AN ANTIQVODLIBET, OR AN ADVERTISEMENT TO BEWARE OF SEcular Priests.  Rom. 16. vers. 17. 18. 
17 I beseech you brethren, mark then diligently which cause division and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.  
18 For they that are such, serve not the Lord jesus Christ, but their own bellies, and with fair speech and flattering deceive the hearts of the simple.  
MIDDELBURGH, By Richard Schilders, Printer to the States of Zealand. 1602.   

THE GENERAL HEADS and contents of the Antiquodlibet are as followeth.  

1 That there is an insufficiency in the Quilibet to debate matters of Learning.  
2 That the principal drift of the Quodlibets, in the purpose and practise of the Priests, is the re-establishing of the Pope's authority amongst us, with the fall of her Majesty and the Gospel, so far forth as in them lieth.  
3 That the contention betwixt the jesuit and Secular Priest, being of such nature, and in such degree as is pretended, is a colour and pretext only: or in case it be unfeigned on their part, yet on the part of the Superiors and heads of their faction, it is interteyned out of a policy dangerous to her Majesty and the State.  
4 That toleration of Popish Religion is persuaded by the Quilibet, upon idle and false grounds.    

AN ANTIQVODLIBET OR ADVERTISEMENT TO BEWARE OF Secular Priests.  
CAP. 1.  
Wherein is laid open the insufficiency of the Quilibet for matters of Learning.  
THis question should pass untouched, were it not that I hold it meet, to encounter the opinion conceived of the Quilibet, as well for the rareness of his wit, as for his dexterity to discourse of any questionable subject, specially such as is of State or Religion. With which conceit it may probably be presumed that himself concurreth, considering how gloriously he rufleth in words and sentences: and with what contempt he censureth, not the jesuits alone, against whom chiefly in his Quodlibets he pretendeth hostility, but the Professors of the Gospel also: who in the account of this Secular Priest, are peremptorily held for Grossum caputs, and to have not one learned man amongst them. It shall not be amiss therefore to take a view of his sufficiency, and to examine how well he is qualified for the office of a Censor, and this service of Booke-making, wherein he is employed. I hold it for clear and confessed, that such as are fit for employments of this nature, are of a discerning and judicious spirit, able to deliver their apprehensions by weight & measure, without being subject to palpable and ridiculous oversights, specially in a short discourse. Where the work groweth large, the Artificer findeth pardon, though sometime he slumber or sleep, while he fashioneth the same, having had care to polish and grace the first members thereof. But this Priesting Quilibet, howsoever he rest admired by some of his faction, or others who have hitherto beheld him with a careless and partial eye, yet being seriously examined, will be found liable in all reasonable construction, to the imputation of extraordinary defects in judgement: his proceeding being such in the very front of his book, and in an argument easy and of few pages, as is without salt, and unworthy the least regard. To justify my charging of him in this behalf, I will be bold to sift and lay open the workmanship of his preface: which being weighed in the true and indifferent balance of reason, will appear to be such as I have said. His preface is of two parts: the one, a comprehension of certain principles: the other, an advertisement of the motives, inducing the Quilibet to deliver his Decacordon by way of a quodlibetical method, and to publish the same.  
The principles are in number five, collected and reserved by him (as it seemeth) for some fit opportunity, whereby to give taste, unto the world of the excellency of his knowledge, without purpose to perform any service by them, as shall appear. I will in this place repeat them: though in fewer terms than some of them are delivered, yet such as express the full and entire sense they carry in the Preface. They are as followeth.  
1 That a fool or dullhead may by show of argument be forced to acknowledge the clearest ax●om in Divinity or other profession to be false.  
2 That there are as many examples for vice, as for virtue: for heresy, as for Religion.  
3 That there is no invention, but another's wit can equal it by inventing the same: which he proves out of Eccles. chap. 1. vers. 9  
4 That all things on earth are subject to mutation and downfall.  
5 That the generation of one is the corruption of another.  
Now before they be brought into muster by the Priest, he doth honour them with a remarkable and very worthy preamble. Having said that experience maketh the case clear, touching the inexpugnable condition and nature of them, he addeth that it doth so in all arts and professions,  
Wherein human capacity (that is the wit of man) doth show the soul's excellency in apprehension, discourse, and judgement of things, by invention, moral conjecture, and the wit of man▪  
Let us examine how learnedly he doth here acquit himself. He saith, that the wit of man showeth the soul's excellency by invention, moral conjecture, and the wit of man: and so maketh the wit of man in this work, both a principal efficient, and yet a secondary and different mean from it self. If it were said by any, that Secular Priesthood converteth souls by auricular confession, by a devout Mass, and by Secular Priesthood: I think you would hold such a speech, to proceed from some craze in the brain. He affirmeth also that the wit of man showeth the soul's excellency, by invention in the apprehension, discourse and judgement of things: as if there were a possibility in invention, to be a mean in this behalf. When the thing is once invented and disclosed, the faculty and act of invention doth forthwith determine, without yielding any address for directing the wit in judging: God having so bounded and distinguished the faculties of natural reason, that they cannot in their several and proper works confer the one to the other, any reciprocal furtherance. When the builder hath singled out and made choice of his stone and timber: the practice of this particular skill, doth together with the choice immediately cease and expire: it being not able to assist and guide him in the artificial structure of the house.  
Further, he addeth that the wit of man showeth the soul's excellency by moral conjecture. Why not also by Mathematical or Physical demonstration? As he doth overmuch abridge the subject, wherein human capacity doth make known the dignity of the soul, it being not shut up within the compass of things iudiciable, but extended to inventing likewise, and therefore of an equal reach with the faculty of natural reason: so falleth he short in the account of the means, whereby the surpassing worth of the soul is deciphered. For besides invention and moral conjecture (of which the one is general, the other a particular judging restrained to some special kind of object) there are to do this service unto the soul, as well other transcendent means, whereby the truth, consequence, and order of things with their contraries is discerned, as in each special Art and profession other particular actions in great variety.  
You see now the preamble to the principles and the credit of wit he hath gained by it. It remaineth to examine the principles themselves. He that should read them in the Quilibet, and consider both the multiplicity of words wherein they are comprised, and the honourable recommendation yielded unto them: would take them for such as are unmatchable, and rather inspired into this Priest, then observed by him. But if again he shall consider, that the two first are childish, and unworthy so great a title: that the third is expugnable, or at least doubtful, and so no principle: that four of them, if not all five, are produced and mustered without sense and scope, other then to serve as mock-chimnies do in a large house: that the demonstration of them is defective and frivolous: he cannot but wonder out of what idle conceit it proceeded, that they should in the front and eminentest part of his Decacordon be exhibited and represented to the world.  
