rebellion is the enterprise of Amboise An. 1560. But the Protestant Religion had subsisted already forty years in France under the crosse And the Professors of the same though numerous had never fought for their Religion but by their constancy in asserting the truth and suffering for it The enterprise of Amboise was a 〈◊〉 quarrel of State not of Religion and â—â—…andâ—â— the Leader was a man most averse from the Protestant Religion The quarrel was this King Francis the II. being about sixteen years of age and younger in understanding then years was altogether governed by some Lords of the House of Guise then lookt upon as strangers and the Princes of the blood were excluded from the businesses of State These excluded Princes plotted to surprise the Court at Amboise and remove strangers from about the Kings person thinking themselves sufficiently warranted by their quality and interest that plot was cried Thuan. Hist lib. 24. Nullos ex conjuratis convictos fuisse alicujus molitionis in Regemaut Reginam sed tantuÌ„ in exteros sui in Aulâ tyrannicé omnia administrabant nempe Guisianos down as rebellious because it did not take effect and being discovered the House of Guise did not fail to make it a matter of High Treason although the great Thuanus depose for the conspirators that None of them was convicted of any attempt against the King and Queen but onely against strangers who governed all things about the Court in a tyrannical way Who so knoweth the interests of the Princes of the blood in France will never call that attempt treason And if they could do so much by the right of their birth their right was never the worse for their being Protestants Francis II. being dead soon after and his Successor Charls the IX being under age the Princes of the blood had more right then before to claim the management of the publick affairs being intrusted with them by the Laws of the Kingdome in the Kings minority at least in conjunction with the Queen Mother And being excluded from it again they raised an Army to recover their right That right is not considered at all by Jesuites that take upon them now a hundred years after to censure their actions but these Princes and their followers are represented onely as Hereticks and Rebels that made Warre against their Sovereigne After the King was out of minority the Princes and their party seeing that the King was much incensed against them and was of a dangerous and implacable nature durst not come neer him and the frequent Massacres made them keep themselves in a posture of defence and repel force by force To be rid of them at once the King used that famous and unparallelled treachery of a feigned peace with the Protestants sealed with the Marriage of his Sister with the Head of their party the first Prince of the blood next to his Brothers Henry King of Navarre and having invited them to the Wedding he slew them in their beds The number of the slain in cold blood on St. Bartholomew's Day and since within the space of three moneths amounted to about a hundred thousand An action publickly commended by the Pope and the Murtherers rewarded with many spiritual graces by his Holinesse That the relicks of the party after that general execution took defensive arms as it is not to be commended it is not to be wondred at neither Men are not Angels and there is nothing more natural then to strive for life The House of Guise having formed the League pretended for the destruction of Heresie but intended 〈◊〉 them for the pulling down of the Royal House King Henry the III. perceiving this too late made â—â—e of Henry King of Navarre then the apparent Heir of the Crown and of his Protestants Army to oppose the League That King being stabbed by a Monk soon after the Head of the Protestant party became lawful King and his Protestant Army the Royal Army yet their arms then though never so just were as much condemned by the Pope as before and as much taxed of rebellion But that praise cannot be denied to their arms that by them as Gods chief instruments the rebellion of the League was defeated and the lawful King preserved raised and setled upon his Throne whilest the Jesuited Zealots exprest their zeal of religion by attempting to stab him and were too good Catholicks to be good Subjects Since our Adversary alledgeth the words of King James of blessed and glorious memory and sets himself forth under the name of Philanax a Lover of the King he must in duty stand to the judgement of that great and judicious King This Sentence his Majesty pronounceth of that cause which this enemy calleth a Defence of the Right of Kings most unanswerable rebellion pag. 14. I never knew yet saith the King that the French Protestants took arms against their King In the first troubles they stood onely upon their defence Before they took arms they were burnt and massacred every where and the quarrel did not begin for Religion but because when King Francis the II. was under age they had been the refuge of the Princes of the blood expelled from the Court even of the Grandfather of the King now reigning and of that of the Prince of Conde who knew not where to take sanctuary For which the present King hath reason to wish them well It shall not be found that they made any other warre nay is it not true that King Henry the III. sent armies against