is not fire and sworde excommunication and anathematization prodition deposition conspiracy murther absoluing of subiects relaxation of oathes and other such hostile actions as our seditious aduersary heere laieth togeather to make the Popes office and authority more odious 42. Only two publicke examples to my remembrance can be alleadged of any Protestant Princes excommunicated censured or molested by the Sea Apostolicke since Luther began his breach which are now almost an hundred yeares notwithstāding there haue byn so many of them and so exorbitant things committed by them against Catholicke Religion and the said Sea Apostolicke as is notorious to all men And these two vpon speciall causes and inducements to wit Q. Elizabeth of England and King Henry then of Nauarre and now also of France for of King Henry of Enggland I make no mention for that his cause was not Religion at that time the first of the two in regarde of the publicke violent change of Religion which shee made in her Realme with the deposition depriuation imprisonment or exile of all Catholicke Bishops Prelates Clergy and others that would not yeeld their consent thereunto and this as is alleadged contrary to her publicke promise and oath at her Coronation 43. The second for feare least he comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition wherein then he was presumed to be should attempt the like change in that great Kingdome And to both these actes were the Popes of those times drawen and incited either secretly or openly by some of the chief Nobility of both Realmes whome most it concerned And albeit the former hath not had that successe which was hoped and perhaps suggested yet the finall euent of the second hath byn more prosperous then at that time could be expected no King lightly in Christendome hauing made more reall demonstratiōs of loue vnion and reuerence to the Sea of Rome then his most Christian Maiesty nor receaued greater enterchange of graces and fauours from the same Sea and this in matters of most importance for the setling and establishment of his Imperiall Crowne and royall race 44. Wherfore al this bitter barking of this Minister T. M. about excommunicating depriuing deposing and murthering Princes as also about absoluing of subiectes from their oathes and the like ceaseth as yow see by a little good correspondence betweene the said Princes and their generall Pastor And when matters passe at the worst and are in most exasperation betweene them yet is it not the tenth part of perill which Protestant doctrine and practice draweth them into vpon any generall disgust against their gouernments For if in lue of these two Protestant Princes censured by the Sea Apostolicke we should recount all the Catholicke Princes that haue byn vexed molested iniured or depriued of their States or violated in their persons or brought to confusion in our Northerne parts of the world in this time to wit in Sauoy France Switzerland Germany Bemeland Austria Poland Sweueland Denmark Flanders England and Scotland and some other places wherof we haue treated more largely in the precedent Chapter there would be no comparison at all Of false dealing and sleights of T. M. §. 4. ANd yet further yow must vnderstand that this malicious calumniator proposing vnto himself for his end to make vs hatefull doth not only encrease multiply and exaggerate matters against vs by all art of sycophancy as making some things to seeme odious that of themselues are true and laudable and exaggerating others to a farre higher degree then wherin they were spoken or are to be vnderstood inferring also generall propositions vpon some shewes of particuler proofes but besides all this he passeth also further obiecteth often times against vs the very same things that his owne Authours doe hold wherof before we haue laid downe some examples and shall doe more hereafter yea shameth not manifestly to falsify and ly also as when he auoucheth with great resolution that the late K. Henry of France was censured by Pope Xixtus v. for this only crime for that himselfe being a Papist yet fauoured the Protestantes and especially the Prince of Nauarre Wheras it is knowne that besides this he had murthered most miserably two principall peeres Princes of his Crowne the Duke and Cardinall of Guise neerest in bloud to his Maiesty of England and therby broken his solemne oath made but a little before in presence of many when he receaued the Bl. Sacrament to the contrary And how then was his only crime to haue fauoured the Protestants as this Minister auerreth 46. And againe in the same place or precedent page he hath these wordes Pope Adrian being guilty of like seditious practice against the Emperour Henry the second was choked with a fly And in his quotation citeth Nauclerus for it Generatione 139. which should be 39. for that Nauclerus hath nothing neere so many Generations in that Part and in steed of Henry the second he should haue said Frederick the first of that name for that Henry the second was before the time of our Conquest and almost two hundred yeares before Adrian the fourth our English Pope of whome we now speake who liued in the time of King Stephen and King Henry the second of England and was a Holy man and accompted the Apostle of Noruegia for conuerting the same to our Christian faith before he was Pope and all Authors doe write honorably of him so doth Nauclerus affirme and therefore though he make mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a Schismatical writer in those dayes who also doth not absolutely auouch it but with this temperament vt fertur as the reporte goeth yet doth the said Nauclerus reiect the same as false and confuteth it by the testimonies of al other writers especially of Italy that liued with him and therby knew best both his life and death And yet all this notwithstanding will this false ladde T. M. needes set downe this History as true affirming it for such and neuer so much as giuing his Reader to vnderstand that any other denied the same or that the only Author himself of this fiction doubted therof And is not this perfidious dealing or can any man excuse him from falshood and malice in this open treachery 47. Another like tricke he plaieth some few pages before this againe citing out of Doctor Bouchiers booke De iusta abdicatione these wordes 〈◊〉 occidere honestum est quod cuiuis impunè facere permittitur quod ex communi consensu dico And then he Englisheth the same thus Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant which I defend saith he by common consent But he that shall read the place in the Author himself shall find that he holdeth the very contrary to wit that a priuate man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first iudged and declared to be a publicke enemy by the common-wealth and he proueth the same at