That the third principle may justly be excepted against, may appear by the testimony yielded from holy and profane histories to some persons for singularity of wit and knowledge. Here of the Quilibet doth minister unto me an instance pag. 216: where he reporteth that Solomon had the rarest and chiefest gift that ever was given to man His meaning herein I take to be agreeable with that which in the third and fourth chapter of the first of the Kings▪ is by the holy Ghost recorded of the said King, touching his excelling in wisdom above all other of precedent, present and future ages. Whereupon I deduce this conclusion: that if no man ever did or shall equal Solomon in wisdom, then might he invent something which cannot possibly fall within the reach of any other man's invention. But how then shall we answer that divine sentence of the same King? who saith that there is nothing new under the Sun. Solomon giveth us hereby to understand, that for as much as all things which have come to their period, do by generation or other means return, though not in particular, yet under the title and subsistence of their common nature, we must in that regard account nothing for new or different from that which hath been. Whereupon I infer that the Priest cannot without wrong allege the said sentence for cleared his third principle, which speaks of inventing the self-same thing in particularity and not in the general.  
That these principles are idly and without drift alleged, I make it evident hereby. Whatsoever is comprised in this preface besides the said principles & their illustration, concerneth the motives inducing the Priest to deliver his Decacordon by a quodlibetical method and to publish the same: so as these worthy principles must either be imploved to this service of persuading the choice of the said method, and of notifying the end for which the Decacordon is published, or else be inferred to no purpose. If the citing of them be to employ them in those two services: then have they some logical coherence with them: and so shall it be no absurdity or inconsequence to say: 
A Dullhead may by show of argument be forced to acknowledge the clearest axiom whatsoever, to be false.  
Therefore I a poor Secular Priest, have thought it sit both to write my Decacordon in a quodlibetical method, and to publish the same.   
Or thus.  
There are as many examples of vice as of virtue: and the generation of one thing is the corruption of another.  
Therefore I the Priestly Quilibet, have thought it meet to write my Decacordon in a quodlibetical method, and to publish the same.  
If these deductions be warrantable in common sense: them the consequence from Hannibal ad portas unto mill meaesiculis errant in montibus agnae shall go for logical and currant. But if they shall pass under censure for such as grow from a debility in the brain: I hope the Quilibet will disclaim the allegation of them for the employment above mentioned: and rather confess the presenting of them in public to be without all intent of using them, then expose his wit and priesthood to an imputation of that nature. But he may happily plead for his defence in this behalf the marginal note, whereby we are certified that the author in all these five principles doth clearly convince the jesuits faction of many gross errors. Is it fitting with the reputation of a quodlibetical Doctor to range and muster principles in a text which have no correspondence with any member thereof, and afterward to address the reader to the margin, there to be informed of the employment whereto they are destined? And yet the margin doth not here satisfy. It tells us that the author convinceth the jesuits by them: which being supposed, yet can it not be inferred, that therefore they were transported into the text to that end. But how doth he skirmish with them against a jesuit? The jesuit holdeth rules opposite to these, viz. That their general with his provincials cannot err: and that their order is a state of most perfection. Whereupon it followeth that either the Priest in his principles, or the jesuit in his opposite rules, aberreth from truth. Howsoever the jesuit dote in his maxims: yet if the Priest discharge against them no other shot but his principles, he will not be able to give them the defeat and rout: the opposition being not such, as that in the encounter the one must of necessity supplant the other. Besides, if the later maxim of the jesuit be repugnant to the said principles: how cometh it that the Quilibet holdeth the like? pag. 6. of his pref. ver. 4. and 5.  
Now concerning the Demonstration of them: It hath pleased the Quilibet to single out the fifth principle only, and to grace it with his painful endeavours: the rather (I think) for that he borrowed it from Aristotle against the Philosophers will: and would hereby give satisfaction for the indignity offered by him to the said principle. The Demonstration is drawn from an induction, and stands chargeable with an unsuitable applying of particulars: with untruth in some part: and beside with intermixed absurdities.  
That the application in some members of the induction is impertinent: the first period of the second page of the preface will testify with me. For there propounding unto himself a proof of the fifth principle, he falleth through a defect in judgement to such a course of exemplifying, as naturally serveth to clear and conclude the fourth. Excellencies (saith he) complexions, Majesties, powers, foundations, Commonwealths, Societies, Corporations and states are subject to decay and fall. Hereupon it followeth, that each thing and person (taking the induction in the sense of a part for the whole) is subject to a decay & fall: which is absolutely the fourth principle: and thus by accident besides the Quilibets purpose concluded. If upon the Antecedent you would infer that principle of Aristotle: there will appear a disproportion betwixt the argument and the conclusion. For the argument mentioneth not a generation of the particulars with a precedent or concurrent corruption of some other thing, (which it should have performed in case the proceeding had been suitable to the Question) but only a ●all and dissolution of them.  
As through this and some other impertinencies, which I do with regard t● brevity forbear to debate, the induction halteth: so doth it offer unto us an untruth in that particular of Moses law: the generation whereof is by the Quilibet made to be the plain corruption of the law natural, pag. 4. As if when men beheld that knowledge divulged and set forth to the eye as it were in characters of gold, which before rested secret and confined within the unsearchable cabinet of their hearts, they were then occasioned the rather to stumble, having a double direction and light to guide them in the train of their life. We may with greater probability think that the Lord of heaven discerning the law, which he had imprinted in the heart of man, to be defaced first through the defection of Adam, and after by an irrespective and dislimited carriage of life in his descendants, did out of wisdom to prevent the total abolition thereof, and out of mercy to reclaim his people to a course of duty, resolve upon a new and second impression of the said law: which upon the mount Sinai he accordingly performed. But let us see how he handleth this question. I will do him the credit to spend a little time in unfolding the frame of his dispute herein. He reasoneth thus: 
If presently upon the publication of Moses law men fell to infidelity and idolatry, and not before: then upon the generation of Moses law ensued the corruption of the law natural.  
But presently upon the publication of Moses law, men fell to infidelity and idolatry, and not before.  
Therefore upon the generation of Moses law ensued the corruption of the law natural.   
If by infidelity he note the state of depravation or the original and root of all inconformity to the law: the proposition may pass as blameless: whereas if under that term he conceive a distinct and particular sin, and such as is a branch itself: then may we charge the proposition with inconsequence. For man's freedom for a time from some two or more special corruptions, doth not prove his freedom from all other during the same time. David could not be taxed with the crime of blood and adultery till the time of his defiling the bed of Vria: if hereupon it should be concluded that David till the said time had observed the Moral law: I think the Quilibet would not endure so loose a sequel.  
