by Edward the Sixth was not warrantable being done in his Minority and when he had neither age to discern what he did nor liberty to discern any thing to the Protector and Northumberland in whose hands he was If you approve not this Argument why do you disallow the same plea for the Authority of the King of France was the age of the one a Bar in Law and not in the other or was the one an absolute King and not the other was King Edwards consent sufficient to authorize his Uncles doings and was King Charls his consent insufficient and nothing worth to authorize the Constable with his Army to pursue and punish their Army of Rebels Beza's opinion therefore In câ—nfess fid is much contrary to what he alloweth and commendeth here For if there be no other remedy but preces and lachrymae for private persons against the oppressions of a Tyrant he betrayed the Admiral and the Prince very foully to bring them into the fields of Dreux to fight against the King for Religion Doctor Bilson hath taken up somewhere one notable singularity to excuse the Prince of Conde viz. That he was not an absolute Subject of France ought not simple subjection to the Crown Ergo might lawfully do something more then others But it argueth such a gross ignorance in the Laws of France and in the state of that Prince that it deserveth more to be pitied then answered Neither could it help the Admiral who had no other Protection then that of his Sword nor Priviledge but from his new Religion But because that smooth profession of Beza above mentioned is so much insisted on and cunningly used as it were to cast a mist before the eyes of an unwary Reader it will be necessary to clear that business a little further by letting you see the man himself in more proper colours as in relation to this point First therefore read his Positions and Catechism of Seditions viz. That Book of his called Vindiciae contra Tyrannos There acting the part of Junius Brutus a Noble Roman indeed but great enemy of Kings he propounds in the first place this Question Whether Subjects be bound to obey their Kings when they command contrary unto Gods Law and resolveth presently Pag. 22. We must obey Kings for Gods sake when they obey God But otherwise Pag. 24. we are absolved For as the Vassal saith he looseth his Fief or Lordship if he commit Felony so doth the King loose his Right and his Realm also viz. By commanding contrary unto Gods Law Which considering that Gods Law is onely as they themselves shall think good to interpret it is dangâ—rous enough But Pag. 65. he is more notable Conspiracy saith he is goâ—d or ill according as the end is at which it aimeth Which is a most pernicious Maxim and a Doctrine fit for nothing but to encourage Ruvillac Poltrot or some such villanous assassinate to his desperate work or to be a buckler to the Conspirators at Ambois So Pag. 66. The Magistrates saith he or any one part of the Realm may resist the King being an Idolater as Lobna revolted from Joram when he forsook God And Pag. 132. The Government of the Kingdom is not given to the King alone but also to the Officers of the Realm And again Pag. 103. The Kings of France saith he Spain and England are crowned and put as it were into pâ—ssession of their charge by the States Peers and Lords which represent the people And Pag. 199. There is a stipulation in all Kingdoms Hereditary As in France when the King is crowned the Bishops of Beauvois and Loan ask the people if they desire and command This man shall be King What if they do it is no argument that the people do therefore chuse him to be King for his Kingdom is confessed already to be Hereditary and so the Succession determined by Law much less that they make him such It is an acceptation onely not an election a declaration of their willing Subjection Obedience and Fidelity towards him and nothing else as you may be well informed out of Francis Rosselets Ceremonies at the Consecration or Inauguration of the Kings of France Was there ever an Assembly of Estates held to consecrate or elect a King of France or do the Kings of France count the time of their Reign from their Inauguration onely and not from their entrance was not Charls the Seventh full Eight years King of France before he was crowned as the French Historians themselves report Gaguin Giles or think you that the Peers are Ephori No they are Pares inter se but not Companions to the King They are not States as in Holland to rule and direct all Affairs For in France and England all the Authority depends upon the Kings and what is the State but the Authority of the Prince Who onely by his Letters Patents createth Peers disposeth all Offices giveth all Honors receiveth all Homages in cheif as being the sole Fountain from whence springeth both Nobility and Authority And he that would