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
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
they are printed by Pinson the law-printer in the tyme of King Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the tytle of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly sett downe the same case with mencyoning of the Bulles of Pope 〈◊〉 for the said immunities and priuiledges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Queene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and 〈◊〉 wert haue committed a notable tricke of falsificatiō in leauing out altogeathcr these markable wordes That Leo then Pope did graunt the said immunityes and priuiledges and also those wordes of King Edwyn which of his Catholike 〈◊〉 S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted c. And againe By force of the letters and Bulles aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 89. And hereby allois euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlament as M. Attorney doth misreport it neyther was there any Parlament held at that tyme in the land or many hundred yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheds Cronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlament in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did graunt vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within the said Abbey neyther had that Abbot any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction deriued from the Crowne But as it appeareth by the authenticke reporte of the Case the Pope and the King did both ioyne in making the said Sanctuary according vnto their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemption from Episcopall Iurisdiction did proceed duely from the graunt of Pope Leo as likewise the exemption from all regall and temporall Iurisdiction proceed from the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude and toucheth not any spirituall immunities or iurisdiction at all 90. Thus farre my friend out of England And by this now yow may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes and textes of the lawes without any inference argumēt or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisement from England with like obseruation of many other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fidelity I thought good to produce this one amongst many being the first in order for a taste in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second Edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholicke Deuyne where euery thing may be referred to his due place And with this will I end both this Chapter and the whole Booke THE CONCLVSION OF THE VVHOLE VVORKE VVith a briefe exhortation vnto Catholickes not to use the liberty of Equiuocation euen in lawfull cases but where some urgent occasion induceth them therunto CHAP. XIII AND now gentle reader hauing brought this Treatise to an end and iustified as I hope our Catholicke doctrine in the eyes and Iudgments of all indifferent men from the two odious imputations of Rebellion and Equiuocation iniuriouslie cast vpon the same by the malice of Thomas Morton there remayneth nothing but that I conclude this our small labour with an exhortation to all Catholicke people not only to abstayne from the first which is vtterly vnlawfull I meane the attempting of any thing contrary to their loyall dutyes in subiection be their pressures neuer so great but also from the practice and frequent vse of the second though in some cases most lawfull as abundantly hath byn 〈◊〉 except some vrgent occasion or obligation either of defence of innocency secresy right iustice or the auoyding of open wrong do force them to the contrary For as the holy Apostle in two seuerall places affirmeth to the Corinthians in cases not much vnlike to this about matter of scandall Omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt All thinges are lawfull vnto me touching meates and other such thinges but all are not expedient to be practised And againe Omnia 〈◊〉 licent sed non omnia edificant All things are lawfull vnto me but all things do not edifye So I say in this case that albeit a man may without breach of truth or offence of almighty God in certayne cases equiuocate or vse a doubtfull speach for a good and necessary end either in oath or out of oath though the hearer doe not alwayes vnderstand it or be deceyued therwith and that many holy men haue done the same yea Christ himselfe that is the example and paterne of all holinesse and truth in speach as by many examples before at large hath byn declared yet considering the tymes and condition therof wherin Catholicks at this day liue in England the offence and scandall which Protestants and some others that vnderstand not the lawfulnes therof or will not vnderstand the same do receyue or raise thervpon my wish and counsell to Catholickes should be to vse the benefit of this liberty most sparingly euen in lawfull thinges and neuer but vpon great and vrgent 〈◊〉 and occasions 2. And the reasons of this my wish and counsell are principally the two already touched The one the auoyding of scandall euen with the Aduersary himself and that as Catholicke Religion is the only true in doctrine so the practice also therof in conuersation should not only be in all truth and sincerity re ipsa in very deed but in opinion likewise and estimation of others in so much as the word of a Catholicke man ought to weigh more then the oath of an other and the oath or promise of a Catholicke more then any band or obligation of an other which for the most parte I doubt not but is so already taken in England For that albeit by this doctrine before declared about Equiuocation men do know that Catholickes in certayne cases may vse the same yet know they also that the said cases are straitly limited with many exceptions and that in common conuersation as in buying selling traffique and the like Equiuocation may not be vsed to the 〈◊〉 or preiudice of any man and that in Iudgments and tribunals where most vse therof doth fall out all lawyers Iudges and Magistrates do know in Catholicke Countryes wherin the 〈◊〉 may vse Equiuocation wherin not and consequently truth Iustice can suffer no wrōg therby And moreouer they know as before hath byn said that the obligation of a Catholicke man is so great to auoyde all kynd of lyes whether veniall or mortall as for the gayning of a world no one is wittingly and willingly to be committed which accōpt I doubt whether men of other sectes and Religion do make or noe So as though already I perswade my self that
