became 〈◊〉 saying it was sentenc'd to the fire before it had escaped the presse And good reason Nihil enim tale à Patribus societatis didicit Good men they never taught him any such doctrine as is contained in that pestilent book de iuribus principalibus defendendis moderandis iustè Now if this be heresy or like it to preach such a Doctrine then likely it will be judg'd heresy in Princes to doe so that is to hold their crownes without acknowledgment of subordination to S. Peters chaire And if it be not heresy to doe so it is in their account as bad for so the Iesuits in their Veritas defensa against the Action of Arnald the Advocate affirme in terminis that the actions of some Kings of France against the Pope in defence of their Regalties were but examples of rebellion and spots to disgrace the purity of the French Lillies 5. Put case the Pope should chance to mistake in his sentence against a Prince for the cause of heresy yet for all this mistake he can secure any man to take away the Princes life or Kingdome His Lawyers will be his security for this point For although in this case the deposition of the Prince should be and be acknowledged to be against Gods law the Prince being neither Tyrant nor heretick yet his Holinesse commanding it takes away the unlawfulnesse of it by his dispensation So D. Marta and for this doctrine he quotes Hostiensis Felinus Cratus the Abbat the Arch bishop of Florence Ancharanus Iohannes Andreas Laurentius de Pinu and some others Indeed his Divines deny this sed contrarium 〈◊〉 observatur as it 's very well observed by the same Doctor for he brings the practise example of Pope Martin the fifth Iulius the second Celestine the third Alexander the third and Sixtus quintus all which dispensed in cases acknowledged to be expressely against Gods law 6. Lastly How if the Pope should lay a claime to all the Kingdomes of the world as belonging to S. Peters patrimony by right of spirituall preheminence I know no great security we have to the contrary For first It is known he hath claimed the Kingdome of England as feudatary to the See Apostolike Which when I considered I wondred not at that new and insolent title which Mosconius gives his Holinesse of Desensor fidei He might have added the title of Rex Catholicus Christianisstmus For D. Marta in his treatise of Iurisdiction which he dedicated to Paulus quintus hath that for an argumēt why he dedicated his Book to him because for sooth the Pope is the only Monarch of the World But of greater authority is that of Thomas Aquinas affirming the Pope to be the verticall top of all power Ecclesiasticall and Civill So that now it may be true which the Bishop of Patara told the Emperor in behalfe of Pope Sylverius Multos esse Reges sed nullum talem qualis ille qui est Papa super Ecclesiam Mundi totius For these reasons I think it is true enough that the constituting the Pope the judge of Princes in the matter of deposition is of more danger then the thing it selfe The summe is this However schisme or heresy may be pretended yet it is but during the Popes pleasure that Kings or subjects shall remain firme in their mutuall necessitude For if our Prince bee but excommunicate or declar'd heretick then to be a good subject will be accounted no better then irreligion and Anti-Catholicisme If the conclusion be too hard and intolerable then so are the Premises and yet they passe for good Catholike doctrine among themselves But if truly and ex animo they are otherwise affected they should doe well to unsay what hath been said and declare themselves by publique authority against such doctrines And say whether or no their determinations shall be de fide If they be then all those famous Catholique Doctors Thomas Aquinas Bellarmine Creswell Mariana Emanuel Sà c. are heretiques and their Canons teach heresy and Many of their Popes to be condemn'd as hereticall for practising and teaching deposition of Princes by an authority usurp't against and in prejudice of the Christian faith But if their answers be not de fide then they had as good say nothing for the danger is not at all decreased because if there be Doctors on both sides by their own assertion they may without sinne follow either but yet more safely if they follow the most received and the most authorized and whether this rule will lead them I will be judg'd by any man that hath considered the premises Briefly either this thing must remain in the same state it is and our Princes still expos'd to so extream hazards or else let his Holinesse seat himselfe in his chaire condemne these doctrines vow against their future practise limit his ordo ad spiritualia containe himselfe within the limits of causes directly and meerely Ecclesiasticall disclaime all power so much as indirect over Princes temporalls and all this with an intent to oblige all Christendome Which when I see done I shall be most ready to believe that nothing in Popery doth either directly or by a necessary consequence destroy Loyalty to our lawfull Prince but not till then having so much evidence to the contrary Thus much was occasion'd by consideration of the cause of the Disciples Quaere which was when they saw this that their L. and M. for his difference in Religion was turned forth of doores which when they saw They said Lord It was well they ask'd at all and would not too hastily act what they too suddēly had intended but it was better that they ask'd Christ it had been the best warrant they could have had could they have obtain'd but a Magister dixit But this was not likely it was too strange a Question to aske of such a Mr. A Magistre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crudelitatis