either restrain this Sovereignty within any narrower bounds or communicate it to others makes no difference between the Crown of a King and the Berrette of a Duke of Venice Many other Maxims and Rules he hath of this nature fit for nothing but to introduce Anarchy and confusion in the World most of them false all of them dangerous Vails onely to cover the ugly faces of Sedition and Treason because in their proper shapes no man living can abide to see them I might here travel and weary you further with as much good stuff out of his Book De Jure Magistratus for his it is as most men think or else Hottomans who was his Comrade But I shall leave them both for indeed they touch the string of Sovereignty with too rough a hand yea rather they strain to break it if they could by such gross and misinterpretable Paradoxes as when they say The States are above the King that is the Body above the Head As if any man could seriously make it a question whether people should be commanded by the Master or by some of their fellow-servants by the Subject or by the Sovereign by the Prince of Conde and the Admiral or by their Lawful King and Sovereign King Charls And therefore had King Philip good reason to cut off the head of that Justice of Arragon upon a just occasion and to teach the people by example what the true meaning was of Nos qui podemos tanto come vos All which Paradoxes it were easie to refel but that I have undertaken onely to discover and not to combate And because they are both learnedly and piously confuted already by Barclay Baurican and Blackwood Onely by the way I shall desire you to observe how politickly they go to work They profess not openly and absolutely any desire to change the State or to depose Kings But this they do They labor by insinuation first
to flie and lurk in corners Till the Earl of Huntingdon apprehending him brought him up again to his old lodging in the Tower where he made an unfortunate end I shall not urge the practises of Sir Nicholas Throgmorton a man of great wit and policy notwithstanding he was Indicted of high Treason and arraigned at Westminster with Arnold Warner and others because though the case were plain yet the Jury acquitted him but to their own cost and trouble And it was well for him the Advocates of those times desired not so much to triumph in the calamities of poor men nor that the prisoner should loose his head rather then they their oration and the glory of the day But say some there were no Ministers had any hand in those tumults none of them were Trumpeters to Sedition at that time What was Goodman and Gilby Were not they Ministers Was not Jewel a Ministâ—â— â—ho preacht at Gl ceâ—â—er against the Queens proceedâ—ngs Was not Doctor Sands a Ministâ—r though Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge when he walkt abâ—ut with the Ragged Staff and assisted the proclaimers of Lady Jane Were not Hooper Rogers Crowly Ministers all enrolled as friends and favorers of these actions And were there not divers other Ministers both of Kent and other Counties who upon Wyats fall forsook the Realm or was there any thing more likely to drive them out then a guilty Conscience what shall we say of those two Apostles falsly so called of the time Cranmer and Ridley W re not they Ministers yet great instruments of the Queens troubles And that not in King Edwards time onely upon which account some would excuse them but after his death and under the Reign of Queen Mary For Ridleys Sermon of Pauls Cross wherein like another infamous Shaw he so highly magnified and defended the Title of Lady â—anâ— and perswaded the people to accept and obey her as Queen iâ—pugning against all honesty and conscience the right of King Henries two Daughters was the Sunday after King Edward was dead And 't is well known the Reign of a Prince commenceth not from the time of his Coronation but instantly upon the death of his predecessor And therefore was he justly attainted and convicted of Treason Cranmer was both Counsellor and Oracle in the business and was therefore arraigned and condemned with the Lady Jane and Guildford Dudly as contriver and principal assistant in that Treason as appeareth by the Records in the Kings Bench. This man was a very Proteus in all his actions and of a disposition most servil and vitiously plyable to any humor of the King and ready always to follow the prevailing party He was first a principal instrument of the Kings divorce from â—â—â—en Kâ—â—bâ—â— ne whereby the 〈◊〉 Gatâ—â— were let opon to the Lady Anne Bolen yet afterward to serve the Kings Appetite he was used again as a chief instrument in her condemnation as appears by the Statute where Cranmâ—rs Sentence is recorded judicially 28. Hen. 8. c. 7. as of his own knowledge convincing her of some fowl act Nor