise in it se•fe it were most iust, because her power is vnlawfull.

The very moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

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

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

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

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

The moderate Answerer.

aFirst to Gregorie the seauenth, who, as this man vrgeth, ab∣solued all from obedience to Excommunicates: I answere for all Catholikes in generall, that this nothing concerned Protestants, neither any heretikes; but only such as he had other quarrels and contentions against.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answere.

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

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

The moderate Answerer.

cLastlie he bringeth in the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queene Elizabeth: but I answere, that many graue and learned men haue thought the information of the case of Queene Eliza∣beth to the See Apostolike, whereupon the censure of Excom∣munication was awarded against her, to haue bene vntrue: and Pius Quintus, an holie man, himselfe after bewailed the procee∣dings vpon such suggestion.

The Reply.

In this Answere (I confesse) you shew some arte, as namely, to deplore the state past, that you may more easily delude the present. Touching the first. Say, was the information a∣gainst the Queene vntrue? and did Graue men so iudge of it? Take heed what you say; This answere will more preiudice the two principall prerogatiues of that your Romish See, then you are aware of; as namely, the power of canonizing Saints, and excommunicating of Princely sinners, which both are ca∣ses reserued as proper to the Pope, and both proceeding (as you say) from the dfulnesse of Apostolike authoritie.

The truth of canonizing Saints; as for example, Thomas Becket, dependeth vpon true information: so (by your owne confession) the truth of excommunication, (as of Queene Eli∣zabeth,) must relie vpon a iust suggestion. Now then did your Pope Pius erre in excommunicating, and so in condemning * an innocent? and might he not likewise erre in canonizing an Offendor?

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

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

The Bull.

gBEcause the Queene of England hath filled her Countrie with Heretikes, oppressing the Catholikes, translating the Byshopricks of Catholike Prelates vpon Heretikes, not acknow∣ledging the Iurisdiction of the Church of Rome, but making her selfe head in all causes within her Dominions; Wee from the ful∣nesse of our Apostolicall power doe pronounce Elizabeth an He∣reticall Queene, and a fauourer of Heretikes, and denounce A∣nathema to all that shall adheere vnto her; and also depriue her Page  51 of all rule and dignitie, Absoluing all the subiects of the land, of what condition soeuer, from the oath of their Subiection, and from all manner of obedience. This is the summe of the Bull of Ex∣communication. Now heare

The Interpretation thereof.

hThis Bull after the death of Pius Quintus, was confirmed by his Successor; which the Heretikes themselues, doubting the dan∣ger of the euent, did labour (as it is said) secretly by great men to haue this sentence of Excommunication repealed: But all in vaine. The Queene was and is an Heretike.

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

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

Secondly, the horned syllogisme doth assault you the se∣cond time, thus: If the excommunication of our Queene by your Pius was iust, why was it *Bewayled? If it were vniust, why was it inot repealed? This is a second straite, either to confesse your Answere to haue bene inconsiderate, or else your Popes Bull to haue runne mad: and so it did: for *To condemne the innocent, and iustifie the vngodly both are abhomi∣nable to the Lord.

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

Lastly, your Pope Pius did Bewaile the proceedings of that Bull, and so we verily thinke, but so as your Guido Faux im∣mediatly after his apprehension, sorrowed for the proceeding of his stratageme, namely, Because it did not proceed. For (as your Interpreter complaineth) kThe Queene after that time did more grieuously afflict the Romish. Wherefore we wish the Article verified of your excommunicating Bulles, which is Page  53 vulgarly common in the like kind, viz. To haue alwaies short •ornes. This of the acts past.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

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

Secondly, the Popes Bull of obedience is so strictly com∣maunded, as alwaies limited within the crooked hookes of this Parenthesis (cRebus sic stantibus) or (dDonec vires habe∣ant) that is, (Till there be oportunitie,) or (ePro hac vice, for this Page  54 time.) Whereof our English State hath had too large expe∣rience. For to insist onely vpon the present: when the oportu∣nitie of surprizing the King, Queene, and Prince, was plotted by the Disciple of Machiauell; then the Pope hath two Priests (Watson and Clearke) to dissolue that knot of obedience: when after the oportunitie of that Sudden blow, against the whole State, had possessed the malignant; then there is presently at hand a Prouinciall and his Priest subordinates to kindle the minds of their Agents, hellishly to consume and swallow vp both obedience, and all the persons to be obeyed.

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

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

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

Page  55 You cite Bellarmine and omit this his sentence: fIt is not law∣full to suffer a King who is an Heretike, when he shall labour to draw his people to heresie. To iudge hereof whether he draw his subiects to heresie or no, is the proper office of the Pope. I suppose there is no Infidell in the world, endued with any opinion of God, but he would labor to draw his subiects to his opinion. Now then the cause of our King persisting to be a Protestant is no better then his Predecessor; for it is yeelded to the Pope both to iudge who is an Heretike, and when he shall so iudge, then, according to his Libet to send from Rome, comes a Non licet tolerare Regem. Will your modestie neuer leaue deluding vs by pretended allegations of Iesuites? as here to that purpose to giue hope of reconciliation, whereas onely by the insolen∣cie of Iesuites all such hope is debarred. As is plaine by this forecited Iesuite: for whereas that most graue and learned Cassander, honored of two Emperors for his singular learning and pietie, did teach, that gEmperors should indeuour a reco•…ion betwixt Papists and Protestants: because (saith he) Prote∣stants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, although they dissent from vs in some particular opinions. The grand Iesuite doth answer, that hThis iudgement of Cas∣sander is false: for Catholikes cannot be reconciled with Heretikes, heretically meaning Protestants.

The fift Reason.

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

Their Positions.

