of these kindes that is intending designing or practising the murther of Princes Ergo I answer that the late Lord Treasurer reputed the Author of the booke intituled The execution of Iustice c. was thought in his daies to be a man not second to many in politicall wisedome and affaires of Common-wealth And I thinke much to be preferrâ—d before this Discouerer for Execut. of Iust place and wisedome and yet he will tell vs the quite contrary to this assertion That there wâ—re many Catholike Priests and Bishops also in this kingdome which although they were depriued of their preferments and imprâ—â—oned by Queene Elizabeth yet they were so farre from being contained within the circuite of this mans proposition that they be dignified by that wise Counceller with these titles faithfull and quiet subiects very quiet subiects inclined to dutifulnesse to the Queenes Maiesty and the like And for such hee reciteth very many famous men Doctor Heath Archbishop of Yorke Doctor â—oole Bishop of Peterborough Doctor Tunstall Bishop of Durham Bishops of Winchester Carlile Ely Lincolne together with Abbots Deanes c. Therefore by this authority the obiecters generall proposition of all Priests guiltinesse cannot be true But he vrgeth That all Priests professe it lawfull to take Armes against their Kings and what other meaning saith he can Armes haue but blood I haue answered him before that this is false by the cheefe Protestants declaration of many Priests quietnesse loyalty and obedience Secondly I tell this disputer that he hath made a sound argument to proue all the Protestant Ministers of England Scotlund France Heluetia Germany Sweueland and other Nations before with their confederate Protestants conuinced of sedition for taking or perswading Armes against their Soueraignes to be likewise guilty of the blood and murther of those Princes in their designements If Armes can haue no other meaning but onely blood as this bloody Sentencer affirmeth for all the world can witnesse that they tooke Armes against their Rulers But against Catholikes which know both an offensiue and defensiue warre his bloody iudgement can giue no deadly wound though he had prooued which is most falsly spoken that all Priests professe it lawfull to take Armes against their Kings which I haue before returned vpon the Protestant profession And yet how doubtfully and with equiuocation against which heâ— argueth in his ninth Reason doth he speake in this place neither expressing in what case or against what Prince Aâ—mes are defended lawfull But I will answer him as before except he will make his Maiesty for whom hee would seeme to pleade an vsurping Tyrant an Apostata from Christian faith incorrigible in impiety and a monster as it were among men it is a protestant doctrine and no Catholike opinion that either blood must be exacted or Armes taken against a Prince Seeing his owne reputation hath no happier successe let vs examine his authorities He first bringeth the Author of Iust abdic Hen. 3 to say that Tyrannum occidere honestum est it is honest to kill a Tyrant Well then King Iames is a Tyrant by this iudgement otherwise both he and his Author be Iudges against himselfe for that writer expresly nameth a Tyrant And to shew this mans further dutifull affection to his Prince hee must meane an Reade Peter Nâ—uâ—r Domin Soâ—o Cuner and others vsurping Tyrant which is no King but an intrudor for by the common opinion such a Tyrant is vnderstoode in this case by the generall Councell of Constance to which that Author and all Catholikes must giue assent and yeelde obedience But such Diuines as this discouerer which are aboue generall Councells the whole Church of Christ and all authority may make Tyrants of whom they list and depose Princes at their pleasures And this futeth best with their holy spirit For if euery man among them may iudge of all Fathers Popes Councells Scriptures and authorities which be the highest they may with lesse presumption châ—llenge to be Superiors and sit in iudgement of all terrene and temporall businesse He bringeth no other authors for priests intending designing or practising the murther of Princes but onely citeth Mr. Rainolds Gregorius de valentia Simancha about censured heretickes often before answered in his sence and meaning But his holy obedience and duty can finde no other company in the christian world for his King and Soueraigne but Tirants excommunicate heretickes and such exploded persons For practise in this point he only alleadgeth three authoriiies besides this late vnhappie Stratageme His first testimony is from Gallobelgicus who among other of his