can any wise or indifferent man but condemn him of inexcusable iniquity that being a Counsellor of State Primate and M tropolitan of the Realm pretending also to be a Reformer of Religion would so much betray his Master whose creature he was as to frustrate and make void his will whereof himself was made chief Executor subscribe to extinguish his issue as much as possibly he could by disinheriting his two Daughters and transferring the Crown to another Line and Family and all this most basely and contrary to his conscience onely to please a Subject and to avoid â—omâ—â—inde of affliction which he feared upon the Succession of Qâ—een Mary and against which 't is manifest by the frequent changings lapses relapses and perjuries which he made he was never well armed It is manifest therefore that in all places at home as well as abroad this Spirit of Reformation hath ever been and is seditiously pragmatical and dangerous unto Princes and States wheresoever it getteth footing and is not countenanced and advanced so far as to bear all the sway it self It is in this onely respect not in any other like the Motto of her who meerly for temporal and worldly ends made her self the great Patroness of it that is it is Semper Eadem always the same and never changeth This was it which induced them of Genevah to expel their Bishop and Leige-Lord This was it which induceth them of Sâ—ethland to renounce their lawful King Them of Holland to depose their Sovereign Prince This was it which Sollicited the Bohemians to depose the Emperor their Elected Crowned and Acknowledged King That imprisoned the most Vertuous and Religious Queen and Martyr Mary Queen of Scotland and cast her undeservedly into those calamities which pursued her to death This was it which held out Rochel and Montauban in defiance against their King and lastly that which begat so many conspiracies commotions and causes of jealousie unto Queen Mary of England So as within the space of Sixty years it hath been observed More Princes have been deposed and persecuted by Protestants their Subjects upon the quarrel and difference of Religion then had bin by the Popes excommunications or by the attempts and practises of any Subjects Catholikes in Six hundred before Of the troubles which have arisen to other Princes upon this occasion we have spoken somewhat already The business of Sweden is defended by one Master T. M. upon these grounds First That it was done by the demand of the whole State But this is a manifest falshood For if you take the whole State formally that is for all the people of the Nation it is certain that Sigismund their lawful King had not onely a great but the far greater and better part of the people well affected to him If you take it Virtually that is for some general Assembly representing the people legally met and resolving upon that business there never was any such called The meetings that were were onely of Duke Charls his faction who in comparison of the Kings party both of Nobility and Commons were but few yet as it often happens the better case was more negligently managed and those for the Duke who were also inclined to Innovation in Religion being more active industrious and unanimous in their design made shift to secure the Military provisions and to invest themselves of the chief Strengths of the Kingdom before the others and so prevailed as Chytraeus himself a Protestant Author is sufficient witness Chytra Continuat Crantzii Secondly he saith it was for the defence of their Priviledges and Liberties None of which were violated as by the same Chytraeus appeareth Thirdly that it was for the fruitoin of Religion That 's true indeed and confessed That they might introduce and establish a new Religion they renounced their old King which is the thing we charge them with and wherein whatsoever they did
we see well enough it had been in other cases of this Nature Neither in King Edward the Sixths time nor against the Kings of Scotland Denmark Sweden Duke of Saxony Marquis of Brandenburgh or any other Protestant Prince was there ever any such sentence issued to this day Whereupon Father Pâ—rsons and Father Campian procured some kinde of mitigation concerning it presently after the publishing and Pope Gregory following declared That the Subjects of England ought to perform all duties to Queen Elizabeth notwithstanding the censures So little reason is there in truth that Protestants should clamour so loud as they do and cry out nothing but Treason Treason against religious and good men who as they have no other business so come they hither for no other end but to do them good and so far as lieth in their power and office to save their souls They tell the world that no less then two hundred Priests have been executed in England for Treason since the