Costerus. aThis power (saith he) of deposing Kings of their Crownes, and Emperors of their dignities, in behalfe of the good of the Church, was alwaies peculiar to the Pope:bwho hath no lesse authoritie, as Christs Ʋicar ouer Christians, then the hireling hath ouer his beasts.cSo the Pope hath authoritie ouer the Emperor (saith Molina) because the Fmperor is but the Popes minister, and is to vse his temporall sword onely at his becke. But what if Kings will not inthrall themselues to the Popes authoritie? dIt is not lawfull for Christians (saith the Cardinall) to tolerate any King, who draweth his Subiects vnto heresie.eBut subiects ought (saith Sanders) to indeuour to set vp another in his place.fYea, they ought (saith Creswell) to expell him out of his king∣dome, as the enemie of Christ. An vndoubted doctrine among the learned, and agreable to Apostolicall truth. Yea which is more: gAlthough the Pope (saith Bannes) should tolerate an hereticall King, yet may the Commonwealth remoue him. And yet behold a greater mysterie of this iniquitie then all these: for suppose that the King deposed shall be willing to be reconciled to the Church, hYet notwithstanding (saith Simancha) he may not re∣couer his Crowne.

The moderate Answerer.

iLet vs grant this Proposition, Whosoeuer, &c.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

kNot one of these particular Authors defend violent deposing of Kings.

The Reply.

Though I know your deuotion can dispence with lying, if with an lintent to couer the leprosie of your Sect, yet me thin∣keth, your discretion might haue taught you, to vse that Art where it should not be so transparent as that any one of small reading might easily conuince you. For what? not one of your sect teach violence? First, your Frenchman mThe Nobles must de∣pose the King, as Iehu did Iezabell: there was violence. Your Par∣sons, nAs Dauid did Goliah: violence. Your Card. Allane. oMy Lords and deare Countrimen, for Gods loue fight against the Queene to depose her, as the Priests did Athalia: violence. Your Reinolds: pReuenge and roote out as Iudith did Holofernes: vio∣lence. Your Costerus: qAs an heardsman his cattell: violence. Your Bellarmine. rIt is not lawfull to suffer a King hereticall, but to expell him, as the shepheard doth a Wolfe: violence. Your Creswell. sSubiects ought to expulse such a King out of his do∣minion: violence. Your Simancha. tAs the Scythians, who mur∣thered their King: violence. Your Bannes: uThe English ought to depose their Queene by force, all which is violence. We hanc also alledged exāples of many Popes, who vsed all open vio∣lence. To which might be added Azorius, Salmeron, Bristow, Stapleton and others, all crying Adarma. And yet you say, Not one. What impudent modestie is this, to denie before the Page  58 Reader, that which none who readeth can denie: idlely con∣ceiting a power to depose without violence, (in your opinions Heretikes obstinate) that is, such as cannot be deposed with∣out violence. Your comparison of the Emperor with our King is but a shadow, which * vanisheth in this Treatise following.

Let vs now see this family of Corah.

WE will omit Henries, Frederickes, Othoes, and like Em∣perors and Kings of former times: call but to mind that which hath bene visible in our dayes, the late Henry of Fraunce, concerning whom their owne Prophet hath publi∣shed a Treatise, the scope thereof is this: aThe French haue with good conscience borne armes against K. Henry the third, and depriued him of his Crowne. Returne home, there we see a Co∣met. The Rebell Oneale is vp in armes against his Queene: the Colledge of Salamane bring pitch to quench this flame, and resolue thus: bWhatsoeuer Catholikes shall not for sake the defence of the English, and follow Oneale, doth sinne mortally, and cannot obtaine life euerlasting, except he desist. Shall we thinke that o∣ther Priests can haue more loyall spirits? Impossible, as long as they receiue their breath from that Maister, who commendeth the former Positions against the foresaid King of Fraunce. cThose Diuines (saith Pope Xistus) haue done the parts of good Lawyers, Confessors, and Doctors. His Successor (this rancor growing by Succession inueterate) Pope Pius against our late Soueraigne: dWe will and command the Subiects of England to take armes against Elizabeth their Queene.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

You contest for all Catholikes, and teach vs to answer, that this your Answer is but the writing of a priuate man: but you haue publike approbation from your Superior, & they frō ma∣ny are publikely authorized. And yet againe remember your selfe. fNot aboue foure or fiue examples (say you) can be giuen in the whole Christian world, for the space of 1500. yeares of Popes of Rome, who haue translated titles to depose Princes. Well then you grant fiue; your Bellarmine doth vrge gSeuen, as from pu∣blike Records: a notable contradiction. You But foure or fiue, willing to substract, as one ashamed of the number of your Fa∣thers of Rebellions: but he alledgeth Seauen or eight, desirous to multiply, to make the pride of Romish Prelacie more glo∣rious. Whether But seauen, or But foure, what can this auaile for answer? As much as a fellon accustomed to steale, he ca∣reth not how many horses: yet indited for seauen, shall answer, I had but foure or fiue: which commendeth the want of that he would, not his will to want. Pope hPaulus teruus did ex∣communicate Henry the 8. King of England, commaunding his Nobles to beare armes against him. Your Pope Pius Quintus, now alledged, Did excommunicate Queene Elizabeth, dissol∣uing all her subiects from their obedience. And yet he that is The King of Kings, maintained their Scepters, not to suffer them to be deposed by those Popes, notwithstanding their good wils were manifested by their acts, their acts condemned by the euents, which examples none can denie but were publike. You further adde.

The moderate Answerer.

iBut his Maiesties case is different, except this Discouerer will inrolle him in the number of Excommunicate, which is most iniu∣rious to his Highnesse: for who seeth not that the Queene was Excommunicate?

The Reply.

Why iniurious? what euill can ensue? for you seeme by this Answer to portend some mischiefe, if it should happen his Ma∣iestie should be excommunicate: say, what euill? is it spirituall, as onely to be excommunicate by the Pope? Why, this is no∣thing, because your Tolet saith truly, kAn vniust Excommu∣nication (such as we know the Popish is) doth not endanger the soule. Is it bodily? belike his Maiestie shall find you a good Subiect, howsoeuer (your spirituall being accompanied with violence in this his different case) you teach his highnesse to prouide a corporall preuention, lest (as in the defect of our lawe sometime it happened, that a man might haue bene out-lawed, and not haue knowne of it, and so subiected to the ex∣tremitie of that lawe) your Excommunication of Bulla Coenae vpon your Maundie Thursday by some *Guido be closely exe∣cuted before his Maiestie be aware.