Nothing could have come more crosse to his disposition His spirit never was addicted to blood unlesse it were to shed his owne Hee was a Prince of peace and set forth to us by all the Symboles of peace and gentlenesse as of a sheepe a lambe a hen a gentle twining vine the healing 〈◊〉 and is it likely that such a one should give his placet to the utter ruine of a company of poore Villagers for denying him a nights lodging moved thereto by the foregoing scandall of a Schisme Hee knew better what it cost to redeem aman and to save his life from destruction then to bee so hasty for his ruine And if the Fathers Confessors who were to answere the Question of the day had but reflected upon this Gospell they might have informed their penitents better then to have engaged them upon such Antichristian and Treasonable practises as to destroy an assembly of Christians as to depose or kill a King It is the proper cognisance of Mahumetanisme by fire and sword to
forth in the name of the whole Society against the accusations of Anticoton they deny that the Assasine of Henry 4. I meane Ravaillac was mov'd to kill the King by reading of Mariana and are not ashamed to wish that he had read him Perhaps they meane it might have wrought the same effect upon him which the sight of a drunkard did upon the youth of Lacedaemon else I am sure it is not very likely he should have beene disswaded from his purpose by reading in Mariana that it was lawfull to doe what he intended 3. I adde they not only thought it innocent and without positive hurt but good and commendable so that it is apparent that it was not the opinion of Mariana alone but that the Moores of Spaine had more disciples then Mariana 1. Hee sayes it himselfe for commending the young Monke that killed Henry 3. he sayes he did it having beene informed by severall Divines that a Tyrant might lawfully be killed 2. The thing it selfe speaks it for his book was highly commended by Gretser Bonarscius both for stile matter higher yet by Petrus de Onna provinciall of Toledo who was so highly pleased with it hee was sorry hee wanted leisure to read it the second and third time over and with this censure prefixed was licens'd to the Presse Further yet for Steven Hoyeda Visitor of the Iesuits for the same Province approved it not only from his own judgment but as being before approved by grave and learned men of the Iesuits Order and so with a speciall commission from Claudius Aquaviva their generall with these approbations and other solemne Priviledges it was Printed at Toledo and Montz and lastly inserted into the Catalogues of the Books of their Order by Petrus Ribadineira What negligence is sufficient that such a Doctrine as this should passe so great supravisors if in their hearts they disavow it The children of this world are not such fooles in their generations The Fathers of the Society cannot but know how apt these things of themselves are to publike mischiefe how invidious to the Christian world how scandalous to their Order and yet they rather excuse then condemne Mariana speaking of him at the hardest but very gently as if his only fault had beene his speaking a truth intempore non opportuno something out of season or as if they were forc'd to yeelde to the current of the times and durst not professe openly of what in their hearts they were perswaded I speak of some of them for others you see are of the same opinion But I would faine learne why they are so sedulous and carefull to procure the decrees of the Rector Deputies of Paris Rescripts of the Bishop Revocation of Arrest of the Parliament which had been against them and all to acquit the Fathers of the Society from these scandalous opinions as if these laborious devices could make what they have said and done to be unspoken and undone or could change their opinions from what indeed they are whereas they never went ex animo to refute these Theorems never spake against them in the reall and serious dialect of an adversary never condemned them as hereticall but what they have done they have been sham'd to or forc'd upon as Pere Coton by the King of France and Servin to a confutation of Mariana from which he desir'd to be excused and after the Kings death writ his declaratory letter to no purpose the Apologists of Paris by the outcryes of Christendome against them and when it is done done so coldly in their reprehensions with a greater readinesse to excuse all then condemne any I say these things to a considering man doe increase the suspicion if at least that may be called suspicion for which we have had so plain testimonies of their own I adde this more to put the businesse past all question that when some things of this nature were objected to them by Arnald the French Kings Advocate they were so farre from denying them or excusing them that they maintained them in spite of opposition putting forth a Book intitled Veritas defensa contra actionem Antonii Arnaldi What the things were for which they stood up patrons heare themselves speaking Tum enim id non solum potest Papa 〈◊〉 etiam debet 〈◊〉 ostendere superiorem illis Principibus 〈◊〉 stomacham tibi commovet facit ut 〈◊〉 sed oportet 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 fatiaris tibi nec rationem esse nec 〈◊〉 Hard words these The Advocate is affirm'd to be void both of reason and honesty for denying the Popes dominion over Kings The reason followes The Pope could not keep them to their duties unlesse he kept them in 〈◊〉 with threatning them the losse of their Kingdomes But this is but the least part of it They adde If the subiects had been but disposed