times of Reformation which is certainly a very heavy report and sufficient to make them odious to all the world if it were true or that there were any thing in it but fallacie and aequivocation of words whiles they call that Treason in England which in all parts of Christendome besides is both called and counted Religion and the highest Vertue For we beseech them to tell us of what Treason do they convict us at any time but the Treason of being a Priest the Treason to say Mass the Treason to refuse the Oath the Treason to absolve Penitents confessing their sins the Treason to restore men to the Communion of the Church the Treason to Preach and Administer Christs Sacraments the Treason to be bred up in the Seminaries that is in such places where onely as things now stand in England thâ—y can be Catholikely bred and fitted for such Christian imployment What actual and real Treason is in England according to the true sâ—nse and notion of that crime â—dious both to God and man the Statute of 25 Edw. 3. will inform us better then any other being enacted when the whole Kingdom was of one mind and of one judgement as all Christian Kingdoms and Societies ought to be not rent nor overborn by factions and parties undermining and supplanting one another by indirect and undue meanes as it was when these new Statutes of Treason were made By that Statute and by the opinions of the most learned Judges in England Ploydon Stamford c. Treason must alwayes be some Action or Intention actually discovered not an opinion onely or a profession of Religion And this is the reason why Sir John Oldcastle Stow. one of Mr. Fox his Martyrs in the Reign of Henry the Fifth mentioned before though he were both Traytor and Heretike yet for his Treason he was condemned in one Court and for his Heresie in another as also were Cranmer and Ridley in Queen Maries time Secondly it must be some Act or Intention discovered of a subject prejudicial to his Sovereign or to the State where he lives But what hurt had ever I say not Queen Mary Henry the Eighth while he stood right Henry the Seventh or any other Catholike Prince but even Queen Elizabeth her self King James or any other Protestant Prince by a Priests saying Mass absolving of Penitents preaching of sound Doctrine to them and particularly of all due and just obedience to Civil Magistrates as they have ever constantly done Therefore by the common Laws of England and in it self it is not it cannot be Treason or criminous to be a Priest to say Mass Absolve c. But onely by Statute Laws it is made so upon temporary and present occasions and for certain politick ends which men have projected of themselves and which they are resolved to follow And therefore also it is by the very Statutes themselves provided 22. and 27. Elizab. That if a Priest conforms be content to go to Church to renounce the Pope or his Orders c. he becomes ipso facto without more ado Rectus in Curia and is actually discharged of all imputation of Treason no further proceedings lie against him Yea even at the very place of Execution and when the instruments of death are upon him yet still 't is in his own power if he please in three words to pardon himself and frustrate the expectation of so many eyes as are commonly waiting to see his last Exit Let him but say I will conform or I will swear c. Ther 's no man living dares meddle with him further Which is far otherwise where the offence is judged to be Treâ—son indeed and really prejudicial to the Prince or State But the fatal resolution being taken to change Religâ—on upon a principle or pretended reason of State as false as the Counsel it self was evil viâ— That otherwise the Queen could not be secure either of her Kingdom or Life it was necessary to take a severe course with those men whose Function obliged them to maintain True Religion and to endeavour to reduce things again into the old State From this root also sprang their extream jealousie and hatred of the Queen of Scots For she being Heir Apparent to the Crown after Queen Elizabeth and a Princess zealously affected unto Catholike Religion and so strongly Allied in France Those Statesmen who had contrived and wrought all the alterations here could never think themselves secure so long as her head stood upon her shoulders Therefore was she first invited into England upon pretence of Friendship and for Safety But when she was here used with so much unkindness and kept under restraint for little less then twenty years together that at last in order to procure her Liberty she was indeed provoked to doe something which it was easie for them who loved her not to interpret to be Treason and so they cut off her head From hence also sprung those continual injuries and practises of much ingratitude against the King of Spain The intercepting