Anti-Coton, or, A Refutation of Cottons letter declaratorie lately directed to the Queene Regent, for the apologizing of the Iesuites doctrine, touching the killing of kings : a booke, in which it is proued that the Iesuites are guiltie, and were the authors of the late execrable parricide, committed vpon the person of the French King, Henry the Fourth, of happie memorie : to which is added, a Supplication of the Vniuersitie of Paris, for the preuenting of the Iesuites opening their schooles among them, in which their king-killing doctrine is also notably discouered, and confuted / both translated out of the French, by G.H. ; together with the translators animaduersions vpon Cottons letter.

CHAP. IIII.

An Examination of the declaratory Letter of Peter Cotton.

FIrst of all, I say, that this Letter being ex∣torted (as it is) by necessitie, comes out of season, and doth not preuent the euill, but comes after it: for it should haue beene written against Mariana when hee first peeped forth, and when the late King intreated Father Cotton to write against it.

I say further, it is vtterly vnknowne to vs whether he speakes in earnest: in his Letter, or whether accor∣ding to the doctrine of his Order, he vseth Equiuoca∣tion, and suppresseth the one halfe of his meaning: or if he speakes in good earnest, who seeth not that his companions are not of his opinion, sith none of them hath subscribed his Booke, nor approued it? which yet had been most requisite in a matter so publike and of such importance.

Againe the authoritie of so many Iesuites condem∣ning the murthering of Kings, is alledged by him in vaine: for all such passages of the Iesuites are vnder∣stood of Kings whom the Pope and Iesuites acknow∣ledge for Kings: But wee haue made it cleere in the former Chapters by the authoritie of a great many Iesuites, and by their actions, that when the Iesuites

do attempt vpon the life of any King, they make good their action by this, that such a one they doe not reckon to be a King, albeit he beares the name, in as much as he is excommunicated, or because hee is an enemie vnto the Church: and in very deed this wret∣ched Rauillac, alledged this for the cause of his at∣tempt, to wit, because the King would make war against the Popr, and that the Pope was God, and by consequence, that the King would make warre against God.

And therefore the reuerend Abbot of Boyse, hath well obserued in his answere to Father Cotton, that whereas Gregorie of Valence, Iesuite, saith; It is no way permitted for a man to attempt vpon the life of his Prince, albeit he abuse his authority; yet he addes, If it be not done by publique iudgement. Now all the Ie∣suites maintaine that the iudgement of the Generall of their Order is a publique iudgement, and whereon they must rest (themselues,) as on the voyce of Christ, as wee haue shewed before; wee hold also the iudge∣ment of the Pope to be a publike iudgement.

Againe we haue formerly obserued that the Apo∣logie of Eudemon-Iohannes the Iesuite, approued by their Generall Aquauiua, and of three Doctors•• of the Iesuites, affirmes that Iesuites doe no way approue the murthering of Kings, notwithstanding they loue the euent: so that it serues to no purpose for Father Cot∣ton to condemne him that murthered the King, if ne∣uerthelesse he be glad for the euent, that is to say, for the death of the King.

And in very deede, it is a fraudulent protestati∣on that hee makes of approuing the decree of the

Councell of Constance, where they condemne the proposition of Iohn Petit, and declare that it is not lawfull for a subiect to kill a Tyrant: for the Iesuites haue their euasion ready, and which is a truth, name∣ly, that the Councell of Constance speaketh of such Tyrants as are lawfull Kings, and that they speake not of Tyrants deposed by publike iudgement, and whose Subiects are discharged and absolued of their oath of allegiance by the Pope, nor of Kings who are iudged enemies vnto the Church. For if the Iesuites shall vndertake to make away a King, they will easily finde (out) some reason (or other) to proue that he is no King at all, and by consequence that (herein) they doe nothing against the Councell of Constance, nor against those places which Father Cotton alledged out of the writings of the Iesuites.

That which Father Cotton addes, that this was the singular opinion of Mariana, and not of all their Or∣der, hath beene disproued in the first Chapter, by the approbation of a great many Iesuites, whose names are in the front of Marianaes Booke, and by the bookes of sundry Iesuites, who affirme the same that Mariana doth; yea, they commend him, and maintaine him: and the Iesuite Cotton (himselfe) doth so tenderly condemne him, that in his reprehensions of him, hee doth rather seeme to flatter him.

As for that pretended decision, which hee would make vs belieue to haue beene made in a prouinciall congregation of the Iesuites, wherein Mariana was condemned by them: this seemes to mee, to marre their Market, ••ith they haue concealed this decision

hitherto,) and would haue no man know it. Did they feare to make French-men too well affected towards the preseruation of the King? or did they feare to giue offence to the Iesuites of Spaine, by publishing their condemnation of Mariana? Out of doubt it will be found that either any such decision was neuer made, or if it were, it was a matter of (mere) Equiuocation, and ambiguous (construction)

And this will be more easily belieued when a man shall come neare, and obserue the Iesuites confession in this matter, which Father Cotton hath reduced to fifteene heads or Articles, which are nothing but in∣foldings of words, and which declare the Iesuites be∣liefe in such points whereof no man askes them any question: for behold, (these are the points) where∣on wee would expect to heare the Confession of their Faith.