as they should have been there was no time but it might have been profitable to have exercised the sword upon the persons of Kings Let them construe their meaning those are their words But see farther The damned act of 〈◊〉 Clement the Monk upon the life of Henry the third of France of Iean Chastel and Ravaillac upon Henry the fourth are notorious in the Christian world and yet the first of these was commended by F. Guignard in a discourse of purpose by Mariana as I before cited him The second had two Apologies made for him the one by Constantinus Veruna the other without a name indeed but with the marke and cognizance of the Iesuits order and the last was publiquely commended in a Sermon by a Monk of Colein as it is reported by the excellent Thuanus Not much lesse then this is that of Baronius just I am sure of the same spirit with Iames and Iohn for he calls for a ruin upon the Venetians for opposing of his Holinesse Arise Peter not to feed these wandring sheep but to destroy them throw away thy Pastorall staffe and take thy sword I confesse here is some more ingenuity to oppose Murdering to Feeding then to make them all one as Sanders doth but yet the same fiery spirit inflames them both as if all Rome were on fire and would put the world in a combustion Farther yet Guignard a Iesuit of Clerimont Colledge in Paris was executed by command of the Parliament for some conclusions he had writ which were of a high nature treasonable and yet as if either there were an infallibility in every person of the Society or as if the Parliament had done in justice in condemning Guignard or lastly as if they approved his Doctrine hee was Apologiz'd for by Lewes Richeome and Bonarscius I know they will not say that every Iesuit is infallible they are not come to that yet it is plain then they are of the same mind with Guignard or else which I think they dare not say the Parliament was
aim'd at but if they obeyed not the Proscriptiō having no just cause to the contrary such as were expressed in the Act then it should be adjudged their errand was not right therefore not their Religion but their disobedience Treasonable This was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the severity of this state against them now first I shall briefly shew that this proscription which was the highest penalty was for just cause as the case then stood and deserved on their part 2. It was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscription their stay should be made Treason 1. Because the Priests did generally preach the Popes power either directly over temporalls or else in order to spiritualls of which the Pope being judge it would come to the same issue and this was dangerous to the peace of the Kingdome and intrenched too much upon the Regalty In particular the case of bringing from the See of Rome and publishing of Bulls was by the Lords of the Parliament in the sixteenth year of Richard the second judg'd to be cleerely in 〈◊〉 of the Kings Crown and of his Regalty as it is well known and hath been of a long time known and therefore they protested together and every one 〈◊〉 by himselfe that they would be with the same Crown and Regalty inthese cases specially and in all other cases which shall be attempted against the same Crown and Regalty in all points with all their power I hope then if the State in the time of Queen Elizabeth having farre greater reason then ever shall judge that these Bulles the publishing of them the Preaching of their validity and reconciling by vertue of them her Subjects to the See of Rome be derogatory to her Crown and Regalty I see no reason She should be frighted from her just defence with the bugbear of pretended Religion for if it was not against Religion then why is it now I confesse there is a reason for it to wit because now the Popes power is an Article of Faith as I shall shew anon but then it was not with them any more then now it is with us but whether this will convince any man of reason I leave it to himselfe to consider But one thing is observeable in that Act of Parliament of Richard the second I meane this clause as it is well 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 been of a long time knowne The Popes incroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore and by its eld almost habituate but yet it grieved them neverthelesse nor was the lesse a fever for being hecticall but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds it may be made as apparent as the noon Sunne for these 600 years and upwards that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extream and continuall Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdome that our condition was under him worse then the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants or then our neighbors are now under their Belgick Tributes So many greivances of the people expilations of the Church abuses to the State intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued that it was a great blessing of Almighty God our Kingdome was delivered from them upon so easy termes which Grosthead Bishop of Lincolne thought would never be done but in Ore gladii cruentandi and now to have all these mischiefes returne with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepinesse I said with more strength because what anciently at the highest was thought but a priviledge of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redresse And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Lawes against the Priests obtruding upon the State the Popes power I only referre him to the Parliament of Paris where let him hold his Plea against