of his Treasure The holding of his Towns The ayding of Orange and the States as hath been said Lastly from this onely Source and Fountain of unjust Policie sprung all those laws of severity and bloud against Recusants as we are commonly called viz. of Twenty pound a moneth of Two third parts of Estate against Hearing Mass against Harbouring a Priest against Being reconciled c. It is well known the Recusants of England against whom those Laws were made were generally persons in all degrees of the Noblest quality in this Nation Vertuous Grave Wise Charitable Just and Good men of fair and friendly Conversation towards all I shall not say Loyal to their Prince because the contrary is so commonly beleeved Stow. yet our own Chronicles will not altogether deny them right in that regard while they testifiâ— how diligent and forward they were to offer their service to the Queen and State even in that great Action of Eighty eight Neither were
they did by private Authority and Faction It shall suffice therefore to send this Master T. M. for his better instruction unto a great Doctor of his own Church Doctor Bilson above mentioned who as we have heard before holdeth it tantum non as an Article of Faith that Princes are not to be deposed which is also the judgement of the greatest Doctor of the English Church and hath been so for these Fifty years and upwards But we demand of them is it good Doctrine in the Reign and case of Queen Elizabeth onely and not so in the Reign and case of Queen Mary It is a position frequently defended in their own Schools Dominium non fundatur in gratiâ and the contrary Doctrine is as generally exploded in Wâ—cleff The difference then of Religion alters not the Authority and power of Jurisdiction And Wyat with his complices rising in Arms without and against royal Authority was a Rebel against Queen Mary as much as Westmorland and the rest with them whom the English Chronicles mention were Rebels in rising against Queen Elizabeth But you will say Queen Mary observed not the Laws of the Realm she abrogated the Statutes of the First of Edward the Sixth which all the Kingdom approved and 't is the profession of good Princes to observe the Laws and to govern by them I answer it is true Legibus se Subjectos esse c. it is a most Christian profession of all Kings to be subject to their own Laws but it would be understood cum grano salis soberly and to refer more to the directive part or power of them then to the corrective or punitive especially in criminal cases if any such should happen lest the remedy should prove worse then the disease the reparation of a private person turn to the ruin of the publike which is contrary to reason the end of government Beside in Princes we may consider their private Acts as I may so cal them of Government which consist in the Executive part of their Office viz. in administring or dealing justice betwixt man and man and in seeing so far as the Law or reason requireth of them that all men under them live well and according to their several duties in these Acts the Prince may be justly supposed to be bound up to the Law and that he ought not to do otherwise then the Law prescribes But who ever accused Queen Mary of breach of Law or misgovernment in this sense Happy had it been for some of her Successors and this whole Nation if they had affected arbitrary Government and Rule no more then she did Secondly we may consider in Princes their more publike Acts which concern all their people in general and consist in the Legislative part of their Office and in these they are Free they are absolute unlimited and bound to nothing but onely to proceed upon such advise as the Constitutions of their several Governments do require that is most commonly and as is best upon advise and the consent of their whole people represented and giving them Counsel in Full Parliament I say in this capacity the Prince is bound to no Law but the Law of Reason and a Good Conscience as to all other respects at liberty to enact or abrogate to make or repeal what Laws he shall think fit and most likely to procure publike good upon such advise given And did not Queen Mary so proceed Did she do any thing but by publike consent advise and supplication of her people in Parliament Beside if Queen Mary should be so subject to her Brothers Laws as not to alter them upon any reason in a legal and due manner why was not Queen Elizabeth so subject to Hers yea why was not King Edward the Sixth himself so subject to the Laws of his Father Why were they altered and that in his Minority too When he was a Childe and understood no more in things of that nature and consequence then a Childe you will say The Religion which Queen Mary brought in was corrupt and impure That of her Brother before and of Queen Elizabeth