them to destroy them and yet they ran to his help as soon as they saw him in danger Is it not true that they saved his life at Tours and delivered him from an extreme peril Is it not true that they never forsook neither him nor his Successour in the midst of the revolt and rebellion of most part of the Kingdome raised by the Pope and the greatest part of his Clergy Is it not true that they have assisted him in all his battails and helped much to raise the Crown again which was ready to fall Is it not true that they which persecuted the late King Henry the II. enjoy this day the fruits of the services done by the Protestants who are now maligned not for controversies of Religion but because that if their advice was followed the Crowne of the French Kings should no more depend on the Pope there would be no Frenchman in France that is not the Kings Subject there would be no appeal to Rome of beneficial and matrimonial causes and the Kingdome should be no more tributary under colour of Annats and the like impositions Even Cardinal Perron cleareth them from that imputation of rebellion when he saith that the doctrine of the deposition of Kings by the Pope was received in France till Calvin He doth then silently acknowledge that Kings were ill served before and that those whom he calls hereticks having brought forth the Holy Scripture to the publick sight
former subjection From Holland the Adversary saileth into Scotland and objects to us the Maxims of Knox and Buchanan and the disorders of that time Of which I have said enough in the Chapter before Of the Work of Reformation in England and the publick actions of that age upon that interest he speaks very scornfully saying that the Sect of Wicleff lay pag. 71. strangled in the cradle till King Edward the VI. his dayes when some ends of it were taken up again and set out with more ostentation then ever in that Princes minority and what rare effects of obedience were by that means produced in Queen Maries time who brought them up again to the test may be easily read in our Chronicles Wherein it is plain that in the poor five years of her Reign there was de facto more open and violent opposition and rebellion made by her own subjects then Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years or any Prince before or since the Wicleffian doctrine till the same smothered fire broke out at last in good King Charles his time to his utter ruin and the shaking of the very foundation of his Monarchy Is this spoken like a most observant Son and in every honest mans esteem a pious reverend and learned Priest of the Church of England as this Author is tearmed in the Publishers Epistle to the Reader Certainly a Son and a Priest of the Church of England would never have derived from Wickleff but from the Holy Scripture the Religion of the Church his Mother nor ascribed to her Religion the cause of the late horrid rebellion We see what a Son and Priest of the Church he is the tree is known by his fruit What better figs can be gathered from such a thorn What better grapes from such a bramble And what is that doctrine of Wickliffe which he imputes to the Protestants to the English especially Impios nullum dominium habere That the ungodly pag. 70. can have no right of dominion Was that the doctrine set out with ostentation in Edward the VI. his dayes Or was any of the Protestants found tainted with that doctrine when Queen Mary burnt them which this man calls bringing them to the test Sure it was not upon that ground that some oppositions were made against that Queen It is a wonder that she met with no more considering how her Father had declared by Act of Parliament her Mothers Marriage unlawful and her self incapable of the Crown and had miserably incumbred the Title and Succession of his Children That there was more open and violent opposition against her in her five years reigne from her own Subjects then Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years it is because they that went to question her Title went to work plainly above boord but no secret Jesuitical conspiracies to stabbe or poyson her as against Queen Elizabeth The means she made to reduce her dissenting subjects in Religion when they made no opposition against her was to make bon-fires of them Three hundred of those burnt-offerings she sacrificed unto God A farre greater number in her poor five years then that of the Popish Martyrs of disobedience since the death of that Queen now above a hundred years For no Papist was executed for his Religion all for disobeying the Laws of the Land and many of them for High Treason It is known that Queen Mary got the Crowne by the assistance of the Protestants of Suffolk and what recompence she gave them for it And whereas no fewer then eight rebellions did rise in Henry the VIII his dayes I find not that the Protestants had a hand in any of them All were raised by Papists and upon the score of Popery The principal colour of our Adversaries malice is his detestation of the late rebellion of England and the execrable Murther committed in the sacred Person of our gracious Sovereigne Upon this he makes several Panegyricks which are very ill sorted with his Apology for Mariana and justifying of the Iesuites doctrine Especially seeing that those actions were copied out upon their principles Felicia