those great Sages of the Law for their just censures upon Florentinus Iacobus Thomas Blanzius and Iohn Tanquerell who were all condemned to a solemne honorary penance and satisfaction to the State and not without extreme difficulty escaped death for the same cause But this is hot all I adde Secondly the Pope had his Agent in England to stirre up the Subjects to rebell against the Queene as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and 〈◊〉 It is not then imaginable that he should so poorely intend his own designes to imploy one on purpose and he but a Merchant and that the Priests who were the men if any most likely to doe the businesse should be un-imployed I speak not of the argument from matter of fact for it is apparent that they were imployed as I shewed but now but it is plain also that they must have been imployed if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Popes ordinary discretion Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischiefe Thirdly there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Lawes and subordination to the Prince But that so these Priests might I only bring two witnesses leading men of their own Side Thus Bellarmine The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subiection to Princes The same is taught by Emanuel Sà in his Aphorismes 〈◊〉 Clericus I must not dissemble that this Aphorisme however it passed the Presse at first yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out The cause is known to every man For that it was meerely to serve their ends is apparent for their French freedome was there taken from them they durst not parler tout so neere the Parliament but the Aphorisme is to this day retain'd in the Editions of 〈◊〉 and Colein If this be their Doctrine as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors I mean Sà and Bellarmine I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Lawes they plead exemption Secondly it was but reasonable in case they obeyed not the proscriptiō their disobedience should be made Capitall For if they did not obey then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawfull Prince and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and inexcusable from the Lawes penalty which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion or if they did not sinne against their conscience then of necessity must they think her to be no lawfull Prince or not their lawfull Prince nor they her Subjects so ipso 〈◊〉 are guilty of high Treason their execution was for Treason not Religion and so the Principall is evicted which I shall beg leave to expresse in S. Cyprians language Non
erat illa fidei Corona sed poena 〈◊〉 nec 〈◊〉 virtut is exitus gloriosus sed desperation is 〈◊〉 For if Valentius banish Eusebius from 〈◊〉 and Eusebius obey not the edict if Valentius puts him to death it is not for his being a Christian that he suffers death but for staying at 〈◊〉 against the command of Valentius Such was the case of the Priests whom for just cause as I have proved and too apparent proofe of seditious practices the Queen banished Now if the Queen was their lawfull Soveraigne then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius or if they did not obey not to think the Lawes unjust for punishing their disobedience I say again their Disobedience not their Religion for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Lawes but the security of the Queen and State only aim'd at besides what I have already said is apparent to the evidence of sence For when Hart and Bosgrave Iesuits both came into England against the Law they were apprehended and imprison'd for the Lawes without just Execution were of no force for the Queenes safety but when these men had acknowledg'd the Queenes legitimate power and put in their security for their due obedience they obtain'd their pardon and their liberty The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton all which I hope were not 〈◊〉 from their Order or Religion but so they must have been or not have escap'd death in case that their Religion had been made Capitall Lastly this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth were born in England It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aim'd at But 't is so foule a Calumny I am asham'd to stand longer to efute it The proceedings of the Church and State of England were just honourable and religious full of mercy and discretion and unlesse it were that as C. Fimbria complain'd of Q. Scaevola we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger there is no cause imaginable I mean on our parts to move them to so damned a conspiracy or indeed to any just complaint Secondly if these were not the causes as they would faine abuse the world into a perswasion that they were what was I shall tell you if you will give me leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to derive it from its very head and then I will leave it to you to judge whether or no my Augury failes me First I guesse that the Traitors were encouraged and primarily mov'd to this Treason from the preuailing opinion which is most generally receiv'd on that side of the lawfulnesse of deposing Princes that are Hereticall I say generally receiv'd and I shall make my words good or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me when they declare their own mindes I instance first in the Fathers of the Society Bellarmine teacheth that Kings have no wrong done them if they be deprived of their Kingdomes when they prove Heretiques Creswell in his Philopater goes farther saying that if his Heresy be manifest he is deposed without any explicite judiciall