farre fetched intelligences should affirme that one Arnolde in Paris ascribed the Tirannie of the Spaniards in the Indies to the Iesuites But Lewis Granado Metellus Sequanus and others of greater credite who speake dolefully and bitterlie against that Tirannie be of other minde And we intreate now of Christian Princes and not of poore Infidell and Pagan common people Therefore if this were true yet to no purpose if there were no priests but Iesuites But it is well knowne that Arnoldus was a professed enemy to that Societie and is confuted by Montanus and others And yet Gallobelgicus is not without his hiperbolicall Locutions His second example is that Rodolphuâ— Comes which he translateth Duke Rodolph foght against the Emperor Henry the 4. excommunicate To which he ioyneth the often repeated Bull of Pius the fift against Queene Elizabeth both answered before And still this man cannot ballaunce his Soueraigne with any but excommunicates Indian infidells Tirants Apostataes c. Lastly he addeth the late conspiracie against the house of Parliament But as he hath heard that all priests were not so well pleased in the former procâ—dings with the deceased Queene So I trust they will be innocent in so vile a practise against our present Soueraigne And it is most certaine that this example serueth not for his purpose of prouing all priests to intend designe or practise such things For first the cheefest priest the Pope had absolutely foâ—bidden all disobedience and strictly commanded obedience vnto his Maiesty by English Catholiâ—es priests or other and by his absolute power of spirituall superiority as by these words Quia Papaiubet the obedience and prohibeâ— the disobedience The cheefe superior of priests in England in spirituall things the Archpriest had so receiued and promulged the same command long since in August last And vpon his first notice of the pretended wickednesse condemned it by his particular letters for an intollerable vncharitable scandalous and despâ—râ—te fact against the order of holy Church against the prescript of a generall Councell against the sâ—ntence of the best writers of this age against the Popes commandement and consorting with the error of Wickliffe the protestant Saint and Martyr condemned in the Catholike generall councell at Constance Then if the secular priests of England will acknowledge eyther the Archpriest for their superior at home or the Pope at Rome as all both
hoc seculo vel in altero cum Pontifices Principes rationem reddent villicationis suae de hac re controuersia decideret inter nostros Superiores Notwithstanding this we know that many Catholikes did thinke hardly of that deed and did wish that if so great a matter and subiect to diuers suspitions had neuer bin committed to writing but reserued to higher powers and most chiefly to the iudgement of God that either in this world or in the world to come when both Popes and Princes must render account of their Bailifewicke the controueâ—sie of this matter should be tried betweene our Superiors Then if the case was such between the Pope and that deceased Princes I cannot conceaue how any equally minded Protestant can be of minde that the Pope so strictlie commaunding obedience of all Catholâ—kes in England to his Maiestie will or can be so contrarie vnto himselfe to publish a contrarie commaund against a King offering in publique Parliament to meet with the Roman Church Kings speach parliam 1. all Nouelties taken away we wish no more and in the meane time acknowledging the same Roman Church to be our Mother Church and that his minde was euer free from perfection or thralling his subiects in matters of couscience Of such a King Bellarmine himself cited against vs will be witnes that he thinketh Beâ—lar â—ib 5. de Rom. pont c. 7 the Pope cannot so proceed against him The fift Reason confuted and returned CHAP. VI. THe fift Reason is nothing in effect but the former confuted now againe repeated with malice and suting also with the three next ensuing and is thus obiected Whosoeuer suggesteth a Doctrine of forcible deposing of Princes from their thrones are therein manifestly rebellious Let vs grant this Maior Proposition then thus I make my Minor But Protestants be such as both their publike opinions and practisâ—s before and after conuince Ergo they are manifestly rebellious by this disputer Now let vs heare what dogmaticall authority principle or position he produceth to iustifie his accusation Thâ—t all Popish Priests his phrase defend and approue these things For although I haue confuted this in the former yet I will rather multiply repetitions then leaue