both by bookes preachings and publike speeches of Magistrates as if it had byn a most heinous attempt in deed and not only these but by this occasion all Catholicks generally were most odiously traduced especially in this one point that touched them neerest to wit that they would seeme to conceaue any least hope of his Maiesties clemency and mercy towardes them by way of toleration or conniuency for their Religion or mitigation of their continuall pressures for the same 8. To which end were brought into this booke and published in print not only the Bishop of London his sermon at Paules Crosse vpon the fifth of August then past wherein he auowed his Maiesties protestation against Catholickes to the contrary but the speach also and charge of the L. Chancellour in the Star-chamber vnto the Lordes Iudges and communalty there present ready to departe into their countryes was deliuered as from the Kings owne mouth all tending to the same end of afflicting and disgracing the said people and depriuing them of all hope of any tolerance yea scoffing most bitterly and contemptuously at their folly for conceauing any such vaine hopes and inioyning the most seuere order for descrying searching apprehending imprisoning and punishing them which euer lightly was heard of as though they had 〈◊〉 the only or most grieuous male factors within the Realme and this only for their Religion 9. Soone after vpon the backe of this came forth S. Edvvard Cooke his Maiestyes Attorneyes Booke intituled by him his Fifth Part of Reportes which though in the entrance and fore-front it promised more calme and mild proceeding and so it performeth in phrase and style of writing yet was the drift and ending therof no lesse stinging then the Scorpions tayle it self against all sortes of Catholicks and their Religion And to say somewhat of it in this place his argument or subiect was new and strange taking vpon him to proue out of the old and ancient common lawes of England that the spirituall iurisdiction giuen by Act of Parlament to the late Queene Elizabeth in the first yeare of her raigne and exercised afterwardes by her in Ecclesiasticall matters was dew vnto her not only by vertue of that Statute but by vigour also of the said ancient common lawes and so acknowledged and practised by the olde ranke of our foregoing Kinges and Princes a conclusion no lesse strange and paradoxicall in wise and learned mens eares then that was of him who diuers ages after the warres of Troy ended and the true successe therof published by all writers throughout the world tooke vpon him to teach the contrary to wit that not the Grecians but the Troianes had the victory in that warre and so to reuerse and contradicte whatsoeuer had byn written taught or receaued before 10. Let the histories of our Christian English Kings euen from the first conuerted Ethelbert vnto King Henry the eight be examined whether this be so or not and whether a thousand monuments of theirs in almost a thousand yeares doe not testify them all to haue byn of contrary iudgment practice sense and beliefe in the controuersy proposed to that which M. Attorney by a few pieces of lawes distractedly alleadged woulde haue men to thinke Or if he delight as I take him to be learned to haue this argument more discussed for it is both ample and important let him but procure licence for his Antagonist to write and print his booke and I doubt not but that he will quickly be answered by some of his owne profession among whome I doe imagine that many fingers must needes itch and tickle to be doing in so aduantagious a cause or if not yet doe I dare assure him that some Deuine of our side shall ioine issue with him in that point for the confutation of his whole drifte and narration in those his Reportes but principally in the ouerthrowing of his iniurious conclusion wherby he would inferre that whosoeuer did not belieue and acknowledge the said late Queenes Ecclesiasticall feminine authority power and iurisdiction in spirituall matters was and is a traitor by the iudgment of the ancient common lawes of England receaued helde and practised euen vnder Catholicke Kinges and Princes of former times 11. Vnto which vntrue and improbable paradox he addeth another no lesse stinging nor better founded then the former which is that for the foremost eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeths raigne vntill she was excommunicated by Pius Quintus No sorte of people of vvhat persvvasion soeuer in Religion refused to goe to the Protestantes Church which is euidently false both in many Puritanes and more Catholicks that refused openly in that time and then That vpon that occasion Catholicks first began to refuse which in like manner is false both for that they refused before and this occasion was altogeather impertinent to their refusall and thirdly most iniuriously of all he would further seeme to inferre that such as refuse now may in like manner be presumed to doe it vpon the same vndutifull minde towardes his Maiesty All which points doe tend to the exasperation and exulceration which euery one seeth and comming from a man of his place roome and neerenes in office about his Maiesty could not but make deepe impression and giue perhaps a great push to the lamentable precipitation of those vnfortunate Gentlemen that soone after ensued 12. VVhich being hapned came forth presently this other odious pamphlet of T. M. his deuised discouery wherunto now I am forced in particuler to answere it being in it self no lesse slaunderous and iniurious then the fact of the conspirators was wicked and grieuous to all Catholickes The booke beareth this title An exact discouery of Romish doctrine in case of Conspiracy and Rebellion But he that shall weigh it well shall finde it a more exacte discouery of English Ministeriall malice in case of sycophancy and calumniation the Authour endeauoring to ascribe that to publicke and generall doctrine which proceeded from priuate and particuler passion as also to drawe the temerity of a few to the hatred and condemnation of the whole Of which iniquity we shall haue occasion to speake more afterward in due place 13. Soone after this pamphlet appeared many more tending all for the most part to the same end of exulceration or driuing rather to plaine desperation euery one adding affliction to affliction and heaping hatred and enuy vpon them that detested bewailed the transgression happened no lesse but much more then these insolent insultors themselues Of this kinde I might name sundry that my self haue seene though being out of England I may presume to haue seene the least part of such as haue byn published and set forth 〈◊〉 this fact fell out as namely one intituled A Discourse of the late intended Treason wherin the discourser beginneth with this foundation That all English both at home and abroad vvere so fully in possession of contented peace at the
