their Religion Is not his Lordships meaning says * Compend pag. 77. he in truth this that Protestant Principles when really believ'd are destructive to all Kings especially to Catholick ones since we see that the lawful Monarchs of England Scotland Swedeland Denmark the United Provinces Transylvania Geneva c. have been actually depos'd by their Protestant Subjects This c. here I guess to be a Lie of the lowest price in their Book of Rates for Sin 't is so pitiful and inconsiderable a Trick He puts it down as if there were a vast and tiresom number of Countries behind which in kindness to his Reader he forbears to mention where Princes have been depos'd by Protestants when he know in his Conscience be could scarce have named one more if it had been to gain the Popedom if he could I doubt not but we should have had it at full length Well but in those Countries he has nam'd Princes it seems have been actually depos'd by their Protestant Subjects And what then Does it therefore follow that the Protestant Religion teaches the Doctrine of Deposing Kings Or may it not indeed teach the quite contrary for all that Did this wretched Trifler never hear of men who have acted contrary to the Principles of their Religion Where has he liv'd In a Convent without doubt among the most Seraphick Saints of his Church * Dr. Stilling fleet 's Phanaticism of the Church of Rome pag. 276. I me an those mad Phanaticks of the Sect of Abbot Joachim who according to their new Evangelium Aeternum have been in a state of perfection ever since the Year 1260. I wonder when his hand was in and while he was industriously stuffing out his thin Discourse with big and sounding words he did not bring all the Protestant Criminals and other ill men who have been any way famous since the Reformation upon the stage and then charge the Protestant Religion with Felony and Murder and Treason and Adultery and Perjury and what not The Consequence had been altogether as good and the Triumph as just We do not reason at this loose and absurd rate when we accuse the Church of Rome of Principles which justifie the Deposing and Murdering of Princes and the Massacring of millions of innocent people whom with a ridiculous affectation she terms Hereticks But we first prove her as my Lord Bishop of Lincoln has unanswerably done to have such Principles and this not onely from the Books of her most eminent Writers upon those Testimony we always lay the least weight allow'd and commended by her self but from that Law which is the Rule of Justice in her Ecclesiastical Courts from the Authentick Bulls and Decretals of her Popes And lastly which is the greatest Evidence that is possible in the case from the Canons of her General Councils Then we urge matters of fact conformable to them to shew that they are not things of bare speculation and despute among Casuists and Schoolmen but such necessary Rules for the support of her Hierarchy as have been frequently put in practice to the great scandal of the Christian Profession To come to particulars We should not lay to her Charge the Murders of Henry III. and Henry IV. of France because they were committed by Members of her Communion if besides the publick Applause of the one by the then Pope in a set Speech to the College of Cardinals we had not first convinc'd her of holding such Principles as justifie both We should not accuse her of the several Conspiracies of Papists here in England against the Lives of Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles I. and His present Majesty if besides the proving upon her the before mention'd Principles she had not actually and formally as for as it lay in her power Excommunicated and Depos'd them all and Absolv'd their Subjects from their Oaths of Allegiance We should not accuse her of the Massacres of Paris and Piedmont because her Sons were there the Brethren in iniquity the Sons of Violence that acted unprovok'd those dismal Slaughters if as an additional proof of her holding the foremention'd Principles she had not (a) Thuanus Hist l. 53. p. 837. commended the one giving thanks to God for it and (b) History of the Waldenses commanded the other Lastly we should not place to her account the late Rebellion of Ireland and all those Murders which were the Consequences of it because the Rebels were Papists if besides that the (c) History of the Irish Rebellion in Folio printed 1680. Pope's Nuncio was known to be the chief Guide and Romish Priests the chief Contrivers and Fomenters of that desperate and bloudy Revolt it were not most notorious that she has always ready an Armory of execrable Principles suited to such occasions to satisfie the Consciences and encourage the Madness of her Jewish Zelots This I am confident all impartial men will judge fair Dealing and just Discourse and far different from the Method of the Compendionist the Reader may see we ground not our Charge of Popery upon the bare Actions of Papists but having found this degenerate Church teaching the most disloyal and inhumane Doctrines and then observing her Followers in several famous Instances to be guilty of Facts which directly answer to then We think we have reason to conclude the one to be the cause of the other and that many Papists had not been so bad men if their very Religion had not debauch'd them May we not now justly turn the