The sixt Reason.

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

They professe all, that it is lawfull to take armes against their Kings, as we haue proued: from whence we may argue against them, as he against a seditious one, *Quis sensus armorum? what other meaning can armes haue but onely bloud? But not Page  61 to dispute from our suppositions, but their Positions, by these degrees. First, the french defence saith, that Anie man may lawfullie murtheraTyrant: which I defend (saith he) by common consent. Now bIt is euident (saith our Reinolds) That euerie Heretike Prince is most proper lie and perfectlie a Tyrant: which is supposed by the Spanish Iesuite, speaking of this point, That if (saith he) they may be bereaued of their liues, then much more of their liuings and Crownes. And, which is the height of furie, dHereticall Kings (saith Simancha) de∣serue more grieuous punishment then priuate men: therefore the Scythians (as he well deserued) did put to death their King Scylen, for violating their Bacchanals. Scythia a most barba∣rous Nation is the fittest glasse that these Priests can finde to looke their faces in. Well, shew vs then your Scythian and heathenish practises: But first, let vs heare your answere to these positions. *

The very moderate Answerer.

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

Reply.

Nay, that honorable Treasurer was not second to any in his Page  62 time, so worthie a Counsellor both for policie and sound Reli∣gion, that you may be thought vnworthie to commend him: whose wisedome as it was most excellent, so euen in this question will proue as sufficient to display your fellie. For his most commendable Treatise, of the Execution of English iustice, did defend the proceedings of the Queenes Maiestie; whom for the same iustice your Pope did (if our Lord Treasurer in his singular wisedome knew iustice) vniustlie excommunicate. Yet he then commended many graue and learned Bishops and Clarkes on your side for their faithfull subiection. What though they then in the Orient of her Maiesties dayes were faithfull? (peraduenture because they then wanted force) yet after, toward the Sunne-set of her years were otherwise affe∣cted. This the Reason of that honorable and sage Counsel∣lor doth shew, bringing the examples of the former more moderate Romish Clarks by comparison to condemne the insolencie of the later brood. This you modestly conceale: But father Creswell will deale plainely, who speaking to the Lord Burleigh (whom for honor sake I often mention) hath these words: fIf you by sedition (saith the Iesuite) vnderstand that whereof Christ spake, saying, (an holie text wickedly per∣uerted) [I came not to send peace into the world, but the sword,] which you (indeed) do so vnderstand; I confesse that we Priests both are and alwayes will be seditious. Now then the question will be, whether your moderate, or his impudent answere be more dangerous.

The moderate Answerer.

gThe sentencer discursseth, as though armes had no other mea∣ning but blood. But against Catholikes, who knowe both offensiue and 〈◊〉 fensiue warre, this mans bloodie iudgement can giue no deadly wound.

The Reply.

Neither was your Sentencer ignorant of that distinction, which he learned long since from the very Heathen, who Page  63 were illuminated with this truth, saying, that hAgainst Kings we may vse a shield, but not a sword. But it was spoken accor∣ding to the meaning of your Authors applying it to them, who both by position and practises haue giuen sufficient tokens that their armes were most cruelly and cursedly offen∣siue, which agreeth with your positions, as the discourse fol∣lowing will demonstrate. Yet againe you insist.

The moderate Answerer.

iThe Discouerer bringeth the Author de Iusta Abdicat. to say of Henry the third, that it is an act honest to kill a Tyrant. Well then, King Iames by his iudgement is a Tyrant: otherwise both he and the Author be iudges against himselfe, for that Writer ex∣presly nameth a Tyrant.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

dFor practise in this point, he onely alledgeth three authorities, besides this vnhappie Stratageme.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

eIt is knowne that Arnoldus was an enemie to the Societie, con∣futed by Montanus: and Gallo-Belgicus is not without his hyper∣bolicall locutions.

The Reply.

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

The most moderate Answerer.

fI answer concerning Priests most maligned in this matter, that the Canon lawe it selfe is to the contrarie: that neither Bishops nor any Clearkes may take armes either by their owne authoritie or by the authoritie of the Pope of Rome: and reasons be added there, au∣thorized bygGregorie the 13. alledged against vs in this Trea∣tise. And therefore all of that Order are absolutely freed from that iealousie, and may answer with Saint Ambrose against Au∣xentius, saying for his defence: My teares are mine armour, for such are the defence of Priests; otherwise I neither ought nor can resist.

The Reply.

The force of your Answer is this: There is a Canon con∣trarie to them that shall say, Priests may take armes: Ergo,Page  66 Priests haue no Positions contrarie to the Canon; or else is not your Order freed from all iealousie in this point. It will be therefore first materiall to shew the doctrine of your Priests concerning this militarie discipline of Priests. Was not the Ie∣suite and Author of the Booke, De iusta Abdicat. a Priest? and yet he admonisheth hPriests to be the first of them that for∣sake the Oppressor of Religion, imitating Elias zeale, when he killed the false Prophets. Was not your Reinolds a Priest? and yet he would perswade iThat holymen, euen Priests may resist by force Kings oppressing Religion, whensoeuer oportunitie will serue: and that dying in such a quarrell they are not to be accomp∣ted Traitors, but Martyrs, not deseruing punishment of God here∣in: but, as the souldiers of Christ, an eternall reward in heauen. Adding further, kAs the Priests of Greece resisting their Empe∣rours, (* A presumption absolutely false) by force of armes, thought it not a sinne of treason, but rather iudged it an hainous crime not to resist. Your Cardinall Allane was a Priest, and yet he wickedly and falsely defendeth, that lThe auncient Bi∣shops might haue excommunicated Arian Emperours, and haue defended themselues against them by force, but they did not (saith he) by reason of the greater forces of the Persecutors. This An∣swer he calleth A true and modest defence of English Catho∣tholikes: which in his Admonition•e indeuoureth to proue from the example of Gods Priest mAgainst Athalia. And againe, in behalfe of the Pope, whome you esteeme as High Priest, he saith: nIn truth if it be lawfull for the Pope to occupie his forces, which God hath giuen him, against the Heathen; much more may he employ them against those, whom he accompteth Re∣bels against the Catholike Church, which be properly vnder his correction. Yet all this is nothing to the resolution of your San∣ders Page  67 a Priest also: oIt belongeth vnto Bishops (saith he) both to pronounce the King an Heretike, and the Subiects, freed from their obedience, ought to indeuour to place another instantly in his throne: but if the Subiects shall faile in this their dutie, then it is the office of Pastors (Priests) to prouide (Kings must looke to the Priests mixed Chalices, perfumed gloues, priuie sheaths) by what means soeuer, that such a King raigne not in the Church of God.

