it This argument I urge no further than to evince in their justification that their unwillingness to swear is no evidence to prove their want of allegiance or any backwardness to lay down their lives and fortunes in his Majesties service For the practical part of the Subjects allegiance is that which only concerns the security of a Prince which all Catholicks will gladly swear unto Therefore I hope a true and real tenderness of Conscience which can have no ill consequence with it in relation to his Majesties safety will give no offence to them that are over them nor be a motive to hold a rigorous hand upon them Especially seeing these threescores years since the Oath was first established it hath been refused by Catholicks to be taken upon the score of Conscience though universally taken by others of any dignity conferred upon them in Church or State Yet no Catholick in England of any note or quality that all this time did act contrary to their allegiance sworn unto in the Oath On the other side I could wish it were as difficult to name those amongst the takers of the Oath who have so fatally broken them half the Kingdome being in rebellion contrary to what they had sworn to the ruine of the best King and the best man which perhaps this Nation had ever cause to glory in As for the Oath of Supremacy Luther Calvin Knox Gilby all pretended Reformers disliked it Calvin in his Commentary on Osee saith who advanced Hen. 8. to such a height did not well for they no less than blasphemed when they called him Supream Head under Christ Chemnitius a learned Lutheran in his Epist ad eloc. Briard of Queen Eliz. Supremacy saith quod foeminae a saeculis inaudito fastu se papissam caput Ecclesiae facit So Gilby in Admonit ad Angl. Our Cartwright also teacheth against Supremacy So do Presbyterians generally here and beyond Sea Henry the eighth once acknowledged the Supremacy more than ever any King did as appeared by Cardinal Campeius and Wolsey Legates he being called before them After his will being not executed made the Oath against Supremacy This Oath of Supremacy as it is worded and according to the sense of the first Lawgiver cannot lawfully be taken by any Christian or assembly without contradicting his belief understanding it Grammatically according to the proper and natural sense of the words at least ambiguous if not formally contradictory or the cause or reason of framing this Oath by Hen. 8. and what power was exercised by virtue of it and of the Parliament enjoining it appears to be a jurisdiction purely spiritual was communicated to him and assumed by him It s evident also by the many practises it was only a spiritual by-title of Supremacy he sought for to deprive the Pope for he stood in need of such a power to justifie his divorce and dispense with his intention of taking Ecclesiastical livings of Abbies Monasteries into his hands The Protection in King Edward the sixth continued the Oath to make new Church-Laws Institutions and commit new Sacriledges changes ubique arti contrary to which King Heâ— 8. published and declared Queen Mary renounces this jurisdiction and restores it to the Church Queen Elizabeth re-assumes it having a greater necessity for it then her Brother because her marriage was declared null by the Pope This Oath consists of two parts the affirmative as that the King is only Supream Head as well in Temporal as Spiritual c. Secondly the Negative that no Prince Prelate c. hath any jurisdiction or spiritual Power c. This Negative part of the Oath is contrary to a point of their Faith wherein not only all spiritual authority of the Pope but of a general Council or Western Church is disclaimed Is all jurisdiction purely spiritual only in the Kings right are Princes Pastors of Souls hath not a Heathen King the same spiritual right How could King James then call the Pope Patriarch of the West or how can a free general Council oblige Christians and to which learned Protestants profess to submit to as the chiefest authority under God And although in Queen Elizabeths time the Oaths were explicated that only civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical was intended yet this negative clause cannot be by such expositions eluded Secondly An Oath to Catholicks and tender Consciences is so dreadful that they dare not call God to witness they sincerely swear the Pope ought not to have any Superiority in spiritual causes unless it might be permitted them at the same time and the same breath to signifie that it is intended of civil and Kingly authority in causes Ecclesiastical They tremble to swear at words ambiguous but formally contradictory Thirdly In the thirty nine Artticles of the Church of England it is defined that the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Kingdome and these Articles are confirmed by Act of Parliament Whereby it appears their intention is to require a renuntiation of a