doctrines and practises as haue beene discouered in the cases of Rebellion Aequiuocation So that my only aime hath alwayes been at those who are so inspired with the perswasion of their Priests as to beleeue their doctrine in both these specified Articles Concerning whose pretended voluntarie obedience I shall proue to bee in a maner a confessed impossibility of dutifull subiection vnto Protestant Princes and consequently as sensible an opposition as was betweene Iewes and Iebusites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob and Esau in one wombe as by this Treatise of P. R. will directly appeare The First confessed Impossibility 37 We first demand what Soueraigntie our Mitigator will allow his Maiesty of Great Britaine and whether there may be any forren Potentate whom he would aduance aboue him in respect of his temporall charge P. R. resolueth thus Whether with this Commission in spirituall affaires our Sauior gaue also immediately and directly the charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner or rather indirectly and by a certaine consequence that is to say that when the gouernment of spirituall affaires to wit of soules to their eternall blisse and saluation is so letted and impugned by any temporall gouernours as the said spirituall Commission cannot be executed without redresse or remedy in such cases and not otherwise the said supreame Pastor to haue authority to proceed also against the said temporall gouernors for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge Of which question the Canonists do commonly defend the first part but Catholike Diuines for the most part the second but both parts full agree that there is such an authority left by Christ in his Church for remedy of vrgent cases Thus farre P. R. See then that by this arguing hee seeketh to establish a Papall power and ouer-sight euen in Temporall affaires whether directly or indirectly it skilleth not seeing that in his opinion both do agree But the oath of Allegeance with Protestants is otherwise namely that No forren personor Potentate hath any such supremacy in Great Britaine Therefore the Mitigation of P. R. standeth of no more possibility than Pope and no Pope Kings supremacy and not supremacy Which opposites can neuer be reconciled together The Second confessed Impossibility 38 Secondly because hee hath told vs that there is a Power ordained against Kings in temporall affaires it may concerne vs to vnderstand the first extent thereof whether against the goods or persons or liues of such Princes as shall resist the spirituall iurisdiction of Popes Hee doth deliuer his meaning in two examples Two Protestant Princes were excommunicated censured molested by the Sea Apostolike Q. Elizabeth of England and K. Henry then of Nauar now of France the first of these two for the violent change of Religion which she made in the Realm with depriuations and imprisonments of Catholike Bishops Prelates and Clergie c. The other for feare hee comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition wherein hee then was presumed to be should attempt the like change in that great Kingdome c. These examples are both plaine and pregnant a Protestant Queene must be depriued for resisting the spirituall iurisdiction of the Pope and a Protestant King also must be deposed lest peraduenture he may make any resistance Now wee see that the same Papall authority is by the lawes of Great Britaine as expresly excluded their Religion suppressed their Clergy exiled and Protestants religion according to former proceedings continued All which doth argue as great an impossibility of dutifull subiection as it is for hinderance and sufferance change and continuance of the same Religion to be matched and married together And could our Mitigator shew himselfe a more egregious Preuaricator than thus The Third confessed Impossibility 39 Because P. R. hath told vs that Protestant Princes haue beene molested by the Pope it will be materiall to inquire what this word Molestation may meane For a man would thinke it some qualifying terme and to import no greater iniuries than either reuiling the names of Kings or disgracing their Embassadours or damnifying their Merchants or such like wrongs Tush no for all such like contempts are contemptible and may easily be deuoured but this molestation according to the discouered positions and practises of rebellion whereunto this Mitigator neither hath or could take any exception is Because the Queene of England hath forbid her Clergie and people to acknowledge the Romane Church or obey her decrees c. And because we vnderstand her to bee so obstinate as not to suffer our Legates to come into England c. We therefore pronounce her hereticall anathematizing her and all her adherents and furthermore depriue her of her Crowne and dignity absoluing all her subiects from the oath of allegeance So likewise of the K. of France Pronouncing him to be depriued of his Regall dignity Because he is a Caluinist Vpon this followed the Spanish Inuasion the Rebellions in Ireland the troubles in France none without an effected or intended horrible and tragicall blood-shed All these with P. R. are but Molestations So the powder-treason an immanity barbarous and matchlesse which he calleth but A particular temerarious fact of halfe a score yong Gentlemen put in despaire by apprehension of publike persecution without demerit of the