Againe, who was it that would haue killed the now pKing of Fraunce with a knife? was he not a Nouice deuoted to be a Priest? And he that killed your last King Henry the third, I meane your Monke Clemens, had he no affinitie with a Priest? Such an one was that qMonke, who poisoned Iohn King of England. And who (I pray you) did commend and magnifie that your Clemens his desperate exploite? You know who, Pope Xistus Quintus your high Priest. A fact also highly commended by your French Iesuite, (sure one of your Priest∣hood) saying, rThat he is worthie to bee esteemed another Ahod, who killed Aeglon the Moabite; yea more forcible then Ahod, for he (the Monke) stabbed the King through the guttes: so that we need not now to wonder at former histories, where we reade how Iudith killed Holofernes; Dauid, Goliah; Samson a thousand men with the iawbone of an Asse, this act is farre more maruellous. These be thy Priests, O Babylon: who boasting falsely of a real vnbloudie sacrifice of Christ to be offered to God: Now in la∣ter times by rebellions haue offered sacrifice to their Moloch the man of Rome in bloud.

Secondly, to this your consequent, Therefore all of this Or∣der are absolutely freed from iealousie of Rebellion. As though in warre onely the figh•ing souldiers were enemies: doth not Reason in the Apologue teach you the contrarie? For there *The Trumpeter that gaue the Alarme to excite men to warre, Page  68 was taken of his enemies: and to free himselfe, O good Sirs, (saith he) kill not me, for I would neuer haue slaine any of you: alas, you see I haue no weapon, the onely instrument I possesse is this trumpet: to whome they answered:〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, therefore thou shalt rather die, because, when thou canst not fight thy selfe, yet doest thou incite and encourage others to fight. Your Order will make the morall: for in Fraunce your Reinolds did sound his trumpet for the battell thus: sAll that we haue spoken are to this end, to perswade Generals, Captaines, and all Ecclesiasticall men, who follow the battell, that these are the warres of the Lord. Hearken another trumpet sounding so loude, that it is heard from Rome into Ireland, the Pope (a Priest) tPromising his blessing to Tyrone and all his adherents, who should fight for the Catholike cause against their Queene. And another in the same Ireland of the Colledge of Priests in uSalamane, resounding Benediction of the same Pope to encourage the O•eale in the same warres. Listen yet againe, and you shall heare another terrible sound in England for the ioyning with the Spanish Armado, in that their expected inuasion Anno 1588. Cardinall Allane (a Priest) xNow therefore Lords, Nobles, and deare Countrimen for the honor of Knighthood fight. And lest we should be too deafe in sense, not to heare, or dull in heart, not to beleeue, that Priests secular were interested in these affaires: Parsons a Priest doth proclaime against the Seculars, (who would seeme herein to be onely excusable) saying, yWas not Doctor Storie, Doctor Lewis secular Doctors, who are knowne principally to haue furthered the action of Sir Thomas Stukesl•y for Ireland? were not Ballard, Gifford, and Gartly secular Priests? And of all Priests in generall. rThis holy sedition, (if you call it so) which is to send warre into the world, I confesse our Priests do and will teach. These are the phrases of Baals Priests, except it be that those launced themselues, these let others bloud. These are their a∣larmes against Protestants, neither can we reade of any one of note among them, who by publike writing did euer sound a Page  69 retraite. A question materiall: for if Popes were not pleased with all these abouenamed Positions and practises, shew vs where euer he did condemne seditious Priests. Can you then apply the sentence of holy Ambrose to this order? Is this to pray for vs, and not to prey altogether vpon vs? Wherein also I cannot but maruell at your modestie, who bring in an old Canon, teaching not to fight, to the end you may cloake their shame who openly professe they must fight: which is to couer a bald head with a Chrystall glasse. There is yet another point you would satisfie.

The moderate Answerer.

zLastly, he addeth the late vnhappie Stratageme and conspira∣cie against the house of Parliament: but I trust that all Priests will be innocent in so vile a practise against our present Soueraigne.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The Minor proued by their Positions practicall.

The famous Cardinall and publike Reader in Rome saith, aMany Popes haue iustly deposed many Princes. Our Count•i∣man bCard. Alane,cReinolds,dParsons, inciting subiects to armes against their Prince, do perswade by examples merely rebellious, as resisting of K. Iohn, of Edward the se∣cond, of Richard the second, of Henry the sixt, as presidents to be followed. The Author of the booke of eDeposing Henry King of Fraunce, doth sing a Gaudeamus for his death. And a∣gaine, Allane approueth the perfidious rendring vp fDouen∣tore, and encourageth the English Mal-contents to ioyne their Page  72 forces with the gSpanish inuasion. So the Colledge of the Ie∣suites at Salamane approued the insurrection of *Tyrone. And do not the most of that sort canonize in their conceits all such Popish ones, as haue bene executed for treasons?

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The very moderate Answerer.

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

The Replie.