Touching the assumption: howsoever he interpret the word of Infidelity, he cannot justify the sense thereof: it being contradictory to the Author of all truth, who in the sixth of Genesis mentioneth a visible malignant Synagogue, distinguishing it from the true Church. Now where there is a Synagogue of that quality, their infidelity, which is as it were the very life and form thereof, must necessarily rest and bear sway. The same Spirit also in the said chapter setting down the corruption of the heart of man before the flood, and thereby discovering with what disobedience and rebellion to the law of nature he had demeaned himself till that universal deluge, avoucheth that the heart is depraved and wicked, not in some thoughts, but in every thought whatsoever: not in some particle of itself, and of his thoughts, but in every part & particle. not at some time, but without intermission continually. If then the hearts of the people that lived before the flood, were such as they are described in the said chapter: it followeth of necessity that they were fallen to infidelity. For if they believed the promises and comminations of their Creator: then were their hearts at some time in some apprehensions and parts of duty free from that touch of corruption afore mentioned. Besides in the 24. of Matthew, Christ himself chargeth them with an exceeding carnal security, & particularly with ignorance of the inundation to come, till they beheld it with their eyes Whereupon I infer, that if No● failed not in the denunciation thereof, and his ministry of calling them to repentance, they grew thus carnally secure and ignorant upon a resolved disbelief and contempt of the word of the Lord▪ This infidelity of that people, is noted also in the 11. to the Hebr. and by the Apostle Peter in the third of his first epistle.  
Further, that infidelity and idolatry reigned in the world many years before the promulgation of the law of Moses, appeareth by the 24. chapter of josuah, where it is recorded that the ancestors and predecessors of Abraham worshipped strange Gods. And in the one and thirtieth of Genesis, Labaa is reported to have had his Idols and marmon●ets. Now if in those families, where God entertained his church, idolatry and unbelief found approbation and place: what shall we judge of the nations and people extract from the line of Ch●n? or of those which issued and branched out of the stock of japheth? The wickedness of Sodom and G●●●●r: the Gods of the Egyptians and their Sorcerers in the time of the Israelites pilgrimage there: the full measure of Atheism and other strange iniquities in the land of Canaan, before the Lord would proceed to displant and extirpate the inhabitants thereof, will testify against the assumption of this syllogism, and event that infidelity and idolatry did not then begin to advance themselves in public, when Moses upon the mount Sinai, received from the hand of the Lord the Moral law.  
But the Quilibet finding his assumption subject to question, hath thought meet to yield it this proof: 
When the distinction of jew and gentle first began, then also began that fall to infidelity and idolatry, and not before.  
But presently upon the publication of the laws of Moses, the distinction of jew and gentle first began.  
Therefore upon the publication of Moses laws, began also that fall to infidelity and idolatry, and not before.   
For answer to the proposition, it must be remembered that the effect and the cause or occasion thereof do not always concur in time▪ it being clear both in reason and experience, that where the occasion and the event have a coherence not of nature and necessity, but dependent on accident and the will of man, the one may a long time precede the other. And so in this case of the above named distinction, though it be supposed to have taken beginning not before the enacting and delivery of the law mosaical▪ yet might the occasion thereof, namely the fall to infidelity and idolatry, be of some growth many years before.  
The assumption is of a more apparent untruth. For howsoever the name of jew and gentle was not of so great antiquity and note: yet the thing itself was in ●ss● and nature long before the flood: and so, many hundreds of years before the publishing of the Decalogue. There is in the sixth chapter of Genesis a record delivered in express terms of two visible and distinct Churches: the one of the Sons of God: the other of the Sons of men. Further, in the 17. chap. of Genesis, the said distinction betwixt the true and the false Church, is by a public act and ordinance of the Lord divulged and famed to all the world. For to the covenant made with his people, which could not be unknown even to the inconfederate, he added Circumcision as it were the broad seal of his favour, and to be likewise a notorious and distinguent mark of his Church: So as now the world rested divided into the Circumcised and uncircumcised: both aspectable and conspicuous to the eye. Besides, as if Circumcision were not on the behalf of his people a sufficient badge of distinction: the same Lord in the third of Exodus doth renounce and disclaim all other nations, with this public profession that he is not the God of them, but the God of the Hebrews: the God of Abraham, Isaac and jacob: and that this shall be his name. And this much Moses must proclaim and nordlie before Pharaoh. Here then the Lord by this his profession and proclamation, as well before Pharaoh and the Egyptians, as in the ear of his select Israel, doth set out and publish a very special and eminent difference betwixt his Church & all other Synagogues whatsoever. Hereby therefore it appeareth, that before the publication of the Decalogue, the distinction of God's Church from the profane and rejected assemblies of the world, did exist both in nature and in common acknowledgement.  
As this is incontroulable, so can it not be denied that there passed at least 400. years after the said publication upon the Mount Sinai, before the distinction of the true Church from the rest of the nations was made public and acknowledged under this term and title of the Iew. For if the whole Church was so entitled and styled, than all the tribes received denomination from the Tribe of juda, within the compass of the years above mentioned. But this is convinced by the holy history: wherein we find that each Tribe did first for a long time communicate in the appellation of Israel: and then after the defection in the time of Rehoboam, that as they were ranged under the obedience of several Princes, so they were severed and distinguished in title: the ten Tribes retaining the common name of Israel: the other the title of juda, which was proper to the Tribe. Had there been within the said time a real & known communication of this title in general with all the Tribes, than the occasion of calling them answerably thereto being so frequent, it is more than probable that the holy Ghost the inditer of the history, would not in euer● passage have omitted it: And then likewise in the case of this communication▪ jeroboam and his successors should have been entitled Kings of the jews: and so that memorable difference of name betwixt the Kings of juda and Israel, observed in the history with special regard, by this confusion of titles utterly abolished.  
The Priest not contented to have proposed a bare affirmation of this assumption nitherto refelled, hath out of the gravity of his judgement supplied it with the strength of this argument: 
All men lived under the law of nature without distinction, till the publication of the law mosaical, and no longer.  
Therefore presently upon the publication of the said law, the distinction between jew and gentle began, and not before.   
That there was before the said publication upon the Mount Sinai, a currant and known distinction of the true Church from the false, hath been already cleared: so as one clause of the Antecedent prohibited unto us, needs no further discussing. That all men lived under the law of nature till the time of Moses, is refelled by that, whereby the existence of God's Church, and the distinction thereof from the contrary long before the reprinting of the Moral law, hath been proved and justified For if there were an holy Church, than was their faith in the Messias: and so consequently the Gospel: under which as a supernatural grace, and not only under the guidance of the law natural, the faithful since the fall of Adam in all times lived. The promise made to our first Parents: the Sacrifice of Abel: the walking of Enoch with God: the preaching of repentance by Noah: his offering of burnt offerings after the flood: the covenant made with Abraham and the promise of the blessed seed: the repetition and ratifying thereof with Isaac and jacob: their careful endeavours for the instruction of their children: all these particularities do testify that they had for direction of their life not only an address from nature, but some divine and extraordinary informations from the Lord.  
Thus much concerning that member of the Induction, drawn from the generation of the law mosaical, and the corruption of the law natural supposed to ensue thereupon.  