the malicious application of this Minister to make the diuorce before mencioned betweene our Prince and vs to seeme remedilesse For if the doctrine approued and receyued so many ages before this difference of Religion was heard of shall be laid vnto vs now for matter of vndutifulnes with which doctrine notwithstanding our Auncestors liued most peaceably and duetifully for many hundred yeares as good subiectes vnder his Maiesties 〈◊〉 both in England Scotland what fault can this be in vs now or what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it in the Minister to obiect it against vs yea to make a criminall accusation therof in this his calumnious libell against all Catholikes of our Countrey whatsoeuer 10. If we consider their doctrines and positions togeather with their practice and exercise concerning this point of quiet obedience and subiection euen from these later times of Luther Zuinglius and 〈◊〉 beginninges of innouation we shall find an other manner of nouelty to contemplate and another sorte of dangers for Princes to tremble at For if in steed of Rebellious doctrine of the 〈◊〉 Church which is the title of this aduersaries pamphlet wee should set downe the positions and practice of the Geneuian Church and Caluinian sect planted and directed therby we should easely see what were the difference as the whole world both may and doth For that concerning their positions and doctrine that touch this point they are extant in their owne bookes not wronge or drawne by strained inferences as our Ministers Calumniations are against Catholicks in this place but plainely cleerely and Categorically set downe by their owne pen testified and put in print by their owne writers and especially by one in England that is now in highest dignity vnder his Maiesty and another in place of some dignity also by his office who out of their owne bookes cited particulerly by them relate these and other like positions That Princes may be restrained by force pursued iudged and punished by the people excommunicated depriued deposed and cast into hell by the Ministers arraigned condemned and put to death by the inferiour Magistrates whensoeuer in their opinion he becommeth a 〈◊〉 or opposite to the ghospell which in effect falleth out to be so often as these head-strong new brethren shall mislike of his or her gouernement thinke them worthy to be remoued 11. And if to the testimony of our English Protestant writers in this point any be desirous to haue ad ioined the suffrages in like manner of externe authors of the same Religion concerning the same article about the lawfulnes of violent vsage towardes Princes in cases by them prescribed let them read Bezae himselfe in his Apology to the Bishop Claudius de Sainctes in defence and praise of Pultrot that murdered traiterously the famous great Duke of Guise his Maiesties great vncle and supreme Generall of all the French forces as also the discourse of the French famous Minister Suriau otherwise calling himselfe Rosier in his Booke of Reasons why it was lawfull for any of his 〈◊〉 brethren to kill as he saith Charles the ninth King of France and his mother if they would not obey the Caluinian Ghospell as both Launay Belsorest other French writers in their Histories do relate To which effect also was written that notorious and seditious booke intituled 〈◊〉 matin and others by the brethren of the ghospell yea aboue others that most dangerous firebrand by Orsinus Hoto man and the rest of Geneua allowed also by 〈◊〉 intitu led Vindiciaecontra Tyrannos The reuenge vpō Tyrantes conteyning a most shameles publique approbation of all desperate of all villanous attemptes whatsoeuer made or to be made by their brethren against lawfull Princes vnder the name of Tyrantes whensoeuer it might seeme to be done in fauour of their ghospell 12. So as now after all this manifest assertiue doctrine of theirs knowne and confessed in the world and practised by them in so many places for so many yeares in so notorious manner as no man can deny it for this Minister to come peeping forth with certaine poore illations strained inferences against Catholiks for that in certaine cases they acknowledge power to remaine in the head of the Church by way of Canonicall lawes and publique iudgment to restraine exorbitant outragious excesses of Princes when they shall fall out is a ridiculous kind of byting at the heele while the other do strike at the head and so will it also appeare if we obserue the euētes themselues for that heere in this place our Minister for example 〈◊〉 only foure factes or processes of Popes to wit two of Gregories the seauenth and ninth and other two of Pius and Sixtus the fifth who in so many ages haue giuen sentence of depriuation against Princes wheras if we consider but this one age only which hath passed since Luther began and not yet one whole age we shall find many more Princes deposed slaine molested or violated by Protestant people then by all Popes put togeather since the beginning of Pope-dome haue byn troubled or Censured which is a markeable point and not lightly to be passed ouer by prudent Princes for that the reason herof is that the one side proceedeth by lawe publique iudgement and mature deliberation the other by popular mutiny rash and temerarious precipitation And this of doctrine in this place vntill we come to the fourth Chapter where much more is to be added to this effect 13. But if we should come now from doctrine to action and examples of the exercise therof in this behalfe there were no end of the narration and there is no man or woman lightly of any yeares or vnderstanding in publique affaires whose mind and memory is not full of them For who remembreth not what passed in Germany presently almost vpon the beginning of Luthers doctrine at the least not aboue 7. or 8. yeares after to wit from the yeare 〈◊〉 testified aswell by Sleidan and other Protestant Authors as by those that were Catholicke how the new brethrē incited by this new doctrine again 〈◊〉 their Princes both temporall and spirituall tooke armes and entred into tumult and rebellion with such violence and headlong pertinacy throughout al that countrey as in one Prouince only there were aboue two hundred Monasteries and Castels taken razed and spoiled and aboue an hundred and thirty thousand people slaine this was for that beginning which fire once enkindled and the humour of sedition once setled in the heades o that Hereticall faction neuer ceased afterward but continued more or lesse still against 〈◊〉 Emperour Charles the 〈◊〉 vnder diuers deuises and pretences of the 〈◊〉 association and the like vntill more then twenty yeares after to wit vntill the yeare 1546. wherin he was forced to take in hand that great and dangerous warre Luther himselfe 〈◊〉 yet aliue against the Duke of Saxonie Marques of 〈◊〉 and other Protestant Princes whome he subdued therin but not without