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

But Popes (you will say) did formerly depose Emperors: as though from a case de facto, that is, of an act of deposing, you would conclude a case ex iure, that is, inferre a right to depose. This would be a welcome plea to malefactors of all kinds, and in this kind not a little preiudice your Popes: because Bel∣larmine Page  73 being vrged with examples of many kEmperors who did iudge and depose Popes; doth returne this answer: These Em∣perors indeed, did so, but by what right let them shew. So we dri∣uing out one naile with another, oppose acts to acts, and say; But by what right Popes haue vnthronized Emperors let vs know? For we shall hereafter shew, that they had from God no such authoritie. Where is now your moderation to require of vs acknowledgement of iust causes of Popes acts, who (you know) proue that no cause can iustifie such proceedings? If you yet insist, and vrge to know the causes, why Popes did so insult vpon Emperors, moderate your appetite a while, till we come to the confutation: where I doubt not but you will at least satisfie your selfe, if not surfet. For the interim, it will con∣tent the Reader to vnderstand that which your Barckley pro∣ueth, namely, lThat in true historie it cannot be found, that euer heresie was a cause of abrogating the authoritie of Emperors.

The moderate Answerer.

mHe accuseth Cardinall Allane for approuing of the rendring vp of Douentore vnto the hands of the King of Spaine the true ow∣ner: by which he condemneth himselfe to be within the compasse of his owne conclusion of Rebellion: for all the world can witnesse, that towne truly to belong to that King.

The Reply.

Was the King of Spaine the true owner? Who are you, I pray you, that can thus define? if you will be a true Diuine, then learne from our Sauiour, [*Who made me a Iudge ouer you to diuide inheritances among you?] If you will be (according to your State-style) a Statesman to iustifie that the King of Spaine was then the true owner of Do•entore, and for confirma∣tion call all the world to witnesse; we shall not greatly maruell at this in you, being of the Order of them, who would make that King the Monarch of all the world. How the case might stand I may be lawfully ignorant, excepting onely, that howsoeuer Sir William Stanley, being no subiect to either parties, but Page  74 onely a substitute to the States, and subiect to his Queene, from whose command he had receiued that charge, he is ther∣in intolerably perfidious: for if the right were doubtfull, then it is a conclusion, which your Iesuite cannot denie, but that nWhen the souldiers shall doubt whether the warre (and so the possession he holdeth) which his Prince maketh be lawfull: in all such doubts he ought to obey his Prince, for euen to obey doth re∣moue the doubt.

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

Lastly, for the States in this point, suppose their getting of Deuentore were vniust, yet another Iesuite (though I should condemne it) would defend their possession, who in like case thus resolueth: oAdmit (saith he) that it was a great sinne for the Spaniards to vsurpe the Kingdomes and possessions of the In∣dian people: yet can they not (* O Confessors!) now be restored; for to whom and how can this be performed? nay though it could, yet will not the danger of decay of (O Religion!) Religion permit re∣stitution. Yet there remaineth another example to be satisfied of you, which is this.

An example of a notable Patron of high Treason.

hXIstus Quintus maketh a publike Oratiō in his Consisto∣rie of Cardinals: the subiect matter he sheweth is this: iThe King of France is slaine by the hand of a Monke. And what of this? kThis (saith he) is a notable, rare, and memorable act. But why? lBecause he slue not (saith he) a King painted in paper, or grauen in stone, but the King of Fraunce in the middest of his hoast. Is it a wonder any should wonder that a Monke could murther a mortall King; seeing Popish histories do record, that mPope Hadrian being guiltie of the like seditious practise against the Emperor Henry the second, was choaked with a Flie? Nay, but if the Monke had killed a painted Image, that had bene an act farremore memorable, and lesse intolerable: notwithstanding no fact is good, because great; but therefore great, because good. Say then what is to be thought of the worthinesse of the fact? nIt was a fact done by the admirable prouidence, will, and succour of Almightie God. How? by Gods will counselling and approuing it? oHoly Iudith is famous (saith he) for the slaying of Holophernes, which she did not without the suggestion of Gods Spi∣rit.pBut this religious man hath done a farre more maruellous worke. O maruellous Relgio•! Yet so it is in this sinne of par∣ricide, where A Monke doth murther a King. The best word the Pope affoordeth the murdred is, qAn vnhappie King, and one perishing in his sinne. The worst he doth bestow vpon the mur∣therer, is: rReligious man. And thus in not condemning, but Page  76 rather commending, one Traitor, he hath made vp two. Last∣ly, this Henry (a note very materiall) was a Papist; onely he fauoured the Protestants, and especially Prince Nauarre (be∣cause a Protestant) excommunicate. By this Pope this was his crime, vpon which ensued, This fact (to paraphrase truly of the Popes words) rare for the attempt; not able for the wicked∣nesse; memorable for the shame of the Sect.

The moderate And most modest Answerer. The Reply.

What nothing? not one word in behalfe of Pope Sixtus? Sixtus; who aFirst did confirme the league in France for the vtter destruction of Protestants? Sixtus; who Did excommunicate (in that name) the King Nauarre and Prince of Condie? Neither onely them, but expresly bAll Lutherans and Caluinists: pro∣claiming a cIubilie and indulgence for all in Fraunce who should pray for the successe of the Leaguers against the Protestants? One to whom you ascribe power of absoluing you from all your sinnes, and yet not one syllable to free him from the suspition of (but one sinne) patronizing a most brutish parricide? Could you not answer that his speech was onely an admiration and no approbation; or that he did declaime onely and not deter∣mine; taking vpon him the person of an Orator, and not of a Pastor; or that he spake as a priuate Doctor, and not as a Pope? Nay, all such answers (you know) had bene friuolous, for he vseth examples of commendation, arguments of asseue∣ration, and the Oration was not pronounced in his priuate closet, but in the publike Consistorie and Conuent of his Car∣dinals. And therefore herein onely you haue giuen vs a token of your extraordinarie modestie, who not finding one ragge Page  77 to couer your Fathers shamefull nakednesse, you shut your eyes, as loth to behold it. God grant you grace truly to detest it. But we find (as in all Societies) in your Synagogue men of diuers foreheads. For the * Pope and his * Acolythus do extoll the Monke for an Excellent instrument of God: whom your Lawyer doth decipher to be a dWicked, faithlesse Monke, •nd a most hateful monster. He depresseth that King as One most im∣pious and sacrilegious; whome your Lawyers vpon better intel∣ligence, do commend (if this be a commendation) eAs one that was too deuout and religious. But you (as it becometh a moderate Answerer) answer nothing; and thus in saying nothing bewray what you would, or rather, what you would not say.