Catholick point of Faith and the Popes being Head of the Western Church This Act being made since the said exposition The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance if the former were so expressed as to require an acknowledgement of a civil Supremacy in his Majesty and Ecclesiastical to the Church-Governours and if the unfortunate word Heretical and speculative points were left out of the other no Catholick would refuse either And more then this no Protestant Presbyterian c. that freely take them can intend by them an Oath being in it self a religious affirmation with Gods Seal Whosoever takes these Oaths absolutely must swear to take Almighty God to witness as he shall answer at the dreadful day of Judgment that he believes the Pope hath no Power c. now this word believe being in a matter of Religion and Profession of the same can signifie nothing but a Christian belief or Faith and imports thus much I N. N. do swear in the presence of Almighty God that the Pope hath no Power c. As I believe there is a God in Heaven or any other Article of Faith all this is virtually and really comprehended in the word believe Now what man of Conscience of what Opinion soever that feareth an Oath to use the Preachers words Eccles 9. 2. will venture his Soul so far as to swear all this are we all of us so certain that no forraign jurisdiction c. or that its Heretical c. as we are certain there is a God Heaven Hell c. and so make it a part of and Article of our Belief when it is not expresly nor plainly revealed in Scripture or declared by the Church and so not fundamental to our Belief or absolutely necessary to our Salvation If you say it may be obscurely delivered in Scripture then at least the unlearned cannot be able to discover it How then shall such dare to swear as in effect they do when they take the Oaths that
Treasure so noble of birth so fortunate in Wars zealous in Religion who builded so many Hospitals founded so many Monasteries enacted such wholsome Laws and Statutes got so many Victories in Fâ—ance c. even to Palestine it Self all professed Roman Catholicks Secundo It deserves one observation that when Christianity became the ruling Religion of the World under the great Constantine and Emperours his immediate Successors the very Heathens themselves were exempt from all manner of severity upon the score of their Religion Because they were in possession of it by discent from Father to Son and not by usurpation or intrusion And we have the like president in our own Country For when King Ethelbert had embraced the Christian Faith by the preaching of Saint Austin he would not force his own Subjects though Pagans to receive it Bedâ— l. 1. c. 260. For this reason it was that the great Apostles treated the Synagogue whose Religion at that time was vacuated and consequently void of Truth with so much respect and condescendency and that afterwards the most primitive Fathers used so often this expression that the Synagogue ought to be buried with honour Whence one of our Protestant Divines saith even by the Law of Seniority Catholicks might exspect some favour For what priviledges or immunities have we but the old Church gave us whence had we our Bible Creed Honors Donations commendable Ceremonies charitable Foundations had not they preserved them faithfully we never had found them The first possession of a man is a good title by the Law of Nature until an elder or the Law of Reason which with mankind is to have pre-eminence dispossesses it The Roman Church had a possession unquestionable for above a thousand years and the Pope enjoyed jurisdiction a longer time than any succession of Princes can pretend to and submitted to by all our Ancestors In Catholick Religion they stand as defenders others as invaders they as possessors others as disseisors they seek to keep what de jure they had Calvin and others what they had not There is a vast difference in these two Cases to oppose by force the introducement of innovations and to attempt by force the extinguishment of an ancient Religion of which the People are universally in a quiet and immemorial possession The one drives others out of possession the other maintains himself the one invades his neighbours rights the other defends his own Apostacy and innovation with some colour of right have been oft in several ages persecuted by rigour of Laws even by Protestants and the reason is because innovation in Religion most commonly breeds disturbance in the Common-wealth Natural reason teaches that no particular man is to be condemned much less deprived of what he stands possessed till his cause be judiciously heard and sentenced Nor ought any man to be Judg in his own Cause But penal Laws and Oaths made in contempt and derogation of that Religion which through all Christendom abounds with learning civility and loyalty whose Doctrin amongst the primitive greatest and most learned