I. Whether when the Superiour of the Iesuites shall command them to vndertake against the King, they ought to obey him.

II. Whether the Pope can discharge Subiects of their oath of allegiance made vnto their King.

III. Whether a King being deposed by the Pope, and excommunicated, is neuerthelesse a King, and whether the Subiects are bound, neuerthelesse to performe obedience to him in things temporall after excommunication.

IIII. Whether in case some good Catholique shall discouer vnto a Iesuite in Confession his purpose to kill the King, the Iesuite ought to reueale this Con∣fession, or conceale it.

V. Whether the Pope can giue and take away kingdomes, and at his pleasure transferre them: name∣ly, whether the Iesuites do approue that Canon which ••aith, that the Pope may take off the Crowne from a Kings head, albeit he be without blame.

VI. Whether Kings are aboue Clarkes: that is to say, whether the King hath authoritie ouer their goods, and ouer their liues, as much as ouer his other Subiects.

VII. Whether faith giuen to the enemies of the Church be to be kept.

VIII. Whether a Iesuite being accused of Trea∣son, and kept prisoner thereupon, may lawfully vse Equiuocations in his answere.

IX. Whether to slay a mans enemies, it be lawfull for him to kill his friends.

X. Whether the rebellion of a Cleargie man a∣gainst the King be high treason.

XI. Whether a man can hate him that murthe∣reth a King, and yet be glad for the euent.

XII. Whether Garnet & Oldcorne are Martyres: and whether Guignard were iustly condemned to death.

These are the points, whereon all honest Catho∣liques desire the Iesuites might be catechised, and that it would please the Queene Regent, and my Lords the Princes of the bloud, the Officers of the Crowne, and Lords of the Counsaile, to commaund Father Cot∣ton, and his companions to write their mindes cleare∣ly, and to set forth their Confession, to the end these new impressions which enfeeble the authoritie of

our Kings, and hazard their liues, might be razed out of (the mindes of) the people, in stead of giuing vs articles which touch not the matter, and which (withall) are carried in obscure and doubtfull termes, like vnto the sword of Delphos, which cuts on both sides.

The first Article is this: All Iesuites (saith hee) in generall and in particular, are ready to seale euen with their owne bloud, that they haue not either in this mat∣ter or other, any other Faith, doctrine and opinion, then that of the Church of Rome. Herein he speakes a∣gainst his conscience: for if all Iesuites in particular are agreed in euery thing, it followes that Cotton and Mariana doe agree together, and that Cotton doth not well to condemne him. Whereas he saith, that all the Iesuites are ready to subscribe, that in this matter they haue no other beliefe then the vniuersall Church hath. I answere, that the Iesuites may easily subscribe to any thing that a man would haue them, sith they haue their retention, and secre•• conditions, which they reserue in their mindes: but I am well assured that the vniuersall Church will not subscribe to any of those abhominable positions of the Iesuites, which we haue formerly alledged out of their Bookes, much lesse will it approue their actions.

His second Article is: That amongst all kindes of gouernments and administrations of Common-wealths a Monarchie is the best. To what purpose is this? It is not necessarie that they who esteeme a Monarchie to be better then a Democratie, for this cause, must make scruple to destroy Kings: or that they who desire••

to kill the King, must haue an intention to change the forme of Gouernment; but only they desire another King, because he that liues mislikes them.

The third Article sauours altogether of the Iesuites veyne, and of their termes, for therein is nothing but Equiuocations, and mentall reseruations. It saith, That such as is the spirituall Gouernment of the Church, which relyes on the Vicar of Iesus Christ, the Succ••ssour of S. Peter: such is the temporall of the State and King∣dome of Fraunce, that it determines in the person of the King, our Soueraigne Lord and Maister. There is no∣thing spoken to the full in this, but with much dissi∣mulation: for hee dares not affirme that the King is as simply absolute in his Kingdome, as the Pope in the Church: for the Iesuites alone maintaine that the Pope can depose Kings; but they do not maintain that Kings may depose Popes: they hold that Popes can discharge Subiects of their obedience vnto Kings; but they do not hold that Kings can dispense with Christi∣ans touching their obedience vnto Popes: They hold that the Popes power reacheth vnto the temporalties of Kings, either directly as some say, or indirectly as others say; but they doe not belieue that Kings haue any power either directly or indirectly, ouer the spiri∣tualties or temporalties of Popes: they hold that there are many persons in Fraunce who are not lyable to tryall before the Kings Iudges; but they do not hold, there is any man within th•• territories of S. Peter who is not triable before the Officers of his holinesse: they hold that the Pope can leuie money and rents vpon the Ecclesiasticall reuenewes of the Kingdome of

Fraunce; but they doe not holde that the Kings of Fraunce can leuie any mony vpon the persons nor vp∣on the lands of Italy, which are of the Patrimonie of S. Peter.