sentence of the Pope the Law it selfe hath passed the sentence of deposition And therefore Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald the French Kings Advocate for affirming that Religion could be no just cause to depose a lawfull Prince If hee had beene brought up in their Schooles hee might have learnt another lesson papa Potest mutare regna uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus Princeps spiritualis si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem saith Bellarmine Hee gives his reason too quia alioqui possent mali Principes impunè fovere Haereticos which is a thing not to be suffered by his Holinesse This Doctrine is not the private opinion of these Doctors but est certa definita atque indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia saith F. Creswell I suppose hee meanes in his owne Order and yet I must take heed what I say for Eudaemon Iohannes is very angry with Sr Edward Cooke for saying it is the Doctrine of the Iesuits Doe they then deny it No surely but Non est Iesuitarum propria it is not theirs alone sed ut Garnettus respondit totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta Doctrina nostra est and there hee reckons up seven and twenty famous Authors of the same opinion Creswell in his Philopater sayes as much if not more Hinc etiam infert Vniversa Theologorum Iuris consultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola est certum de fide quemconque Principem Christianum si à religione Catbolicá manifestè deflexerit alios avocare voluerit excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate ex ipsà vi juris tum Humani tum Divini You see how easily they swallow this great camell Adde to this that Bellarmine himselfe prooves that the Popes temporall power or of disposing of Princes Kingdomes is a Catholique Doctrine for hee reckons up of this opinion one and twenty Italians fourteene French 〈◊〉 Germans seven English and Scotch nineteen Spaniards these not è faece plebis but e 〈◊〉 all very famous and very leading Authors You see it is good Divinity amongst them and I have made it good that it is a generall opinion received by all their Side if you will believe themselves and now let us see if it will passe for good Law as well as good Divinity It is not for nothing that the Church of France protests against some of their received Canons if they did not I know not what would become of their Princes Their Lillies may be to day and to morrow be cast into the oven if the Pope either call their Prince 〈◊〉 as he did Henry the fourth or Tyrant as Henry the third or unprofitable for the Church or Kingdome as he did King Childeric whom Pope 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 did depose for the same cause and inserted his act into the body of the Law as a precedent for the future quod etiam ex 〈◊〉 frequenti agit sancta Ecclesia it is impaled in a 〈◊〉 in the body of the Canon least deposition of Princes should be taken for newes The law is cleere for matter of fact the lawfulnesse followes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est auferri 〈◊〉 habent and this not only from a private man but even from Princes nam qui in majore dignitate est plus punitur or take it if you please in more proper termes Dominus Papa Principem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter haeresim so another may be chosen like the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in Poland just as if the King were dead 〈◊〉 per haeresim 〈◊〉 civiliter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Simancha and
who was so tyed to a religious secrecy did publish many of them in the Congregation before the people that they might reprove the delinquent and discountenance the sinne The same story is reported by Cassiodore and Niccphorus from the same Authour The lawfulnesse and practise of publication in some cases is as cleere in Origen If saith he the Physician of thy soule perceives thy sinnes to be such as to need so harsh a remedy as to have them published before the assemblies of the people that others may be admonished thou the better cured he need be very deliberate and skilfull in the application of it Hitherto no such thing as an Vniversall tradition for the pretended inviolable sacramentall seale for Origen plainly and by them confessedly speakes of such sins as first were privately confessed to the Priest how else should hee deliberate of their publication but yet he did so and for all the seale of confession sometimes opened many of them to no sewer witnesses then a whole assembly Thus it was in the Greeke Church both Law and Custome But now if we look into the Latine Church wee shall find that it was taken up from example of the Greeks and some while practis'd that some particular sinnes should be published in the Church before the Congregation as it is confessed in the Councell of Mentz and inserted by Burchard into his Decree But when the Lay piety began to coole and the zeale of some Clergy men waxe too hot they would needs heighten this custome of publication of some sinnes to a Law of the publishing of all sinnes This being judg'd to be inconvenient expressed the first decree for the seale of confession in the Latin Church Now see how it is utter'd and it wil sufficiently informe us both of the practise and the opinion which Antiquitie had of the obligation to the seale Illam contra Apostolicam regulam praesumptionem c. that is it was against the Apostolicall ordinance that a Law should enjoyn that the Priest should reveale all those sinnes which had beene told him in confession It might be done so it were not requir'd and