The like untruth is presented unto us pag. 7. in the exception there made of the Popish priesthood, against that principle of the certain decay of all things. For the said priesthood being a mere forgery and of direct contradiction to the doctrine of the Gospel, as it hath already received an irrecoverable wound by the sword of the Spirit, so must it to the incredible comfort of the true Church, deliver in the Lords good time the last gasp. But the Quilibet●reameth ●reameth upon an eternity of this priesthood: and concludeth it out of 110. Psal. thus: 
David saith: Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech.  
Therefore Popish priesthood is eternal.   
Here the quodlibetical Doctor discovereth both his ignorance and an act of blasphemy. For what the spirit of God by th● mouth of David delivereth of that omni potent King Christ jesus as his prerogative proper and incommunicable, the sam● this inconsiderate Priest doth interp●● and apply as meant not only of that gra● Dagon the Pope of Rome, but of ever base and mercenary sacrificule. That David, or rather God the Father by David speaketh it of Christ: Christ himself ●● the 22 chapter of Matth. doth expresse● testify: That the said prerogative is peculiar to Christ, and without possibility derivation to any other, may appear by that excellent discourse thereof in 〈◊〉 Epistle to the Hebr. chap. 7. out of whi●● chapter we may thus conclude for 〈◊〉 most holy priesthood of Christ, again that Antichristian rasure of all iug●● Masse-babiers: 
A Priest after the order of Melchisedeks is without carnal rites in consecr●● ordained immediately by God with oath, is eternal in person, and thereupon eternal in Priesthood, and so a perfect Saviour. Hebr. chap. 7. vers. 16. 21. 24. 25.  
But no Pope or Shaveling is ordained by God himself with an oath, and without carnal rites in consecration: none of them eternal in person, and for that cause none of them eternal in Priesthood and able to Save: whereas every one of these prerogatives do agree to Christ and to him only.  
Therefore no Pope or Shaveling is a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, but Christ only.   
This may suffice to diseternize and shorten the Popish Priesthood: to the establishing whereof to draw a logical consequence from the Priesthood of Christ, is 〈◊〉 less impossible than for some lame ●ephibosheth, to advance himself by one 〈◊〉 leap from Dan to Beershebab.  
There remain associated with the in●●tion certain absurdities, of less mo●ent I confess then the untruths before ●uted, yet such as serve to detort the inefficiency of the Quilibet. To omit the ●●ference he maketh betwixt a ground in divinity and an article of our faith: his ascribing of paradoxes unto Orators: his senseless comparison of Societies, that they have their fates with a no less fearful eclipse of their former same, than a notable diminution of their wont glory: Can it proceed from judgement, to affirm that the whole body mystical of Christ consisteth of three estates. Ecclesiastical, Temporal and Monastical? pag. 4. It should seem that the party from whom the Quilibet borrowed this distribution of Christ's mystical body, lent it the poor Priest by way of disport, and to expose him to the derision & taunt of others. For what stain or ridiculous imperfection may befall unto a partition, with the same this distribution is deformed. First, the parts of it are unsortable with the whole. For the body of Christ▪ which is the entire company of the Sainted in heaven and earth that are chosen in him to eternal life, being spiritual, and far remo●ed from the eye, in case it be distinguished into parts, must have such as an of the same quality and nature with th● whole not such as are corporal & visible there being no affinity betwixt things mystical and sensible, spiritual, and carnal Now the parts of the distribution in hand, are material and subject to sense: and consequently of an unsuitable and opposite quality to the total divided. And therefore an impossibility in the total to be distributed unto them. Secondly, whereas it may be pleaded that howsoever the body of Christ, so far forth as it is mystical and spiritual, be incapable of the said parts, yet so far as it is visible on earth, it may be divided into them: I must except against this plea as incompetent: it being an extravagancy from the matter in question, which is of the whole body of Christ, and not of one member thereof: of a thing mystical, not of any visible subject. Besides, it being supposed and set down for a distribution of the true Church on earth: yet shall it not be warrantable, but offend through a gross impropriety. For whereas by the law of distribution, the parts ought to carry a proper and reciprocal affection to the whole: here in the case propounded, the parts are of too large a compass and reach, they being not peculiar to the Church of God, but common to heathenish and profane Synagogues, Pharaoh in Egypt, the Philistines in Palestina, the old Romans and Grecians in their several countries, had in former times, as likewise the Turks and other infidels at this day, not only estates temporal, but degrees also and orders Ecclesiastical. Thirdly, though again supposed that these parts do agree only with the ●rew Church: yet because they are not of a real coherence with each church at the same time, or with the same church at all times: the distribution into them is frivolous. Fourthly, we may with no less justice charge the said distribution with redundancy of parts. For the estate Monastical, is either of no use to God's Church; or of some use and service thereto. If of no use, yea, rather an impediment and bar to the performance of duties to God and man in public societies: then being repugnant to the law natural & moral, it cannot hold the place and office of a part in the body or church of Christ. If it be of some use and service: the same is Ecclesiastical or civil▪ so as this Monastical condition shall not be a different member from the former estates, but comprised under the one or the other. Fiftly, as if he had not already in the said distribution folded up a sufficient number of absurdities, it pleaseth him to make it not only redundant, but halting also and defective. For the estate of Popes and Cardinals, being not purely Ecclesiastical or temporal, but raised out of the mixture & union of both sword, cannot be ranged distinctly and severally under any one of the estates specified, but must of necessity make a fourth order or degree in the church, or rest sequestered from the same.  
With these his Priestly disputes, I will couple the disgracive and unworthy conceit he hath of our most worthy Country. For delivering his opinion by whom the honours point for martial exploits these later years hath been kept, he bestoweth the garland upon the Spaniards, partly out of partiality and affection to them, whom in his Quodlibets he pretendeth to hate, and partly out of malice to the Religion of such, who to the incredible honour o● her Majesty and this State, have managed the principal charges of Military employments amongst us. I will not derogate from the Spaniard: but I cannot yield him the precedence herein. For whether we call into comparison the sufficiency of the Commanders, the quality of the service undertaken by them, the politic carriage and resolute execution thereof, or lastly the success that hath ensued: we shall find that the Spaniard is equalled in all these particulars, and in some of them exceeded as well by our Generals of most honourable rank and State, as by our Commanders of inferior place and dignity. But I will not further insist upon this comparison: it having been of late very accurately handled.  