Compendionist's own words of foolish Triumph upon himself and his Party * Compend pag. 77. What Parity is there between us and our Adversaries either in our Actions or Books of this nature Though the Actions of many Protestants have been too had to be justifi'd yet did they never go to the Church for Sanctuary Though Protestants have been Deposers and Murderers of Princes there are Rogues of all Persuasions yet had they never any Encouragement from their Religion so to do nor did any of them ever so much as pretend it except such Bedlam Phanaticks as Fifth Monarchy Men a Venner or a John of â—eyden and these are properly speaking as far from being right Protestants as Papists are from being right Christians But can he show us where the Protestant Religion allows the Deposing or Murdering of Princes or gives the least intimation of such a Power in the Church Can he shew it us where onely it ought to be look'd after viz. in the Confessions of our Faith or in the Articles of our Communion Or lastly can he shew it us in the Writings of any considerable Protestant Divines though their private Opinions unlicenc'd and unauthoriz'd by the Church of which they are Members cannot properly be a Charge against the Protestant Religion but because we will give him more than he can justly ask in this Controversie I say can he shew it us even bare I know indeed he does affirm That the * Compend
pag. 76. prime Leaders as he styles them of the Reformation Luther Calvin Zuinglius Bezâ— c. have in express terms held that Princes might be Depos'd upon the account of Religion But he has not quoted any of their Books to direct us where this scandalous Tenet which he fixes upon them might be found but leaves us to hunt after it at large among the Voluminous Writings of those Authors I do not therefore think my self oblig'd to take any more notice of this Slander of his than if he had never vented it What does he expect to be believ'd upon his bare word sic notus Ulvxes Does he think we know them no better than to trust them But we will not use all the Advantages that we have against so bad a Cause and so weak an Adversary Let us suppose then for once that Luther Calvin and as many more as he has a mind to take into his c. have held That Princes may be depos'd upon the Account of Religion By what new Logick can he make this pertinent to the present Discourse Does he think it the same thing to hold indefinitely That Princes may be depos'd upon the Account of Religion and to hold That the Church has a Right to depose them upon that account to hold that they may be depos'd by an Authority Civil and to hold that they may be depos'd by an Authority Ecclesiastical Let him now speak his Conscience without a Dispensation Does he in good earnest think these two Propositions equivalent or at least equivalent as to the point in controversie between him and the Bishop of Lincoln and that they equally disgrace the profess'd Religion of him who affirms them He cannot fare be so void of the ordinary reason of a Man though he has swallow'd down never so many Roman Catholick Doctrines as not to perceive as palpable difference between them 'T is not but that the former of these Position is a very bad Principle dangerous to Princes and destructive to the Peace and Settlement of a Nation though not so much as the later because it wants the Enforcements of Conscience and Religion to fix it in the Mind and thrust it out upon occasion into Action with that violence which usually accompanies a pretended Zeal for the Honour of God But how bad soever it may be still 't is a Civil not a Religious Principle and though it may be Sedition in the highest degree it can never be Heresie a mans Life and Estate who maintains it is answerable for it not his Religion To make this a little clearer I say 'T is one thing to hold that Princes may be depos'd by the State though upon the account of Religion i. e for being of a Religion different from the establish'd grounding this Opinion upon the Laws and Customs of some particular Civil Constitutions or upon the ends of Government in general and quite another thing to hold that they may be depos'd by the Church grounding this Opinion upon the Laws of Religion and a Power suppos'd to be delegated to her by Christ This last is the Principle we charge and the Bishop of Lincoln has prov'd upon the Church of Rome which makes her Religion it self dangerous to Princes On the other side though Luther Calvin or any other Protestant Divines should hold the first though it be a false and a bad yet as I said before 't is a Civil Principle and their holding it could no more reflect on the Protestant Religion than an Error they might be guilty of in History or Mathematicks The Protestant Religion therefore remains clear from any suspicion of allowing the Doctrine of Deposing Princes the point I undertook to make good though it should be granted the Compendionist that Luther and Calvin c. have had ill Principles in relation to Civil Governments If he could prove indeed that Luther and Calvin or any other Protestant Divines have held The Lawfulness of Deposing Princes as a Principle of their Religion and plac'd the power of doing it in the Church he would say something that were to the purpose and parallel to what we accuse the Church of Rome of but in the Method he