tempora quae te Moribus admorunt Belike the curious pens of the wise States-men and learned Scholars of England had need to be supplied by the boyish theames of a petty Novice of Doway to learn the duty of Subjects and to abhorre the guiltinesse of rebellion The venome that lieth under that oratory of invectives is that all the mischief is imputed to the Protestants of Integrity a term which he useth like a stirrup-leather longer or shorter according to his occasions yet alwayes treacherously to cast the faults of some particular person or some heretical Sect upon the generality of the Protestants But let him know that the King the Church and the State are Protestants of Integrity and that the parricides and troublers of our Israel will never give him thanks for calling them Protestants Also that we acknowledge them not for such unlesse it be upon a new score because they protest against the Kings power and the duty of their obedience When Jesuits or their Scholars as this Gentleman is charge our Fanaticks with High Treason they do but act that which they had prepared to do if the Powder-Plot had taken For they had a Declaration ready to indite the Protestants of that Treason For these men would story the just clamor against them for their doctrine of rebellion and parricide by laying the same charge with loud words upon others We have great reason to call upon the Justice of God and Men to condemne the unsincerity of this clamour With what face or conscience can the Jesuits passe a hard Sentence upon the late Rebels and King-killers seeing that these furious Zealots have neither taught nor done any thing in that horrible defection but what they had learned of the Jesuits For what do they blame them for Is it for teaching that the Sovereigne Power lieth in the Commons and that they may alter the Government of a State Did they not learn Bellarm. de Laicis lib. 3. cap. 6. Potestas immediate est tanquam in subjecto in tota multitudine si causa legitima adsit potest multitudo mutare regnum in Aristocratiam aut Democratiam è contrarie that of Bellarmine The Power saith he is in the whole multitude as in its subject and if there be a lawful cause for it the multitude may alter the Royal State into an Aristocracy or Democracy and so on the contrary Is it for saying that the people makes the King and may unmake him and retains still the habit of power Did they not learn of the same Bellarmine that In the Kingdomes of Bellarm. de Concil lib. 2. cap. 19. In regnis hominum potestas Regis est à populo quia populus facit Regem Ibid. cap. 19. sect ad alteram In Rebusp temporalibus si Rex degeneret in tyrannum licet caput sit Regni tamen à populo potest
dignitate atque authoritate regia privare Executio ad alios pertinet when he would not have Ecclesiastical men to kill Kings with their own hands but to stand to the method that the Pope observeth Which is first to admonish Kings fatherly Then deprive them of the Communion of the Sacraments by Ecclesiastical censures Finally to absolve their subjects from the Oath of their Allegiance and if needs be deprive them of the Royal Authority The execution belongeth to others The Adversary also alledgeth Lessius in his book de Scientia Jure he meaneth de Justitia It seemeth the man had heard of the book but never seen it But for that mistake his quotation is right a Lessius de Iustitia Iure lib. 2. cap. 9. dubio 4. Talis non potest à privatis interimi quandiu manet Princeps c. In that place speaking of such a King as is not a tyrant by usurpation but by administration he saith Such a Prince cannot be slain by private persons as long as he remains a Prince Which is altogether against the security of Kings lives For the Popes Decrees and the writings of the Jesuites having so many times determined that a Prince deposed by the Pope is no more a Prince but a private person this goodly Aphorisme of Lessius exposeth the lives of all Kings deposed or excommunicated to the attempts of all private men b Idem Ibid. dubio 11. Princeps non potest à subdito interfici nisi forte ob necessariam vitae suae desensionem He alloweth also a subject to kill his Prince in the defence of his own life contrary to the Evangelical precept of not resisting the higher Dub. 12. Si tantum excrescat tyrannis ut non videatur amplius tolerabilis nec ullum aliud remedium supersit primum à Rep. vel comitiis regni vel alio habente authoritatem esse deponendum hostem declarandum ut in ipsius personam liceat quicquam attentare Tunc enim desinit esse Princeps powers And that you may know him to be like his confreres in treasonable doctrine He concludes that question thus If the tyranny groweth to that point that it seem not to be tolerated any more and that there be no remedy He must first be deposed by the Common-wealth or the States of the Kingdome or by another that hath authority and declared an enemy that it may be lawful to attempt any thing against his person What is that other person that hath authority over King Commonwealth and States It must be one that belongs not to the State else he should be a subject and could not pretend to that authority of deposing the King and exposing his life to all attempts And what other person pretends to that authority but the Pope He alledgeth also Azorius in his Moral Institution but doth not quote