performed by these places alleadged yow haue seene 28. Finally to stand no longer vpon this whether we or they Catholicks or Protestantes doe attribute more to popular licence against Princes when they giue not contentment may aboundantly be seene in that we haue set downe before and will ensue afterward both of their doctrine and practises in like occasions And so much of this first charge now will we passe to the second 29. The second is that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and souer aignty ouer Kings vnto the Pope wherin first what he saith of ciuill souer aignty is a meere fiction and calumniation of his owne if it be out of the Popes owne temporall Dominions For we ascribe no such vnto him ouer other Princes or their subiects but that authority or soueraignty only which Catholicke doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles spirituall head of the vniuersall visible Church of Christ which is only spirituall for spirituall ends to wit for the direction and saluation of soules And if at any time he be forced to passe further then this and by a certeine consequence to deale in some temporall affaires also it must be only indirectly in defence or conseruation of the said spirituall that is to say when the said spirituall power apperteining to soules cannot other wise be defended or conserued as more largely hath byn treated before 30. This then is the summe and substance of Catholicke doctrine about this point of the Popes authority which from the beginning of Christianity hath byn acknowledged in Gods Church and in no place more then in England where it hath byn both held practised from the very first Christened King of our nation Ethelbert vnto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand yeares without interruption as largely and aboundantly hath byn shewed and laied forth to the view of all men in a late booke written in answere to S. Edward Cookes fifth part of Reportes and this with great honor prosperity of the Princes therof and vnion of their people vnder their gouernment and without such odious or turbulent inferences as now are made therevpon by vnquiet spirittes that would set at warre euen mens imaginations in the ayer therby to mainteine disunion discorde and diffidence betweene Princes and namely betweene our present noble Soueraigne and his Catholicke subiects 31. And first of all let vs heare this turbulent T. M. how vpon the enuy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons VVe demaunde saith he how farre these pretended powers of people Pope may extende and heervpon we argue To which I answere that in imagination they may extend so farre as any fantasticall braine shall list to draw them but in the true meaning of Catholicke reall doctrine they can extend no further then hath byn declared And as for the popular power of people ouer Princes we haue now refuted the calumniation shewed that it is a mere fiction of his owne and no position of ours and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult then the Catholicke without comparison and for that of the Pope I haue declared how it is to be vnderstood to be of his owne nature in spirituall affaires only without preiudice of ciuill Princely gouernement at all and so the practice of the worlde and experience of so many Princes great States and Monarches liuing quietly securely vnder the same authority both in former times and ours most euidently doth proue and confirme 32. But yet let vs see and consider how falsely and calumniously this Make-bate doth herevpon argue in his third reason inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus But all Popish Priestes vpon this pretended Supremacy and prerogatiue of Pope and people doe vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo. Wherin to shew him a notable liar it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes that haue had title of successiō in our coūtrey for therof he speaketh principally since the name of Protestant hath byn heard of in the world being three in number to wit K. Edward the sixt Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames that now raigneth all which were admitted peaceably to their Crownes as well by Priestes as Catholicke people who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not meanes to haue wrought disturbances as the world knoweth so as if one instance only doth truly ouerthrow any general proposition how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied ouerthrow and cast to the ground this vniuersal false assertion of T. M. which auerreth That all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 vtterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes Will he not be ashamed to see himself cōuinced ofso great and shameles ouerlashing 33. And on the other side one only Catholicke Princesse being to succeed in this time to wit Q. Mary we know what resistance the Protestants made both by bookes sermons Treatises and open armes and how many Rebellions conspiracies robberies priuy slaughters and other impediments were designed and practised afterward during the few yeares she raigned we know also what was executed against the gouernment and liues of the two noble Catholicke Queenes her neerest neighbours one of them most straitly conioyned in bloud that raigned at that time in Scotland to omit others before mētioned that were debarred from their lawfull succession or excluded from their rightfull possession for their Religion in Sweueland Flanders other places as cannot be denied 34. Wherfore it is more then extraordinary impudency in T. M. to charge vs with that which is either peculier or more eminent in themselues and false in vs and what or how farre this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these wordes F. Persons in his Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable 〈◊〉 And is it so in deed Syr 〈◊〉 and will yow stand to it and leese your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleadged then if yow please let vs heare the Authors owne wordes 35. And now saith he to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter we haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whome he iudgeth or belieueth to be faulty in Religion and consequently would aduance no Religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sinne against his owne conscience in furthering such aKing And is
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a paire of keyes which seemeth to him a fine iest then commeth he out with this vanut Neither can any shew me one Doctour but of reasonable antiquity peto vel ex millibus vnum who by keyes vnderstand ciuill power But Syr what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf will not your owne moderne Protestant Doctors graunt that when the keyes of any Citty Towne or Fort are giuē to a Prince ciuill power ouer that Fort is meant therby who will deny this 38. And secondly whereas he alleadgeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keyes giuen to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and reteyning sinnes ergo no way temporall is a fond illation for that albeit Victoria saith that those keyes did principally importe spirituall authority yet they include also supreme temporall indirectly when the defence of the spirituall doth require it Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place Our eight proposition is saith he that the Pope by authority of the foresaid keyes hath most ample temporall power ouer all Princes and Kinges and the Emperour himself in order to a spirituall end which he proueth there by many arguments And this of the first iest about swordes to be made of keyes 39. The second iest also is as wise and witty as this former that when we found the same temporall sword or authority of S. Peter and his successours vpon the words of Christ Feed my sheep he doth inferre that Princes also must be fed and dietted corporally at the Popes discretion and other such toyes he not vnderstanding as it seemeth or rather dissembling the force of Catholicke argumentes drawne from those and other like Scriptures both by later Doctors and ancient Fathers which this fellow turneth into scofs and contempt or wicked railing for that presently he falleth into these rages O arrogant Glossers O impudent Glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations Forsooth for that in some Popes Bulles though corruptly fraudulently alledged some mention is made of the great authority that was giuen to Elias Elizeus Ieremy and other Prophetes and especially to Christ himself vpon earth to plant destroy pull vp or punish where need should be and that this authority by allusion vnto the same wordes of Scripture is applied to Christes Successour vpon earth affirmed to be left in the Christian Church to be vsed when need shall require and is this so great an impiety thinke yow 40. But he goeth on and saith That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papall power from the Apostles time downward and then produceth this assertion of ours The Priestes saith the Romish pretence of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authority then that of the old law ouer Kinges to depose them whervnto he adioyneth presently his owne spruse Ministeriall answere in these wordes This is not probable except yow can shew some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles or their Holy Successours in the purer periods of times And is not this answered as from a man of his coat Marke the phrase Of footings in purer periods I will for footinges in this matter referre him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures Doctours Fathers Councelles and Ecclesiasticall Histories the Authors by him heere often alledged Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders Salmeron and others doe aboundantly and substancially alledge when he shall haue ouerthrowne or supplanted those footinges of theirs which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning of Christian Religion vnto our dayes and generall practice therof then may the poore man get to haue some little footing for himself and his cause which hitherto he hath none at all as to any man whosoeuer with any indifferency of iudgment shall read ouer and examine his booke will euidently appear yea though he compare but only that which himself alledgeth heere both in the text and margent which seldome agree in true sense if you marke it well But if yow would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margent with the originalles of the Authors themselues you shall scarce euer finde them sincerly to agree but that one fraud or other is vsed in their allegation by chopping changing infarcing leauing out and other such sleightes and deceiptes which though the breuity of this Treatise permit me not to examin and lay forth at large in this place yet some we haue touched before and some others shall we haue occasion to note afterwardes and the Reader himself may vpon this warning make some little triall 41. And as for the succession of times which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring downe from the Apostles dayes not to ours but for a thousand yeares only after Christ wherin he saith that no Pope can be shewed euer to haue had any temporall iurisdiction ouer any Emperour King or temporall Prince though Catholickes doe hold the later six hundred yeares also to be of no lesse force for president of examples in the Church of God then the former thousand yet are the instances so many and euident which may be alledged against his former prescription of the said thousand yeares as doe manifestly cōuince him of folly in that assertion wherin I referre me to the collections and demonstrations therof by the foresaid Authors Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders and others in the places heere quoted in the margent but especially to the three that are not Iesuites to the first for all to wit Carerius that in diuers thinges wrote against the Iesuits whoe in his second booke alleadgeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for prouing his purpose I remit me also to the many learned writinges set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians by Penia Baronius Bouius Eugenius Nardus others shewing the most euident right which the Pope had and hath to commaund them as high Pastor of the Church to recall certaine ciuill lawes made by them in preiudice of the said Church and Ecclesiasticall State which Commandement we doubt not but God will moue that most excellent Cōmon-wealth finally to obey they being knowne to be so good and sound Catholickes as they are though for some time in regard of some temporall respectes they haue deferred to doe the same 42. Many more pointes might be examined in this descēt of his throughout periodes of times but it would be ouerlong and my intention is to giue a tast only or short view for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of diuers ages for proofe of his pretence were time wholy lost For that in effect they say nothing else but that we graunt which is that temporall Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiasticall men also but in temporall affaires And as for his examples of