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
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
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
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
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
of Protestants writeth of him Gregorius admodum leuiter agnouit Christum verbum Euangelij Gregory did know Christ and his ghospell very sleightly and then talking of S. Gregories famous workes and writing so greatly esteemed by learned and holy men he saith of his sermons Gregorij conciones ne teruncium quidem valent Gregories sermons are not worth a halfpenny And then speaking of an other parte of his workes or bookes called his Dialogues saith 〈◊〉 eum in Dialogo suo crassè decepit The dyuell did grossely deceaue him in his Dialogue and thus of him 22. And as for S. Augustine who is the second in ranke of his Apostrophe albeit they do not reiect him with so great contempt as S. Gregory yet when he maketh against them they esteeme him little Quisest Augustinus saith Luther against King Henry of England quis nos coget illi credere Who is Augustine or who shall compell vs to beleeue him but S. Hierome whome next M. Iewell adioyneth they handle much more spitefully Quinte Hieronyme saith Luther conculcamus cum tua Bethlem cuculla deserto Know thou Hierome that we do tread thee vnder our feete with thy Bethlem thy hood and they desert And againe in an other place VVhat can be more carnally spoken more wickedly sacrilegiously and blasphemously then that of Hierome Virginitas caelum coniugium terram replet Virginity doth fill heauen marriage filleth the earth And yet further I know no man saith he to whom I am so much an enemy as to Hierome for that he writeth nothing but of fasting choise of meates and of virginity and in truth Hierome should not be 〈◊〉 among the Doctors of the Church for that he was an hereticke c. And Caluin saith of the same Doctor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natura fuit cauillator Hierome was by nature a wrangler But Beza worse then all calleth him blasphemous wicked and impious and iniurious to the Apostle 23. Of S. 〈◊〉 whom M. Iewell calleth vpon in the fourth place Luther writeth thus Chrysostomum nullo loco habeo non est nisi loquaculus I hold Chrysostome in no accompt at all for that he is a brabling fellow And the Magdeburgians in their historie say of him contemptuously that he was bonorum operum Encomiastes liberi arbitrij patronū agebat a prayser of good workes and an aduocate for freewill So that yow see that the cause of their reiection and contempt is for that they are contrary in their doctrine As for S. Leo named by M. Iewell in the fifth place of Fathers it is easy to imagine of what credit he was among them seing that in the very controuersy of the Popes Supremacy heere handled by him both Caluin and Beza do note and cōdemne him of Ambition for taking vpon him and defending that authority Constat saith Beza Leonem in epistolis Romanae Sedis antichristianae arrogantiam planè spirasse It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth clearly breath forth the arrogancy of that Antichristian Roman Sea which in other wordes Caluin also Beza his maister doth confirme which being so and all this knowne to M. Iewell I would aske why he did call vpon these Fathers so earnestly saying If we be deceaued heerin yow are they that haue deceaued vs as though he had taught nothing but that they taught and that their authority had byn his rule as their aule was Paul and Christ Nay why doth he himselfe afterward expressely and by name reiect S. Leo in some of these very articles for proofe wherof he doth here call vpon him And namely about the Popes Supremacy and sacrifice of the Masse saying That there was no credit to be giuen vnto him c. Is not this double dealing Is not this pernicious Equiuocation on one side to call vpon him on the other to reiect him 24. Nay why did he adde further O Dionyse O Anacletus O Sixtus as though he had followed their doctrine also or admitted their authority wheras neither himselfe nor other Protestantes are knowne to admit any booke or worke of theirs now extant but to reiect and rayle against them all Dionysius Areopagita saith Luther nihil habet solidae eruditionis Dionysius Areopagita hath no solide learning at all Your counterfeit Anacletus saith M. Iewell to Doctor Harding doth not clayme all the Bishops throughout the world as belonging to his admission And the like they say of the other out of all with is euidently conuinced that this Apostrophe of M. Iewell to these Fathers O Gregory O Augustine O Hierome O Chrysostome O Leo O Dionyse c. if we be deceaued yow haue deceaued vs was an hypocriticall Equiuocation to deceaue the hearer contrary to the knowledge and conscience of himselfe that vttered the wordes for he could not be ignorant but that they were against him and his doctrine for that otherwise they had neuer byn so reiected and discredited by him and his 25. The fourth reason is for that the said ancient Protestantes Maisters of M. Iewell and from whome he tooke his learning and spirite did in sundry of the Articles heere by him named reiect contemne the ancient Fathers as contrary vnto them and their doctrine and how then could M. Iewell so confidently call vpon them in the same Let any man read Martin Luther in his booke de Captiuitate Babylonica about the Sacrifice of the Masse and he shall fynd that he reiecteth all the Fathers in that controuersy Si nihil habetur saith he quod dicatur tutius est omnia negare quà m Missae Sacrificium esse concedere If there be nothing to answere to the Authorityes of the Fathers it is more safe to deny all then to grant that the Masse is a Sacrifice And in an other booke Profiteor inprimis c. I do in the very beginning make this profession against those that will cry out that I teach against the vse of the Church and decree of Fathers heerin that I respect none of these thinges And yet further against King Henry of England Dicta Patrum induxit Rex c. The King bringeth in the sayings of Fathers against me for his massing Sacrifice and scoffeth at my folly that I would seeme more wise then all they but this is that which I said before that these Thomisticall asses haue nothing to bring forth but a multitude of men And then he goeth forward saying That if a thousand Augustines and a thousand Cyprians stand against him in this matter he careth not And fynally in another booke Non moramur si clamitent Papistae Ecclesia Ecclesia Patres Patres c. We care nothing at all if Papists cry out against vs the Church the Church Fathers Fathers they are but the sayings or deeds of men in so great a cause as this we care nothing for them And to the very same effect