any place This is his doctrine All that were bound to an heretick in any Azorius hist Moral part 1. lib. 8 cap. 13. Eos omnes qui erant haeretico aliqua ratione obstrict jusjurandi seu fidelitatis seu alterius pactionis liberari Absolutos se noverint à debito fidelitatis Domini totius obsequii quicunque lapsis manifesto in haeresin aliquo pacto quacunque firmitate tenebantur astricti manner whether with oath or fidelity or any other paction Let them know that they are absolved from all debt of fidelity or obedience c. The Pope may take away or give a King for just causes and then the people may obey the Pope as their superiour who hath sovereigne power both upon the King and Kingdome If Idem Ibid. part 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. A Romano Pontifice Rex au fertur vel datur justis de causis tunc populus tanquam superiori Romano Pontifici parere debet Habet in Regem regnum summam potestatem he hath sovereigne power over them he hath power of life and death And whereas this Gentleman alledgeth Gretzer as one that confuteth all Mariana's grounds I find that he defends them all in that very place which he quoteth We are not such dastards saith Gretzer-Vespertilio Haereticopoliticus pag. 159. Tam timidi trepidi non sumus ut asserere palam vereamur Romanum Pontificem posse si necessitas exigat subditos Catholicos solvere juramento fidelitatis si Princeps tyrannice illos tractet he as to fear openly to affirme that the Pope of Rome may if necessity so require free his Catholick subjects from their oath of fidelity if their Sovereigne handle them tyrannically Yea he takes openly Mariana's cause saying pag. 160. that Mariana is wrongfully traduced for writing that it is lawful to kill any Prince that disobeyeth the Pope since he maintains that a lawful Prince who disobeyeth the Pope notwithstanding ought not to be made away by any private man if sentence be not pronounced against him And he that must pronounce that Sentence is the Pope He complaineth also that Mariana is unjustly accused for affirming that a tyrant ought to be poysoned seeing he Idem pag. 162. Ne tyannum quidem primi vel secundi generis etiam post judiciariam contra illum latam sententiam veneno licite tollis si Tyrannus ipsemet venenum illud sumere sibi applicare debeat maintains the contrary affirming that a tyrant cannot lawfully be made away by poyson if himself take it and apply it to himself Which cannot be avoided when his meat and drink is poysoned So in the end he agreeth with Mariana whose words I have produced in my second Chapter and is content that a tyrant be poysoned so that he takes not the poyson himself Is not that straining the gnat and swallowing the camel These holy murtherers make nothing of killing a King onely they are scrupulous about the circumstance Thus I have shewed what those Jesuites say which this Gentleman alledgeth All but Serarius and Richeome which I have not by me no more then he that quoteth them And I have made it plain that they all consent with Mariana and speak the same language But what he tells us that the opinion of Mariana was condemned by a Provincial Congregation of the Jesuites and that condemnation ratified by the General of the Jesuites Claudius Aquaviva So it was with shame enough to Aquaviva and his confreres who had approved and licenced it before But see what that condemnation comes to the Jesuites seeing their Sect made odious by the writings of Mariana Suarez Vasquez and others and more by the murthering of Kings by persons died with their principles made Ne quisquam scripto vel sermone doceat licitum esse cuicunque personae quocunque praetextu tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere an order among themselves whereby they forbad to write or teach that doctrine any more The words of the Ratification are those That none teach by writing or speaking that
am not without suspition that when those places of safety were granted to them by Henry the IV. their enemies in the Kings Counsel suggested or furthered that grant for their undoing in the time to come for they might well foresee that on the one side a wise King would not suffer long such a disease in his own bowels as a party of his subjects armed with places of security against him and that on the other side the party so secured would not part with that security for their Religion Liberties and Lives without committing such actions as would make them obnoxious to their Sovereigns anger and their ruine Three or four years after the rendition of all those places to the King the Duke of Montmorancy raised a party against him in Languedock of which he was Governour hoping to find the Protestants which are numerous there prepared subjects for an insurrection yet neither his solicitations nor the resentment of their sufferings could move them to assist him But they joyned universally with the King and did rare service in a battel where that Duke was defeated and taken and with him a Jesuited Bishop And it is to be noted that old Marshal de la Force a Protestant that hardly escaped the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was one of the chief Commanders of the Kings Army The Adversary gives a touch of the wars begun in Germany Bohemia and Hungary in the year 1619. of which he imputes the whole cause to the Protestants I