any suspicion behinde me to omit any of his oppositions First for the violent deposing of Kings and Emperours hee citeth Costerus to say That the power to depose Kings and Emperours was euer in the Popes of Rome penes Romanos pontifices which he translateth peculiar to the Pope But he must vnderstand that here is no speach of violence violent deposing or forcible dâ—posing which is his proposition to be proued We will proceede He citeth Molma to say that Depositio Imperatoris ex iusta causa pertinet ad summum Pontificem But first againe heere is no speech of force or violence and so not to your purpose Secondly there is at this present a great difference betweene the Emperour which is created by the Popes I. Cerem Rom. eccl in Coron Imperat. lawes and with his solemnities and from whom he receiueth his sword and a King that is absolute not so created or depending for power or iurisdiction such as our Soueraigne in England is And Molina himselfe cited in this place by our accuser insinuateth the same dâ—sparitie and reason in these words Quia Imperator est tanquam minister summi pontificis c. Because the Emperour is as it were the Popes Minister exercising the sword of Iurisdiction at his will ad natum summi pontificis which is altogether vntrue of his Maiestie not so receiuing or exercising authority To Bellarmine I haue answered before that his opinion is against this discouerer For hee alloweth not of censures against Princes where they grow not to violence and persecution Concerning Doctor Saunders and Philopater I haue already spoken sufficiently and yet their citations doe not conclude violence in the case of excommunicates whereof they intreat Bannes alleaged to defend That an Apostata King may be deposed by the Common-wealth meaneth such a Prince as Iulian the Apostata a renowncer of Christianity which is properly termed Apostata And conformable is the Allegation from Simancha which be all the authorities hee bringeth to binde all Popish his Epitheton Priests to defend violent deposing of Kings which not one of those particular writers affirme but was both the publike opinion practise of protestants in aâ—l opportunities occasions as is often remembred in this defence Now let vs heare the supposed publike practise in this point He alleageth three authorities only of particular men which sentence be not sufficient to pronounce their iudgement or allowance to be publike But let them be vrged to his greatest aduantage The first is against Henry the third of France excommunicate from the Author De iusta abdic Henr. 3. affirming onely that the French subiects which armed aganst him did it secura conscientia with secure conscience as against a violater of publike faith violatore publicae fidei I answer first this is no English case except this discouerer will inrole his Maiestie in the number of excommunicates and violaters of publike fidelitie which is most iniurious to his Highnesse and in Catholikes would be called trecherous And yet this Author doth onely affirme that they did it or might doe it in conscience But hee doth not iustifie which this man must generally proue that all those and the rest of the French subiâ—cts were bound in conscience to take Armes against him and yet if he had so said there is an euident inequality assigned betweene the cases in comparison His second authority is an opinion of Diuines in a Colledge at Salaman in Spaine no publike authoritie if true that all Catholikes which did not follow the O-neale did sinne moâ—tally Queene Elizabeth then being excommunicate and that Xistus quintus did rather allow then appâ—oue their opinion But first who seeth not the disparity of those Princes before compared Secondly that schoole followed their information which being vntrue their sentence faileth which the experience it selfe of that time conuinceth for most Catholikes practised the contrary to that iudgement resisted O-neele and defended Queene Elizabeth And Xistus quintus neuer did see the resolution of that schoole The practises of Protestants are no nouelties in such affaires The sixt Reason confuted and returned CHAP. VII THus he proceedeth to his sixt Reason Whosoeuer doe intend designe or practise the murther of Princes must necessarily be holden for desperate Traytors This is the Maior proposition which I grant and thus proceede in forme But Luther Munster Suinglius Caluine Bezae Spiphanius Cranmer Ridley Latimer Sands Knoxe Goodman and other Cleargie Protestants with their Adherents and Disciples did intend designe and so much as they could practise such impietie as I haue demonstratiuely proued Ergo they must necessarily by this mans argument be holden for desperate Traytors But against Catholikes he vrgeth That all popish Priests are guilty in some