exacted and yet might be so requir'd so it were not a publication of all Non enim omnium 〈◊〉 sunt peccata saith S. Leo some sinnes are inconvenient to be published it is not fit the world should know all therefore some they might or else hee had said nothing The reason which he gives makes the businesse somewhat clearer for hee derives it not from any simple necessity of the thing or a Divine Right but least men out of inordinate love to themselves should rather refuse to be wash't then buy their purity with so much shame The whole Epistle hath many things in it excellently to the same purpose I say no more the Doctrine and practise of antiquity is sufficiently evident and that there is nothing lesse then an Vniversall tradition for the seale of confession to be observed in all cases even of sins of the highest malignity Thus these Fathers Confessors are made totally inexcusable by concealing a Treason which was not revealed to them in a formall confession and had been likewise culpable though it had there being as I have showne no such sacrednesse of the Seale as to be inviolable in all cases whatsoever I have now done with the severall considerations of the persons to whom the Question was propounded they were the Fathers Confessors in the day but it was Christ the Lord in my text The Question it selfe followes Shall we command fire to come from heaven and consume them The Question was concerning the fate of a whole Towne of Samaria in our case it was more of the Fate of a whole Kingdome It had been well if such a Question had been silenc'd by a direct negative or as the Iudges of the Areopage used to doe put off ad diem longissimum that they might have expected the answer three ages after De morte hominis nulla est 〈◊〉 longa No demurre had been too long in a case of so much and so royall blood the blood of a King of a Kings Children of a Kings Kingdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King and Kingdome should have been made a solemn sacrifice to appease their solemn deliberate malice I said deliberate for they were loth to be malicious without good advice and therefore they askt their question worthy of an Oracle even no lesse then Delphick where an evill spirit was the Numen and a Witch the Prophet For the Question was such of which a Christian could not doubt though he had been fearefully scrupulous in his resolutions For whoever question'd the unlawfulnesse of murder of murdering innocents of murdering them who were confessed righteous for such was their proposall being rather willing that Catholiks should perish with those whom they thought hereticks then that their should be no blood spilt But to the question it was fire they called for The most mercilesse of all the Elements No possibility of relenting when once kindled and had its object It was the fittest instrument for mercilesse men men of no bowels whose malice like their instrument did agere ad extremum suarnm virium worke to the highest of its possibility Secondly It was fire indeed they called for but not like that in my text not fire from heaven They might have called as long and as loud as those Priests did who contested with Elisha no fire would have come from heaven to have consum'd what they had intended for a sacrifice Gods 〈◊〉 post not so fast as ours doe Deus non est sicnt homo Man 〈◊〉 often when God blesseth men condemne whom God acquits and therefore they were loath to trust God with their cause they therefore take it into their own hands And certainly if to their Anathemas they adde some fagots of their own and gunpowder 't is oddes but then we may be consum'd indeed and so did they their fire was not from heaven Lastly it was a fire so strange that it had no example The Apostles indeed pleaded a mistaken precedent for the reasonablenesse of their demand they desir'd leave to doe but even as Elias did The Greekes only retaine this clause it is not in the Bibles of the church of Rome and really these Romano-barbari could never pretend to any precedent for an act so barbarous as theirs Adrimelech indeed kil'd a King but he spar'd the people Haman would have killed the people but spared the King but that both King and people Princes and Iudges branch and rush and root should dye at once as if Caligula's were actuated and all England upon one head was never known till now that all the malice in the world met in this as in a center The Sicilian 〈◊〉 the mattins of S. Bartholomew known for the pittilesse and damn'd massacres were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dream of the shadow of smoake if compar'd with this great fire
maintain their cause and to propagate their Religion by ruine of Princes and conquering their Kingdomes But it is the excellency of Christianity that by humility and obedience it made Princes tributary to our Deare Master and homagers to his Kingdome When Valentinian sent Calligonus his Chamberlaine to S. Ambrose to threaten him from his faith his answer was Deus permittit tibi ut impleas quod minaris Ego patiar quod est Episcopi 〈◊〉 facies quod est spadonis He did not stirre up the numerous people of his Diocesse to rebell against the Emperour or depose him imployed no agent in his Court to undermine his security nor assasine to take his life He and the rest of those good Fathers would not have lost their possibility of being Martyrs for the world unlesse it were by perswading the Emperours to the Christian faith Wee pray for all our Governours that they might have long life a secure government a safe house strong armies good subjects quiet world So 〈◊〉 I had thought that the Doctrine and example of our B. Saviour