societies hath been and is avouched in most Nations and Kingdoms allowed and more freely exercised and permitted established by the Laws in which our Predecessors were born and continued wherein all our Progenitors all the Peers Ecclesiast Nobles and Princes of our Realm in precedent ages thought themselves happy and honourable If they had imagined that in future times their Posterity would revile that Religion with Epithets unbeseeming humane much less Christian Ears what an opinion would they have preconceived of us It was said by King James one of the most learned Princes not in private but in open Parliament represented I acknowlege the Roman Church to be our Mother Church although defiled with infirmities and corruptions Is it not then a kind of Spiritual Parracide in the Daughter not only to revile the Mother or which is worse scratch her by the Face call her Whore Superstitious Idolatrous c. on whose Knees you have been dandled nourished by her Breasts and carried in her Womb Hear O you Heavens and give ear O earth I have nourished and brought up Children and they have rebelled against me Isa 1. 2. Let it be allowed some corruptions be of our aged Mother this should be no warrant for cruelty but rather a motive of compassion especially considering that by confession of all her adversaries those pretended failings are of no modern date but such as they are now such likewise they were when first Christianity was received by English-men under King Ethelbert The Church of England who Glory in their succession of Bishops and in this is singular from other Reformers acknowledge they immediately derive their true and lawful Ordination and mission and from whom their first Mininistry viz. Cranmer Baker c. were Consecrated and consequently that the Roman Church conveyed divine right and authority from Christ to them the very essence and being of Religion Which Church notwithstanding they call Antichristian Idolatrous c. abusing tender Consciences sâ—â—press that which themselves confess to be divine Truth condemn as Trayâ—â—rs and persecute to death with pâ—â—munire loss of fortunes c. those from whom such Apostolical Graces and Functions proceed and were continued and preserved If our succession from the Roman be the glory of the English Church it s our scorn and ignominy to persecute and revile them Tertio Penal Laws and Statutes against the Catholick Religion destroyes the ground and foundation of Justice and the form Judicature Because the Witness can have no evidence for their Testimony the Judges not any for their sentence and the Legislator as little for the Law Primo There must be evidence of lawful Witnesses In matters of Faith we go by hearing Rom. 10. The best evidence then of any Religion is the testimony of our deceased Predecessors and Ancestry whose Faith and Doctrine is fresh in the memories and testimonies of the Christian posterity of the present Church For besides the Authority of the present Church we can have no greater evidence in foro externo for the Law of God and Religion then the testimony of precedent ages confirmed with supernatural Signs v. g. the fourteenth Age delivered to the fifteenth the Roman Faith which now they profess assuring them that it was the true sense and Letter of Scripture which they had learned from the thirteenth age and so forward to the Apostles No reformers can produce one lawful Witness against Catholick Religion and their sense of Scripture yet the Greatest Crimes require at least one lawful Witness For what evidence had the first Reformers to oppose the testimony of all former Ages confirmed with so many miracles and to make Statutes against the known practiced Religion at least for nine hundred years Antiquity affords them none because though in diverse Ages some odd men did testifie sometimes an errour they were in those very times contradicted by the Church and declared impostors and innovators In this
disloyalty from them that have freely taken them and none in Catholicks that have refused For the Oaths by none more readily taken and earnestly imposed on others than by those who began the Wars and promoted the Covenant and on the contrary by none more scrupled and refused than by those who always assisted the King ¶ Thirdly it may be objected as lately by Doctor Denton c. That Papists suffer not for Religion but because they are not obedient to the Laws c. Resp 1. By a Proviso of the Act 25 and 27. of Eliz. if any Priest committed shall submit to the Laws and take the Oaths they shall be freed from the penalty and not adjudged Traytors if they renounce their Religion Resp 2. Suppose that in the Apostles time a Law had been made by any King or Emperour of a contrary Religion to them that if any of the said Apostles or Priests should enter into their Dominions to preach a contrary Doctrine to to the Religion there received and to exercise any of their Apostolical or Priestly