has taken he does but beat the Air and fight with Shadows I shall explain this Distinction a little further by some famous Examples in order to meet with the other Cavils of this idle Wrangler and make the Inconsequence of his Arguings if it be possible yet more apparent He may remember then that here in England Edward II. and Richard II. were actually depos'd in times of Popery and by Papists yet did our Writers never charge the Church of Rome though she held then the same Doctrines and had the same pride to trample on Princes that now she has with those two disloyal and unjust Usurpations upon the Sovereignty of the Kings of England And for what imaginable reason but this onely viz. because they were both Acts of the Civil Power and carried on by mon who grounded what they did upon Principles though grosly false and mistaken drawn from the Constitution of the English Government and the Rights of the two Houses of Parliament and the Church of Rome contrary to her Custom upon such occasions was onely a bare Spectator neither her Authority nor her Principles being made use of to further or justifie those Proceedings I would now ask this Collector of Impertinencies this tedious Compendionist whether he thinks this a good reason to clear the Church of Rome from being concern'd in the deposing these two unfortunate Princes If he says 't is as no doubt he will with what face can he pretend to charge the Church of England as he would be understood to do pag 76. lin 38. with the Endeavours that were us'd to keep Queen Mary from the Crown the Death of the Queen of Scots and the Bâ—ll of the late House of Commons against the Duke of York's Successiâ—n since the Cases are directly parallell I mean parallell in all that concerns the present question Were they not every one of them Acts of the Civil Power and carried on by men who grounded what they did on Civil not Religious Principles Was not the setting up of the Lady Jane Grey and the raising an Army to oppose Queen Mary an Act of the Privy Council in pursuance of King Edward's Will and a Law made in the Reign of Henry VIII for the illegitimating of this Princess as the Lords of the Council themselves declare in their Answer to her Letter writ from * Baker's Chron. â—ramingham Castle Was not the Death of the Queen of Scots most notoriously an Act of the State justified by the Laws of the Land Was she not indicted for Treason and known to pretend a better Title to the Crown than Queen Elizabeth Lastly was not the Bill against the Duke of York grounded on a suppos'd Legal Power in the King and the two Houses to alter the course of the Succession when they think
fit Have not all the Pamphlets that have been writ in Vindi … tion of that Bill argued the Lawfulness of it from the Constitution of the Civil Government and wholly disclaim'd the interesting of Religion at all in the business as to the justifying of it in the least degree endeavouring with great pains to prove that true Religion does not meddle with the Civil Rights of Princes but leaves them to be determin'd by the Laws and Customs of particular Countries By what strange consequence they can he entitle the Church of England or the Protestant Religion to things that are so perfectly of a Civil nature unless he will make them answerable for all the Actions of Protestants of what kind soever and resolve to maintain that childish Sophism I first took notice of as the chief ground of all his extravagant Raving against the Bishop's Book viz. The concluding the Principles of a Religion from the practises of her Professors Which is the very Dregs of Folly the last Running of Impertinence 'T is true the Protestant Religion i.e. the care of preserving it was no doubt the great Motive of doing what was done in every one of these three Cases but that is not here to the purpose for 't is not the Reason for which but the Authority by which a Prince is depos'd and the kind of Principle i. e. whether Civil or Religious 't is justified upon that must condemn or acquit a Church of the Guilt of it though this man endeavour all along to insinuate the contrary by such a fallacious way of representing the Position charg'd on the Church of Rome as makes that seem to be the chief Point in the Controversie between her and the Bishop of Lincoln which is in truth no part of it viz. the Motive or end of deposing Princes But 't is not the Business of this little Pamphlet … to state things fairly and reason clearly but to amuse the Reader◠and puzzle the Question a close way of arguing will not suit either with his Cause or his Understanding a good proof of which he gives us at the very first in these words * See the Compend pag. 76. If on the other-side says he the Bishop means that there have been Popish Doctors of the opinion that Princes might be Depos'd upon the account of Religion what Advantage I would fain know can that be to his Lordship or his Treatise since not only all the prime Leaders of the Reformation c Is it to be imagin'd now that a man should get so far out of his way unless he purposely design'd to ramble or write things so grosly impertinent to the matter he was treating of unless he studied to confound it and render it as little intelligible as was possible Never did any man take more true pains to understand a Discourse difficult in it self than he