excommunicate before his Election neither is hee now but is both elected and setled in his throne both without any contradiction of the Pope and with his Iubet of all obedience and prohibet of deniall thereof All the Catholikes of this Kingedome applauded it as much as Protestants And his vnion and league with Catholike Princes and people abroad is sufficient answer that this is a malicious slaunder of holy Priesthood and proveth Catholikes innocent Protestants guilty and this man an vniust accuser The Argument retuâ—ned vpon Protestants with a recitaâ—l of their seditious doctrinâ— But for breuitie to passe ouer forraigne Protestants in this place I will put this disputer in minde of his brethrens dogmaticall principles and positions in this vnited Kingdome The Protestant Writers and Preachers of England defended that Wyat was no Traytor to Queene Mary And thus they wrote expresly It is lawfull to kill Kings and both by Gods law and mans law Queene Goodm pag 103 obed pa. 99. 113. Goodm pa. 99. Mary ought to be put to death what Priest of England did ever so write speake or thinke of any Protestant his Soueraigne she was a tyrant a monster a cruell beast And yet the purer sort of Protestants affirmd of Queene Elizabeth as his Lordship of Canterbury Hay an pag. 13 15. 23. Dâ—ing poliâ— pâ—g 133. 134. sup wiâ—nesseth That she was worse then her sister Many and they more suppressed by her then by the other They did write That she was not to be obeyed being against their proceedings and openly moued the greatest Subâ—egents in England to take armes against her affirming if they Suppliâ—aâ— to the gouer of Wales pa. 16. 36 37 38 39 Dâ—ng posâ—t lib 4 e. 3 4 Goodm p. 144. 145. Obed. pag 110. Knos hist pag. 37 â— Obed pag 99. 103. 104. Goodm pa. 99. Buchan iâ—â— â—â—g pag. 40. 58 Obed. pa. 111 refused it they ceased to be Magistrates These also insuing be more of their holy dogmaticall principles Euill Princes ought by the law of God to be deposed and inferior Magistrates ought to doe it cheefely It is lawfull to kill wicked Kings It were good that rewards were appointed by the people for such as kill tyrants as commonly there are for those that haue killed eyther woolues or beares or taken their whelpes The people haue the same power ouer their King that the King hath ouer any one person Iudges ought by the law of God to sommon Princes before them and to proceede against them as against all other offenders the people may arraigne the Prince the Ministers may Buchan pa. 62 Cartwr replic 2. pag. 65. Obed. pag. 115. 116. Bucha p. 70. excommunicate him any Minister may excommunicate the greatest Prince he that is excommunicate is not worthy to enioy any life vpon earth Whereby is euident the monstrous dissimulation of this people which sometimes for their aduantage will not be scrupulous to denie that with other articles of their religion and the cheefest and to say that they onely claime power to excommunicate not to depose and kill Princes And to testifie how easily Suru pretend holy Dâ—â—cipl pag. 283. 284. Buchan pag. 6 13. Obed. pag. 25 and for what ordinary offences Princes may be thus intreated the present Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury is witnesse that fornication drunkennesse swearing cursing fighting chiding brawling breaking of the Sabbath wanton and vaine words and the like be sufficient incitements and causes of such proceedings with them And they tell vs further That the people are better then the King and of greater authority the people haue right to bestow the Crowne at their pleasure the authority which Princes haue is giuen them from the people and the people may take it away againe as men may reuoke their Proxies and letters of Attorney Now I would demand of this obiector whether they be members of the Roman Catholike Church or the pillars of his Protestant Congregation that congregateth and gathereth together such monsters as holy children which teacheth a double prerogatiue ouer Princes one in the people when inferior Magistrates and not Magistrates may and must by their doctrine depose Kings and Soueraignes and likewise their ministery as before hath as ample or a more preeminent authority Which also concluded from these English Protestant principles If Magistrates transgresse Gods lawes themselues and commaund others to doe Goodm pa. 119. 