Their Positions. The Discouerie.

Bannes maintaineth this as a necessarie Parenthesis: aSub∣iects before sentence of Excommunication (if they haue sufficient force) may then depose their King. This Father Creswell addeth as a war•e caution: bLet subiects take heed (saith he) that they haue competent strength in such a case: otherwise it may preiudice Page  78 the Catholike cause. And lest any taking an Antidote against their poyson, should obiect the condition of the Church of Christ primitiue, and of the glorious Christians of those times, who intended not killing of Kings the enemies of the Gospel; but to be willingly killed for the profession of the holy faith: marke with what vntemperate morter those men daube vp the consciences of Christians, cThen (saith the French De∣fence) the Christians did onely suffer, because the Church was not yet perfect, and because their enemies were more in number. A∣gaine, dIt is commendable to suffer when thou canst not resist. Which is the last miserable refuge of their desperate cause. Whereunto notwithstanding their grand-Cardinall is glad to betake himselfe. eI answer (saith he) that Christians in auncient times did not beare armes and seeke to depose Emperors and Kings, enemies to the Catholike faith; because they wanted power. Wher∣by the now Romish faith doth seeke to make wicked men ex∣cusable. fBy this second conclusion (saith Bannes) the English Ca∣tholikes, who now do not take armes against the Protestants, are excused, because they want sufficient power. Hence we may per∣ceiue, that as long as Protestants liue safe, they must acknow∣ledge themselues beholden to the Popish faction, because they haue no power to hurt them: otherwise they may heare of them before they can see them, peraduenture in such a man∣ner, as to *Receiue a terrible blow, and yet not know who did them the hurt. Yea, they must perish, for gChristian people (saith Creswell) are bound in conscience and hazard of their soules, to resist whensoeuer they can make resistance.

The moderate Answerer.

hTo the first Proposition I say, Concedo.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The Discouerie.

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

The moderate Answerer.

cI answer, that Cardinall Alane, better acquainted with these affaires then any Protestant Writer, relateth the Popes declaration Page  81 for Catholike obedience to Queene Elizabeth, without any re∣straint or limitation: neither doth this man discouer where he fin∣deth any such restricting clause.

The Reply.

It seemeth you are not acquainted with Cardinall Alane: shall he be brought to auerre a Commission of subiection without restraint of, [Rebus sic stantibus, the case so standing:] who, Rebus sic non stantibus, Anno 1588 raised English Recusants against the Queene, prouoking them to * fight? I did not indeed dis∣couer where I find any such restraining clause. Here is one onely little clause, Rebus sic stantibus, that wanteth the Author; and I must be suspected for a coyner: you in all your Answers scarce alledge the expresse sentence of any one, and yet challenge credit. Such are the times which are fallen vpon vs, and the oddes which by mens wilfull infatuation, you haue obtained. But I must produce my Author, for your pleasure: whō though I perswade you, yet (a grieuous case) will you not be perswa∣ded. Notwithstanding hearken to your Father Creswel, who telleth you that, dThat moderation concerning obedience vnto the Queene, was comprised within. these lists, [For the present state and condition of things.] Here your clause and your expectation is satisfied: I pray you satisfie me in the next example.

The very moderate and modest Answerer.

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

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

aIn his Maior Proposition the Discouerer must needs make some exceptions: or else, &c.

The Reply.

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

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

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

Their Positions and Practises.

When as it is demanded of Priests (a necessarie Article in ciuill States) what if the Pope should autorize the Queenes Page  83 subiects to rebell, or other forraine Princes to inuade her Realme; whether they would take part with the Queene or her enemies? First, they dislike this Interrogatorie. Alane calleth it aAn vnlawfull, vnnaturall, & intolerable search of mens conscien∣ces. This kind of examination which Princes make for preser∣uation of the liues of themselues and subiects, Creswell tear∣meth bƲniust and bloudie demaunds. And these questions Sta∣pleton nameth cCaptious questions, wicked, and full of all impious subtiltie. As though Samson were bound to put his head in Dalilahs* lappe. Nay but their answer sheweth that this Inter∣rogatorie was as necessarily inuented, as it is wickedly impu∣gned: for this being an inbred law of *Nature, to studie for a selfe-preseruation; these men call vniust and vnnaturall: but how senslesly let the very heathen iudge, *Theeues watch to mur∣ther, doest thou not awake to saue thy selfe?

Now secondly, their delaying. When the question is vrged, whether, if the Pope or any of his appointment should inuade the land; which part they would take: then they shift footing, and some (as our Gouernors haue obserued) haue answered: I will then take counsell when the case shall happen: others, I will answer then and not before: others, I am not yet resolued: lastly, I shal then do as God shall put in my mind. As though these masks were large enough to shadow their faces: which their Creswell hath alreadie discouered, saying that dIf by the Popes command the warre should be vndertaken, to the end of restoring Religion, then (to answer) that he is bound in Conscience to hold with the Romish. This man speaketh without Parables: make then but a pretence of Religion, and farewell subiection.

The moderate Answerer.

eThere is none bound generally to euery oath: for as the lawe of nature, and his Maiestie, with Bishops and Nobles, in the last Con∣ference taught: if the Article either touched the parties life, liber∣tie, or scandall, he may refuse to sweare.

The Reply.