wrought by him so myraculously as both the said S. 〈◊〉 and S. Bede after him and all other ancient historiographers as Malmesbury 〈◊〉 and the rest do call him our English Apostle of whose many and great miracles wrought in that worke not only the said Authors but S. Gregory himselfe doth write a speciall narration to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria yea 〈◊〉 Fox himselfe in his Acts and Monumentes albeit not a little imbued with M. Iewels spirit against this holy man for that he planted Catholicke Romane Religion in England yet writing the story of the conuersion of Ethelbert our first Christian English King he hath these words at lēgth When the King had well considered the honest conuersation of their life and moued with their miracles wrought through Gods hād by them he heard them more gladly and lastly by their wholsome exhortations and example of Godly life he was by them conuerted and Christened in the yeare of Christ aboue said 596. and the six and thirtith of his Reigne So Fox Whervnto I may add a testimony of much greater credit out of S. Bede that liued neere vnto his time recordeth the very Epitaph remayning in his dayes written vpon S. Augustines tombe in these wordes 34. Heere lyeth Blessed Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury who was sent hither by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome and strengthened of God by working of miracles who conuerted King Ethelbert and his Realme from the worshipping of Idolls to the faith of Christ. And thus much of the sanctity of this blessed man out of their testimony that liued with him or not long after him But now what writeth M. Iewell of him and with what truth and conscience He was a man saith he as it was iudged by them that saw him and knew him neither of Apostolicke spirite nor any way worthy to be called a Saint but an Hypocrite a super stitious man cruell bloody and proud aboue measure and for proofe of all this he cyteth only in his margent 〈◊〉 of Monmouth in his history of the Britans which Ieffrey dyed in the dayes of King Henry the 2. very neere 600. yeares after S. Augustine and almost 500. after S. Bede and writeth no such thing at all of S. Augustine as heere is set downe by M. Iewell but rather much in his commendacion with note of the emulous dealing of the British Bishops against him for the hatred they bare to the English nation and their conuersion 35. So as heere now M. Iewels assertion is not only false and impious against so venerable a man as Augustine was but must needs be also against his owne conscience this in diuers pointes For first he knew that there was no Author extant that wrote in his dayes saw him and knew him but only S. Gregory who writeth 〈◊〉 in his commendations as yow haue heard Secondly he knew that S. Bede who liued in the very next age after him and all other English Authors succeeding for the space of eyght or nine hundred yeares till our time did highly cōmend him in their workes and especially the forenamed Malmesbury Huntington that liued with Ieffrey Moumouth And lastly he knew that this only witnes the said Ieffrey had no such thing And what then will yow say to this Equiuocation may not M. Mortons Epithets of hellish heathenish impious and sacrilegious haue place heere 36. The fourth example may be those wordes of M. Iewell in the Apology of England writing against the Pope Let him in Gods name saith he call to mynd let him remember that they be of his owne Canonists which haue taught the people that fornication betwene single folke is not synne as though they had fetched that doctrine from 〈◊〉 in Terence whose words are It is no synne belieue me for a yong man to haunt harlotts And for this he cyteth in his margent Io. de Magistris li. de Temperantia And who would not thinke but that this accusation were sure for so much as it is so opprobriously vrged and insulted vpon But now I pray yow considerthe particulers and therwithal what a conscience this man had 37. First then Io. de Magistris was Martinus de Magistris not a Canonist but a Schoole deuine that wrote a Treatise De Temperantia Luxuria so as it seemeth that he that gaue this charge eyther had not read the Author himselfe which I suppose M. Iewell will not confesse or else meant to dazle the eyes of his Reader by naming Iohn for Martin Secondly this Author in his said Treatise as the fashion of Scholemen is propoundeth this question Vtrum simplex fornicatio sit peccatum mortale whether simple fornication be a mortall synne and according to vse of Schooles saith Arguitur quòd non It is argued or reasoned for the negatiue parte thus and so 〈◊〉 downe some arguments for that syde by way of obiections which afterward he solueth and cometh to conclude absolutly in the affirmatiue parte by six conclusions that simple fornication is not only synne but mortall synne for that it is forbidden by Gods law and excludeth from the Kingdome of heauen as S. Paul affirmeth And now lett any man consider of the conscience of him that auoucheth in print the other slaunder Would Maister Garnet or M. South-well or any other Catholicke man accused for lawfull Equiuocation euer haue made so notorious a lye against their owne consciencies Let our aduersaryes bring forth but two examples 38. The fifth example shall be also out of his wordes in the same Apologie writing against the reading of Saincts lyues in the Church The old Councell of Carthage saith he commaundeth nothing to be read in Christs congregation but the Canonicall Scriptures but these men read such things in their Churches as themselues know to be starke lyes and fond fables So he But now let vs see whether it be more probable that we know to be lyes those thinges which we read in our Churches or that he knew to be a lye that which heere he relateth and printeth in his booke For if he read the Canon it selfe which he mentioned which is the forty and seauenth of the third Councell of Carthage wherin Saint Augustine was present then must he needs know that he lyeth indeed egregiously for that the Canō beginneth thus Item placuit vt praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine diuinarum Scripturarum sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus c. 〈◊〉 ludith Hester Machabaeorum libri duo c. It hath seemed good to this Councell that nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scripture but only such as be Canonicall Scriptures in deed as are Genesis Exodus c. The two bookes of the Machabees Tobias Iudith Esther and the rest Wherby we see that in alleadging these words that nothing be read in the Church but Canonicall Scriptures is guylfully