139. the like then haue they lost that honour and obedience which otherwise their subiects did owe vnto them and ought no more to be taken for Magistrates but to be examined condemned and punished as priuate transgressors When Magistrates doe cease to doe their duties the people are as it were without officers and then God giueth the sword into their Pa. 185. 180. 184 hands And such was the vniuersall practise of all protestants especially Caluenists in all places of their holy preaching Germany Heluetia Denmarke France England and Scotland with others in foâ—mer times and at this present the Protestants in Hungary Transiluania Sweueland and the Low Countries in actuall sedition and rebellion against their Soueraignes Emperour King and Princes are instance Concerning that spirituall supremacy which the lawes of England The Kings supremacy denyed by all Puritans and eâ—ther denâ—ed or doubted of by al english protestant writers atrribute to his Maiestie it can be no question but all Puritans doe deny it which not onely teach a superior power both in people and Ministers to which the rest of the Protestants of the same congregation as before must needes consent But also in this regard that the gouernment of their Eldership or Bresbitery incomposible with Princes Supremacy is the cheefest article of their religion and distinctiue note of their reformed Church Then to come to the present Protestant writers anâ— their designements the Archbishop of Canterbury is the man which maketh Suru of preâ— Diâ—cipl relation that this was a common proposition Princes haue no more to doe with matters of the Church then the Ministers haue with the affaires of the Common-wealth And there it is alleaged that such gouernment by Princes is worse then by the Pope for diuers reasons Pa. 25â— 253. 254 255 â—â—6 c. sup there recited and not confuted by any Protestant I will recite the sentences of the principall Protestants of this time Doctor Fulke in plaine termes acknowledgeth D Fulke hâ—br c 13 â—ect 9. 1. peâ—r 2. v. 13. â—â—ct 5. Ioh. c. 21. 1. petr 5. Mat. c. 16. Bell. moâ—iu lib. 2. fol. 78 79. 80. 81 Suru part 3. c. 10 pa. 426. 1. part pag 34. Whitâ—ker contra Bellar controu 1. q 8. D. 〈◊〉 li. de concil that Emperours and Kings owe obedience to the Clergy and cannot prescribe laweâ— of Religion to Bishopâ— by their iudgements Maister Bell writeth the Ecclesiasticall affaires to be in the Cleâ—rgy as to decide controuersies and that the King hath only charge and authority to command the
Ministers to preach and giueth him no definitiue sentence Doctor Whitaker is all for the priuate spirit and bringeth diuers reasons all peculiar for that purpose Such also is Doctor Suâ—liues sentence and yet he addeth that generall Counsâ—lls are absolutely necessary then Kings iudgements not sufficient And a generall Counsell none yet among them necessary bâ—fore their religion may be approued Maister Hooker and Docter Couell make the Ecclesiasticall power supreame Hooker l. 5. eccl Polit c. 77. D. Couel c. 4. Defence of Hooker pl. Innoc c. 1. D. Dow. epâ—st dedâ—c cont Bellat Bils tit li. true Differ Willet Synops controu 7. 9. 1. in such businesse and the Temporall to be dependant and subordinate Doctor Downam assigneth the Princes office to maintaine the truth supposed to be otherwise determined Bishop Bilson saith that the Princes lawfull power is to command for truth Maister Willet telleth vs that the Prince in his kingdome is neither the mysticall head nor ministeriall head but a politike head of the Church and to see that euery member doe his office and dutie and he vseth these words Neither doe we giue vnto the Prince absolute power then no supremacy to make ecclesiasticall lawes And his Maiesty is witnesse that many other Protestant Confer 14 Ian. an 1603. p. 82. 83 Preachers before him were content to passe ouer that title with silence which they would not performe in such audience if in opinion they did maintaine that supreame ecclesiasticall prerogatiue in Princes And to adde one former example more Doctor â— Soâ—e against Barrow Greenwood c. p. 17. 