Hitherto have we examined the principles, and such their incidents as are se● down by the Quilibet. We are now to consider the morives, which have induce● him to deliver his Decacordon by a quodlibetical method, and to publish the same He doth impart with us the special inducements to the choice of this method in a period that offends not in shortness 〈◊〉 being a comprehension but of fifty larg● lines, parenthesed not oftener then in seu●●● places. To facilitate the understanding whereof, I hold it not amiss to couch it this compendious form: Because all things and persons here on e●●● are subject to a change and downfall hereupon there arising so many thousand absurdities, which cannot be set down in a positive discourse without loss of labour: I have therefore thought upon this easiest method of Quodlibets, whereby to deliver my Decacordon: not doubting but it will satisfy all well affected parties, and prevent as well just occasion of complaint, as any evasion or means to escape from disclosing our knowledge. pag. 7. 8. of his pref.  
My purpose is not to spend time in weighing each particular motive. I will only dispute the chiefest: it being one of ●is five principles: which why he hath culed out and employed rather than the rest ●o this service, they being in this behalf ●ll alike serviceable, cannot well be discerned. But let us inquire into the service performed by it: whereof we may take knowledge by this his course of reasoning: 
All things and persons on earth, be subject to a change and downfall.  
Therefore have I made choice of this quodlibetical method for delivering my Decacordon.   
He might well have spared his principle, ●nd reserved it for some other employment, sith the service of consequences which it yieldeth in this syllogistical action, though it be drawn even from the utmost limits of the earth, is yet so strange and exorbitant. For if the alterable condition of all things and persons on earth doth justly occasion the choice of this method: then the consideration hereof (the said method being supposed to be the best of all other) should have forced all writers both ancient and modern, Ecclesiastic and profane, howsoever the matters deduced by them were qualified, to a continual use of it: all things and persons on earth in the time of each several writer being of the like mutable constitution and nature they are now of: so as either this respect of mutability and decay in all things is insufficient to persuade the practice of this way in the frame of discourses, or the authors who have omitted it, stand chargeable with a special oversight. But to fortify the consequence, the Quilibet pretendeth that the brittle stat● of things doth, in the case he hath in hand breed so many thousand absurdities no● disposeable in a positive discourse without loss of labour, as that he is for such regard moved to think upon this method by way of Quodlibets. For answer whereto: first, it is not unknown that absurdity doth originally grow out of the disposing of such notions or terms in a sentence as yield a falsehood: (truth and absurdity being incompatible) which being subscribed unto, there issueth from thence an infinity of absurdities and disagreements to common sense and reason. If then the root, ●rom whence they spring, be other than ●he decayable constitution of things on ●arth: the said consequence receiveth no strength from this plea. Secondly, it is ●ot the multiplicity of different cases that ●isableth a positive discourse to comprehend them, but an insufficiency in us to dispute and order them. For if we shall ●ote out and distinguish each particular subject offered to be treated on, than 〈◊〉 it by the light of pregnant & sound evidence, and lastly, marshal in their pro●er ranks and places, all and singular the ●uestions & several illustrations of them: ●e shall not need to fetch from the consideration of the nature and state of things ●n heaven and earth, any inducement to ●he entertaining of this or that method: it being not material, so as our preceding in discourse be such as I have spoken of, whether the case presented to demur on be propounded by way of interrogation, with freedom left for pro & contra, or set down without the circumstance of interrogatory terms, with liberty notwithstanding to debate and resolve all difficulties and scruples that shall occur.  
There belongeth to this general question of the method chosen by the Quilibt, a justification in particular of his quodlibetical distemper and brabble against the jesuits. Which because it discovers not only the weakness of his judgement in an ordinary and clear position of theology, but his colourable pretext also of drawing into dispute her majesties proceedings and and other matters of like nature and moment, I judge it meet to bring it under trial and examination. The argument ●● sed by him to justify this his reverend and priestly brablation against the Jesuits, is drawn from the greater to the less, and is thus concluded: 
If we may without all sin and scandal dispute pro & contra of God, wheth●● he or the Devil be to be honoured: the● may we dispute pro & contra of the jesuits.  
But we may without all sin and scandal dispute pro & contra of God, whether he or the Devil be to be honoured.  
Therefore may we dispute pro & contra of the jesuits.   
How this syllogism will relish with a jesuit, I know not. It may be upon taste thereof, he will approve it, as being guilty of the Quilibets drift herein, or at least ready to hollow in & concur with him in the same upon notice given: as the manifold pamphlets divulged by that viperous progeny, which can breath nought else but calumniations & projects of treason against Princes, do sufficiently testify. But leaving the jesuit in this behalf to his liking, I will deliver my conceit of the argument proposed. I do therefore except against the Assumption, as containing not only matter of untruth, but of impiety also: and do hold the inference depending thereon very prejudicial to the State of Princes. That it is of a manifest falsehood and repugnancy to the law of God, may appear by calling into consideration the main scope of the third Commandment, which is, that all mention of God should be honourable and worthy his Majesty. Now to dispute pro & contra of God, whether he or the Devil be to be honoured, cannot stand with that honour and reverence which is due to so glorious and fearful a Majesty. For by this course of dispute we are drawn to avouch and prove that mighty Lord, at whose name every knee should bow, and at whose words every heart should tremble, to be destitute of those divine attributes of holiness, eternity, omnipotency, wisdom, justice, mercy, & to ascribe them unto the Devil. How the Priest will free this proceeding from scandal and blasphemy, I can not discern. He will happily allege that as it doth lay reproach and dishonour upon God, to deprive him (out of opinion or affection) in our disputes of his divine and essential attributes, and to appropriate them unto Satan, so if it be done upon a good and warrantable intent, it cannot then fall under the title of blasphemy. For answer whereto, let it be remembered that no action, which in itself and in the nature thereof is a mere sin, can by any good intent of the Actor be made a conformity to the law of God. For were a good intent thus qualified, as that it could alter and rectify in the sight of God the means subordinate thereto: then should human device take place in the true worship of the Lord, and in the case of so ready an apology and pretence, as this of good intention, few would be found who would not stand upon peremptory terms of justifying their courses before the tribunal of Christ. Now if any man shall think it questionable whether the undeifying of that eternal and omnipotent Spirit, and the crowning of Satan with the glory and majesty of the Godhead, be an action in itself, and in the nature thereof contradictory to the will and statutes of the immortal King and lawgiver: he may with like reason doubt whether an acknowledgement of the true jehova for our God only, and a carriage with all reverence and honour towards him on our part, be conmaunded in the Decalogue. If then the said action be originally an aberration from the law, how can it receive from any intent of man, though never so good, this prerogative of being made correspondent to the same? whereas it is a principle known and undeniable, that ill is not to be done, that good may grow thereof in case the intention of the Agent could privilege and dispense with the pollution of our actions, the said principle should contain an idle direction or restraint of our proceedings. Further, if the act in question be not in itself a disobedience to the law, but of a nature indifferent and newterall: then some transferring of the Deity from the true God unto the Devil, and some premeditate mention of his most blessed name accompanied with terms of the highest blasphemy, shall find