last words M. Iewell leaueth out of purpose to couer and conceale the meaning of our Sauiour and addeth of himselfe quod vni dico which our Sauiour hath not And thirdly he peruerteth wholy the meaning of Christ which was to perswade attention and watchfulnes about the day of Iudgement and applyeth it against the preheminence of S. Peter his Authority which he well knew to be farre from our Sauiours meaning And moreouer there ensueth an other most grosse absurditie which is that our Sauiour speaking to all euery one of them that were present when he saith vigilate be watchfull it followeth I say that in M. Iewels sense and application of his wordes euery one to whome the word vigilate apperteyneth which are all sortes and sexes of people both there 〈◊〉 and absent should haue as great spirituall authority ouer the Church of God as S. Peter quia quod vni dico omnibus dico whatsoeuer I say to only Peter to wit that he must feede that he is the rocke and the like I say to all men And now let any indifferent man consider with what conscience M. Iewell could feigne Christ to say as he alledgeth For either he had read the place in S. Marke which he cyteth or had not If not it was great negligence the matter and subiect being so weighty as it was and if he did and yet alledged it quite otherwise then there it is found what shall we say of this 〈◊〉 dealing What of such lying and perfidious Equiuocation who in this can excuse or defend him for a man of any conscience at all 43. And yet was he forsooth the Father and chiefe maister of all 〈◊〉 Caluinian doctrine in Englād which was first established by Queene Elizabeth at her entring for that Zuinglianisme had bene only admitted in King Edwardes dayes he was not only held for the chiefe preacher and teacher therof but for the publicke Champion also to defend it and therfore as the doctrine was false so must he haue a more speciall eminent gift of cunning and falshood to beare it out then other men for that others were to take 〈◊〉 eius of his fulnesse in that science And albeit he had diuers brethren also at that time that did participate with him of that spirite in their writings as M. Horne Bishop of VVinchester by name and some others yet were they esteemed farre inferior to M. Iewell in this point especially in the elegancy of cōueyance though in will and substance they might be equall And so if yow looke vpon six hundred fourescore and ten vntruthes which Doctor Stapleton gathered out of one worke of the said M. Horne written against Doctor Fecknam about the oath of the supremacy yow shall fynd as many and grosse lyes as any lightly of M. Iewell but not so sleightly 〈◊〉 nor smoothly faced out 44. As for example where he auoucheth flatly that the cōuersion of our King 〈◊〉 of Britanie and of his whole Realme establishing therof was done without any knowledge or consent of Pope Eleutherius is so grosse alye as it is refutable by all historyes from that tyme to ours yea by Iohn Fox Bale themselues who were greatest enemyes to all Popes So as this matter was not handsomely carryed And againe in the same worke M. Horne pretending to alledge some temporall lawyers to his purpose against the Popes Ecclesiasticall preheminence in England cyteth one Broughton as saying That the king 〈◊〉 Supreme in his Kingdome and saffereth no equall or superior and other such pointes which are not denyed when speach is of temporall men and affayres and he leaueth out diuers other passages in the very same Author and place which he cyteth expresly affirming that in spirituall affayres the Pope Bishops are to Iudge not temporall men which is the very decision of the Controuersie 45. And in this kind I might alledge an excefsiue multitude both out of the one the other Bishops workes but that the repetition therof would be ouer tedious albeit it fell not out without Gods speciall prouidence in that beginning that so notorious falsityes should be vttered and published to the world by these chiefe ring-leaders for that sundry principall Protestants that were curious to read these books in that 〈◊〉 entrance of heresye were conuerted made Catholicke by this speciall and principall motiue that they 〈◊〉 so many notorious and inexcusable vntruthes vttered by these principall men in their writinges at that day wherof I my selfe knew sundry in some other place haue named three one in the vniuersity of 〈◊〉 M. VVilliam 〈◊〉 a learned and zealous preacher of the Protestant doctrine the other in the court Syr Thomas Copley made afterward Lord by the King of France a great follower of my Lord of 〈◊〉 and feruent in the new profession as being extraordinarily well seene for a man of his calling in controuersies himself the third in London M. Doctor Stephens Secretary to M. Iewell and well seene at that time in Deuinity and the learned tongues all which made change of their Religion though to their great temporal losses vpon the great auersion they tooke at the discouery of the wilfull falshood of these chiefe teachers of new Religion whervpon the first of the aboue named three maketh this marginall note in a booke of his written against M. Doctor VVhitaker The incredible lying saith he and falsisication vsed by the 〈◊〉 writers of our time are a great motiue to the Catholicke 〈◊〉 And then in the text he declareth the matter further in these wordes 46. I know many saith he who hauing byn brought 〈◊〉 not in Catholike Religion but in heresie with M. 〈◊〉 and continuing a long tyme in the same and 〈◊〉 it with all their hartes yet comming afterwards to better iudgement through the grace of God vpon consideration of such lying writers as 〈◊〉 VVhitakers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit Maister 〈◊〉 Maister Horne c. haue byn so altered as they haue detested his ghospell euen to hel gates of which number I confesse my selfe to be one So he 47. And surely if we consider the speciall learning and vertu of this man and how he had read exactly all writhers that could be gotten of the Protestants side of what sort or sect soeuer as by his writings doth well appeare as also with what singuler patiēce humility and contentement of mynd he lyued for many yeares after in voluntary banishment and pouerty for loue of the Catholicke Religion wheras by accommodating himselfe to the current of the tyme he might haue receyued great prefermēt in his country and was in the way towards them when he lefte the same he will say that this motiue of lying Equiuocation in Protestant writers had made deepe and strong impression in him in deed And thus much for the Bishops now let vs looke into the like spirite of Ministers in this behalfe The vse of Equiuocating in English Protestant-Ministers §.