after her was pure and according to Gods word But this is your assertion onely we say still That you proceed upon a false supposition that presumption and self-conceit rules the greatest part of your rost That thing viz. Whether Queen Maries or Queen Elizabeths Religion were best is the grand question betwixt us And as it is certain that it was never yet by any general and orderly Counsel no not of Protestants determined on your side so we are sure and the world together with your selves know it hath been often legally solemnly determined for us by all sorts of Counsels Provincial National Oecumenical And we pray what reason can be given why the Judgement of Parliament restoring Catholike Religion under Queen Mary with the consent and advise of the chief and best of the whole Clergy of the Nation should not be as good as that which under Queen Elizabeth abolish'd it not onely contrary to the Queens Oath taken at her Coronation but without the advise or consent of so much as any one Bishop or spiritual Prelate of the whole Kingdom who yet in a business of that nature viz. concerning Religion were by all Laws both of * Malach. 2.7 Heb. 13.7.8 17. God and of the Nation principally to be consulted with But let us gratifie our Adversaries as much as may be Let us suppose the worst viz. that Queen Mary had indeed erred in the introduceing of some kinde of superstitions ought she therefore presently to be censured by Ministers or deposed and put down by a Wyat God forbid Solomon himself a wise and a great King did fall into grievous sins and particularly into the grosest of those kinds whereof they presume to censure Queen Mary He had many Hundreds of strange Wives contrary to the Law of Moses and by reason of them fell to Idolatry beyond measure The Queen never took but one Husband and he a Catholike Prince of the same Religion with her self and with the whole Christian world beside except onely some few Provinces which Heresie had lately corrupted Yet neither did the Priest or people take upon them to depose such a King as Solomon They left him to him who is the Supream and most proper Judge of Kings and who in the time appointed by his Divine Providence raised up Jeroboam to chastise him in his Son Yea when Julian himself of a Christian Emperor became Apostate and persecuted the Christians of his time with all maner of vexation and cruelty which either policy of malice could devise neither the people nor the Pastors of the Church though they sharply reproved and inveighed against his proceedings yet none of them took up Arms against him none went about to deprive him either of Dominion or Life And if they thought it not expedient or becoming Christians to do so against a Tyrant acting Tyrannically and onely by the
secular Priests attainted or convinced of Actual Treason against her Majestie viz. Ballard for knowing and yet concealing the attempts of Babington in the business of the Queen of Scots and old Parson Plomtree of the North who said Mass once at a rising in those parts And yet how greevously are they charged with such crimes all along the Queens Reign And how much was the people incensed against them upon that perswasion What Sermons Proclamations Lawes were made in Thunder and Lightening and Blood against these poor men Souldiers of our Saviour Christ and fighting onely with Spiritual Arms under his Banner The Cross in that part of the Catholike Church which is Militant in England What calamities afflictions miseries have they not endured by persecution hereupon The onely Colledges of Rhemes and Doway beside other Religious Orders from other places have sent out into our Lords Harvest no less then One hundred persons who have all suffered for Things purely Spiritual that is either for being Priests or for doing the Office of Priesthood viz. Saying Mass Reconciling of Sinners unto God c. In the year 25. of Queen Elizabeth it was made Felony to harbor a Priest and to be a Priest Treason And the Act looked so cruelly back to primo Elizab. that whosoever was made Priest since that time might very easily be drawn within compass of the charge The Law was made upon occasion of those Treasons of Parry Francis Throgmorton Anthony Babington and his complices as also upon occasion of F. Campian and those Priests arraigned with him For a general apprehension was taken that these had combined with some forreign Princes and other persons of power within England to restore Religion and deliver the Queen of Scots out of prison which was a business then fresh in memory Hereupon the Priests in England frame a supplication by common consent and finde means to present the same to the Queen at Greenwich by the hands of Master Shelley Wherein after they have first condemned and renounced the practises of Parry c. They profess