second and third Reasons §. 2. HIs second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke and Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priestes faith he doe attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall Soueraigne ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleadgeth fower seuerall authorities of Catholicke writers but so corruptly and perfidiously as if nothing else did shew his talent of cogging and treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwardes greater store will occurre we shall runne ouer briefly all these fower 23. First he saith that Doleman in his Conference about succession hath these wordes The Common-wealth hath authority to chuse a King and to limit him lawes at their pleasure Which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet heere is no mention of the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common-wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other states Secondly Dolemans wordes are not of chusing a King but of chusing a forme of gouernement be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himself speake In like manner saith he it is euident that as the Common-wealth hath this authority to chuse and change her gouernement as hath byn proued so hath it also to limit the same with what lawes and conditions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersity of authority and power which ech one of the former gouernments hath in it self So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common-wealth hath that is deuoid of any certeine gouernement to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh them with the limitations they thinke most expedient and so we see in England France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it self different formes and manners of gouernement with different lawes and limitations according to the choice and liking of ech nation This place then of Doleman is corrupted by T. M. both in wordes and sense for he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of giuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 24. There followeth the second place taken out of the French Iesuite as he calleth him De iusta abdicatione c. though it be well knowne that D. Bouchier Author of that booke yet liuing in Flanders and Canon of Tourney was neuer Iesuite in his life but all must be ascribed to Iesuits that may seeme odious This French Iesuite saith he sheweth a reason of Dolemans speach saying For Maiesty is rather seated in the Kingdome then in the King But I would aske the poore man why he doth alleadge this place or of what weight it is or may be for his purpose for so much as D. Bouchier in these wordes denieth not Maiesty to be in the King but to be more in the Kingdome for that the Kingdome giueth Maiesty vnto the King when it chuseth him and not the King properly vnto the Kingdome And is not this a great obiection or doth this proue that we ascribe Democraticall soueraignity ouer Kings vnto the people One of his owne Ghospell-brethren speaketh more roundly and roughly to the matter when he writeth Populo ius est vt imperium cui velit deferat The people hath right to bestowe the crowne vpon whome they list if we had said so what aduantage would T. M. haue sought thereat 25. His third place is out of D. Stapleton in his booke called Dydimus where he saith That the people are not ordeyned for the Prince but the Prince for the people His wordes in Latin are Non populi in Principum gratiam facti sed Principes in populi commodum creati sunt Multitudes of people are not made by God for Princes sakes but Princes are created for the commodity or good of the people and what is there in this sentence iustly to be reprehended Is not this euident by diuine and humane lawe and by the very light of nature it self that Princes were first ordeined by God for the good of multitudes and not multitudes for the vtility of Princes Will T. M. deny this or is not this far more modest and temperate then that of his owne brethren before mentioned whose wordes are Populus Rege est praestantior melior the people are better more excellēt then the King what wilfull wrangling is this in a turbulent Minister 26. His fourth and last place is out of M. VVilliam Reinoldes in his booke De iusta Reip. auctoritate c. whome he abuseth egregiously both in ascribing to him that which is not his and in deliuering the same corruptedly and by a little yow may learne much ex vngue leonem His wordes he citeth thus Rex humana creaturae est quia ab hominibus constituta and Englisheth in this manner A King is but a creature of mans creation where yow see first that in the translation he addeth but and mans creation of himself for that the Latin hath no such but nor creation but constitution Secondly these wordes are not the wordes of M. Reinoldes but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleadged here by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalte and magnify the authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as he is calumniated For proofe herof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it self before mentioned shal find that M. Reinolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God by his commandement to be obeyed His wordes are these Hinc enim est c. hence is it that albeit the Apostle doe call all earthly principality a humaine creature for that it is placed in certaine men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature which God created and from the vse of reason which God powred into man and which is a little beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of almighty God therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that There is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this power resisteth God himselfe So M. Reinoldes 27. And now let the indifferent Reader iudge whether M. Reinoldes hath byn calumniated in this allegation or no whether this Minister is led by any rule of conscience and whether these be such pregnant arguments and proofes against vs as he promised at the first entrance of his booke And for the matter in hand he promised to proue as yow haue heard that we ascribed popular and Democraticall power to the people ouer Kings which how well he hath
is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writteÌ„ of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opinioÌ„ in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutioÌ„ of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idâ—irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
him so vrging an occasion as by his friendes is thought that in the conueniency of reason and honour he coulde not well omit to accept therof as he did and performed the enterprise in such manner as might be expected at his L. handes to wit as himself writeth of his Maiesties speach in the Parlament Euery line declaring the vvorkeman 19. Only I may not let passe to note by the way that in two points of 〈◊〉 touched by him of the Popes authority concerning Princes and the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in certaine cases as they are matters not apperteining properly to his faculty and profession so must I thinke that his Deuine did somewhat mistake or misinforme him therin For of the first thus he writeth that he hath byn a long time sory that some cleere explication of the Papall authority hath not byn made by some publicke and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. He addeth further this reason of his desire That not only those Princes vvhich acknovvledge this Superiority might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also vvhich doe not approue the same yet vvould faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiectes might knovv hovv farre to repose themselues in their fidelity in ciuill obedience hovvsoeuer they see them deuided from them in point of conscience c. 20. To the former clause touching his L. desire to haue the matter defined and declared his Deuine might easely haue informed him that among Catholicke people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all pointes wherin there may be any doubt concerning this affaire As for example in three thinges question may be made first whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of Great men States or Princes or that he had left them remediles wholy by any ordinary authority In which case as in other common-wealthes that are not Christian all Philosophers law-makers Senatours Counsellours Historiographers and other sortes of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authority in euery common wealth for the lawfull and orderly redressing of those euilles euen in the highest persons Nor did euer Philosopher of name or law-maker hitherto deny this assertion as founded in the very law of nature nations and reason it selfe 21. So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had byn established before subiecting temporall thinges to spirituall according to the degree of their natures endes and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholicke learned men do ground and 〈◊〉 euer grounded that in Christian common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authority is left which euery other state and Kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid downe but further also for more sure and orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgment direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sorte of Catholickes whatsoeuer so they be Catholickes though in particular cases diuersity of persons time place cause and other circumstances may moue some diuersity of opinions And thus much of the first question 22. The second may be about the manner how this authority or in what sorte it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence As for example whether Christ as he gaue the generall charge of his sheepe to S. Peter and his Successours directly and immediatly in spirituall matters by that commission three times repeated in S. Iohn Pasce oues meas which wordes include according to Catholicke exposition not only authority to feed but to gouerne also direct restraine cure represse and correct when need is as we see it doth appertaine to a temporall sheepheardes office so whether with this commission in spirituall affaires our Sauiour gaue also immediatly and directly the charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner or rather indirectly and by a certaine consequence that is to say that when the gouernment of spirituall affaires to wit of soules to their eternall blisse and saluation is so letted or impugned by any temporall gouernours as the said spirituall commission cannot be executed without redresse or remedy in such cases and not otherwise the said supreme pastour to haue authority to proceed also against the said temporall Gouernours for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge Of which question the Canonistes doe commonly defend the first part but Catholicke Deuines for the most part the second but both partes fully agree that there is such an Authority lefte by Christ in his Church for remedy of vrgent cases for that otherwise he should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessity therof So as this difference of the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 23. The third question may be about the causes for which this authority may be vsed as also the forme of proceeding to be obserued therin wherabout there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place only it is sufficient for Catholicke men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to be obserued wherby my Lordships doubtes of feares and ielosies of continuall treasons and bloudy assassinates may iustly be remoued For that this authority doth not only not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attemptes of priuate men but doth also expressely and publickly condemne the same and the doctrine therof as may appeare not only by the condemnation of VVicklifs wicked article in the Councell of Constance wherin he affirmed That it vvas lavvfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince vvhome he held to be a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza Ottoman Bucchanan Knox Goodman and others of that sect who hold and practice in effect the same doctrine of VVickliffe concerning Princes if not worse as shall more largely and particularly be declared afterward in the first and fourth Chapters of this Treatise And this I desire may satisfy his Lordship for the present vntill we come to the foresaid places where better occasion in this kind will be offered 24. As for the second point touched by his Lordship about the
Protestant party to flatter and deceiue her with false oathes and 〈◊〉 she promised that she would not but he arriuing the next day after the Bishop vnto her at 〈◊〉 in France made so great promises oathes and protestations vnto her as by little and little gate credit with her and so returned into Scotland by England where he had his full instructions yow must thinke to dispose the mindes of all sortes to receiue and obey the said Queene after his and their fashion and agreement for which good office she gaue him soone 〈◊〉 her returne the Earledome of Murrey and committed the cheife Gouernement of the Realme vnto him But what effectes ensued we shall now in few wordes declare 21. When vpon the yeare 1563. which was two yeares after her returne to Scotland she resolued by consent of her Parlament to marry her knisman the Lord Darley newly made 〈◊〉 of Rosse and Duke of Albany this Earle of Murrey made a leagne of his confederates against the same pretending that it would be in 〈◊〉 of their Religion and brake into open warres against them both saith Holinshed and when they were pressed by the Kinges and Queenes forces they had alwaies their refuge into England and their counsaile and direction both thence and from their Ministers that neuer parted from them how to prosecute their matters against their Princes wherof the first point was to abuse the yong Kinges credulity and to set him against the Queene and hence ensued that strange and horrible act of entring her priuy chamber when she was at supper vpon the fourth of march 1566. in the company of the 〈◊〉 of Murton the Lordes Ruthen and Lindsey all Protestantes and armed who saluted her first with this greeting she being great with child That they would no longer suffer her to haue the gouerning of the Realme nor to abuse them as hitherto she had done And then pulled violently from her her Secretary Dauid which stood there present seruing her at table and for his refuge tooke hold of her gowne which they cut of and slew him with many stabbes to such fright of the afflicted Queene as it was no lesse then a miracle that she had not perished therwith or miscaried of her child which was his Maiesty that now gouerneth England hauing six monethes gone with the same This was done at a Parlament when all the Protestant confederates met togeather and tooke as yow must thinke the ghostly counsaile of their good Ministers for so holy an enterprise And vpon the 20. of Iune next was the Prince borne which thing not pleasing some that there should remaine any yssue of that family which they desired to extinguish the said King his Maiesties Father was most cruelly murthered in Edenbrough on the tenth of February next ensuing 22. Nor did the matter cease heere but rather now ascended to the greatest height of malicious Treason 〈◊〉 euer perhaps hath byn vsed against any crowned Prince in the world for that these Lordes of the Congregatiō as they called themselues that is to say Religious Rebels congregated against their sworne Prince gathering forces togeather laid violent handes on her Maiesties person first at Carbar-hill by Edenbrough when confidently she presumed as to her subiectes to goe vnto them and treate of peace and then casting her into prison depriued her of her Crowne set vp against her the name of her dearest iewell the yonge Prince not yet a yeare old made Regent her greatest enemy the Earle of Murrey her bastard traiterous brother held Parlamentes made lawes debarred her the sight of her sonne for euer and finally waging open warre against her and ouerthrowing her forces in the feild she being present forced her into England and there following her also procured vnto her the greatest disgraces dishonoured her with the foulest reportes defamed her with the most spitefull sermons bookes and printed libelles and finally oppressed her with the most notorious open iniuries that euer were cast vpon a person of her Maiesties quality dignity And all this without any scruple or remorse of conscience at all nay all was auerred to be done according to the very rule of the Ghospell for the Ghospell and this by all the Ministers both of Scotland and England 23. And thus much of the second Queene Mary of Scotland brought to her ruine by the Euangelicall obedience of these new Ghospellers but as for the yong Prince her Noble sonne whome she loued most dearely aboue all earthly creatures and neuer was permitted so much as to embrace or see him more afterward what passed in this time by the same sorte of mē both during his minority and afterward what cōtentions 〈◊〉 warres 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what murthers what conspir cies Rebellions and violences were vsed were ouerlong to recount in this place the Histories are full and the 〈◊〉 made and set forth in print by the foresaid 〈◊〉 Authour of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his sixt Chapter and 〈◊〉 booke against the 〈◊〉 doth touch many 〈◊〉 pointes of diuers notorious 〈◊〉 and violences offered by them and their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Kinges person state and dignity as their taking his authority vpon them his surpriz and restraint at Rutheuen vpon the yeare 1582. the brethrens allowing and authorizing the same afterward expresly against the Kinges declaration to the contrary 24. The 〈◊〉 also against his person at Striueling vpon the yeare 1584. and many railing speaches sermons and bookes against him and his gouernment made in England to disgrace him and namely the seditious preaching of Dauison and other Scottish Ministers against 〈◊〉 in London in the Church of the Old-Iury and this being in the moneth of May it followed in Nouember after that these Ministers with their complices returning into Scotland with aide from England though this circumstance the Author con ealeth as not making for his purpose they gat ten thousand Rebelles togeather and 〈◊〉 their tentes before the towne of Striueling whither the King was retired to fortify himselfe in the Castle making proclamations in their owne names and there draue at length his Maiesty to yeald his person into their handes with the liues of his dearest friendes and was depriued also by them of his old guard and a 〈◊〉 put vpon him All which actes were not only defended afterward by the chiefe Ministers of that Realme but the King himselfe was called in like manner Ieroboam by them and threatned to be rooted out as Ieroboams race was if he continued in the course he held and many other like 〈◊〉 by them committed which for breuityes sake I forbeare to recount in this place 25. Now then to returne againe to our former ponderation set downe in the beginning of this Chapter let euery sage and prudent Prince consider and weigh with himselfe which of these two waies which of these two people which of these two groundes of doctrine which of these two methodes of practice which of these