Functions it should be treason and under pain of death Would or could the Apostles have obeyed those Laws or did they obey the Governours of the Jews their lawful Superiours when they commanded them to preach no more in the name of Jesus Christ or to disperse Christian Doctrine which they held for Treason or did they fly out of their Dominions lest their sufferings should be imputed to disobedience and not for the name of Christ Is there not another blood to be respected called by the Prophet the blood of the Soul whereof the Pastor shall be guilty if he fly for fear or forsake his flock in time of danger and persecution Have not the English Priests the same Obligation of Conscience to help their Country-men in spiritual necessities as had the Apostles and Apostolick men to strangers for whose help they were content to offer their lives and incur any danger whatsoever ¶ Fourthly It may be demanded why cannot Papists come to our Churches Resp Unity and Vniformity are two things one being internal the other external therefore if they should conform yet they can have no verity faith or truth but as forced by which Religion is never better'd Truth and falshood are like the clay in Nebuchadonosors Image they may cleave but they will never incorporate Christ's Coat had no seam though the Churches vesture was of divers colours whence a learned Father saith in veste varietas sit scissura non sit The true God hath this attribute that he is a jealous God and therefore his worship and religion will endure no mixture or partner ¶ Fifthly To say or object the Popes Supremacy is dangerous This reflects not only upon the honour of Catholicks but the safety of all the Professors of it They acknowledg the Pope as Successor to Saint Peter is head of the Church and hath supream Authority in matters spiritual but how this can be offensive to the Temporalities of Princes is not understood by me nor those great Monarchs that are of his Church and submit to his authority and and yet are zealous and jealous of their own power and temporal Regalities as any Princes can possible be Our graver and more learned Divines distinguish between the inward power of the Keys and the outward jurisdiction by temporal penalties this they assign to the King in all causes and over all persons that they reserve to the Clergy as neither derived from or dependent of the Civil Magistrate And if I rightly understand the Religion of the English Church although they allow the King to be supream Governour of their Church yet they do not confer any Pastoral Office or Jurisdiction upon him and consequently he is one of the Flock and therefore as such he is subject to Pastors Wherefore if this be not looked on by Protestants as derogatory to the Kings authority I hope by the same reason Roman Catholicks will not be found guilty for owning the Popes Supreamacy in matters meerly spiritual There can be no just fear or jealousie that spiritual jurisdiction should supplant secular obedience because the Church-Discipline in it self is so innocent and passive We our selves acknowledg a spiritual authority in the Bishops promise a Canonical obedience to them and not to the King admit Jurisdiction in their spiritual Courts c. nay the Presbyterians in their Consistory and ecclesiastical Courts will allow the King no authority at all more than the meanest Subject and so do other Sects Now if a Subject v. g. the Bishop of Canterbury may be supream in Spirituals without any derogation to the Prince may not the Pope with less danger and inconvenience be truely called as King James did the Patriarch or Superintendent of the West For if that power be purely spiritual being of a different nature as is said before it cannot in the least degree be prejudicial to the Kings civil power but rather oblige those that acknowledg it faithfully to obey the King Therefore it ought to be no obstacle to Toleration otherwise no Christians or Sect whatsoever ought to be tolerated for let them be Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists c. do not they depend upon and own a power distinct from his Majesties Civil Power I mean a Power meerly spiritual or pastoral not subordinate to the King but to which the King himself if he be of your Religion ought to be subject as no Pastor but a Sheep no Teacher but a Hearer no Administer of Sacraments but a Receiver Such a Power all Sects and Religions seem to own no Catholick depends on or can own more The spirituall Primacy of the chief Pastor preserves peace and unity and is a greater defence to them than many Armies in subduing their minds to civil obedience without such a spiritual authority there is no influence on the people all preaching and Laws are but shaking Bulwarks to support Monarchy No Kingdom hath been more happy at home or glorious abroad than when the Pope was their spirituall Father When such a Primacy purely spiritual was acknowledged