in the Decalogue no prohibition. Then likewise are we not commanded, without calling into question and doubt, to believe and rest persuaded by testimony of the word and Spirit that jehova only is our God, and he only to be worshipped. But if both the one and the other be in theology a great incongruity: then the said act can in no sort partake of neutrality. But let us ●ebate a little what should be the intent and end of disputing against God. There is in all probable discourse but this ●ne ground and cause thereof that bear a show of lawfulness: namely, an inten to confirm our judgement in the truth upon sight and conference of the weak arguments concluded against God, with such as are alleged for him. But this purpose of reenforcing our judgement in the truth, cannot warrant any dispute in this behalf. For our judgement touching the divine nature and actions of God, and the honour due unto him, having already received the greatest confirmation that may be from the voice of God himself in the Scriptures, from the public and constant testimony of the Church, from the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost, from the evidence yielded and proclaimed by the creation of Heaven and earth: the intendment and endeavour of this crooked and left-handed proof, whereof we speak, must ●● the presence of so excellent a brightness, as the demonstration specified doth afford, utterly quail and rest in the same account, as a poor silly candle doth, that for enlarging and better cleared the surpassing lustre of the Sun, is lighted at noon day. Besides, why should the sight of a lean misshapen argument, invented and alleged against God, rather confirm the disputers judgement in the truth, then give him cause to accuse the dullness of his wit, that could not invent a better? May he not apprehend also, that others of a deeper reach and knowledge than himself, are able to disclose some proofs of strength, and such as he cannot answer, and so rest doubtful and no whit confirmed? Nay, may not the disputer himself, in the search of allegations against God, stumble on an argument of such constitution and temper, as neither himself nor some others can resolve? In which case this course will be so far from confirming the judgement in the truth, that on the contrary it will rather occasion the suspecting of it, and serve to strengthen erroneous conceits of God. Experience hath made it clear, that this course of disputing against God, is of a dangerous consequence, and as it were a bridge for Atheism and other impieties to pass into the opinion and life of man. The quodlibet propounded by the Serpent, to our grain and prime mother, against the most just and holy proceedings of our Creator with her and Adam, thereby to raise in her apprehensions of Soveraynty, and a desire of equality with God, she being ready to give ear thereto, and either not willing or unprovided how to resolve and answer the same, proved in the issue of the disputation, a quodlibet of unspeakable loss and infelicity to either of them and their posterity, and not otherwise satisfiable, then by the most precious blood of the eternal Son of God.  
As this quodlibetical method served amongst other furtherances, as a special mean to draw our first parents to a defection from their Creator: so if we should inquire into the occasions of Atheism, of heresy, of disloyalty and treason in their descendants: we shall find that it hath in sundry ages given life and nourishment to the same. But I will not insist upon particularities herein: what hath been already said, I hope will suffice for convincing the Assumption in question of im●●●y.  
The inference that is necessarily deduced thereupon, and which is of prejudice to the state of Princes, is a liberty of disputing against their persons, their title and interest to their Crowns, their resolutions and proceedings. For if we hold it for lawful to call God into question, to arraign him as it were at the bar, and to divest him of his prerogatives royal: then is it much more allowable to frame in our disputes, a bill of an indictment against the monarchs of this world, to heap personal imputations and scandals upon them, to prove a nullity in their titles, to justify the excommunications thundered out against them and the absolving of Subjects from their allegiances to avouch it for an honourable and meritorious act, to remove them from their thrones by public arms, or indirect practices, to traduce and proclaim to the world their proceedings for such, as exceed for tyranny and cruelty, the actions of the most barbarous tyrant that ever had Sceptre in his hand. Now howsoever the Quilibet disguiseth with us, as if he had for no other intent made choice of this method, then to bandy a jesuit too and fro: a●● redly his principal scope, was the having of some pretext and colour to deliver his spleen against her majesties proceedings: which he hath in his Quodlibets formally done: and yet so, as he would have it interpreted, that they are thus branded and depraved not by himself, but by the intemperate tongue and pen of others. But it is neither his good intent, nor the prerogative of a quodlibetical method, that will procure him a discharge in a court of justice and impunity in this behalf. If he or any for him should plead that opposites marshaled directly in opposition one to the other, do so much the more clear and notify themselves: it will be remembered unto him, that this maxim holdeth true, not when the one is proved to be the other, but when each of them is severally in his proper nature and colours presented unto us, and so a conference made of the one with the other: as her majesties most honourable, just, and temperate proceedings with those tyrannous and barbarous massacres that have been in other Countries violently and often performed against the true Professors of the Gospel.  
I would here give end to this quodlibet of the Quilibets insufficiency, were there not offered unto me for some further blazing thereof, one extraordinary particular and fruit of his wit. pag. 138. of his Quodlibets, where he thus speaketh: The doctrine of the Catholic Church consists of three special causes: the one is Faith, which is the matter thereof: the other, Charity, which is the form or efficient: and the third, Hope, which is the final end thereof, etc.  
Whether this piece of learning had his original from the Priest, or were furnished unto him by his friends, I know not. Sure I am it will not make for the credit of his wit, as shall appear First, he delivers for essential causes of the whole distributed, such things as are consequents thereof, and severed in place from it. For faith and charity, which he sets down for particular virtues infused and resident in each true Christian, receive their conception and birth from the doctrine of the Gospel, accompanied with the effectual operation of the holy Ghost: so as in regard of priority in nature and time, which the said doctrine hath of the existence it yieldeth unto them, by the ordinance●● God, of the separation in place it holdeth from them, they cannot be essential causes of the same. Secondly, whereas faith is the root, from which charity and hope do spring and branch: is it not beside all sense, to make the root the matter of the said doctrine, and of the two branches, the one the form or efficient thereof, the other the final end of the same? If he had conceived that the matter of this holy doctrine did in part consist in the precepts and documents of these infused virtues comprised in the Scripture, his speech had favoured of learning But suppose faith to be the matter of it. That it should run in account for the whole matter of the doctrine professed by the Church, is impossible: there being so many other different particularities recorded therein, which will challenge place in the matter thereof. To make it a part only of the matter, is contrarv to the intention of the Quilibet: who speaking of the whole doctrine, and withal describing the general form and end of it, will out of common wisdom note unto us a matter proportionable thereto. Further, if fauth as it is a virtue residing in the heart of man, be the matter whereof the holy Scriptures consist: then as faith doth determine with the person of the believer, so doth the matter also of the sacred Scripture proportionably. And consequently, if that which supplies the place of this matter be the faith of all God's children: then for as much as the greatest part of them is already retired into paradise, and their faith upon the instant of their departure abolished, it must of necessity follow that the matter whereof the Scripture is consisting, is for the greatest part thereof already wasted and extinct. Or if the faith of some only be the said matter: let him note out the persons unto us, and render a reason, why the faith of one rather than of another, should have this pre-eminence: or why the other virtues mentioned should be excluded.  