there heere any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince or of his succession nay doth not the text speake plainly of making a King where none is doth it not speake also indifferently of all sortes of Religion of what side soeuer the truth be How then can this malicious cauilling Minister expect to be trusted hereafter or how may any man thinke that he speaketh or writeth out of conscience seing him to vse such grosse shiftes and falshoodes in so manifest and important a matter It is no marueyle that he set not his name at large to his booke as not desirous to haue the dew praise of such desert To the rest of his reasons §. 3. BVt let vs passe a little further in these his deuises for much I may not both in regarde of the breuity which I haue designedvnto my self for the loathsomnes I take of such vncharitable railings as in steed of reasons he casteth forth with no greater authority then of his owne assertion or rather calumniation 37. As for example in his fourth reason he subsumeth in his minor proposition thus But all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 dissolue the oath of obedience to all Protestant Gouernours And in the fifth But all Popish Priestes defend violent deposing of Kinges and Emperours And in the sixt But all Popish Priestes are guylty of intending designing or practising murther of Princes And in the seauenth But all Popish Priestes doe iustify the actes of treason and 〈◊〉 parricides And yet further in the eight But all Popish Priestes professe Rebellion as soone as they can presume of their strength In the ninth likewise But all Popish Priestes are guylty of 〈◊〉 for denying or violating with men of diuerse Religion And lastly in histenth But all Romish Priestes ex officio that is to say as they are Priestes must and doe professe such seditious 〈◊〉 as thereby they are desperate traitors 〈◊〉 38. And is it possible for any tongue though borrowed from hell it self and embrewed with neuer so virulent or serpentine prison to vtter more precipitate malice then this His propositions yow see are generall in all these assertions to wit that al Catholicke Priestes are guilty in all these accusations and the nature as yow know of a generall proposition is such as if any one instance may be giuen to the contrary it ouerthroweth the whole And is it probable thinke yow that no one Priest may be found in England or elswhere deuoide of all these heynons accusations or of any one of them Surely I am of opinion that there will hardly be found any man so passionate on his owneside which in this case will not condemne him of passion precipitation and conscienceles calumniation And we on the other side may well vrge to the contrary that no one Priest hath truely hitherto byn conuinced to haue treated or conspired or giuen consent to the Princes death in all the long raigne of the Queene past no not Ballard himself who only can be named to haue byn condemned for this pretence though in deed his crime was as of all the 14. Gentlemen that died with him rather to haue deliuered Queene Mary out of prison then to depriue Q. Elizabeth of her life and so they protested at their deathes 39. But leauing this let vs come to examine some of the pointes themselues that are obiected they are all if yow consider them well but little buddes and branches deduced from one and the selfe same roote of the Popes authority and consequently but minced-meates made out in different seruices by the cunning cookery of T. M. to feede the phantasies of such as hunger after variety of calumniations against the Catholicke doctrine For what great difference is there for example sake betweene that which is treated in the fourth reason of sreeing subiectes from their obedience to Princes the other of the fifth about Deposing Princes or that of the sixt and seauenth of designing their deathes and of iustifying treasons against the same And so in the ninth of oathes euacuated which was handled before vnder other tearmes in the fourth reason wherby appeareth that this mans purpose was as before I haue noted to straine matters to the vttermost and to set out as many shewes of inconueniences dangers and damages to ensue by our doctrine of Papall authority as either his wit could deuise or his malice vtter 40. And yet the seely fellow did not consider one instance vnanswerable that might be giuen to all these his inuentions which is the experience of so many ages both in England other Kingdoms round about vs wherin the Kings and Princes haue raigned prosperously and doe at this day notwithstanding this doctrine and vse of the Popes power this not only Catholicke Princes but diuers Protestant Potentates in like manner for any thing that Popes haue done or attempted against them For what hath any Pope done against the Protestant Kings of Denmarke in this our age what against those of Sweueland either Father or Sonne though the later doth offer open iniury to a Catholicke King the true inheritor what against the Dukes of Saxony the Count Palatines and Protestant Princes of the Empire notwithstanding the said Electors whole authority in that action was giuen them by the Sea Apostolicke and consequently doth depend therof what against diuers other particular Princes both of the Empire and otherwise who haue in this our age departed from the obedience of that Sea how many hath it molested censured deposed or troubled for the same 41. And that which is most of all to our purpose at this time what manner of proceeding hath the same Sea Apostolicke vsed towardes the Kingdome of Scotland and his Maiesty that now ruleth also the scepter of England for the space of 36. yeares wherin he raigned from an infant after the iniust deposition of his mother by her Protestant subiects did the Sea of Rome or any Bishop therof euer goe about to hurt or preiudice him Or is it not well knowne that diuers Popes did endeauour to doe good and friendly actions for the preseruation of his safty when it was many times put in ieopardy by the Protestant party And among other I can well remember that about the yeare 1585. when his Maiesty was besieged by them in his towne and castle of Striueling and driuen to yeeld vnto them both his owne royall person and amongst other articles this as the Protestant History it self doth recount it was one That his Maiesties olde guarde was to be remoued and another placed by them the Pope then liuing hearing therof by his Maiesties Embassador in France the Archbishop of Glasco and others he was so moued with compassion as he offered an honorable contribution towards the preseruation of his Maiesties person in that case and especially for maintenance of a trusty guard about the same the like good will in other lesse occasions haue other Popes shewed in like manner So as all
bloud insteed of shed their bloud as though God were a bloud-spiller or comaunded the same to be done vniustly by others but all is strained by the Minister to make vs odious wheras himself indeed is therby made ridiculous And for that I haue byn somewhat longer in this example then I had purposed as also for that by this one if it were but one yow may ghesse of al the rest of his proceeding I wil heere cease referring the rest of this kinde to other more fit places and occasions afterwardes 58. And yet truly I cannot wel pretermit for ending this Chapter one little note more of rare singularity in this man aboue others which I scarce euer haue obserued in any one of his fellowes and this is that the very first wordes of Scripture alledged by him in the first page of his booke for the poesy of his pamphlet are falsly alleadged corrupted and mangled though they conteine but one only verse of Isay the Prophet and then may yow imagine what liberty he will take to himself afterward throughout his whole discourse His sentence or poesy is this Isay. 29. vers 9. But stay your selues and wonder they are blinde and make yow blinde which he would haue to be vnderstood of vs Catholickes but let any man read the place of Isay it self and he shall finde no such matter either in wordes or sense but only the word wonder to wit obstupescite admiramini fluctuate vacillate inebriamini non a vino mouemini non ab ebrietate And according to this are the Greek and Hebrew textes also So as what should moue T. M. to set downe so corruptly the very first sentence of his booke and cite the Chapter and verse wherin his fraude may be descried I know not except he obserued not the last clause of the Prophetes precept mouemini non ab ebrietate And so much for this HOVV THIS TREATISE VVAS LAIED ASIDE By sicknesse of the Author and some other causes And why it was taken in hand againe vpon the sight of a Catholicke Answere and a new Reply of T. M. dedicated to his Maiesty with the Authors iudgment of them both CHAP. III. HAuing written hitherto and passed thus far-forth in examination of the Ministers opprobrious libel of Discouery I was partly forced by grieuous sicknesse that continued for some moneths partly also induced for that I vnderstood that another Catholicke man had answered the said libell to lay that which I had written a side as also for that the occasion of time wherin this Treatise was begun soone after the detection of the often forenamed powder-treason seemed in great part to be past and hauing once laied it out of my handes had no great will afterward to goe forward theriwth as an argument of loathsome contention against most odious imputations and calumniations but yet after diuers monethes againe seing the said Catholicke answere to appeare which before I had not viewed togeather with a large Reply to the same by the Minister that first made and deuised the libell and that the said Minister had now resolued vpon instance of the said Answerer to manifest his name to wit of Thomas Morton which before went ciphered with the letters only of T. M. that might aswell haue signified Thomas Malmesbury or Montague or Monte-banke or any such like sur-name and further that he presumed to dedicate the same vnto the Kinges Maiesty by a speciall glosing Epistle full of fond Ministeriall malice against Catholickes intituling his said Reply A full satisfaction concerning a double Romish iniquity heynous Rebellion and more then heathenish 〈◊〉 And further that he had encreased his said worke with two or three new Treatises partly for iustifying of Protestantes in the case of Rebellion and partly for confuting of a Treatise written in defence of Equiuocation I was moued aswell of my self as by others exhortation to resume the thing into my handes againe to adioine by the view of the whole that which was wanting to the full confutation of this Ministers iniquity in laying such heinous Rebellion heathenish Equiuocation vnto Catholickes charge who of all men liuing are most free from iust reprehension in them both and the Caluinian sect and sectaries conuinced to be most guilty in the one and consciencelesse in the other as the iudicious Reader I doubt not shall see euidently proued and confirmed in that which is to ensue 2. It moued me also not a little to goe forward somewhat with this confutation though in as breiffe manner as might be to see that this deuise though neuer so fond and false of charging Catholicke doctrine with Rebellion Equiuocation was applauded not a little by some men of marke in our State as namely by his Maiesties late Attorney Generall aswel in his writing as pleadinges against Catholicks borrowing from this Ministers first Treatise diuers large parcelles and passages of his calumnious imputations about the forenamed two heades of Rebelliō and Equiuocation lending him againe in lue therof for his second Reply sundry obseruations collections of his owne concerning diuers Kings of England that seemed to him not so much to fauour or acknowledge the Bishop of Rome his authority ouer the English Church which yet now vpon further search is found to be contrary and so set downe and demonstrated at large by a late Answere published to the said Attorney his booke of Reportes as I thinke in hast will not be answered Wherupon forsomuch as this new deuised accusation of Rebellious doctrine and Equiuocation is taken vp by so many handes of those that be enemies to Catholicke Religion I thought it conuenient to cleere somewhat more this 〈◊〉 and as I had before I laid aside this worke treated sufficiently as it seemed to me of the former point concerning Rebellious doctrine vpon the sight only of T. M. his first pamphlet as in the precedent two Chapters yow haue seen yet now vpon the appearance of this Minister Thomas Morton in his proper name and person of his new Reply that promiseth full satisfaction in all it seemed necessary that I should goe forward to finish my first intent and to examine the second point or head of his accusation in like manner apperteining to the doctrine of Equiuocation made no lesse odious now by continuall clamours of sycophancy then the other of Rebellion it selfe 3. One other circumstance also stirred me greatly to proceed in this short worke which was that togeather with these bookes sent out of England aduertisement was giuen that this Minister Thomas Morton was Chaplain to my Lord of Canterbury who being head of the spirituall Court of Arches which is or ought to be the supreame for matters of cōscience in England I was in hope to haue some remedy against this his Lordships Chaplaine if I should demonstrate that he dealeth against all conscience obseruing no law either of truth or modesty towardes Catholick men