in England the Church here was never torn in pieces with Schismes nor poisoned with Heresies the honour and safety of our Dominions were far from being prejudiced or invaded It is denied then the owning Supremacy should worse their condition shall notions convince experience when a demonstration it self often gives way to practice Let 's summon the Kings of Europe of Catholick Profession to decide the contrary unanimously and proclaim their people are not rebellious by reason of any ecclesiastical dependance abroad Roman Catholicks did ever renounce any temporal power or jurisdiction belonging to the Pope over any Subject of his Majesties But since there is a Power purely spiritual as is shewed before from which Princes are not exempted Is it not more for their temporal security that the spiritual power should reside in one single person that usually is both learned and discreet and withal is a thousand
persons to swear to them but only to subscribe to them as theological truths And Stilling p. 153. saith men are herein to judg for themselves according to the Scripture because saith he ' every one is boâ—nd to take ' care of his Soul and all things that tend thereto Now if there be no absolute assent required to the 39 Articles of the Church of England as to matters of Faith as arâ—â—â—Arâ—â—â—bishop Laâ—d Bramhal Chillingworth Fulk Stâ—llingfleet c. confess do not we take hard measures of Romanists to force them â—â—â— renunciation of their positive points revealed by literal texts of Scripture Gods holy spirit residing in general Councils confirmed by much reason and authority of all persons and ages to put any abuses and reproaches upon them because they do not conform to our negative points not de fide CAP. XI Answereth more particularly all other vulgar objections and aspersions so confidently though erroneously cast upon them IN the sequent Pages I judge it little to the purpose to observe any order by Chapters or Sections Seeing these usual imputations hang together like the Tails of Sampsons Foxes being by their Antagonists urged against them with more bitterness and spleen then sincerity or verity I will therefore refer the Reply to the Censure of all judicious and honest-minded Souls how weakly and uncharitably these objections are taken up how inconclusive is the inference from them and how unreasonably they are continued and urged against peaceable people to an abusive credulity and delusion of many other sober Christians ¶ I will take the first Objection and Answer from a Divine of the Church of England Their Adversaries object saith he against the Papists as Tertullus and the Jews did against Saint Paul Act. 2. Papists are Pestilent fellows stirrers up of the People factious turbulent seditious will not conform nor are well affected to the present constitutions of power and publick affairs Against this calumny which with much cunning and eagerness is every where by some levelled against them And it is like to the policy of Julian the Apostate who to ensnare the Christians set the Statues of the Emperors with the Idols of the Gods that if Christians did civil reverence as to the Emperors they should be defamed as Idolaters if not they should be accused as despisers of the Emperors To this sharp and poysoned arrow I shall only oppose the Shield of plain dealing that in a matter so much concerning the satisfaction of others and Papists civil safety there may be no such obscurities as may harbour any jealousies The humble peaceable and discreet carriage of them may justly plead for favour and protection against this calumny of proneness to sedition faction or illegal disturbance in civil affairs who even in all the unhappy troubles of the late years have generally behaved themselves as shewed they had no other design than to live a quiet life in all godliness and honesty c. ¶ Next may be objected that Papists scruple to take the OATHS of ALLEGIANCE and SUPREMACY I answer as for the Oath of Allegiance were it not for some incommodious expressions nothing pertaining to the substance or design of the Oath it would generally be admitted There is nothing in the Oath of Allegiance which purely concerns the practical part of Allegiance but what Catholicks will most willingly swear unto But they that attentively consider the several parts of that Oath shall find that some of them are speculative points and general others practical and particular which relate to the actions and demeanour of him that swears of which he is Master and consequently can answer for them To all the propositions of this second sort relating to the practice of allegiance there is no Catholick in England but will swear unto them But as to the first sort therein contained which involve speculative points and general notions and withall controverted by several learned men I must confess I think it would be very hard to excuse such an Oath from rashness and ambiguity I humbly therefore intreat the Reader to consider An Oath is by which God is invoked as a witness to what we affirm Three Conditions are required to it expressed by the Eccl. 9. 