persecuted though this also be inexcusable By which his so tender touch of so cankred and desperate euils wee may well thinke that Nabal by his foolerie neuer deserued better to be so called than this booke hath merited in this only respect the name of Mitigation being indeed nothing but an hatching of a Cockatrices egge and a close professing of subuerting all Protestant Princes whensoeuer they shall seeke the like publike maintenance of Religion This Mitigation therfore as yet affoordeth vs no more possibility of their voluntary obedience than to hope that reuerence and violence Subiection and Rebellion pole arctique and antarctique may be drawne into vnion And because this is so plaine that blindnesse it selfe may seeme to behold it therefore doth P. R. cast his Reader into a sleepe with a dos of his Opium Let vs see The Fourth Impossibility wherein may bee obserued A sportfull or rather execrable Impostureship of P. R. 40 Lest Protestants might from experienâ—e of former dangers arme themselues against future designements P. R. thought good by â—reoccupation to possesse his Reader with better hopes saying That wee do ascribe power to the Bishop of Rome in certaine cases to censure excommunicate and depriue Princes wherof is inferred that such such dangers do ensu which finally is nothing else but a May So as the question being de futuris contingentibus of things contingent to come whereof the Philosopher saith there is no science all remaineth in vncertainty but only the suspition and hatred which he would raise against vs. I cannot laugh for wonder and horror to see any Englishman conceit so basely of the
of the euents of things that happened to wit That three Protestant Princes haue been quietly permitted to succeed giuing his Reader an almes of a piece of chalke for a morsell of cheese As for example It is a law amongst theeues no one of them holding the contrary not alwayes to robbe when they may make disturbance but then only when they are in most probable hope to enioy their prey so that it falleth out many times that when they meet with passengers they entertaine kinde and courteous talke with them and yet dogge them on their way with purpose to rob them in some presumed place of aduantage but then by the sight of more company of true men they being frustrate of their hope let them passe without any maner of disturbance If notwithstanding such escape any shall affirme that all theeues professe robbery and spoile whensoeuer their opportunitie may serue shall he therefore be termed a slanderer of theeues and a notable liar I know P. R. is wittie and can applie this similitude vnto himselfe whom it most concerneth for he who in this place bringeth in a triple instance of Protestant Princes who were admitted peaceably to their Crownes insinuating that therefore they were willingly admitted on the Romish part may be easily confuted by another triple instance taken from himselfe 1. Of the now K. of France who being K. of Nauarre was resisted that he should not succeed in the kingdome of France lest being in that disposition meaning a Protestant he might haue altred religion in France 2. of Q. Elizabeth he hath also sayd that she was excommunicate by the Pope by whose Bull she was also pronounced to be no Queene because she had changed religion Will they not for the same reason hinder succession for the which they haue endeuoured to disturbe a possession 3. The third instance is in our dread Souereigne K. Iames P. R. in his Dolman hath held against his succession to the Crowne foure arguments of exclusion Obserue now three singular notes of this mans modestie 1. He accuseth me to be a slanderer for auouching a report prooued true by incontroleable consequence and whereunto no instance of any Priest was or could be obiected 2. He offereth to satisfie a question of Right and iustice with an instance of fact and euent as if he would teach vs to reason thus Romish Priests do not say Masse publikely in England Ergo they think it vtterly vnlawful that Masse should be sayd publikly in England 3. He hath so assoiled the question by a triple instance that by another triple instance of his own he is more strictly and dangerously intangled Let me mention for further discouerie of this his delusion the Breue of Pope Clemens the 8. commanding that at the death of Q. Elizabeth none should be suffered to succeed who was not a professed Romish Catholike This M. Garnet confessed at the Barre which his confession remaineth in publike Record If any shall require a reason why they resisted not his Maiesties entrance they can not possibly yeeld any but only want of meanes of disturbance So that I might confesse my selfe very shamelesse indeed if I should not blush and sorrow in his behalfe to see any man by so presumptuous falshoods to murder his owne soule 23 Which is yet more visible by the second part of this accusation which P. R. inferreth thus What or how far this fellow may be trusted in these his assertiōs may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these words F. Parsons in his Dolman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall cōsent to the succession of a Protestant prince is a most grieuous and damnable sinner And is it so Sir Thomas And will you stand to it lose your credit if this be falsly and calumniously alleged then if you please let vs heare the Authors owne words viz. And now saith Doleman