must spit in his face which is spoken saith our Minister comparatiuely and not Rebelliously He expoundeth also those wordes of Caluin Abdicant se potestate that such Kinges are bereaued of authority meaning only saith he in that case of contradiction against God But let the Minister tell vs who shall be Iudge of this who shall determine the case To whome shall it belong to giue sentēce when a King doth contradict God when he vsurpeth Gods throne when he commaundeth any thing against God and consequently when his face must be spitten on when he must be pulled downe when he must be depriued of all regall authority Did Thomas Morton euer finde in any Catholicke writer such wordes or sense in preiudice of Princes And yet the fond Minister as though he had plaied worthily his Master-prize vaunteth in these wordes Thus is Caluin iustified concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza bycause Beza say yow his Successour in place succeeded him also both in opinion and practice True Sir they are both iustified in your manner of iustification they are fit iustified Saints for your Calendar 42. And hauing said thus he passeth yet further adding a second prouocation about practice in these wordes VVe haue heard of their opinion to wit of Caluin and Beza haue yow any thing to except against their practice And this demaund he made when he knew and had seene his Aduersaries many and most grieuous accusations against them in that kinde not only for mouing that people of Geneua to open Rebellion against their Lord and Prince the Bishop but also the people of France against their King and Soueraigne citing good authorities for the same saying Caluin and Bezae armed the subiectes against their Prince of Geneua and as Caluin himself Doctour Sutcliffe the Bishop of Canterbury be witnesses deposed their Soueraigne from his temporall right and euer after continued in that state of Rebellion They celebrated also a Councell wherin was concluded that King Francis the second then King of France his wife the Queene his Children Queene Mother c. should be destroyed And his quotations for these thinges are Beza l. de iure Magistrat Sutcliffe answ to suppl and Suruey Caluin in epist. Pet. Far. orat cont Sectar defens Reg. Relig. c. All which being seene by our Minister he demandeth notwithstanding as yow haue heard with this hypocrisy haue yow any thing to except against their practice As though there were nothing at all not only not to be accused or reprehended in them but not so much as to be excepted against And is not this notable dissimulation in a matter so cleere and euident Who can belieue this Minister at his word herafter But let vs now see how he will answere the matter it self obiected and then will yow admire his impudency much more 43. For better vnderstanding wherof yow must know that besides al that which is alledged for proofe of this accusation out of Caluin Farellus their owne Lordes and my Lord of Canterbury his booke of Dangerous positions Doctour Sutcliffe doth of purpose and at large proue the same in two whole Chapters to wit the second and third of his Suruey against the pretended discipline shewing out of diuers authors and namely Franciscus Boninardus that wrote the History of Geneua as he saith by Caluins direction Symlerus and Bodinus that for aboue fiue hundred yeares gone the Bishop of Geneua was not only spirituall but temporall Lord also of that Citty and the same confirmed vnto him by the Emperour Frederick the first vpon the yeare of Christ 1124. and as Caluin himself confesseth in his writinges to Cardinall Sadoletus had Ius gladij alias ciuilis iurisdictionis partes the power of life and death and other partes of ciuill iurisdiction and that this Prince and Bishop was cast out by the people vpon the preachinges and practises of Farellus Caluin and other Protestant Ministers Quo eiecto saith Bodinus Geneuates Monarchiam in popularem statum commutârunt who being cast out the Geneuians did change their Monarchy into a popular State 44. And finally after many proofes Doctour Sutcliffe setteth downe his opinion in these wordes I doubt not but that I may presume without any mans iust offence to speake my opinion as touching the deuinity which was pretended by the said Ministers of Geneua against their Bishop for indeed I doe dislike it If such dealinges were simply to be vrged by the word of God they might reach further then would be conueniēt I neuer thought it agreable to deuinity for Ministers to cast of their Rulers at their owne pleasures one of them writeth thus That the light of the Ghospell had restored to the Citty that principality which the Bishop had before But all the learned deuines in Germany at their conferences with the Emperour were of a contrary opinion c. I am not the man that will either iustify mine owne discretiō or impugne any thing which may be brought for the ciuil proceeding of that State or any other so as they carry no false groundes of deuinity with them which may proue dāgerous to our owne such as haue byn since published for the authorizing of subiectes in many cases to depose their Princes So he 45. And now by this large discourse yow see fully his minde first that the Bishop of Geneua was Lord and Prince of that Citty for diuers ages confirmed also by the Emperour secondly that he was vniustly depriued by the people vpon the preaching and false groundes of deuinity of Farellus Caluin Beza and other Protestant preachers thirdly we see the reason why he thinketh thus least their doctrine might reach further then would be conuenient and be dangerous in England So as he also as yow see doth accommodate his doctrine and groundes of deuinity to the commodity of his cause 46. But now let vs see how this Minister Sutcliffe and our Minister Morton haue agreed togeather vpon a farre different manner of answering this matter at this time and yow will perceiue therby what people they are who change their answeres as time and wether walketh For after that Morton had read all this in Sutcliffe yet made the matter so strāge as by his former demaund you haue heard when he said haue yow any thing to except against their practice Now heere he answereth after another fashion thus The booke saith he of Doctour Sutcliffe I could not finde and I needed not seeke it for I haue conferred with the Master who answered me that the booke De iure Magistratus he neuer thought to be Beza his worke and concerning the State of Geneua and Bishop therof he was neuer their Prince but the State of the towne was a free State of it self and now to make a question whether I should belieue him or yow is to doubt whether he that hath byn at Geneua or he that neuer saw it can better
with his being a King he meant and so he ought to doe as he was man and inferiour to his Father and when he speaketh of the other of his being a King he vnderstandeth it as he was God and equall to his Father and so taking the one in one meaning and the other in the other his principall meaning is to deceaue his Reader with a sophisticall argument instead of a demonstratiue yet doth the good man so confide in his logicall science as in one place he triumpheth ouer his Aduersary that did but once name Logicke in these wordes Dare yow saith he appeale to Logicke this is the art of all artes and the high tribunall of reason and truth it self which no man in any matter whether it be case of humanity or deuinity can iustly refuse which is so ridiculous a simplicity as no man can read without laughter For what high tribunall I pray yow hath logicke in deuinity Or who gaue her this tribunall was there no deuinity before Logicke was inuented by the Philosophers Logicke is not a science according to Aristotle but only modus sciendi a manner or meane how to come to science and it ministreth not matter but forme of argument as armour to the Logitian wherby to impugne falshood and ignorance in euery science euen as the Cutlers shop doth yeeld weapons to souldiers that goe to warre and yet cannot the Cutlers shop be iustly called the high tribunal of all matters belonging to Chieualry and feates of warfare and consequently this was a vaine florish ostentation 10. But now to returne to the principall point we haue seene that this argument is so far from being demonstratiue as it is no argument at all in regard of the Equiuocation and fallacy therin conteyned Let vs then consider the same in respect of the matter substance it self First I say that it conteyneth a manifest fond and impious paradox that Christes Kingdome as he was both King and Priest had the preheminence of his Priesthood and I call it a paradox for that I thinke no Christian man of learning euer held it before and much lesse any sound deuine Secondly I call it fond in respect of his ridiculous reasons alledged for the same which presently we shall examine And thirdly I call it impious for that it is both against the Scriptures and preiudiciall to Christes highest dignity of Priesthood vpon earth Wherby also followeth that this Ministers inference or conclusion Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to be held as conuenient among Christians must be censured by the same censures for that it concludeth a generall preheminence and excellency of Kingly State before Priesthood which is the quite opposite assertion to that which all ancient Fathers and namely S. Chrysostome out of all their common sense doth maintaine in his bookes De Sacerdotio affirming that the office and dignity of a Priest doth so far exceed that of a King as gold doth siluer heauen earth and the soule the body Regno Sacerdotium saith he tanto est excellentius quantum carnis Spiritus interuallum esse potest Priesthood is somuch more excellent then Kingly authority as there can be difference imagined betweene flesh and spirit And in another place the same Father Sacerdotium est principatus ipso etiam Regno venerabilior maior Priesthood is a Princedome more venerable great then is Kingly authority And then againe Ne mihi narras purpuram c. doe not tell me of purple or diademe of scepter or golden apparell of Kinges for these are but shaddowes and more vaine then May-flowers Si vis videre discrimen quantum absit Rex a Sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae c. If yow will see indeed the true difference betweene them and how much the King is inferiour to a 〈◊〉 consider the measure of power geuen to them both yow shall see the Priestes tribunall much higher then that of the King So he Wherunto agreeth that of S. Gregory Nazienzen spoken to the Emperour himself The law of Christ saith he hath made yow subiect to my power and to my tribunall for wee Bishops haue an Empire also and that more excellent and perfect then yours except yow will say the spirit is inferiour to the flesh and heauenly thinges to earthly 11. So he And much more to this effect which yow may read cited out of diuers Fathers in a booke set forth this last yeare in answere to Syr Edward Cookes Reportes by a Catholicke deuine who handleth this point more largely and particularly in the second and fourth Chapters of the said answere And this is sufficient to shew the inference or conclusion of T. M. to be false touching the power and dignity of Priesthood and of Kingly principallity among men Now let vs returne to the consideration therof in Christ himself which is the principall question though in effect it be decided by that which now wee haue shewed for that the dignity and preheminence aboue Kingly dignity of Priesthood in man which the foresaid Fathers doe so resolutly affirme inferreth also the preheminence of Priesthood in Christ for somuch as from that descendeth this other but yet I thinke it not amisse to handle the same somewhat more distinctly the Ministers paradox therin being so prophane and irreligious as hath byn said 12. First then as Christ is acknowledged both by them and vs to haue byn both Priest and King according as he was prefigured in Melchisedech who had both these dignities in himself so the one and the other excellency of Priestly and Kingly preheminence were in him according as he was man and vnder his Father which for so much as appertained to his Priesthood is graunted heere by T. M. and the matter is euident in itself for that Christ as God could not offer Sacrifice nor make intercession to his Father for vs which are the chief offices of Priesthood for that this belōgeth to an inferiour according to that saying of S. Ambrose Sacerdos idem hostia Sacerdotium tamen humanae conditionis officium est Christ was both Priest and Sacrifice yet was his Priesthood the office of humane condition S. Augustine also talking of both dignities saith Secundum hominem Christus Rex Sacerdos effectus est Christ was made both King and Priest according as he was man And the same is plaine by Scripture in which euery where is acknowledged that Christes Kingdome was giuen him by his Father Ego autem constitutus Rex ab eo super Sion montem Sanctum eius saith Christ in the Psalmes I am apointed King by him vpon his holy hill of Sion ergo he was King by gift and appointement of his Father And in the same Psalme God the Father saith vnto him Postula à me dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam possessionem tuam terminos terrae Aske of me and I will