and declare their own judgement in these words First we utterly deny that the Pope hath power to command or give License to any man to consent unto Mortal sin or to commit or intend to commit any thing contrary to the Law of God Secondly whatsoever person he be that maintaineth such opinion we renounce him and his opinion as devilish and abominable Thirdly we protest before God That all Priests who ever conversed with us have acknowledged your Majestie their lawful Queen tam de jure quam de facto as well of right as for your actual possession of the Crown that they pray for you and exhort your Subjects to obey you Fourthly and lastly they profess that it is heresie and contrary to Cotholike faith to think that any man may lift up his hand against Gods Anointed T is true the Petition had no other success with her Majestie then this viz. that Master Shelley who presumed to commit such a Treason as to present it was suffered to be sent to the Marshalsea by order of Secretary Walsingham and there to be kept prisoner to his dying day onely upon this pretence Scilicet because the Councel had not been first acquainted with the business Howbeit by this supplication the world may cleerly see They answer the Six Articles which in those times used to be so commonly and captiously propounded to such men framed by Doctor Hammon viz. Whither the Queen were lawful Queen notwithstanding the sentence Decleratory of Pope Pius Quintus against her whither that sentence were to be obeyed in althings Whither the Pope by such sentence could give her Subjects any lawful Authority to rebel or depose her c. For if she be their lawful Sovereign notwithstanding that sentence and that obedience and loyalty be due unto all lawful Princes by the Law of God and of nature it is easie to see what must be said to such questions According also as Bishop Watson Abbot Fecknam Doctor John Harpsfeild Doctor Nicholas Harpsfeild with others who were very often and rigidly examined upon them yet professed perpetually obedience to her Majestie tanquam verae Reginae as unto their true and lawful Sovereign Yea saith Doctor Nicholas Harpsfeild reported by Goldastus a Protestant Ego regalem ejus Authoritatem Goldast de Monar Sac. Imp. Rom. c. I do acknowledge saith he her Royal Authority in all Temporal and Civil affair without exception They presented the like humble supplication to his Majestie that now reigneth some while after the discovery of that wicked and desperate Plot of the Gun-powder-treason another to the Parliament then sitting and another to the Earl of Salisbury in all of them professing the same things And though it hindred not the passing of some severe Acts against Catholikes in that Parliament occasioned as I suppose by that foul and horrid attempt yet the King himself in his Proclamation published upon that subject gratiously professeth his opinion of the generality of his Catholike Subjects viz. That they did abhor such a detestable Conspiracy no less then himself True it is F. Garnet suffered for concealing that Treason and Sir Everard Digby for contributing in some sort to the security or rather flight of some of the Conspirators But as the one viz. Sir Everard Digby much lamented his ill fortune that he should leave behinde him the memory of so great a stain protesting always that he was never made privy to their design and drift So the other viz. F. Garnet knowing it onely as he did in the way of confession and the Seal of that Sacrament which is Secrecy being by the Doctrine of Catholike Religion and that not without most just and necessary cause esteemed so inviolable it may abate something even in the judgement of man of that Heynousness of guilt and blame whereof all good Christians otherwise must necessarily condemn him In a word how much Catholikes in general and especially Priests do detest rebellion and Treason even in times of greatest affliction and pressure and what Religious observers they are of all just loyalty and obedience to their lawful Princes appears cleerly not onely by a book written in those times by the learned Bishop of Chichester Doctor Christopherson against rebellion but also by the Annotations of the Divines at Rhemes upon the New Testament where Pag. 301. we read thus Subjects saie they are bound in Temporal things to obey even the Heathen being their lawful Kings and to be subject to them for Conscience to observe their Temporal Laws to pay them Tribute to pray for them and to perform all other duties of Natural Allegiance Doctor Kellison in his Survey goeth further giving the reason of this Because saith he Faith is not necessarily required to jurisdiction neither is any Authority lost by the loss of Faith Which is also the Doctrine of Saint Thomas who in his Book Cap. 6. de Regim Princip denieth utterly