Catholicke and consequently A reformed Catholicke in matters of faith must needs be A deformed Catholicke such a 〈◊〉 as Perkins in deed describeth that admitteth one two three foure more or lesse points of the common Catholicke receaued Religion and yet starteth from the fifth or sixt as himselfe best liketh and this calleth Perkins A reformed Catholicke when the belieuer chooseth to belieue or leaue what points do please him best which choise we say is properly heresy for that an Hereticke is a Chooser as the Greeke word importeth and this heresy or choice in matters of beliefe doth Perkins professe to teach his hearer saying That he will shew them how neare they may come vnto the Romane faith and yet not iumpe with it which is a doctrine common to all hereticks and heresies that euer were for that all haue agreed with the Catholicke faith in some points for that otherwise it should be Apostacy and not heresy if they denyed all yea the Turkes and Mores at this day do hold some points of Christian Religion with the Catholickes but for that neither they nor heretickes do hold all therfore they are no true Catholickes but such Reformed Catholickes as VVilliam Perkins would teach his disciples to be to wit properly Heretikes by their choise of religion 59. And to the end we may see not only the mans folly in choosing his argument but his falshood also in prosecuting the same I shall lay forth one only example out of his very first Chapter that beginneth with his ordinary argument of the VVhore of Babylon and by this one example let the reader iudge whether he be not a fit Chaplyn for that honest woman iflying cosenage and calumniation be propertyes of her profession For that hauing spent many impertinent wordes to shew that the impieties prophesied by S. Iohn of the said VVhore of Babylon and Saincts of God to be slayne by her was not meant of the persecution of Rome vnder the Pagan Emperors but of the Church of Rome now vnder the Christian Bishopps and Popes he hath these wordes 60. This exposition saith he of the Apocalips besydes the Authority of the text hath also the fauour and defence of ancient and learned men Bernard saith They are the Ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist And againe the beast spoken of in the Apocalips to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters Chaire as a lyon prepared to his pray It wil be said that Bernard speaketh these later wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true in deed but wherfore was he an vsurper He rendreth a reason therof in the same place bycause the Antipope called Innocētius was chosen by the Kings of Alemaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Clergy and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeares are the beast in the Apocalips because now they are only chosen by the Colledg of Cardinals c. Thus he 61. And now how many 〈◊〉 decepts and falsities there be in this litle narration is easie for any man to see admyre and detest that will but looke vpō the places of S. Bernard by himselfe quoted For in the first place out of his 33. Sermon vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he saith They are the Ministers of Christ but do serue Antichrist he speaketh against the vices of the Clergy especially of France where he liued in his dayes And that it is not meant particulerly of the pope S. Bernardes owne words do shew in that ve y place saying They will be and are Prelates of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishopps Archbishopps so as this is falsely brought in to proue any speciall thing against Rome or the Pope and much more wickedly alledged to proue Perkins his exposition of the Apocalips against Christian Rome to be true in S. Bernardes sense which he neuer thought of or by any least cogitation admitted as by the whole course of his writings to the contrary is euident no man more extolling the dignity of the Pope and Sea of Rome then he euen then when most he reprehendeth euill lyfe and manners 62. But the other that followeth is much more fraudulenty alledged For if S. Bernard complained greatly that in his tyme one Petrus Leonis an vsurper and Antipope being chosen by the 〈◊〉 lesse number of Cardinals voyces did by violence notwithstanding thrust himselfe into the Chaire of Peter and playe therin the parte of Antichrist what was this in preiudice of the true Pope Innocentius the second whome Saint Bernard doth call Christs Vicar and highly commendeth him as lawfully chosen by the maior part of the Colledge of Cardinals and exhorteth all Christian Kings to obey and follow him as their high and true lawfull vniuersall pastor So as heere 〈◊〉 Perkins maketh a notorious lye in saying that Innocentius by S. Bernards iudgement was an Antipope wheras he proued him expresly in the places heere alleadged to be the true Pope and Vicar of Christ and Petrus 〈◊〉 to be the Antipope Numquid saith he non omnes Principes cognouerunt quia ipse est verè Dei electus Francorum Anglorum Hispanorum postremò Romanorum Rex Innocentium in Papam suscipiunt recognoscunt 〈◊〉 Episcopum animarum suarum Do not all Princes know that Innocentius is truly the elected of God The Kinges of France England Spaine and 〈◊〉 do receyue Innocentius for Pope and do acknowledge him to be the singular Bishop of their soules 63. Secondly he lyeth much more apparantly when he saith that Innocentius was chosen by the said Kings of Alemaine France England c. wheras S. Bernard saith not that he was chosen by them but that he was accepted followed obeyed by them as true Pope after his election Alemaniae saith he Angliae Franciae Scotiae Hispaniarum 〈◊〉 Reges cum vniuerso clero populis fauent adhaerent Domino Innocentio tanquam filij Patri tanquam capiti membra The Kings of Germany France England Scotland Spaine and Hierusalem togeather with their whole Clergy and people do fauour and adhere to Pope 〈◊〉 he doth not say they choose him as children to their Father and as members to their head 64. Thirdly Perkins lyeth most desperately of all in his last conclusion 〈◊〉 And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but that all the Popes for 〈◊〉 many yeares are the beast in the 〈◊〉 because now they are only chosen by the Colledge of Cardinals This I say is a notorious lye for that S. Bernard giueth no such verdict but alloweth well the election of Innocentius by the said Cardinals saying Meritò autem illum 〈◊〉 Ecclesia cuius opinio clarior electio sanior
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