with God and the Prince follow their word and direction 33. And albeit God did some-times vse for externall guiding and direction of Priestes and Priestly affaires the authority of good Kinges in those daies especially when they were Prophetes also as Dauid Salomon in the correcting and remouing of some Priestes yet this was extraordinary and proueth not that simply and absolutly Kingly dignity and authority was aboue Priesthood in that law albeit also it be most true which the Authors by this man heere alledged Salmeron Cunerus Carerius and the rest doe note that the Priesthood of the old Testament was nothing comparable to that of the new this descending directly from the person and office of Christ himself and indued with farre higher and more powerfull spirituall authority for guiding of soules then had the Priestes of the old law which was but a figure of the new therfore to argue from that to this is a plaine fallacy and abusing of the Reader 34. Wherfore leauing this of the comparison betweene Kinges and Priestes of the old and new Testament I will end this first point with the very same conclusion concerning the safty of Princes from violence of their subiectes which our Aduersary himself alledgeth out of our Catholicke Author Cunerus in these wordes VVe are taught saith he from the example of the people of God as your Cunerus teacheth with great patience to endure the tyranny of mortall Kinges yea when wee haue power to resist and because they be next vnder God in earth in all their iniuries to commend their reuenge vnto God nay he teacheth Kinges another excellent rule of pollicy fitting for the preseruation of all States which is that he who succeedeth a King violently murdered of any though of Godly zeale yet ought he to reueng his Predecessours death by the death of the malefactours So T.M. And now followeth that of the Ghospell Ex ore tuo te indico serue 〈◊〉 for first I would aske him is not this Catholicke doctrine Is it not ours doth he not heere call the Author therof Cunerus ours how then doth he affirme euery where that our doctrine teacheth killing of Princes Let him shew vs any of his Authors that euer of this argument hath written so moderatly 35. And yet further I must aske him whether he will stand to the iudgment of this our Cunerus when he commeth to the point indeed How incorrigible Princes in some cases may lawfully be restrained as also depriued by the Common-wealth and consent of the supreame Pastour will he stand to this I say or rather fleet back againe to the doctrine of the Scottish Geneuian French Flemish Ministers when the King should mislike him and especially for his Religion wherof I make little doubt what euer he saith heere finding himself and his at good ease And finally I would aske him seriously whether he would haue his Maiesty of England to practice that excellent rule of pollicy which he so highly comendeth out of our 〈◊〉 who notwithstanding saith not a word therof by way of rule or obseruation but only affirmeth that Amasias did iustly put to death those seruantes of King Ioas that vpon zeale had slaine him in his bed I would aske him I say whether indeed he would wish his Maiesty of England to put the same rule and so highly commended pollicy in vse against such as violently murdered abetted or procured the same against not only his Predecessours but parentes and immediate Progenitours Father Mother and Grand-mother And then we know how many Ministers and their friendes would enter into that daunce but these men frame their tongues according to times fit occasiōs And with this he endeth his proofes out of the old Testament Out of the new Testament §. 2. 36. ANd then comming to the second part he beginneth his discourse with this title The former question disputed according to the state of the new Testament and presently in our manner he giueth the onset with this proposition The Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporall ouer all Kinges and Kingdomes of the world c. And for proofe therof citeth Carerius and Bozius in the margent and beginneth to lay forth their proofes and then against these two that hold the opinion of Canonistes wherof before we haue treated to wit that Christ was the immediate Lord of all temporalties and consequently also is his substitute he opposeth Franciscus de Victoria Bellarmine Sanders and others that hold the other opinion to wit that the Pope hath not directly but indirectly only such authority to deale with Princes in temporall affaires and so not informing his Reader that these are different opinions of the manner how the Pope hath this authority but yet that both do agree in the thing it self that he hath it he playeth pleasantly vpon the matter and would make men thinke that he taketh vs at great aduantage as contrary or rather contradictory among our selues which indeed is no more cōtradiction then if two Lawiers agreeing that such a noble man had such an office or authority ouer such a Lordship by succession from the Crowne should differ only in this whether the said office were giuen by the Prince seuerally and expressely by particuler gift and writinges or were giuen by a certaine consequence included in the gift of the said Lordship The differēce were nothing in the thing or certainty of authority but in the manner of hauing it and so is it heere and yet out of this difference of these two opiniōs doth our Minister furnish himself with good probability of argmentes on the one side as though they were his owne who otherwise would appeare very poore pittiful therin And this tricke he plaied before with the moderate Answerer when he serued himself of the two differēt opinions of some Deuines and Canonistes about the question VVhether Hereticks before personall denuntiation and sentence giuen be subiect to externall penalties appointed by the Canons And generally he runneth to this shift more then any other commonly of his fellow-writers which I haue seene in these our dayes to wit that whersoeuer he findeth any difference of opinions in disputable matters betweene our Catholicke writers which S. Augustine saith may stand with integrity of faith there he setteth downe any one of these opinions for ours and argueth against it with the argumentes of the other or bringeth in the others authority wordes against the same which maketh some shew or muster of matter on his side wheras in deed and substance he hath nothing at all 37. It were ouer long to examine in this place all the obiections which he putteth downe on our behalfe vnder the second head of our proofes concerning the time of the new Testament calling them Romish pretences and the fond resolutions he giueth vnto them as first that we doe found the Popes temporall sword vpon the keyes giuen by
some English Kings that seemed not to respect much the Popes authority in some occasions which he hath borrowed out of Syr Edward Cookes Reportes he may see the answere to that booke and so I thinke remaine satisfied Wherefore this shall suffice for the second head of argumentes throughout the new Testament though after also in the examination of some falsifications we shall haue occasion to say more Argumentes from Reason §. 3. 43. VVHerfore to passe no further in the second point of argumentes vnder the new Testament we shall say a word or two only of the third to wit of proofes affirmed to be deduced by vs from force of reason for so he intituleth them to wit Popish Argumentes from reason And to the end you may see his talent therin wee shal examine only the third reason in this place which he declareth in these wordes Except saith the Romish pretence there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes God had not prouided sufficiētly for his Church for this he citeth the Constitution Extrauagant of Pope Bonifacius and saith This obiection is in your Extrauagantes and so it may be called because it rangeth extra that is without the bondes of Godes ordinance c. But as in all his other citations generally he is neuer lightly true and sincere in all points no not thrice I thinke veryly throughout all this lying booke of his so neither heere and it would require a great volume alone to examine only some part of his leaues about this point of his shiftes and corruptions they are so many and thicke and craftily hudled vp togeather As for example heere first this sentence is not in the Popes Extrauagant at all but only in a certaine addition to the ordinary glosse or Commentary of Iohn Picard which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer Secondly this Commentary saith nothing of deposing Apostata Princes but only affirming the foresaid opinion of Canonistes to be true that Christ was Lord absolutly in this life ouer all not only in spirituall authority but in temporall also he inferreth therby Christ should not haue sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church Kingdome vpon earth Nisi vnicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset except he had left some such one substitute or Vicar after him as should be able to performe all these thinges to wit as belong both to spirituall and temporall power according as necessity shall require which later clause yow see that T. M. cut of as he added the other about Apostata Princes And thus much for his variety of corruptions in this little sentence now to the thing it selfe 44. The reason if we consider it without passion is strong and weighty and founded vpon the prouidence wisedome and goodnes of almighty God who hauing prouided diligently and admirably for the preseruation of all other thinges and Communities by him created or ordained should leaue the Christian Common-wealth vnfurnished of all remedy for the greatest euill of all others that possibly can fall out which is the corruption of the head that may destroy the whole body wherof he is head if it be not redressed As if for examples sake the Prince would extirpate Christian Religion bring in Mahometisme or other such abhomination ouerthrow all good lawes plant and establish vice dissolution Atheisme or commit some other such exorbitant wickednes as were not tolerable wherunto notwithstanding mans frailty without the helpe of Godes grace is or may be subiect In this case saith the obiection some remedy must haue byn left by Christ or els his diuine wisdome and prouidence had not prouided sufficiently for the preseruation of his Kingdome as by light of nature he left remedy to the body of euery Common-wealth vnder the Gentiles before his cōming which is euident both by Plato Aristotle Cicero others that wrote of Common-wealthes in those dayes and did alwayes presume that the said Common-wealthes had sufficient authority by law of nature to restraine exorbitant Princes when they were perilous to the publicke and the same haue held al other learned men that euer wrote of that argument afterward 45. But as for our Catholicke learned men both Deuines and Lawiers though they affirme as out of T. M. his frequent allegations of them in this his Treatise is euident that all obedience both externall and internall in conscience and workes is by Godes ordinance due vnto them yet that in such publicke perilles of the Church Common-wealth as before are mentioned when they fal out Christ our Sauiour hath not left his Church wholy remedilesse but rather that besides the naturall right which ech Kingdome hath to defend themselues in certaine cases he left also supreame power in his high Priest and immediate substitute to direct and moderate that power and to adde also of his owne whē extraordinary need requireth though with great deliberation consultation weighty motiues lawfull meanes and other like circumstances 46. This I say is Catholicke doctrine but what Protestants doctrine is were hard to set downe for that they speake therin as time and occasion serueth them hauing no rule or Canon at all wherto they are bound For what was both their doctrine and practice when and where they were discontented with their Princes both in England Scotland Flanders Geneua and France is euident by that which before we haue alledged in the first fourth Chapters of this booke now this man telleth vs another tale for the time present but what he would say or doe if he were in the discontented occasion of those his fellow-Authors that wrote so sharpely and violently no man can tell but let vs see now at length how substantially he doth satisfy this obiectiō for he giueth three or foure seuerall solutions therunto you shall heare what ones they are 47. The first is from Godes ordinance saith he for by the word of God as your Cunerus Deuinely reasoneth which is not partiall nor by the self pleasing fancy of sensuall affection must this question be determined though therfore it may seeme to vs a decree of nature for euery one to defend himself and the thinges he doth enioy yet the Law of God doth forbid to doe this by taking armes against the higher powers c. So T. M. out of our Cunerus And it is well that he alloweth this Catholicke writer to reason deuinely so far forth as he may seeme to make for him though in truth in the cōclusion of his discourse he is wholy against him For as first his whole speech in this seauenth Chapter by him cited is expresly against the Hollanders that vnder diuers pretences both of Religion and Scriptures for the same liberty of their countrey and the like tooke armes against their true naturall King which he reproueth and condemneth very piously and learnedly throughout this whole Chapter and in the
next ensuing whose title is Quid in Tyrannide subdit is agendum sit What subiectes ought to doe in case of tyranny he sheweth two sortes of Tyranny and Tyrantes the one that inuadeth vniustly another mans dominions against the will authority of his King and Prince the other that leauing the office of a King and good Prince in protecting his people and Religion iustice among them turneth himselfe wholy to their affliction and oppression and that in the former case the people are taught by many examples of Scriptures to resist by armes where they can but in the second much more moderation is to be vsed all meanes of humble suite intreaty intercession prayer to God amendment of life and pacification to be vsed Quod si haec non iuuent saith he Superiorem in tempor alibus vti Reges Princeps non agnoscit tunc supremus Ecclesiae Pastor interpellandus occurrit qui bonis aequis subditorum querelis audit is plura Deo cooperante ratione auctoritate praestare poterit quà m vnquam 〈◊〉 armis impetrabit but if these meanes doe not help saith Cunerus and that the Prince doe acknowledge no Superiour in temporall causes as Kinges doe not then is the Supreme Pastor of the Church to be called vpon who hauing heard the iust good complaintes of the Subiects God assisting him shall be able to effectuate more by reason and authority with their Prince then euer the people themselues should haue obteyned by force of armes Thus he 48. And now will T. M. allow this also for deuinely spoken If he doe then we differ not in opinion If he doe not why doth he so often and continually cull out and cut of sentences of Authors that write directly against him as this Bishop Cunerus the Lawier Carerius the Deuine Bozius the Iesuites Bellarmine Salmeron Azor and others And yet I must admonish the Reader heere againe that if he compare the text it selfe of Cunerus with that which heere T. M. setteth downe in Latin and then the Latin with that he Englisheth he shall find such mangling vpon mangling by cutting of leauing out altering whole sentēces as he will see that this man can scarce deale truly in any thing And thus much for his first answere out of Cunerus making much more against him then for him as yow haue seene 49. And I leaue to discusse the Authority of S. Augustine which out of Cunerus he also alleadgeth for otherwise then out of our Authors bookes he hath little or nothing in any matter it being no lesse mangled by this man then is the text of Cunerus it selfe as euery one will finde that shall read Cunerus not so much as one note of c. being left any where lightly to signify that somewhat is cut of but all running togeather as if it were continuall speach in the Author whereas in deed they be but peeces scraps ioyned togeather and those also commonly with much corruption wherof I dare auouch that the Author shall finde aboue a hundred examples in this fraudulent Reply which is wholy patched vp out of the distracted sentences of our owne Authors by this art 50. But now to his second answere to the former obiection that Gods prouidence must needes haue lef't some remedy for the danger that may occurre by euill gouernment of Princes c. The second is saith he the consideration of examples of the primitiue Church when for the space of three hundred yeares it was in grieuous persecution there was found no power on earth to restraine that earthly power was therfore God wanting to his Church God forbid Nay rather he was not wanting for it is written Vertue is perfected in infirmity And againe As gold is purged in the fire so by affliction c. Because when the outward man suffereth the inward man is renewed and when I am weake then am I strong So he And doe yow see how patient and meeke this man is become now when there is nothing to suffer did his Protestant-Authors before mencioned write or teach this doctrine whē they were pressed by their Catholicke Princes to be quiet Or if this should be preached now at this day in Holland Zeland Frizeland Hungary Polonia Zweueland Transiluania where actually Protestantes are in armes against their