the practise Apostolicall and primitive had beene tyes enough to keep us in our obedience to God and the King and in Christian charity to all but I finde that all these precepts come to nothing for the Apostles and primitive Christians did not actually depose Kings nor alter states nor call for fire to consume their enemies not because it was simply unlawfull so to doe or any way adverse to the precepts of Christ but because they wanted Power So Bellarmine The Church gave leave that the faithfull should obey Iulian because then they wanted forces And F. Creswell is very confident of the businesse They might without all Question have appointed to themselves other Kings and Princes if the Christians had beene strong enough to bring their intendments to passe But because they could not therefore it was not lawfull for them to goe about it nor is it for us in the same case especially if the Prince hath quiet possession and a strong guard about him then by no meanes is it lawfull for a single man by then by no meanes is it lawfull for a single man by his owne authority to assault his Prince that rules Tyrannically So Salmeron But who sees not that this way murder may be lawfull For true it is God commanded us saying Thou shalt not kill that is if thou art not able to lift up thy hand or strike a stroake thou shalt not blaspheme that is if thou beest speechlesse thou must be obedient to thy Prince that is if thou canst not tell how to helpe it Good Doctrine this And indeed it might possibly be something if God had commanded our subordination to Princes only for wrath for then si vires 〈◊〉 if wee can defend our selves we are secure wee need not feare his wrath but when he addes also for conscience sake I cannot sufficiently wonder that any man should obtrude so 〈◊〉 so illiterate and so impious an interpretation upon the Christian world under the Title of Catholique Doctrine Christ when he was betrayed and seized upon by his Murderers could have commanded twelve Legions of Angels for his Guard Non defuerunt vires and in all humane likelyhood such a Satellitium as that would have mov'd them to a beliefe in him or else I am sure might have destroyed the unbelievers Shall I say more against this rude 〈◊〉 Then thus It is false that the Primitive Christians had not power to defend themselves against their Persecutors Heare S. Cyprian Nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur nec se adversus iniustitiam violentiam vestram quamvis nimius copiosus noster sit Populus ulciscitur They could have resisted and that to blood but they had not so learned Christ. Prayers and teares were the armes of Christians and then they had a defence beyond all this when they were hard put to it Mori potuerunt a submission of their bodies to Martyrdome was their last refuge Thus S. Agnes Lucia Agatha Christina Domitilla sav'd both their faith and chastity non armis sedignibus carnificis manu the tormentors last cruelty defended them from all succeeding danger I will not yet conclude that that which these men obtrude for Catholique Doctrine is flat and direct heresy I will instance but once more and then I shall In the fourth Councell of Toledo which was assembled when the usurping and Tyrannizing Goths did domineere in Europe the most whereof were Tyrants Vsurpers or Arrians the Councell decreed that if any man did violate the life or person of his King aut potestate Regni exuerit kill him or depose him Anathema sit c. He should be accursed in the sight of God and his Holy Angels and together withall the companions of his iniquity hee should be separated from the Catholique Church And now I hope I may say that these men who either practise or advise such practises as killing or deposing Kings areas formally condemn'd for heresy and anathematiz'd as ever was Manichee or Cataphrygian I know not but perhaps this might be thought of when the 〈◊〉 were inscrib'd heretiks upon the publike pillar before the Louure in Paris upon their banishment however let them answer it as they may it concernes them as much as their being Catholiques comes to Et considerent quia quae praedicant tantoperè verba aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium 〈◊〉 illorum qui eis adulantur as said Aeneas Sylvius but at no hand can it be Christian Doctrine I instanc'd in these things to shew the 〈◊〉 between the spirit of our B. Saviour who answer'd the Question of the text and the Fathers Confessors of whom was ask'd the Question of the day But give mee leave to consider them not only as mis-informing their penitents but as concealing their intended purpose for even this way the persons to whom the Question was propounded made themselves guilty of the intended machination For by all Law Ecclesiasticall and Civill hee that conceales an intended Murder or Treason makes himselfe as much a party for concealing as is the Principall for contriving Ob. But these Fathers Confessors could not be accused by vertue of these generall Lawes as being exempt by vertue of speciall case for they received notice of these things only in confession the seale of which is so sacred and inviolable that he is sacrilegious who in any case doth breake it open though it be to avoid the greatest evill that can happen so Bellarmine to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendome so Binet though to save a whole common wealth from dammage temporall or spirituall of body or soule so Suarez A considerable matter On the one side wee are threatned by sacriledge on the other by danger of Princes and common-wealths for the case may happen that either the Prince and whole State may be suffered to perish