For it is not credible that Father Cotton will op∣pose himselfe against Cardinal Bellarmine the Iesuite, all the Iesuites now adayes being his Disciples and Schollers, who in his fift Booke, De Pontifice Romano, and sixt Chapter, writes thus: The Pope may change kingdomes, take them from one▪ and bestow them on ano∣ther, as the supreme Prince spirituall, and when he shall finde it necessarie for the saluation of soules▪ Of whom also we haue formerly learned that Kings are not a∣boue Clarks. The same (Authour) in the second Chapter of his Booke, Of the exemption of the Clergie, cals all Kings and Princes ingenerall, Prophane men: And he holds in diuers places, that the power of secular Princes, is but an humane institution, and is onely the worke of men. Albeit the Apostle in the thirteenth to the Romanes, saith; That there is no power but of God, and the powers that be, are ordained of God. And therefore it is no part of the Iesuites beliefe, to account Kings to be Kings in such sort, as the Pope is the head of the Church, seeing they are not Kings but by humane institution: but the Pope is head of the Vniuersall Church by the institution of God. In a word, Cotton speakes but with halfe a mouth, and by that which hee saith, it is impossible to apprehend what he beleeueth. And the same may be said of his other Articles.

The last Article is a recrimination of those of the

pretended reformed Religion, sundry of whose Books he saith are infected with this opinion, that it is law∣full for a Subiect to make away his King. After this he addes; I could note and specifie the places, alledge their words, were it not much better that they should remaine swallowed vp of the gulfe of forgetfulnesse. Oh what matter of triumph here doth he giue vnto our aduer∣saries? whose saying will be, that if Father Cotton had knowne those places, hee would not haue failed to bring them to light, and it had beene good to name the bookes, that they might be suppressed, and the Authors punished if they were liuing.

Now hereupon I haue been moued in the humor of curiosity to cleare my selfe: and enquiring of some of the contrary Religion, men not vnlearned, they haue answered mee, that indeede the Councell of Constance in the eight Session, makes an enumeration of Wickliffes Heresies, and amongst other things ac∣cuseth him for being of opinion, that no m••n is a Mai∣ster or Lord in ciuill things, during his continuance in mortall sinne. Againe, that people may at their plea∣sure correct Princes that are faulty. And that Bucha∣nan an Historian and Scottish Poet, in his Booke, De iure Regni apud Scotes, speaketh (indeed) of hand∣ling Kings roughly, and driuing them out, when they become Tyrants. But the Councell of Constance slandereth Wickliffe, not onely in this point, but also in diuers others: that this is no where to bee found throughout his writings: and that he was not present to answere for himselfe: that after the same slande∣rous maner, the same Councell chargeth him to haue

said, that God must•• obey the Diuell: that Buchanan was no Diuine: that amongst their Doctors there are in∣deed found some free speeches against Kings that per∣secute their Churches, so farre as to say, that not∣withstanding their wicked wils, they will not giue ouer to aduance the worke of God, and such like. But not so much as any one word is to be found of aduise to kill Kings, nor so much as any one precept of rebellion. That Luther writ indeed against King Henry the eight of England, in most contemptuous sort and indiscreet termes: but that Luther was none of his Subiect, and that he neuer spake of killing Kings, nor of rebelling against their Soueraigne, and therefore that these ex∣amples are not to purpose.

This I say, not that I rest satisfied with these iusti∣fications, I leaue them as they are, but to stirre vp Fa∣ther Cotton to speake more plainly vnto this point, for feare least our aduersaries should say, that they are accused without proofe, and without shewing where∣fore.

That which remaines of Father Cottons declarato∣rie Letter, is onely a declamatorie discourse, wherein he talkes of Otacoustes, Prosagogides, and Quadrupla∣tors: words that had giuen vs the stop, had they been put in the entrance (of his discourse.) For these are words too hard for vs, that know no other Latine then that of Ac••ursius, and that busie our selues to proue as good French-men, as the Iesuites are good Spaniards.

Notes

• These are the very words of the interroga∣tori••.
• Qui•• dicere au∣deat ius e••••e pro∣fano ••n ea quae sancta sanctarū, id est, sanctissi∣ma dici merue∣runt?
• Artic. 15. Nul∣lus est Dominus dum est in pecca∣to mortali, & Artic. 17. Popu∣lares possunt ad arbitrium suum dominos delin∣quentes corr••∣gere.