naturall and lawfull Princes would it be receaued as currant and Euangelicall Would the examples of primitiue martyrs when there was scarce any temporall common-wealth extant among Christians be sufficient to prescribe a forme of patience sufferance to these men Why doe they not then put it in practice And why cease they not according to this mans doctrine from so notorious tumultuations against their lawfull Princes Why is not this doctrine of the Scripture of perfecting their vertue by bearing and suffering admitted by them I confesse it ought to be soe with all particuler men in their afflictions oppressions and tribulations and so teach our Doctors as before yow haue heard though when the hurt and danger concerneth a common wealth established in Christian Religion there be other considerations to be had as before hath byn set downe 51. But Protestantes obserue neither the one nor the other but both in particuler and common breake forth when they are streyned or discontēted into the vttermost violence they can and their Doctores are ready presently to defend them yea and to goe to the feild with them if need be against their Princes as experience hath taught vs both in Zwitzerland Scotland France and other places Wherfore this pretended preaching of patience and sufferance of T. M. in this place both in his outward and inward man is to small purpose 52. Wherfore his third answere is to the former obiection The view as he saith of our Popish principles wherby we teach that the Pope may not be iudged by any person vpon earth whether secular or Ecclesiasticall nor by a General Councel though he should doe something contrary to the vniuersall State of the Church neglect the Canons spare offenderes oppresse innocentes and the like For which he citeth both Bellarmine Carerius and Azor and then addeth that the Pope cannot be deposed for any of these no not though saith he to vse the wordes of your Pope himselfe one placed in the calendes of your martyrs he should carry many people with himselfe to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so Thus he 53. Whervnto I answere first that all which Bellarmine Carerius Azorius and other Catholicke writers doe affirme of the Popes preheminency of authority immediatly vnder Christ so as he hath no Superiour Iudge betweene Christ and him that may sit in iudgment ouer him or giue sentence vpon him for matters of yll life tendeth only to shew that as he receiueth his supreame charge immediatly from Christ so by him must he be iudged not by man though
a thousand and six hundred yeares which Christian Religion hath endured this doctrine of liberty and immunity of temporall Princes to belieue hold and defend what they list had byn receaued and practised for good and currant vnto this time From which singuler inconuenience danger and desperate desolation the doctrine beliefe of the only Bishop of Rome his Supreame authority and exercise therof hath chiefly deliuered vs as to all men is euident And this only reason were sufficient in all reason to refute this mans ydle confutation of that Supremacy heere pretended which confutation standing vpon so feeble and ridiculous groundes as now in part yow haue seene supported principally by certaine new shifts and iugglinges scarcely vsed by any before by casting out shaddowes of our Catholicke Authors sayinges and sentences as making for him though I meane to passe no further in impugning his said grondes which are of so small weight as yow haue seene yet doe I not thinke it amisse to adde another seuerall Chapter for better discouering of the said iugglinges vsed by him in this short Treatise not conteyning much aboue twenty 〈◊〉 in all For by this little yow may gather what a volume might be framed of his false dealings if we would dwell any longer therin A BRIEF VIEVV OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS FALSE AND FRAVDVLENT DEALINGS VSED BY T.M. In this his short seuerall Treatise against the Popes Supremacy As also sundry examples of the like proceeding in the former Part of his deceiptfull Reply CHAP. VI. IT is the saying both of Philosophers and Deuines Bonum nisi bene fiat bonum non esse A good thing except it be well rightly done is not good As for example if a man would relieue the necessity of poore and distressed people with almes gotten by stealth or robbery albeit giuing of alms of it selfe be a good thing yet for that it is not heere lawfully performed in this case it is not good nor lawfull So M. Thomas Morton taking vpon him to confute the Popes Supremacy ouer Kinges and Princes thought no doubt to doe a good worke therin at least-wise bonum vtile a profitable good thing for himself in regard of some fauour or beneuolence which he might hope to gaine with some Prince therby to his preferment but not performing the same by lawfull meanes of truth but of sleightes not withstanding to his Maiesty he tearmeth himself the Minister of simple truth though it should proue vtile yet not honestum that is for his gaine but not for his credit or conscience and consequently deserueth rather disgrace then estimation euen with those whome most he desired to gratify in that affaire 2. For demonstration wherof though I suppose to haue said sufficient before both in the second fourth and fifth Chapters by occasion of matters that occurred in discussion betweene vs yet now hauing determined with my self to passe on no further in the particuler refutatiō of this his Treatise as a thing not worth the time to be lost therin and handled far better by diuers of his owne side before him namely by M. Iewell M. Horne D. Iohn Reinoldes M. Bilson and some others in their bookes of this subiect I thought good notwithstanding for some kinde of recompence of this my breuity in answering so simple and idle a Treatise to ad some few examples more in this place of other corruptions and falsifications practized by him in this his confutation not of all for that alone would require a great booke but of some competent number wherby the Reader may ghesse at the rest his Maiesty take some proofe of the extraordinary vanity of that vaunt wherwith he presented himself to his Highnes in the very first entrance of his Epistle dedicatory in so constant assurance of an vpright conscience to vse his owne wordes as that he would willingly remit that iust aduantage against his aduersary which the difference betweene a Minister of simple truth and a professed Equiuocator did offer vnto him Now then let vs enter to the examination it self 3. Wherin only the Reader is to be aduertised that wheras this man by a new deuise of his owne doth pretend to put downe the sayings of our Catholicke writers for his purpose and that both in Latin and English the one in the text and the other in the margent pretending therby to make them speake cōtrary one to the other A course saith he to the Kinges Maiesty which I professe in all disputes he dealeth so perfidiously therin to bring them to debate as commonly the simple fellow committeth three seuerall sortes of fraudes and falshood in most of his allegations First in corrupting the meaning of the Authors alledging them quite against their owne whole drift and intended discourse and conclusion therof Secondly in setting downe fraudulently the Latin text by peecing patching their sentences togeather that stand farre a sunder in the Authors themselues by dismembring others that were coherent before as often now wee haue complained Thirdly in translating the same by like fraude into English vsing manifest violence to the wordes and sense it selfe to get therby some shew of aduantage or at least wise to say somewhat All which sortes and kindes of shifts yow shall see expressed in the examples that are to ensue 4. In the second page of his pretended confutation he hath these wordes In the old Testament the Iesuites are forced to allow that the King was supreame ouer the Priestes in spirituall affaires and ordering Priestes For proofe wherof he citeth in the margent Salmeron a Iesuit a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Ghospells Epistles of S. Paul and other partes of Scriptures and was one of the first ten that ioined themselues with the famous holy man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginning of that Religious order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kinges were head of the Church or aboue Priestes by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largly he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to solue answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed I know that many thinges may be obiected which we are diligently to confute First then may be obiected that Kinges in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe vnto Priestes what they were to doe in sacred thinges as also did put some negligent Priestes from the execution of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out it had byn no maruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteined some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then
Barkley dissenting from Doctor Boucher in this matter about the deposition of this King the one holding that he was deposed the other not but only that as a sicke man was debarred of the administration Doctor Bouchers wordes are these cited by D. Barkley Sic Oziam Azarias de Templo primùm mox etiant de Regno eiecit So Azarias the high Priest did cast out King Ozias first frō the Temple and then from his Kingdome Which the other will not haue to be vnderstood that the title and interest of his Kingdome was taken from him but only the administration which in effect is no great difference of opinions for that Bellarmine also talking of this matter saith Cùm regni administratione priuatus fuerit wheras he was depriued of the administration of the Kingdome which after in other words he expressing saith Regnandi authoritate he was depriued of the authority of actual raigning or exercising that authority wherunto the wordes of the Scripture seene plainly to agree which are these Festinatò expulerunt c. Azarias and the rest of the Priestes did hastily driue him out of the Temple and he himself being terrified with that which he felt to be the punishment of God made hast to goe forth VVherfore this King Ozias remaining a leper vnto the day of his death did dwell in a separate howse and he was full of leprosy for the which he was cast forth of the howse of our Lord so as his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the howse of the King iudge the people of the land 9. Out of which wordes of Scripture as also out of the Booke of Leuiticus where the law saith That whosoeuer shal be spotted with leprosy and is separated at the apointment of the Priest shall dwell alone without the tentes Bellarmine doth gather that this separation of King Ozias was not voluntary but by prescript order of the said high Priest Azarias and that consequently he was depriued also by the same sentence and authority of his gouernment and administration of the Kingdome against which T. M. bringeth in a great tempestuous storme of wordes and warre of the foresaid Doctor Barkley Scottishman against Cardinall Bellarmine as though he had refuted him with some contumely and contempt wheras Doctor Barkley neither nameth nor meaneth Bellarmine but only Boucher vpon his wordes before recited against whome he being according to his custome somewhat vehement in speech the difference in substance being little or nothing as yow haue seene T. M. endeauoreth by his sleightes to increase or aggrauate the same For wheras Doctor Barkley presuming Boucher to vnderstand by those his wordes De regno eiecit that Azarias had taken from K. Ozias the name and right of Kingdome saith vnto him Magna sanè imprudentia vel impudentia est ea scriptis mandare quae manifestis scripturae testimoniis redarguuntur It is truly a great imprudence or impudēcy to cōmit those thinges to writing which are controlled by manifest testimonies of Scripture There our Minister blotteth out in his Latin text the word imprudentia and will haue only to stand impudentia to set them further out then they be which me thinkes was some impudency also in him and againe when the said Barkley writeth immediatly after the former wordes Malo te negligentiae quà m nequitiae reum facere I had rarher accuse you of negligence then of malice these wordes also not without some malice T. M. striketh out and pittifully mangleth the whole discourse putting in and putting out at his pleasure and yet all set downe in his booke as the continuall speech of the Author 10. Heere then yow see how many wilfull corruptions there be first to bring in Doctor Barkley rating of Cardinall Bellarmine with magna sanè impudentia est c. Wheras he talketh not against Bellarmine at all nor indeed is Bellarmines manner of speech contrary to that which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the History for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the thing in controuersy for Priestes authority but vpon the manner of proofe by the examples alledged by D. Boucher of Ieroboam Ozias Athalia and some other Princes in whose punishment God vsed Priestes for meanes and instrumentes Non ignoro saith he Ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges Principes Christianos nec quale ius sit ignoro sed id tam alienis argument is ostendi prorsus ignoro imò non ostendi planè scio I am not ignorant saith Doctor Barkley that the Church hath right ouer Christian Kinges Princes nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is yet doe I not see how the same may be proued by such impertinent argumentes nay I know rather that it cannot be so proued Which wordes going but very few lines before those that T. M. alledgeth he could not but see and yet left them out and then beginneth against vs his English text thus Your owne Doctor calleth this your assertion most false and contrary to the direct History of the Byble to wit that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdome by Azarias the high Priest 11. But now yow haue seene that howsoeuer it may be called either deposition depriuation restraint sequestration or inhibition certaine it is that he was separated from the administration of the gouernment by 〈◊〉 the high Priest and whether his sonne during his life were truly King or only regent or Gouernour vnder his Father or whether he were bound to consult with his said Father in his greatest affaires take his approbation and commission that point which is most important Doctor Barkley proueth not but only that Ozias notwithstanding his separation was called King during his life which letted not but that his sonne might be truly King also during his Fathers dayes for otherwise D. Barkley might aswell say that his Maiesty now of England for example was not King of Scotland whiles his Mother the Queene liued in her exile which yet I thinke he will not say and therfore to vse the wordes impudentia nequitia and falsissimum in a matter so doubtfull might perhaps haue byn omitted but much more ought to haue byn the multiplicity of falsities vsed by T. M. in relating the same namely in bringing in Cardinall Bellarmine with such ardent desire to haue him contradicted disgraced as he not only applieth to him that which was spokē against another but reciting also two lines of his speech besides other manglinges shufleth in falsly two or three words that ouerthrow the whole controuersy to wit separatus extra Regnum that King Ozias was separated by Azarias the Priest forth of the Kingdome wheras Bellarmine hath not these wordes extra Regnum at al but only that he was separated from the Citty extra vrbem in domo solitaria forth of the Citty in a solitary house which thing the Scripture it self before related doth testify wherby yow see what botching there