has done to misunderstand the Bishop's which was plain and easie or a least to make his Reader do so for he cannot be so dull himself in this Point as he would seem 'T is not possible that he or any man who has read the Bishop's Book should think it was the Bishop's meaning only to charge the Popish Doctors with holding indefinitely that Princes might be Depos'd upon the account of Religion when 't is so palpably evident in a hundred places of his Book that he only brings their Opinions as a collateral proof of his Charge of their Church and Religion and that with a quite different Tenet as I have already shew'd And as 't is the Roman Church and not the Doctors only or chiefly which the Bishop charges with holding that Princes may be Depos'd by her Authority not with holding indefinitely that they may be Depos'd upon the account of Religion So 't is the present Popish Canon-Law the Bulls the Decretals of Popes and the Canons of General Councils which are the Testimonies he relies upon for the making good of his Charge and not the private Opinions of Popish Doctors though being cited out of Books licens'd and approv'd by that Church they are of considerable weight in the Argument Now what says the Compendionist to these strong and most convincing Proofs Why in fine as Mr. Bayes says upon another occasion he wont tell us He has not one word not one syllable of Answer to them but passes them over with as deep a silence and as good a grace as if they were like most of his own not at all to the purpose This discreet and necessary Resolution being taken he bends all his little Wit and with a great deal of chearfulness goes about to invalidate what the Bishop urges from the Writings of the Popish Doctors which yet the poor impotent Scribler is by no means able to do as I have made appear in my Answer to his Charge of Luther and Calvin The Attempt however was just as wise and as likely to satisfie reasonable men as if a General who had a great and well disciplin'd Army to fight with should neglect the Main Body and with his whole Strength set upon the Forlorn Hope For his Objections of the Protestant Rebellion in Hungary the late Rising in Scotland the Murther of the Archbishop of S. Andrews and that Home-Blow of his the Gazet Advertisement of The Tryals of Twenty nine Protestant Regicides they are of the same nature and grounded on the same pitiful Falacy with those I have already answer'd and when he can shew us any Principle of the Protestant Religion that justifies Rebellion or Murder especially that of Princes or does but in the remotest degree encourage men to commit these detestable Crimes I shall again consider them In the mean time let him not wast his Paper and tire his Reader with the Repetition of such fulsom Sophistry But perhaps it may not be amiss to give a more particular Answer to his Home-Blow because he has such an opinion of its force and does so triumph with the conceit of his Victory I shall endeavour therefore to take him down in the height of his Rapture and shew his ignorant malice The Reader will remember the Point he should prove is That Protestant Principles are destructive to Kings for those are the very words of the Introduction to his terrible Argument of Instances of Fact Now did the Twenty nine Protestant Regicides ever pretend to justifie their abominable Villany by any Principle of their Religion Nay did they not pretend the quite contrary and ground it wholly upon a Civil Authority Did they not argue the lawfulness and justice of it from a Power they fancied in the People to call the King to an Account for his Actions Though in this they were as absurd Logicians as the Compendionist has all along shew'd himself and reason'd not only against the very first Principle of Civil Policy but point blank contrary to the most fundamental Maxims of the Law of England which says That the King can do no wrong and therefore makes his
Wisdom and Goodness as we have learned out of S. Athanasius his Creed when he says Tho Father Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty yet by Attribution Power is ascribed unto the Father Wisdom unto the Son and Love unto the Holy Ghost whereof every several as they are termed Attributes are so proper unto every several Person that they cannot be attributed and referred unto any other By the Contraries of which Attributes we come to discern the distinction and greatness of Sin the Contrary to Power which is attributed to the Father is Weakness or Infirmity and therefore that which we do amiss through Infirmity or Weakness of Nature is said to be committed against the Father The opposite unto Wisdom is Ignorance through which when any man sinneth he is said to sin against the Son and therefore what we commit through natural Infirmity or Ignorance is more easily forgiven us The third Attribute which is the Holy Ghost's is Love and hath for its Contrary Ingratitude a Vice most detestable and odious which causeth men not to acknowledge the Love of God and his Benefits bestowed upon them but to forget despise yea and to hate them and from hence at last it comes to pass that they prove obstinate and impenitent And thus to sin against God is far more dangerous and dreadful than if it were done either through Ignorance or Natural Infirmity and therefore it is termed a sin against the Holy