part 1. pag. 216. to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter wee haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towards the making of a King whom he iudgeth or beleeueth to be faulty in religion and consequently would aduance either no religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous and damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sin against his own conscience in furthering such a King And is there heere any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince or of his successour nay doth not the Text speake plainely of making a King where none is doth it not speake also indifferently of all sorts of religion of what side soeuer the truth be How then can this malitious cauilling Minister expect to bee trusted heereafter or how may any man thinke that hee speaketh or writeth out of his conscience seing him to vse such grosse shifts and falshoods in so manifest and important a matter It is no maruell if he set not his name at large to his booke as not desirous to haue the due praise of such desert 24 Venture my credit Sir yes that I will though I value nothing to be more pretious among men and therefore willingly put it into this affirmatiue ballance concerning the sentence of Doleman proouing it true in that sense it hath beene alleged if you will put yours in the other which is the negatiue our Reader shall hold the scales and the euidence of Dolemans booke shall cast it The subiect of our question is whether Doleman one of the three Romish Priests doth account it a damnable sinne in his Catholikes to suffer a Protestant Prince to succeed in the Crown after I had proued this to be the Romish doctrine by the testimony of three Priests I added this fourth which was Doleman Wherefore wee must examine whether this bee the iudgement of Doleman or no. It belongeth to mee to prooue the affirmatiue to wit that this was the iudgement of Doleman 25 The title of that booke is A conference about the next succession to the Crowne of England namely next after the death of Q. Elizabeth and about all such as may pretend a right whether within England or without One of the contents of the first Chapter is that Neerenesse of blood may upon iust causes be altered And of the sixt Chapter that An heire apparent to the crowne before he be crowned may be iustly put backe After this he proceedeth to expresse his iust causes the principall hee deliuereth in the ninth chapter the very place now alleged The Contentis this That one principall cause of excluding any Prince is diuersitie of Religion Whereof he resolueth thus Nothing can more iustly exclude an heire apparent from his succession as want of Religion nor any cause whatsoeuer iustifie the Common-wealth or conscience of particular men that in this
wits and woorth of his Countrey-men as to imagine they could bee deluded with so senselesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impious a Mitigation as this is For to bee perswaded therefore not to labour for preuenting Insuing dangers because they be contingent that is such as may happen what can be more senselesse For Science properly taken is a certaine knowledge of conclusions arising from infallible demonstrations as this conclusion The number of 3. is a lesse number than 9. from this demonstration Euery part is lesse than the whole And so is the opinion of P. R. good There is no science of things contingent because science standeth vpon demonstrable principles But Science in a more common and large sense is exercised vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is euery thing which is subiect to mans will whereupon it is that Physitians prescribe diets to preuent future diseases passengers prouide weapons to defend them from future violence kingdomes prouide lawes and officers to auoid future mischiefes Nay what is there almost in mankind considered in it selfe but case of contingency So that all are actions of prouidence directed for the preuenting of future euils and dangers which may happen And is not this then a stupifying receipt which P. R. hath propounded casting the State into a slumber of not regarding Insuing dangers because they may be heereafter Doth not nature in beast reason in man precept of God teach vs the contrary law of prouidence euen therefore to seeke to preuent Insuing dangers because they are contingent and may bee heereafter 41 It is also most shamelesse for Henry K. of France saith P. R. was excommunicated censured and â—â—lested lest he should attempt the change of Religion in his kingdomâ— And againe speaking of the necessity of Papall Iurisdiction ouer Kings hee saith that If Christ had not left such a remedy to his Church he should not haue prouided for the necessity thereof Concluding that therefore Popes may impugne temporall Gouernours Heere we see hee challengeth a necessary prouidence in the Popes against Kings who happily may de futuris contingentibus abuse their authority And shall Kings therefore neglect their States because Popes by Antichristian vsurpation de futuris contingentibus may seeke to subuert and ruinate their kingdomes and so make themselues to their enemies no better than a matter of a May-game 42 I haue also called this Mitigation pernicious For our Aduersaries haue taught that Kings must not be suffered to raigne when they draw their Subiects vnto heresie But Must bee rooted out Which must bee done by all