consequently that he may assigne a Church to the Arrians Wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose trouble not your selfe O Emperour nor thinke that yow haue Imperiall right ouer those thinges that are diuine doe not exalt your selfe but if yow wil raigne long be subiect to God for it is written that those thinges that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Cesar only those thinges that belōg to Cesar Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour but Churches to the Priest the right of defending publicke walles is committed to yow but not of sacred thinges Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholy to pretermit and cut of as not making for his purpose and so had he done more wisely if he had left out also the other authority of Pope Leo which he reciteth in the eight place of authorities out of ancient Fathers in these wordes 18. The eighth Father saith he is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholicke Emperour saying Yow may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto yow not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church as if he said not only in cases temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English oath And surther neither doe our Kinges of England chalenge nor subiectes condescend vnto In which wordes yow see two thinges are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kinges of England chaleng nor doe the subiectes condescend vnto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperour of his time Wherfore it behooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which heere he saith our controuersy about the Supremacy is at an end 19. First then about the former point let vs consider how many waies T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himself putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam Yow ought ô Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto yow for gouernment of the world or worldly affaires but especially for defence of the Church and then doe ensue immediatly these other wordes also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Minister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious attemptes both defend those thinges that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slaine and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian Heretickes lately condemned in the said Councell all thinges are in most violent garboiles which require your imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle heere cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est saith he quibus pietas vestra succurrere quibus obuiare ne Alexandrina Ecclesia c. Is it not euident whome your Imperiall piety ought to assist and succour and whome yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the house of praier become not a den of theeues Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacramentes is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificij oblatio defecit chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceassed and all diuine misteries of our Religion haue withdrawne themselues from those parricidiall handes of those Heretickes that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayer 21. This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the helpe and secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent Heretiks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouernmēt of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administratiō of them 22. And heere now he sheweth himself intangled not only about the assertion of Imperiall power in spirituall matters by that S. Leo saith it is giuen ad praesidium Ecclesiae to the defence of the Church which proueth nothing at all for him but against him rather as yow see and much more in the explication therof to wit what is meant by this authority how farre it strecheth it self wherin truly I neuer found Protestant yet that could cleerly set downe the same so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours and giue it that limites which his fellowes would agree vnto or themselues make probable 23. About which matter M. Morton heere as yow see who seemeth no small man amongest them and his booke must be presumed to haue come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop at least saith as yow haue heard that it is no more but such as S. Leo allowed in the Emperour ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church and Church matters and men and for punishing Heretickes that troubled the same And further more T. M. expoundeth the matter saying That this Imperiall Kingly authority in spirituall causes reacheth no further but as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them And doe not we graunt also the same Or doe not we teach that temporall Princes power ought principally as S. Leo saith to extend it self to the defence ad preseruation
that Pope Pius Quintus before he proceeded to any Ecclesiasticall Censure against Q Elizabeth wrote vnto her a letter offering to allow and ratifie the English Seruice Bible and Communion-booke as now it is in vse in that Kingdome if she would accept it as from him which she refusing to do he did excommunicate her by which tale he acquitteth notwithstanding Catholicks if yow marke it from procuring that excommunication for rebelliō which els where he often obiecteth most odiously against them For if vpon this cause she were excommunicated what parte had Ca holicks therin But yet I must needs say that the sictiō is one of the most vnlikely things and the most impossible in morall reason that any man can deuise For that Pope Pius Quintus albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow as to care for no religion who is knowne to haue byn most zealous yet had he aduentured his Popedome by making such an offer for he should haue allowed of diuers points in the Communion-booke which are held by the Catholike Church for heresy and so condemned by the Councell of Trent and other Councels and now yow know it is a ground among vs that a Pope that should be an hereticke or approuer of heresie therby ceaseth to be Pope how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer And why had not this letter in so many yeares byn published to the world for the credit of rhe English seruice and discredit of the Popes And yet the voice is that the Lord Cooke did so earnestly auouch this matter as he pawned therin not only his credit honesty bv expresse termes of protestation but euen his faith also to God and man A great aduenture no doubt And for that I assure my selfe 〈◊〉 the greater parte of the auditory being discreet men did imagine it to be quite false as I and others in effect do know it to be it must needs be a great blemish to my Lordes credit at the beginning of his Iudgeship that in other thinges also he be not belieued 79. But I vnderstand that the booke of this speach or charge now printed is expected shortly togeather with some other appertayning to the same man and then it may be that some body will examine matters more particulerly especially those that appertayne to the iniuring of Catholickes and afterward returne with the aggreuances to the Iudge himselfe seing he is now a Iudge to giue sentence of his owne ouersightes albeit I must confesse that as well my selfe as diuers other men haue lost great hope of his Lordship by this accident for before we did thinke that his ouerlashing in speaches when he was Attorney did proceed in great parte of the liberty of that office and that when he came to be iudge he would reforme his conscience ratione status in regard of his state of life but now it seemeth that he is farre worse though this I say shal be lefte by me to others to be discussed vpon the sight of the foresaid printed bookes 80. My speach at this time shall be only about that which passed in his booke of Reportes while he was Attorney and which hath byn disputed these monethes past betweene him and a Catholicke Deuine of our partie in his answere to the said Reportes which answere is in England And albeit therby may easely be seene the talent which M. Attorney had while he was Attorney in this kynd of worst Equiuocation notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sorte that with due circumstances we haue proued to be lawfull yet will I heere adioyne one example more but such a one as is worth the noting bearing away And it is this 81. That wheras in answering of dyuers lawes 〈◊〉 and ordinances which the Attorney alledged out of the raignes of sundry ancient Kinges to proue that they did exercise spirituall authority and iurisdiction the Deuine somtymes not hauing the law-bookes by him out of which the said lawes or authorityes were cyted supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true for who would suspect lawyers to be false in their cytations that were wont to be accompted most exact in that point did answere the same with that sincerity of truth and reason as to a man of his profession appertayned though somtymes also he was forced to suspect some fraud and thervpon requested such as had commodity in England to see the bookes that they would pervse the places and take them out verbatim which some haue done and haue found such store of Equiuocations and false dealing in the alleadging therof as neuer could be imagined in a man of his calling I shall only set downe one example and it shall be the first that is cyted by him in the whole booke to wit of the Charter of King Kenulphus of the VVest-Saxons vnto the Abbey of Abindon in Barkeshyre which Charter M. Attorney set downe with this preface To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfie such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes c. these few demonstratiue proofes shall serue 82. And then beginneth he with the said Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest meaning to proue therby that the said King did giue vnto the said Abbey of Abindon spirituall Iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall Crowne exempting the same from all Authority of the Bishop which in deed was done by the Pope and so the Charter it selfe doth plainly expresse if it had byn truly related by M. Attorney And for that the Case is not long I shall set it downe verbatim as the Attorney hath it in his booke pag. 9. only putting into English that which is recyted by him in latin and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure and then shall wee lay forth also the true case wherby will be seene how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writinges and protestations which after we shall more largely consider of Thus then beginneth the Charter 83 Kenulphus Rex c. per literas suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus ad eandem pertinentibus-tam in magnis quam in modic is rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quod praedictus Kuchinus c. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi aut suorum officialium iugo inde deprimantur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijciantur ita quod c. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney alleageth it which in English is as followeth 84. King Kenulphus
c. by his letters patentes with the counsell and consent of the Bishops and Counsellours of his nation did giue to the 〈◊〉 of Abindon in Barkshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certayne portiō of his land to wit fifteene Mansians in a place called by the country-men Culnam with all profittes and commodityes great and small appertayning thervnto for euerlasting inheritance And that the foresaid Ruchinus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitantes of that place shall not be depressed for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bishop or his officers but that in all euentes of thinges and controuersyes of causes they shall be subiect to the decree of the Abbot of the said Monastery so as c. And then doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. and vouched by Stanford as at large appeareth which Charter graunted aboue 850. yeares sithence was after confirmed per Eduinum Britaniae Anglorum Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955. by which appeareth that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops Senators of his Kingdome which were assembled in Parlament did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the Iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction within his said Abbey which Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being deriued from the Crowne continued vntill the dissolution of the said Abbey in the raigne of King Henry the eight So he 85. And by this yow may see what an important conclusion he doth inferre of the Kinges supreme iurisdiction in spirituall affayres at that time Whervnto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not falsity or belye his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. of his his booke that he had cyted truly the very wordes and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgmentes and actes of Parlament all publicke and in print without any inference argument or amplification quoting particularly the bookes yeares leaues Chapters and other such like certayne references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them c. The answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to his credit and honour in this behalfe granting all as it lay answered the same as yow may see in his booke but now vpon better search it falleth out that this whole 〈◊〉 was falsely alledged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall controuersy in hand about the Kinges spiritual Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charter did ascribe expresly to the Pope his Authority the Attorney suppressing the true wordes relateth it as proceeding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very wordes of my learned friends letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law-bookes themselues and then let any man say how farre M Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholickes 86. As concerning saith he the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon yow must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other points For the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humphrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high 〈◊〉 and tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London from thence brought vnto the Kings-bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said Sanctuary of Culnam and prayed his Counsell to plead that poynt which by all the Iudges of both benches was graunted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 87. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quod Kenulphus Rex Merciorum per litteras suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon ac cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui a ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus ad 〈◊〉 pertinentibus tam in magnis quà m in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quod praedictus Ruchinus ab omni Regis obstaculo Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut ministrorum suorum Episcopiue aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijcerentur 〈◊〉 quod c. And heere ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as yow see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo c. that the monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these wordes vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprimantur that the inhabitants be not opprest with any yoke of any King or his ministers wherby is euident that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall royall power but especially the fraude is seen by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decyde the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quod Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et quod Eduinus tunc Britaniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus concessit quod praefatum Monasterium omnis terrenae seruitutis esset liberum quae 〈◊〉 praedecessoribus suis Catholicis videlicet à dicto Sancto Leone Papa dicto Rege Kenulpho c. Et quod virtute litter arum bullarum praedictarum tempore confectionis earundem eadem villa de Culnam fuit Sanctuarium locus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said Humphrey Stafford by his Counsell alledged furthet for himselfe that Pope Leo had graunted vnto the said Abbot the said immunityes and priuiledges that K. Edwin then King monarch ouer all the English in Britany had graunted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholike predecessors to wit the said holy Pope 〈◊〉 the said King Kenulphus was graunted and that at the tyme of the making of the foresaid letters patentes and Bulles the said village or towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary and priuiledged place by vertue of the said patents and Bulles 88. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sāctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsell in law euen as it is recorded in the reportes of the yeares of King Henry the seauenth as