Touching charity, he cannot resolve whether it be the efficient or form of the said doctrine. Is he a Priest of such rare parts, and of that expedition in deciding of Quodlibets, and yet can be not satisfy us in so vulgar a Quodlibet? Beside the argument already in general delivered, whereby these Theologicals are convinced to be effects and no essential causes in the case propounded: let him call to mind by whom the doctrine of the Scripture was inspired and indicted. I trust he will not ascribe the performance of this most holy and admirable service to the virtue of charity, that harbours in the breast of man, and so deprive God of the honour due unto him in this behalf. As God himself is the author and efficient of that doctrine, and not charity: so neither can charity be the form thereof, unless we make imperfection the form of perfection, and that which is apt to receive diminution and increase the form of that which is immutable and free from such alteration. If in the latter age of the world charity shall grow cold, and faith almost to an utter decay: and yet the one rest the form of the written word, the other the matter thereof: the said word must necessarily fall into very hard terms, upon the enduring of so great an eclipse both of matter and form.  
The final end of the doctrine professed by the Catholic Church he affirmeth to be hope. True it is that faith in the Messias ●●d consequently hope of eternal happious through his blood, is an end where●● the said doctrine doth look and aim: and yet but an end subordinate to that main and sovereign end of the majesty and glory of God shining in the salvation of his children. So as whether he take hope ●o be the only or principal end, he fails ●n either.  
There are in this text of his three special causes, whereof the doctrine of the Church consisteth, other fantastic incongruities, as, that charity should therefore give the Crown to King and Queen, because she is the form and efficient of the said doctrine: and that faith should be the gate of entrance into the Church, because it is said, Hebr. 11. Accedent●m ad D●um oportet credere. But I will no longer stand upon the refelling of such dreams.   

CAP. 2.  
That the principal drift of the Quodlibets● i● the re-establishing of the Pope's authority amongst us, with the fall of her Majesty and the Gospel.  
Having in the former chapter discovered the insufficiency of the Quilibe● which by sundry particularities of his discourse appeareth to be such, as where out of conceit and partiality he infranchizeth professors of the Gospel, into the company of grossum caputs and men unlearned himself may upon just desert challenge the freedom and privilege of the same will now proceed to take view of his Quodlibets: which being many in number and containing variety of matter, I will draw into question only such points of them, of which it doth specially import us to be informed: lest in this seed time of Romish projects and treacheries for supplanting the Gospel, our ignorance in this behalf be abused in the quality of an instrument and mean to advance the growth thereof. And because in all proceedings of moment, the end whereto they are directed, is a matter considerable and worthy of note: I will in the first place examine and dispute the main and principal scope of the Decacordon: which I take to be the restoring of the sovereign interest and authority of the Pope within her Maiest●●s dominions, and consequently the fall of her royal Sceptre and the Gospel professed amongst us. The grounds or verifying this assertion, we shall find dispersed and delivered in several passages of his Quodlibets. In his preamble thereto, imparting with us some other collateral ends of divulging the same, he doth with solemnity protest and aver his intent herein also to be the giving unto the Romish Church her due. Now that which he supposeth to be due unto the said church, is a regal and unlimited power in the Pope the head thereof, to guide, dispose, and reform all persons and causes Ecclesiastic, having withal annexed thereto the prerogative of superiority above the Prince, as he doth covertly insinuate pag. 221. where making the Ecclesiastical state, the first and principal of the two members in a body political: and holding it for an infallible axiom that in the Pope absolutely resideth the supreme headship and sovereignty over the said State: he cannot hereupon deduce other conclusion then that, as the state of the Church hath an eminency and precedence above the Civil, so the supreme head of the same state, shall hold the like proportion of superiority over the sovereign Commander of the Civil, which is with us, her acred Majesty. If then this regality over both States, be the due he would by publication of his Quodlibets, restore and reinvest in the head of the Romish Church▪ I wrong him not in charging him with this drift and intendment of exalting in this land, that purple pontifical Antichrist of Rome, with the fall of her Majesty and the Gospel. If he shall plead that his giving unto the Sea of Rome her due, is no more the capital end propounded to his Decacordon, than his freeing of the ignorant from error, and his endeavour to make known what loyalty ought to be in every Subject towards his Prince and Country: we may justly except against this plea, as being of no validity. For sith the pamphlets which passed the press, before this Decacordon was tendered unto us, do labour to satisfy the Reader, partly in the matter of difference betwixt the Secular and the jesuit, partly in the points of duty owing from the Catholic subject to the Prince: the pretences mentioned here by the Quilibet cannot be allowed for sufficient: unless both the text in hand for informing herein the Readers knowledge and conscience be so obscure, and the Reader likewise so dull of conceit, as the one and the other require an iteration and supply of quodlibetical disputes. Besides, the question of the subjects loyalty to his Prince is so coldly and unskilfully debated, as in regard of the insufficiency thereof to persuade, it cannot be in common sense conceived that the instruction of the Catholic Subject in his carriage and affection to her Majesty was specially intended by the Decacordon. Wherein if he had proceeded with purpose to inform and rectify the iudgemet of misguided Catholics: he should by light of argument out of the holy word of God have cleared it unto them, that the alleageáce due from a subject to his prince is of that nature and temper, as in the case of any communication thereof with a foreign potentate, whether in causes Ecclesiastic or Civil, it ceaseth to be sincere and unblemished. This course being professedly omitted by him, and the contrary enforced, it is dotage or delusion to pretend the directing of Catholics in the way of true and undivided obedience to her Majesty.  
But howsoever he shall with complement and formality of speech, colour the intent of his Decacordon: yet that it is such as I charge him with, may further appear by calling into consideration, not only his pathetical and often protestations of indisguised obedience to the Pope, even to death, accompanied with an humble submittance of all his actions and discourses to the censure of his venerable Holiness, and with a profession of vowed and most careful endeavours on his part, for conversion of this Realm to the Sea apostolic: but especially, the course he holdeth of winning favour and reputation to his side, by a palpable soothing and admiring of her Majesty, by extolling (contrary to all former custom and humour in Romanists) her highness proceedings, by offer unto her of all duty and service on the part of the Catholics, and likewise, as well by infaming the jesuits, and discovery of their plots, as by purging his fellow Seculars from all imputation of disloyalty and Treason. Can he hold this course, and yet propound unto himself no special end and employment of the grace and favour he would obtain? Or can there be in discourse of reason, other end and use thereof, than the fortifying and advancement of the faction whereof he is? And can this advancement succeed and take place without the suppression of the Gospel? The opposition of it, and Popery being such, that the one laboureth the subversion of the other. I do● therefore upon his holding of the said course, infer that he intends thereby the reviving and erection of that foreign and Antichristian soveraynty over us.  