meanes possible Whether it be as Iehu did Iezabel or as Dauid did Goliah or as Iudith did Holofernes or as A shepheard doth a Wolfe c. And not Kings only but all the fauourers of heretikes by what name so euer they be called must be destroied All these their cursed resolutions P. R. passeth in silence In all which we heare prescribed a must for necessary destruction of Kings and yet this Mitigator will allow but only a may for their preseruation This is fine May-butter which hee hath mixed in this receipt or rather deceipt of Mitigation made thus pleasant and palitable only that the too credulous patient may bee more sweetly poisoned especially knowing that all his fellows haue professed all violence As soone as they shall haue force to resist Therefore this Mitigation is but as if P. R. would haue thus counselled our English State in the last danger saying Trouble not your thoughts ô King with diuination vpon that letter for peraduenture that Terrible blow doth signifie nothing else than that there may bee a blowing vp of the Parliament with fire And you Officers of his Maiesty what need you to vse such diligent search vnder the vault where you see nothing but billets vnder which it may be there is hidden many barrels of powder Yea and now againe though the like if yet the forge of heâ— can deuise the like may be prepared hereafter Yet what necessity is there of preuenting insuing dangers What is this else than to seeke to catch our State as a man would do an horse offering bread in the one hand and holding an halter in the other behind him Dutifull subiection in the Preface and lurking treason in the Treatise In a word the impossibility of this Mitigation is no lesse than to thinke that murderers and murdered can hoast well together 43 Lastly I call it impious because this profession of their forbearance of rebellion vntill they may resist hath beene prooued by incontrolable testimonies of Tertul. Cypr. Athan. Nazian Leo Basil August Greg. besides the confession of our Aduersaries Tolossan Espencae Barclay to be contrary to the discipline of the ancient Catholike Church for a 1000. yeeres continuance By all which testimonies the now Romish faction is so notably condemned that euen P. R. thought it the best security of his cause to passe almost euery testimony except one without any particular examination As yet therefore we heare them onely pretending that they may performe obedience which they professe they must not whensoeuer they shall bee able to make a possible resistance So hopelesse is this his pretended possibility of subiection The last Impossibility in the practise of Aequiuocation 44 The vse of Aequiuocating euen in an oath is taught by P. R. to be most lawfull whensoeuer a party is examined before an vnlawfull Iudge yea or before a lawfull Iudge examining vnlawfully Now what opinion they haue of the Magistrates and Officers of England their Priests haue told vs amongst whom is Parsons himselfe viz. that It is lawfull in England for Priests to equiuocate euen in their oaths before Protestant Magistrates and Officers c. To let passe the daily experience of the professed damnable practise heereof by M. Garnet and his fellowes Wherefore this Mitigation standeth still of as great an impossibility as it is for cosenage and simplicity a lie and truth to harbour in one heart Hitherto wee haue spoken of the question of Subiection onely mentioning Aequiuocation as it is in the vsâ— a bawd to Rebellion Wee are therefore to speake of the nature thereof and to consider whether mentall Reseruation bee a lie and briefly shew That P. R. hath flatly ouerthrowen his whole defence of mentall Aequiuocation Which is made so euident as that no wit of man can possibly excuse him § 12. 45 SAy P. R. what is your mentall Equiuocation We restraine our speech to Equiuocation onely which is mentall reseruation To wit I am no Priest so as I am bound to tell it vnto you The first part thereof I am no Priest vttered with my mouth the latter viz. To tell it vnto you is reserued in my mind Which Thomas Morton saith is not an hidden truth but a grosse lie But I say it is a truth because the speech agreeth with the mind of the speaker c. How now
Bouchier denying that in priuate iniuries any priuate man may murder a Tyrant and doth he therby conuince me of falshood Nay rather doth he not seeke to iniurie me with falshood For my whole Treatise of Discouerie intendeth only the publike and neuer medleth with priuate occasions 112 This will be plaine by example The common rule of humanitie teacheth that the Father being but an Esquire may in priuate conuents and meetings haue place aboue his sonne though a Knight but in places of publike resort the Knight though a sonne is preferred before his Father Heere be two considerations of the sonne and the father the one is in respect of priuate the other in regard of publike occasions This Assertion of ciuility standing thus Suppose my first Aduersarie the Moderate Answerer should auerre that T. M. saith that any sonne being a Knight may take place of his father being but an Esquire then my second Aduersarie P. R. hearing this should oppose and say It is false which thou allegest for T. M. sayth the contrary viz. That any Father being an Esquire may priuately take place of his sonne though he be a Knight Can this his taxation of falshood be thought true It is not altogether impertinent For the assertions