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

The very moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

You haue reason to refuse the examination of men, lest they (vnderstanding your trechery) might preuent their owne dan∣ger: I dare say, there is no malefactor in the world bent to any mischiefe, but he is of your mind. But you are deceiued; the question is not absolutely de futuris, that is, of things to come, as if your debtor promiseth to repay you this debt, may he not answer he will pay it? The act of payment hath respect to the time to come, but the will to pay it, it is an internall and pre∣sent act, and a resolution of the mind, which no perfect man can be ignorant of in himselfe. Nemo nescit se velle quod vult: No man can be ignorant of his owne will. And this is that present will, which by his outward messenger, the tongue, he doth thorow a corporal oath manifest to man, what it doth resolue. Else why are leagues betwixt Princes, contracts betweene man and man, consent of wedlocke, holy vow in Baptisme to God: are not all these visible acts, symbols, and signes of in∣ward will? Acts (I say) de futuris of things to come, as namely, of fidelitie, loyaltie, sanctitie hereafter to be performed? O∣therwise how is it, that you dare contest gFor all Catholikes, not Page  85 to refuse an oath of allegeance according to the iust proceeding of law? promising in your selfe, that other shall take an oath of alle∣geance and obedience to his Maiestie, A thing (except you meane they will not take the oath) hereafter to be done. Wherfore when you are about to make an answer, take foorth this l•slon of true moderation; It is better to hold your peace, then say no∣thing.

Their Position in the Mator.

aWhen any Iudge (saith one) shall demaund an oath vniustly, then may the examinate sweare by an equiuocation: as for exam∣ple: being thus demanded; Whether didst thou that fact or no? he (though he did it) may answer, I did it not; vnderstanding secretly in his mind, at this time; or, I did it not, meaning, to tell you: or some such like euasion. If you desire to know the Author, it is Cardinall Tolet; if his authoritie, bVasques the Iesuite sheweth he had a speciall priuiledge from Pope Gregorie the 13. wri∣ting thus vnto him; We so approue of your singular learning, that we hold it vnmeet that your bookes should be subiected to the cen∣sure of others.

Now their Assumption in this case of our English iustice, cōcerning examination of Priests is: cThe Officers of the Queen of England (saith Martin) cannot challenge Answers and oathes iud••iously, because an hereticall Queene is no Queene. Vpon this sand is builded that which they conclude, namely, Alane, Parsons, Gregorie Martin, that dIf a Priest shall vpon suspition Page  86 chance to be asked either in any hauen, or else where concerning his ancient name, his countrie, kindred, or friends; he may denie all. And againe: eWhen a Priest is conuented before a Iudge, after the oath taken, concerning such questions, he may answer by the fore∣said Equiuocation: because these that aske this oath, are not to be accompted Iudges, but Tyrants. Which point of Equiuocation (saith *Parsons) is not onely to be allowed by all Diuines, but iudged ne∣cessarie also in some cases for auoiding lying and other inconuenien∣ces. This man, we see, (as if he would driue out Satan by Satan) teacheth by lying how a man may auoide a lie. This is the ge∣nerall doctrine of their * Schoole, more then heathenish: for among Pagans this was a Decree of Conscience: fCraft in an oath doth not lessen but strengthen periurie.

Now the Practise.

The practise of this deuice of Equiuocation in Priests hath bene found to haue bene common of late, by experience of Magistrates. It may be thought to haue crept out of Saint Fran∣cis sleeues. For gHe (as Nauarre writeth) being asked which way the murtherer did flie; putting his hands into his sleeues, answered, he went not that way, meaning, through his sleeues.

The moderate Answerer.

hFor Tolet among the Iesuites I cite another Iesuite, famous a∣mong the Casuists,*Emanuel Sà, who writeth, that some are of a∣nother opinion, and peraduenture with better reason.

The Reply.

If you oppose the persons of these Authors, there is (in the opinion of a Iesuite) no comparison; if their opinions, there is scarce any opposition. For their persons: Tolet was lately a Page  87 Cardinall, iBut to recken a most reuerend Cardinall (speaking of Baronius) among the Iesuites, (saith a Iesuite) is as if a fond Astronomer should number Arcturus among the lesser Starres. Examine now their opinions, Tolet saith: This kind of Equiuo∣cation is lawfull; Iesuite Sà saith, There is more probable reason to the contrarie. These may seeme contrarie to men of syn•eritie, but among these speakers, in their practicall iudgement, there is no contradiction: for they haue another winding in this their Labyrinth, that kMany times the lesse probable opinion is to be followed. So then as yet we haue but an Eele by the tayle. Againe, to determine against so damnable a doctrine onely in these termes, More probable; yea and peraduenture more pro∣bable: I say, to doubt of such a Protestant and orthodoxall truth, is doubtlesse to denie it. But of this hereafter. How will you therefore excuse your selues?

The moderate Answerer.

lFor our excuse in this place and question Catholikes do gene∣rally agree, that to equiuocate before a competent Iudge (such as we allow all Magistrates in England to be in temporall causes in as * ample manner, as if they were of our Religion, keeping order of lawe) is a mortall sinne: as it is defined by Thomas, Nauarre, and others.

The Reply.

This excuse will make you more inexcusable, because I shall proue that by your dissembling parenthesis you do but cloake your liars. Are all Magistrates in England reputed of your Equiuocators competent Iudges? So you answer, but false∣ly, both against your ordinarie Thesis and practise: For in your Positions your now-cited Author Nauarre (I omit Thomas, as one not acquainted with our English affaires) saith, that, mIt is lawfull for a Catholike (except it be in question concerning his faith) to equiuocate (speaking expresly of English Magistrates) before Heretikes. Your Reinolds was by birth English, by baine Romish, and telleth vs plainely, that Page  88nAll people must be instructed thus to reason, (speaking of the King of France when he was a Protestant) This man is an He∣retike, therefore hath no authoritie ouer vs. Your Parsons, En∣glish by nature, though now translated into Romish, com∣mending your Southwel, oThis point of Equiuocation M. South∣well (saith he) defended (before English Protestant Iudges) at the barre. The booke intituled, Resolution of English cases, by Alane and Parsons, resolueth thus: pWhen (say they) any is brought before those Magistrates to be examined, they may an∣swer by Equiuocation: because they being Tyrants do not examine iuridically. This was then in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth: but now in the raigne of our Soueraigne King Iames, it may be the case is different. Nay now also hath your Arch▪ priest authorized the booke in defence of Equiuocation in behalfe of Catholikes (the words of the title) before a Magistrate: spea∣king professedly of our present English State: and the present practise both of Priests and their Disciples is (alas!) so ordina∣rie, that the daily experience of their equiuocating lying is readie for this your answer to giue you the lye. I will not trou∣ble my memorie with multitude of examples, which diuers Magistrates haue reported: I will onely be contented with two, proued the last day in the Arraignment of Garnet the Ie∣suite your Superior.