18 Some writeth thus The greatest Prince whatsoever is to obey such as teach them out of Gods booke And doth not disallow this sentence in such sence From this ohedience there is no exception nor exemption of Kings nor Princes be they neuer so great if they haue soules and be Christian men they must be subiect to some Bishop Priest or other Prelate The fourth Reason confuted and returned CHAP. V. THe fourth Reason is thus deliuered When the King is established in his Throne by common consent of the Kingdome here also is a contradiction to his second reason which doth not allow of such consent Whosoere shall manacle the handes of his subiects detracting all obedience may iustly by order of law be chalenged and condemned for a disordered and rebellious person This is the first proposition The Argument returned vpon Protestants which I graunt vnto and thereby I frame this second But ordinarily Protestant preachers and professors doe thus manacle the hands of Subiects and detract all obedience as is most manifest in their publike positions and practises before and more amply to be recited hereafter Ergo they may iustly by order of law be challenged and condemned for disordered and â—ebellious persons Let vs heare the rest of his Silogisme All Popish priests saith he Priests cleered and prooued innocent do dissolue the oth of obedience to all Protestant gouernors Ergo How slaunderous and false this assumption is I haue proued before and the duetifull behauiour of Catholikes in all partes of the worlde to their Protestant Princes not any at this present with consent of their priestes denying obedience the case of Protestant Ministers and Subiects in diuerse places being in contrary practise and experience giueth condemnation to his Asserâ—ion Secondly all the Authorities which he bringeth from Cardinall Tollet Massouius and others priuate men intreate of such as be nominatim excommunicate In which state there is not any one Protestant gouernor at this time neyther can any iust feare thereof be reasonably apprehended by the Popes generall proceedings in this behalfe except any Protestant prince which God forbid shoulde be incited by such vnchristian spirites as this Discouerer seemeth to be possessed with to exceede all others in persecuting Catholikes or offering indignities to the church of Christ Thirdly I answer that the opinions of Tollet Massouius Panormitane Gregorius de Valentia Bannes and the Author of Philopater all the priuate Writers hee aleadgeth in this place though they did approue as they doe destroy his conceit yet such priuate men can neither make a dogmaticall principle nor publike position by which his promise was to make probation And in this his affirming That all priests doe dissolue the oath of obedience to all Protestant Gouernors the Authority which bindeth them all to such opinion can be no lesse then a Dogmaticall and publique Doctrine And these may also suffice for his next obiections from the practise of Pope Gregory 7. Pius 5. and Gregory 9. To whom I farther aunswere in particular And first to Gsegory the 7. who as this man vrgeth absolued all from obedience to Excommunicates I answer for all Catholikes in generall That this nothing concerned Protestants then not thought of in the world neither any hereticks then not raigning Fox to â— Mon. in Greg 7. Will. Antil Genebr Chron in Greg. 7. Plat in Greg. 7. but only such as he had other quarrells and contentions against But he vrgeth the glosse vppon Gregory the ninth to haue both excommunicated all hereticks and to haue absolued subiects from their obedience and citeth for his authority Greg. 9. Pont. lib. 5. Decret tit 7. Cap. 5. glossa I answer that in the place alleadged Decr. per Greg. 13. there is no mention of any such matter or any thing like vnto it only there is cited the Affrican Councell in these words Si quis Episcopus heredes instituerit extraneos à consanguinitate sua vel haereticos etiam consanguineos aut Paganos praetulerit saltem post mortem ei Anathema dicatur atque eius nomen inter Dei Sacerdotes nullo modo recitetur And this Canon both for substance and antiquity opposeth it selfe against him Lastly he brings againe the Bull of Pius the fift against Q. Elizabeth To which answere is made before whereto I adde that many graue and learned men haue affirmed the information of the case of Queene Elizabeth to the Apostolique See wherevpon that censure of excommunication was awarded against her to haue been vntrue And that Pius the fift then Pope and inflictor thereof an holy man bewailed the proceedings vppon such suggestion And that many Catholikes of both conditions were both sory for the censure it was defended by D. Sanders D. Brâ—stow or any other Inglish writer rather wishing the controuersie betwixt two Superiors th' one temporall th' other spirituall had bin reserued to the high Tribunal in heauen then so subiect to many iealosies had been so prosecuted in earth among which Cardinall Allane writeth of that matter in these wordes Hoc tamen scimus Card. Allen. ad per. â—cuâ— multos Catholicos illud factum agre tulisse optasseque omninò vt ea res tam grauis varijsque obnoxia suspitionibus literis commissa nunquam fuisset sed sublimioribus Potestatibus Deique potissimum Iudicio reseruata vt vel in