of T. M. were two the first That any such sonne must be preferred in publike the second That any such father must be preferred in priuate And are these contrary Are they not both true And can one truth shoulder out another The falshood therefore resteth in the Pleader who sayd That the allegation was false Wee reade in the Gospell this command of our Sauiour The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire whatsoeuer they bid you obserue that obserue and doe but after their works doe not c. Here we heare vs charged To do and Not to do as the Pharisees And are these contrary No for the Doe is a commanding to follow their godly doctrine the Doe not is a forbidding to imitate their vngodly life 113 A second crime is in adding as he sayth of this clause Which I say by common consent Looke in the Cha. 15. where the ground of this Position is layed That it is lawfull to kill a Tyrant he affirmeth it saying Mirum est quà m magnum affirmando consenâ—um habeat That is It is maruellous what a great consent this hath Then come to the 16. Chap. vpon the point now in question he hath sayd He that denieth this is distitute of common sense If therefore maruellous consent according to common sense may be thought more than equiualent vnto a common consent then is my Aduersarie vnconscionably contentious to accuse me as saying too much where I had warrant to haue sayd more 114 It may be that the striking out of the words of importance Whom the Common-wealth shall iudge to be a publike enemie may somewhat preiudice my conscience None can imagine this but he that is not acquainted with the Authour who spendeth a whole Chapter in prouing this Position Praeuenire iudicum vrgente negotio posse That is That the case may be so vrgent that the publike iudgement against such a publike tyrant need not be expected because where the crime is notorious it is sufficiently condemned without further iudgement for if theeues and beasts sayth he when they suddenly assault vs may be resisted without iudiciall proceeding then much more a tyrant who is woorse than any beast And this doctrine he assumeth to proue necessarie both in case Temporall when the King doth iniurie the Countrey and in Ecclesiasticall transgression when he offendeth publikely against Religion particularly instancing in Henry 3. King of France who was murdered by Iacob Clemens a Frier before any publike iudgement of the Kingdome which hee ascribeth to a Parliament or els of the Church which he attributeth to the Popes Consistorie And yet he magnifieth the murderer a priuate man and extolleth him aboue those who are recorded in holy Writ not vpon their priuate spirit but by diuine inspiration to haue accomplished noble attempts Heere heere is matter indeed whereby to decypher my Aduersarie to be no better than a painted Sepulcher who is outwardly gaily adorned with the titles of Moderation and Mitigation but inwardly by holding Boucheirs doctrine full of dead mens bones I meane the dead bodies of Protestants But how dead Euen as S. Hierome speaketh in the like case Voto occidunt cùm gladio nequâ—ant That is They wish them to be killed whom they can not kill as they wish But this I reserue vnto my Incounter I proceed to the next A fourth Obiection of falshood wherin hee insulteth thus This testimonie is egregiously abused c. 115 His fourth and last place is out of M. William Reinolds in his booke De iusta Reip. auctoritate c. whom he abuseth â—gregiously both in ascribing to him that which is not his and in deliuering the same corruptedly and by a little you may learn much Ex vngue leonem His words he citeth thus Rex humana creatura est quia ab hominibus constituta and Englisheth in this maner A King is but a creature of mans creation Where you see first that in the translation hee addeth but and mans creation of himselfe for that the Latine hath no such but nor creation but constitution Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reinolds but only cited by him out of S. Peter And thirdly they are alleged heere by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalt and magnifie the authoritie of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as he is calumniated For proofe heereof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe before mentioned shall finde that M. Reinolds purpose therein is to prooue That albeit earthly principalitie power and authoritie be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God and by his commandement to be obeyed His words are these Hinc enim est c. Hence it is that albeit the Apostle doe call all earthly principalitie a humane creature for that it is placed in certaine men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature which God created and from the vse of reason which God powred into man and which is a little beame of diuine light drawen from that infinite brightnesse of Almighty God therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce That there is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this power resisteth God himselfe So M. Reinolds The Answer 116 This Allegation is of all which yet I haue found most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation which God knoweth that I lie not I receiued from suggestion as the Author thereof R. C. can witnesse For at that time I had not that Rosaeus aliâs Reinolds neither by that present importunitie of occasions could seeke after