undertake not to justifie their errours I say onely that whoso had looked with an ordinary judgement upon the face of those Countreys as they were then divided and ballanced between the Papist and the Protestant party might have foretold without a spirit of prophecy that they should not enjoy a long peace there being so many free spirits animated to liberty and revenge by the severity of the superstitious house of Austria towards their Protestant subjects If Bethlem Gabor was a prodigious man and a demi-Turk as this man makes him it is nothing to us as Religion justifieth no mans faults no mans faults can condemn Religion The notion under which I fancy that man is that of a cannon-shot without bullet which makes a great and short crack and no effect All that the Adversary saith of his dealing with the Turk sheweth that the Protestants of Hungary were so opprest by the Emperour that they wisht themselves the Turks subjects I pray God they do not so still and with them the other Protestants belonging to the Emperours hereditary Countreys seeing their brethren that live under the Turk enjoy the freedome of their Religion The same reason might make the Protestants of the Empire slow to contribute towards the war against the Turk yet I hear they are as forward as any It is not declaiming against them as the Adversary doth but using them like Christians that will make them joyn heartily with the Emperour in that war The Spanish branch of the house of Austria hath lost great part of Netherlands by the inflexibleness of Philip the II. of Spain to grant liberty of Religion to his Protestant subjects Let the German branch of Austria which useth the like hardness take heed of the like loss The Reformation of Religion in the United Provinces is that upon which the Adversary triumpheth most it being very apparent to his thinking that they brought it in by shaking the Yoke of the King of Spain But there is great difference between reforming and establishing the Reformation The first was done by the Word the second by the Sword and the first forty years before the second The Reformed Religion was spred over the Seventeen Provinces many years before there was any thought of making an Union against the Spaniard neither was that Union made upon the score of Religion but of State for maintaining their Franchises against the oppression of Spain as it was sufficiently justified by their choosing of Francis Duke of Alenson a Roman Catholick for their Prince An. 1583. which they would never have done if the Union had ever marched under the notion of Religion as our Adversary pag. 32. affirmeth or if the Protestants had been the greater number And that Religion was not that which knit the party and that there was no such thing in the Articles it appeared again when some Provinces forsook the Union because the Prince of Orange had put Religion among the causes of their defensive Warre If then the Union was unjust the injustice must not be cast upon Religion since it was not made upon that interest and if it was just it could not become unjust by the accession of the interest of Religion to the other interests So that which way soever the Adversary takes it the Roman Catholicks bear an equal share with the Protestants in the right and wrong of the cause Flanders and Brabant were as guilty as Holland and Zealand The difference is that Flanders and Brabant were beaten to obedience by the Duke of Parma but Holland and Zealand proved too strong for him The World beholds with amazement the successe of that Union that these little Provinces should bring their Prince to be their suppliant that he might be allowed to quit his right over them and acknowledge them Free States yea and to justifie their armes It is that successe not their guilt that makes our Adversary so vehement against them for ill Gamesters will be angry when they are loosers Whether it be out of wilfulnesse or ignorance this Gentleman mis-represents that businesse speaking of the King of Spain as of an absolute Sovereigne of the Low Countries and of the people as of meer Subjects Philip the II. was not their King but their Count. But I have said something of that in my Clamor Regii Sanguinis ad Caelum it is besides my businesse to inquire how the rights of Sovereignty were divided between the Prince and the People which ought to be known before the case be stated If the cause of Religion made the quarrel irreconcileable Philip the II. may thank himself for it Strada the great friend of the Spaniard tells us that the Great Council of Spain represented to the King that unlesse he granted liberty of conscience to his Subjects of the Netherlands the Countrey would be lost and the Warre perpetual whereupon the King fell on his knees before a Crucifix and vowed that he would choose to lose his Dominions rather then to permit heresie so he called the Protestant Religion If many years after they were offered to be secured for their Religion as our Adversary saith which I never heard before it was pag. 39. too late It is an unequitable motion and more advantageous for the Roman party than ours that excesses happening by the ordinary course of humane businesses be not imputed to Religion Oppression will make subjects to shake off the yoke And the prosperity of their defection keeps them from returning to their