2. Prophet jurabis mihi in aequitate veritate judicio justitia Thou shalt swear in truth judgment and justice So that if an Oath be ambiguous or false it wants the first condition viz. truth if used rashly without discretion good advice and not of just necessity it will be destitute of judgment 3. It must be sincere and conform to the eternal Law of God lest it want justice So that it is a breach of solemn Oaths if they be ambiguous entangled or contradicting one another c. Now when we come to swear in general to the speculative points of the Popes Power in deposing Princes excommunicated and authorizing one Prince to invade another c. although we suppose the assertion to be true that the Pope hath no such Power Yet how can they with a safe Conscience swear point blanck thereunto It being a matter of fact nor in our power to make true or false Secondly they cannot swear that position of the Popes deposing power is absolutely Heretical because the contrary is not evident in Scripture nor condemned by the Church Any other ill names oâ— epithets they will be content to give it Thirdly In doing so they seem to profess a Declaration of a point of Faith which a particular Christian cannot presume to do and make himself a judg and decider of a point of Faith Fourthly They would then by Oath testifie that all Popes that have exercised and all Writers that have written or maintained such a power even in some extraordinary cases and emergencies are to be esteemed Hereticks which is very rash for any particular to presume There is a great difference in swearing that I believe such a thing to be true and swearing absolutely such a thing is true in the first I swear only to my own Opinion which any that is so perswaded may lawfully do In the second I positively swear to the Truth of the thing And to do this the greatest probability in the world is not sufficient to warrant me for the greatest probability doth not amount to an absolute certainty without which an Oath is rash Papists refuse the Oath of Allegiance as 't is now worded framed by one PERKINS an Apostate Jesuit purposely mingled with uncertain speculative points ambiguous and difficult to be interpreted to make them fall within the Law of refusal charged with expressions not pertinent to the substance or intention of the Oath or relating truly to the obedience of the King nor King James ever intended to intangle the Consciences of his Subjects if he had foreseen a few unnecessary words and expressions rendred it so Nor would Catholicks as to Allegiance if an Oath were worded a hundred times more strong than this make the least scruple of
well of her as the Dutchess of Sommerset to Sir John Cheeke to Sir Edward Mountague Lord chief Justice who had subscribed and counselled her disinheriting to Sir Roger Cholmey to the Marqness of Northampton to the Lord Robert Dudley to Sir Henry Dudley to Sir Henry Gates c. who stood attainted and the Duke of Suffolke all obnoxious to her Justice she knew very well neither affected her Religion nor Title they being her prisoners in the Tower she released them all But for all this the Zealots of her time would not be quieted they libel against the Government of Women they pick quarrels and murmur at her Marriage they publish invectives and scurrilous Pamphlets against Religion yet forbear not to plot and conspire her deprivation Goodman writ a pernitious Book to have her put to death William Thomas a Gospeller conspires to Out of Fox his Martyrs kill the Queen and when hanged said he died for his Country Stow in Queen Mary p. 1056. On the contrary in Queen Elizabeths time although Catholicks then were the chief Ministers in Church and State and might have used indirect means against her she being of a contrary Religion and not of so clear a Title yet Catholick Bishops who set the Crown upon her head are commended by Holinshed a Prot. Hist ann Eliz. 26. pag. 1358 1360. for peaceable quiet Bishops and the Catholick temporal Lords there by him recorded to be far from opposing themselves against her interest as they are said there to offer her Majesty in her defence to impugne and resist any â—orreign force though it should come from the Pope himself Insomuch that they are commended by Holinshed for loyalty and obedience And Stow testifies how diligent Catholicks were to offer their service in that great action 88. neither were they altogether refused by her Majesty How the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Chancellour of England Doctor Heath a Catholick Bishop instead of inveighing against her or casting forth of Libels as Cranmer did against Q. Mary her entrance and Government made a publick oration in her behalf to perswade the people