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

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

To conclude, I must now (my moderate Answerer) neces∣sarily racke you: but (feare not) onely by that Logicall instru∣ment, which is therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: thus: you would per∣swade vs that Priests thinke our Protestant Magistrates compe∣tent, before whom you may not vse Equiuocation: your Su∣perior, by whome (if you be a Iesuite) this your booke was priuiledged, did both by practise and position more then al∣low the vse of Equiuocation the last day, euen in a most hono∣rable presence. Now therefore if your booke was not priui∣ledged by Garnet, then this inscription of your booke, *[With licence of Superior] is vntrue: if you say he did priuiledge it, then this excuse for all your Priests, saying: [We allow Magistrates in England co• petent, before whome we may not equiuocate,] (Gar∣net gaine▪ saying it) is likewise vntrue.

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

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

The third abuse of Oathes is in dissoluing them.

THat though they take an oath of allegeance in cases tem∣porall, yet their common interpretation is still with re∣spect of their more supreme head. *During the will of the Pope, who (say they) hath power to free both himself and others from the bond of an oath. Which is their old glosse, saying, that aThe case is so to be interpreted, namely, except the Pope shall release him from his oath: because in euery oath the authoritie of a Supe∣rior must be excepted.

The moderate Answerer.

bThere must needes be some exception of lawfull oathes, else Page  91 whatsoeuer wickednesse is sworne must be performed: as that of the Iewes against Saint Paule; and of Herod against the Baptist.

The Replie.

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

The Discouerie. Practise.

Their practise we haue shewed in the former Reasons: we may here adde a more auncient example. cA Canonist (saith a Iesuite) did inueigh against Pope Gregorie the 12. who in the time of a great schisme did openly and solemnely sweare, that if he were made Pope, he would giue it ouer againe: but being elected, he performed nothing lesse. The Canonist, doubtlesse, wanted not a Canon to condemne this perlurie, though the Iesuite vpon presumption of iusta causa doth defend it. For the cause was in∣different, whether to giue ouer his Popedome, or to keepe it: but the oath of indifferent matters doth inferre a iustice in per∣formance, and condemne the not performance of periurie. Who also in the same Volume holdeth their generall position saying, dOther mens oathes may be dissolued by the Pope. So that when the Pope shall send but his Bull of freeing our English, the bond of their oath will proue as strong as the knot of a Bul rush.

The moderate Answerer.

eBut to speake vnto this Obiector concerning Protestants pro∣ceeding Page  92 in equiuocating.

The Reply.

But first, men should be so modest as to couer their owne bald pates, * before they note others of like imperfections.

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

In this your protestation by these words, It is damnable to vse Equiuocation before them iudging, iuridicè, iustly and accor∣ding to lawe, I doubt much that you your selfe vse some damna∣ble Equiuocation: for what is (I pray you) iuridicè, iustly? may you Priests take a corporall oath before a ciuill Magistrate whomsoeuer? this is against your owne Decrees. gA Priest (saith your Iesuite) may not take an oath before any ciuill Magi∣strate, though the Bishop should ••cence him thereunto.

Secondly, call to mind the forme of our English oath, To acknowledge no forraine power either of any King or Prelate to haue any preheminence ouer our Soueraigne (to insist onely vpon this branch) in causes temporall, either directly or indirectly. Say now, will you be sworne to this or no? If you shall say, you will not, take heed, then shall you be a Preuaricator, denying that which you wold seeme before to defend. If you say, you wold, which all yours say, *you may not, then are you (whom you would seeme not to be) a damnable Equiuocator.

The Confirmation.

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

The moderate Answerer.

fHis tenth Reason is no new Reason, but an Epilogus of the former. But I answer, that the Catholike Students neither of En∣glandn•r of any other Nation are bound to defend their Masters reading, but in matters of faith and generall receiued doctrine.

The Reply.

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

The moderate Answerer.

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

The Reply.

Yet they acknowledge obedience, as a due thing, hThough not in the bond of precept, yet of perfection. And I thinke your vowes do arrogate perfection.

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

The moderate Answerer.

iAnd yet there is not any one sentence alledged from any of them or any other Catholike, which in his true sence will bring any pre∣indice to our most holy innocent cause: as I haue demonstrated.

The Reply.

In his true sence, say you? Why? by what reason can you challenge my sence of vntruth? kBecause the authorities be fals∣ly applyed. Why so? lBecause this particular Reason, whereupon, as 〈◊〉 most certaine foundation, his arguments are built, is this, Pro∣testants are by vs accounted Heretikes and excommunicate; which is most false. O, this then is the onely cause you can pretend, but seeing * it is confirmed by impregnable demonstrations frō Popes and all Popish Authors, that Protestants by all Papists (though heretically) are esteemed as Heretikes: it will demon∣strati•ely follow, that all the authorities I alledged are rightly applyed, and all the crudities of your indigested answer suffi∣ciently dissolued. Whether therefore that doctrine, whereby detestable lying, vnder the shadow of Equiuocation, is autho∣rized for truth; where desperate Rebellion is aduanced in the pretence of Religion; where most barbarous massacres of Chri∣stian people, and monstrous murthers of Kings and Princes are magnified as glorious Stratagemes, be preindiciall to the ho∣linesse of any cause. I dare call heauen, earth, yea and hell also to witnesse between vs. Thus I leaue you as persons conuicted of high Treason, (God grant you grace of repentance) and now I proceed to pleade the cause of Protestants generally impeached by you as persons guiltie of the same crime.