Ghost and because such Sins are seldom and hardly and not without great abundance of Grace pardoned in some sort they are said to be unpardonable Whereas Final Impenitence onely is really and simply unpardonable For whatsoever is done amiss in this Life although it be against the Holy Ghost yet by Repentance it may be wip'd out or done away before we die but they that persevere therein till Death are excluded from all grace and mercy hereafter And therefore for such Sins or Sinners the Apostle hath forbidden to pray after their Decease Now therefore because we understand not without great grief that the aforesaid King departed this Life without repentance or impenitent to wit in the Communion and Fellowship of Hereticks for all his Army was made up almost of none other but of such men and that by his last Will he commended and made over his Crown and Kingdom to the Succession of Navar long since declared an Heretick and Excommunicated as also in his Extremity and now ready to yield up the Ghost desired of him and such as he was then standing by him that they would revenge his Death upon those whom he judged to be the Cause thereof For these and such like manifest Tokens of his Impenitency we have decreed not to solemnize his Death with Funerals not that we presume any thing by these concerning God's secret Judgment against him or his Mercies towards him who could according to his good pleasure convert and turn his Heart even when his Soul was leaving the Body and deal mercifully with him but this we have spoken being thereunto moved by these external Signs and Tokens God grant that all being admonished and warned by this fearful Example of Heavenly Justice may repent and amend and that it may further please him to continue and accomplish that which he hath thus mercifully begun for us as we firmly hope he will to the â—â—d we may give everlasting thanks to him that hath delivered his Church from such great and imminent Dangers When His Holiness had thus ended his Speech he brake up the Consistory and dismist them with his Benediction From this Speech I shall onely infer two things First That it is the Interest of all Protestant Princes if they love their Lives to suppress Popery in their Dominions Secondly That it is more particularly the Interest of His Majesty of Great Britain utterly to extirpate the Romish Religion out of England Scotland and Ireland there being a most damnable Hellish Plot against His Majesty's Royal Person and Government and his Protestant Subjects still carried on by the Papists Some of the most Remarkable Passages of Q. Maries Reign HAving given you the most famous Instances of the execrable Principles and Practices of Papists that I have met with in Forein History and shewed you that these Principles and Practices are derived from the Diabolical Doctrines of the Romish Church I shall now conclude with some Instances of the like nature that occur in the Reign of Q. Mary being the most considerable on Record in our own Chronicles As soon as Q. Mary heard of her Brother K. Edward's Death and that he had by his Will with the consent of his Council excluded her and nominated the Lady Jane Grey to succeed him the said Q. Mary having been before Bastardiz'd by her Father K. Henry VIII she rode 40 miles in one day from Norfolk to her Castle of Framingham in Suffolk where taking upon her the Name and Title of Queen she gave notice to the Protestant Nobility and Centry of the County That if they would assist her ingetting the Crown she would not any ways attempt the least Alteration of the Religion established by her Brother K. Edward VI. This Declaration caused many of the prime Protestants to repair to her and she having given them her Royal Word and her Faith for performance thereof did likewise as a further Confirmation sign certain Articles of Agreement to that effect Whereupon the Protestants assisted her and she presently wrote Letters to the Council in which she claimed the Crown and required them to proclaim her Queen of England in London which was done accordingly But she was no sooner got into the Throne than she broke her Word and Faith given to these Protestants and which is very strange and remarkable did afterward prosecute them more severely than she did any other Protestants in the Kingdom though she kept her Faith with all of them alike as you will see by and by In the mean time I shall give you a particular Instance of her Ungratitude and Breach of Faith toward a Protestant that hath faithfully served her and the story is briefly thus Sir James Hales a Justice of the Common Pleas who had been a great and eminent Stickler for her Succession having given a Charge at a Quarter Sessions in Kent upon the Statutes of Henry VIII and Edward VI. in derogation of the Primacy of Rome he was by her order committed to prison of which ill requital of his Services he grew so sensible that through discontent and trouble of Mind he once endeavoured to stab himself and though he was then prevented in his design yet not long after he drowned himself Now you shall see how she proceeded by degrees against the Protestants 1. On the third of August 1553 she rode through London to the Tower and on the fourth and fifth began to turn out the Protestant Bishops and to put Papists in their places and presently after she displaced all