his submission to Pope Hildebrand at Canusium cap. 6. n. 38. K. Henry the 8. of England his Supremacy impugned by diuers Protestantes cap. 4. n. 35. Heresy vvhat it is cap. 2. n. 19. Who is an hereticke Ib. n. 20. Heresy consummated in the vnderstanding and not in the vvill cap. 6. n. 44. Heresy cannot be decreed in the Cath. Church by Popes as Popes cap. 6. n. 63. M. Horne his Equiuocations cap. 12. n. 43. D. Hunnius his booke against Caluin cap. 6. n. 78. 80. His protestation and prayer against Caluinistes Ibid. n. 98. His opinion about 〈◊〉 vvryting against Arrians Ibid. n. 103. I IACOB vvhether he lyed or noe in saying he vvas Esau cap. 9. n. 34. B. Iansenius his discourse about the feigning of our Sauiour to goe further then Emaus cap. 9. nu 73. Ievvell Bishop of Salisbury his notable lying-Equiuocation cap. 12. nu 12. 13. 14. deinceps His abusing rayling against S. Augustine Ibid. n. 30. 31. 34. His Apostrophe in his sermon at Paules Crosse Ibid. n. 12. Impiety of Porphyrius the Apostata cap. 9. n. 66. Incertainty of Saluation dependeth on our partes cap. 11. n. 24. Inconueniences of exasperation and despayre cap. 1. nu 3. Insolencies vsed tovvardes K. 〈◊〉 of England by Protetestant-Ministers in Scotland cap. 1. n. 24. Insurrections against lavvfull Princes by New-Ghospellers in our dayes cap. 1. n. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. deinceps Intention to deceyue a principall clause in a lye cap. 8. nu 47. 56. S. Iohn Baptist his mentall Reseruation cap. 9. n. 18. 19. 20. 21. His ansvvere compared to the ansvvere of a priest in Englād cap. 9. n. 23. 24. Iohn Caluin vvhether he fauoured 〈◊〉 or no cap. 6. part 3. per totum His diuers Arrian speaches Ibid. n. 77. Whether he denyed Christ to be God of God Ibid. n. 53. His manner of speach condemned by Bellarmine Ibid. n. 56. 76. 77. His extreeme pride and impiety cap. 6. n. 97. Whether and hovv he impugned the Arrians cap. 6. n. 102. Iosue his stratageme in taking the Citty of Hay by Gods appointment cap. 7. n. 25. Ironicall speach a kind of Equiuocation cap. 8. n. 16. K KING Kenulphus his charter for Abindon-Monastery notably falsified by the Lord Cooke cap. 12. n. 81. 82. deinceps Keyes hovv they may signify authority both temporall and spirituall cap. 5. n. 37. King Iames of Great-Brittany his speach in his Proclamation Court of Parlamēt Prefat n. 16. His moderation therin ibidem His affliction and molestation by Protestants in Scotland cap. 1. n. 23. 24. 25. His iudgement of English ministers notes vpon the Bible cap. 4. n. 25. Kingly power or Priesthood in Christ whether greater cap. 5. n. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Knox his pestilent and wicked doctrine against the soueraignty of Princes cap. 2. n. 48. His Reuel and cruelty in Scotland against Catholicks cap. 4. n. 24. 33. L LAMBERTVS Scasnaburgensis abused by Thomas Morton cap. 6. n. 37. S. Leo notably corrupted by Thomas Morton cap. 6. n. 19. 20. 21. Lord of Salisbury his booke and answere to a threatning letter sent him anno 1605. Pref. n. 18. 19. The scope therof ibid. n. 20. 21. 22. 23. How he was deceyued by his Deuyne ibid. n. 20. 21. Luthers wicked opinion of the ancient Fathers when they make against him cap. 12. n. 21. 22. 23. Lying and dissimulation how different from Equiuocation cap. 7. n. 34. S. Thomas his seuerity against lying ibid. n. 35. Item of the Maister of Sentēces ibid. n. 36. Lying defined by S. Augustine cap. 8. n. 47. The essence therof ibidem Item by S. Thomas of 〈◊〉 ibid. n. 56. 57. M MARTINVS de Magistris abused by M. Ievvell cap. 12. n. 36. Mentall reseruation proued in S. Iohn Baptiste his answere cap. 9. n. 18. 19. Ancient Fathers their expositions for the same ibid. nu 20. 21. Mentall reseruation in diuers speaches of our Sauiour cap. 8. n. 13. 14. cap. 9. n. 26. 27. 28. 44. 58. 59. 61. cap. 11. num 45. Metropolitan of lying Metropolis cap. 10. n. 33. Miters how they be aboue Crownes cap. 5. n. 25. Murder of the Lord Darley K. of Scotland by Protestants cap. 1. n. 21. Murder of Dauid Secretary to the Q. of Scotland cap. 1. n. Ibid. Mysterious speaches how they be Equiuocall cap. 9. n. 35. N NATVRE of heresy and pertinacy c. 6. n. 41. Necessity of Equiuocation in some cases cap. 7. n. 20. 21. 22. deinceps Necessity not required to perfection in many thinges cap. 7. nu 5. O OATH vvhat it is cap. 8. num 50. Oath of Supremacy in Englād and T. M. his iudgment therof cap. 6. n. 24. Obedience to Princes and doctrine therof deliuered by Caluinistes cap. 1. n. 10. Obstinacy necessary to make heresy and vvhy cap. 6 n. 43. Offers and kind Offices of the Sea of Rome tovvards K. Iames of Great Brittany cap. 2. n. 41. Old-Testament a figure of the nevv cap. 5. num 6. Opinion of Catholickes for restrayning of euill Princes cap. 5. n. 45. Opinion of forraine vvryters for the lavvfulnesse of Equiuocation cap. 10. num 15. Oracle of Logitians cap. 8. num 6. Orders of Religious men that defend Equiuocation cap. 9. num 14. Otho Frisingensis abused by T. Morton cap. 8. num 36. Ozias King of Israell his expulsion and contention therabout cap. 6. n. 8. 9. 10. 11. P PARLAMENTES their first beginning in Englād cap. 12. num 89. Perfection requireth not necessity in many thinges c. 7. n. 5. Perkins the Minister his equiuocations cap 12. n. 58. 59. 60. deinceps His falsifying of S. Bernard ibid. n. 60. 61. 62. Plessis Mornay his Equiuocations cap. 12. n. 72. 73. c. His disputation with the Bishop of Eureux in France ibid. n. 74. 75. His falsifying of Authors ibid. Ponderations about the vncertainty of Protestants doctrine cap. 6 part 3. § 4. per totum Popes may and must be deposed for heresy cap. 5. n. 53. cap. 6. n. 62. 63. Pope lesse dangerous without Superior then many Princes cap. 5. n. 61. Pope Pius Quintus abused by the Lord Cooke cap. 12. n. 78. Pope Hildebrand slaundered by Th. M. cap. 6. n. 33. 34. The Emperours submissiō vnto him at Canusium ibidem Porphyrius the Apostata his impiety cap. 9. n. 66. Princes how they must deposed by the liuely word of God cap. 4. n. 34. Prior Iames of Scotland made Earle of Murrey and Lord Protector of that Kingdome cap. 1. n. 20. 21. Priesthood the dignity therof greater then Regalty cap. 5. n. 32. 33. Two principall points therof ibid. n. 17. Priesthood and Kingly power in Christ whether greater on earth cap. 5. n. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Proofes for the lawfullnes of Equiuocation cap. 9. per totum Prophesyes corrupted and eluded by Iohn Caluin c. 6. part 3. § 3.
yow see besides the flat deniall both of King and Queenes supremacy it conuinceth plainly that which our Minister T. M. before denied And so with this conuiction in the sight of all his Brethren we leaue him But yet let vs heare what he saith to some other particulers before by vs obiected 36. To that then of Syr Thomas VVyat the Duke of 〈◊〉 and others he answereth diuersly First the History relateth saith he the pretence of VVyat thus A proclamation against the Queenes marriage desiring all Englishmen to ioine for defence of the Realme c. then that in Queene Maries oration against VVyat there is not to be fond saith he any scruple concerning the cause of Religion thirdly that no Minister of the Ghospell was brought in question as a Commotioner in that cause Lastly if intent might answere for Protestantes accused in that name then is it plaine that it was not Religion If for VVyat and his fellowes it is plaine it was not against the Queene or State but for both So he In all which different clauses of his answer consider if any one be in it self true for as for the first and second though VVyat pretendeth in his proclamation the said marriage with Spaine to be the chiefe cause yet not alone but that the Queene and Counsell saith Fox would also by this marriage as he affirmed bring vpon the Realme miserable seruitude and establishe Popish Religion 37. And the same Fox relateth Queene Maries wordes in her oration thus That the matter of the marriage is but a Spanish cloake saith shee to couer their protensed purpose against our Religion So as in these two pointes the Minister lieth openly but more in the last that VVyats attempt was not against Queene Mary or the state but for both for that Queene Mary in the same oration as both Fox and Holinshead doe iointly relate affirmed VVyats answere to haue byn to Syr Edward Hastinges and Syr Thomas Corn-wallis sent from her vnto them which he also at his arraignment confessed that he and his would haue the gouernance of her person the keeping of the Tower and the placing of her Counsellours And as for the other point whether any Ministers were called in question as Commotioners in that attempt importeth little for so much as no man can doubt but that the Commotion being so generall and for Religion as Fox affirmeth all Ministers hartes and tongues were therin in secret and their handes in like manner so far forth as they durst which being well knowne to Queene Mary her Counsell caused them to proceed against the principall soone after in matter of Religion preferring therin the iniury done to God before the iniuries offered to her self though Doctor Sanders doe affirme that diuers chiefe of the new Clergy amōg them Doctor Cranmer were conuinced to haue conspired in that Rebellion And by this we see how well the Minister hath iustified his Protestantes in this point It is euen as good as their iustification by only faith which maketh them lesse iustifiable then before Let vs passe to some other examples and se what he saith to the Rebellion of Protestantes in other countreys 38. To that which hath byn proposed of Scotland both by the moderate Answerer and by my self also in my first Chapter of this Treatise of so great and intolerable insolencies vsed in Scotland by Protestant-Ministers and their Disciples against Grand-mother Mother Father and sonne all lawfull Princes violated by them he yeeldeth no other answer or satisfaction but that which before hath byn recited that in a Parlament vpon the yeare 1584. the Chronicle of Buchanan was called in by the said Parlament the Kinges highnes then being about eighteene yeares old But what is this to the purpose Did this alter their doctrine or manner of Rebellious proceeding therevpon which they had vsed both against his Maiesty in the time of his minority and against his Mother and Grand-mother before him and against him after this Statute published No truly but they were more earnest in their sedition afterward then before for that the very next yeare after they caused that notorious surprise to be made vpon his Royall person at Striueling before mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise 39. Iames Gibson also one of the chief Ministers being called before his Maiesty and priuy Counsell vpon the one and twentith of December 1585. vsed intollerable speech vnto his highnes calling him Persecutour and comparing him to Ieroboam threating his rooting out and the like which his Maiesty can best remember So as such doctrine and such practice being held by them their new Ghospelling Brethren of Scotland in those dayes it is a simple satisfaction for our Minister to come forth now with a reuocation of Buchanans Chronicle as though that did remedy the matter or as though that reuocation had byn made by them I meane the Ministers repentant for their former doctrine and not rather by the Ciuill Magistrate impugned and resisted by the other And this for the present of Scotland 40. To the examples of France alledged by the Answerer of infinite rebellions made by the Protestants for many yeares togeather against sundry Crowned Princes of that Realm of which attempts many were so barbarous as without horrour they cannot be vttered And one French writer affirmeth that within the compasse of one yeare which was 1562. two and fourty thousand Priestes Religious and Ecclesiasticall persons were most desperately murdered aboue twenty thousand Churches cast on the grounde and within the compasse of ten yeares by the witnes of a Protestant writer Colignius two millions of men were slaine two thousand Monasteries ouerthrowne nine hundred hospitalles destroyed aboue two hundred Citties Castelles ruined vnder one only K. Henry the third To all this I say he answereth that according to the Historicall Collections which he hath seene of French affaires the fault of all this is to be laid vpon the house of Guise who being strangers sought to suppresse the natural Princes of the bloud Royal in France as also to oppresse the Ghospellers But suppose this were true which I hold to be most false slaūderous yet could not this particuler passion of the house of Guise make lawfull the Protestants Rebellion against their naturall lawfull Kinges no more then if now in England the Catholikes or Puritanes should rebell against his Maiesty for that some noble man or men of the Counsell were knowne to be their enemies 41. To the examples of Caluin and Beza in Geneua both for doctrine and practize he answereth first for doctrine granting Caluins sentence to be That when a King vsurpeth Gods throne he looseth hu Royalty And againe If the King exalt himself to Godes throne and commaundeth any thing contra Deum against God then to pull him downe Moreouer he granteth that Caluin vseth this phrase That when a King doth so behaue himself we