to obedience and to acknowledg her power and authority Holin ib. 1170. whence the said Archbishops faithfulness was left to commendation also by Protestant Bishop Goodman in his Catalogue of Bishops How all Catholick Lords and Bishops repaired to London to proclaim her Queen who not long after turned them out of several Offices and Bishopricks Holinshed p. 1171. To use Cambdens own words and phrase the world stood Cambdens Britann p. 163. amazed and England groaned at it what would flesh and blood move him to was it not strange in the beginning to behold Abbies destroyed Bishopricks gelded Chaunteries Hospitals Colledges turned to profaneness change of Liturgies Rites c. to see people renounce their pious vows such unexpected alterations it being a pitiful thing as Stow saith to hear the Lamentations in the Country for religious Houses Stâ—w p. 964. Notwithstanding the loyalty and obedience of Catholicks towards her appeared undeniable in all things not only in their humble petitions but by their constant and general conformity unto her temporal Government in 88. and by their Protestations made at Ely 1588. as by other offers made to the Lord North the Queens Lieutenant there and by their just actions afterwards by their submission as to the Lords of the Privy Council and profession of all due acknowledgment to her Majesty notwithstanding the Sentence of Excommunication Whence the Author of Execution of English Justice acknowledges their obedience and loyalty to Elizabeth in a time when they wanted no matter of complaint Any man of candour and integrity may easily convince the vulgar error the unevenness of Queen Elizabeths nature and severity to that of Queen Marys Queen Elizabeth made new Laws against Catholicks and put them to death for not embracing a new heresie which has been condemned to the fire here and in all other Christian Countries She embrued her hands in the blood royal of Mary Stewart lawful Heir to the Crown put to death many noble persons by their blood to colour her Supremacy raised up upstarts Hereticks from nothing annihilated the antient Nobility and Gentry c. to use a Protest Historiographers words the bloody practices of Queen Eliz. if not so barbarous in appearance though more wicked in substance as being exhibited under the colour and pretext of Law in the starving and racking so many innocent worthy learned persons tearing out their hearts and bowels in publick view upon suborned witnesses base vagabond and perjured Catchpoles hired to swear Neither was there any reason then for persecution on the account of the Catholicks misdemeanours For as Cambden her own Historiographer noteth The reason of the penal Statutes in Eliz. was 1. the opinion of the Queens Illegitimation abroad 2. Jealousies had of the Queen of Scots her nearness to the Crown 3. the Bull of Pius 5. 4. the doubt of the house of Guise in behalf of their Neece 5. the offence given to the King of Spain in assisting Orange These causes induced the Queen with her Pauculi intimi saith Cambden We cannot excuse the persecution therefore under Queen Elizabeth against Catholicks for any cause given by them or just fear of their fidelity nor from the example of Christian Emperours and Kings that both for zeal of Religion and human policy to avoid danger of Rebellion made Laws and Statutes against Hereticks and innovators of the antient faith and sense of Scripture which descended to them by Tradition from the Apostles Queen Elizabeth taking a contrary way made Laws and Statutes against the ancient Religion and known sense of Gods word delivered from age tâ— age which practice destroys the order of Justice to persecute Christians for professing a Religion confirmed by the publick testimony and practice of the Christian world from the first propaâ—â—tion of Christianity to this present tâ—â—e No part of their Dectrine being â—â—er judged an heresie or novelty by antiquity otherwise they had not escaped the rigour of penal Laws made against Hereticks and Novelists in former ages But no History did or can ever mention any person that suffered as an Heretick for broaching or maintaining any one point which they now believe and profess Whereas Q. Mary her predecessors Emperours and Kings punished Novelists only that made Religons of their own heads condemneâ— as Hereticks by the Church in ancient times The disparity therefore was great Catholick Princes standing as defenders of their ancient Faith others as invaders and introducers of a new Belief They seek to keep what de jure they had Calvinists what they had not they possessors of the traditum and depositum left by Christ and his Apostles others descissors and injurious infringers of those Apostolick tyes and regulations so carefully delivered to all posterity Laws indeed have been made in Catholick Countries very severe against those the Church calleth Hereticks but they were none of the Churches