Moreover, if his design and intent were other than is charged, he would not so affectionately meditate and press the procurement and grant of such means, whereby the estate of her Majesty might be perilled, and the proceedings of the holy Ministry established amongst us, impeached. That he doth insist hereupon, and veremently affect the compassing thereof, his Decacordon will give testimony with me. For in it he pleadeth for a repeal or mitigation of such penal Statutes as were enacted to secure her majesties royal person, and the state of Religion, against all attempts and practices, as well of the Secular Priest as the jesuit. In it he urgeth a toleration of the public exercise of Popery, as well in some Colleges of the Universities, to be allotted to this several use and profession, as in other parts and divisions of the Realm. And lastly, in it under that odious name of Puritans, he doth with an extraordinary passion and rhetoric, solicit an utter extirpation of many thousands, both as sound professors of the Gospel, and as loyal subjects to her Majesty, as ever lived under the Sun. As the due execution of the said Statutes, the suppression of Romish seducements in opinion and affection, the multitude and love of the subjects to her Majesty, with the sole entertainment of the Religion already authorized, are capital and infallible means of strength and surety to her highness person, and the sacred truth professed in her Kingdoms: so upon the withdrawing and failing of them, both the one and the other must quail and determine. But he will deny the abolition of these means, to be of so dangerous a sequel, especially to her Majesty, considering that upon the grant of the repeal and toleration desired, it is intended she should be against all treasonable attempts secured by sufficient caution. Were not Romish Catholics in a dream, or had they any politic sense, or in case they did honourably apprehend of her majesties wisdom, they would never propound so silly an expedient for prevention of peril in this behalf. First, there is an impossibility of such caution: there being nothing that this or any foreign nation can yield, which could be in value satisfactory and answerable to her majesties life. Secondly, a possibility herein supposed: yet cautions of what nature soever, will be found exposed to so many incertainties, as that they cannot serve for grounds of assurance in the case of so precious and inestimable a jewel. Obligation of oath is with Romanists dispensable: Hostages subject to mortality and other accidents: pledges in the nature of lands or chattels, decayable: caution of towns from foreign Catholics, full of difficulties and inconvenients. Thirdly, upon the succeeding of an attempt against her Sovereign and unvaluable person, how shall we in so great a confusion and astonishment, either retain in our hands without present danger, the caution given, or pursue the recovery of satisfaction if we be not seized thereof▪ Speech therefore in the case proposed of caution is senseless.  
But he hath happily some better ground for displanting and extermination of Puritans. Howsoever it pleaseth him in show to distinguish betwixt such, as agreeing in the opinion of doctrine against the church of Rome, do notwithstanding differ in some honourable additions and circumstances of discipline: yet in truth, and in the secret account of his popish heart, whosoever acknowledgeth not the sovereignty of Peter's chair, or standeth in opposition of judgement to the Counsel of Trent● is unto him and to all of his stamp a Puritan: and shall in that day of jubiley, which they have so long attended, pass as convict of heresy to the faggot or sword. In those times of Queen Mary, when the Pope swayed the Sceptre in this land, it was not enough to plead a concurrence with them in opinion, touching the government of the state Ecclesiastic by Bishops and other subordinate officers of the Clergy. It was neither the Episcopal Roc●et, nor the ornament of Tippet, nor the squareness of a Cap, nor the mustering in Cope or Surplice, that could then privilege a Protestant against the Clinke, or the Purgatory of Smithfield. And do we think, if then every Professor of the Gospel, from the Archbishop, to the poor Curate, and from the person of Honour to the Cobbler were drawn into question of life, that any hereafter shall for respect of his Typpit or Rochet, find favour and impunity? I doubt not but there have been many of each sort and quality in France, Germany, the low Countries, and else where, who should have been spared from the hard measure and extremity offered unto them, if their liking of the ancient dignities, and outward formalities in the Church, could have procured them regard and grace. It were against common sense, to conceive that they will persecute the refusing of the Surplice, and leave uncensured the contempt of the Mass: punish all inconformity to external ceremonies, and bear with contradiction to the Pope's Supremacy. As to the Duke of Medina, if in 88 he had prevailed in his attempt against us, each Catholic would have seemed: Protestant, his sword not discerning the one from the other, but resolutely proceeding on to make room for the King his Master: So, if the Lord in his justice should abandon this sinful Land to the mercy of the Secular Priest and jesuit then to smooth the way and passage for S. Peter's Vicar, every Protestant should be adjudged a Puritan. Whereas therefore he pretendeth in word the ruin of the Puritans, I hold it for certain he intendeth in deed the general dispatch of all Protestants. For what else can we probably conceive to be his drift herein? It is clear, that his heaping of so many scandalous indignities upon them, and his charging them not only in general, with endeavours to pull down Kings and Princes, but in particular, with practice to kill her Majesty, and to subvert all other Protestants, cannot have other scope than the raising and nourishing of perpetual jealousies, great fears, and bloody hatreds, not only betwixt the Protestant and the supposed Puritan, but specially betwixt her royal self, and many thousands her faithful subjects, and consequently, the absolute depriving her of their ready and dutiful services. If then he labour to destitute and strip his Prince of the loyal affection and service, which an infinite multitude would tender and perform unto her: if he would likewise stir the flame of civil contention amongst all the Protestant subjects of this State: doth he not thereby aim at some fearful eclipsing of her majesties power and strength: Doth he not prepare and fashion an overture to a desolation and change of State? Either Religion and peace with the love, service, and multitude of people on the one part, and the reciprocal favour and respect from the Prince on the other part, are not the true foundations and pillars of the stand and greatness of monarchs within their several dominions: or if they be, than he that shall employ the whole force of his wit and affection, as well to the expugnation of Religion, and the mutual amity amongst compatriots, as to disarm his Sovereign of the love, service, and multitude of his subjects, and to work in him a rejection likewise on his part, of all Princely and respective conceit towards them, cannot but stand in the judgement of unpartial men, justly chargeable with the imputation of a traitorous heart to his Prince and Country. As therefore the urged repeal of the said Statutes, and the toleration of Popery is of a pernicious consequence: so would he through the side of the Puritan, wound both Prince and Subject, both Bishop and Curate.  
Besides, to yield unto the main question in hand some further light, let it be considered what doctrine he delivereth in his Quodlibets, of State and Succession, for resolution and direction of the Subject, in case of the Pope's excommunication. The regard of the time, and the present affliction endured by Catholics, makes him (as he saith) unwilling to maintain positions odious to the State: but yet he is bold to inform the Subjects of their duty herein. First, therefore he gives them to understand, that it is lawful for his Popeship to excommunicate Princes, and lawful also for the Subjects to put in execution the sentence of such excommunication. Secondly, he doth advertise them, that howsoever both the one and the other be lawful, yet in regard of the manifold inconveniencies ensuing thereof, it is not expedient so to proceed. Thirdly, because the question of expediency should not upon occasion offered, for advancement of their religion, either entangle scrupulous and nice consciences, or minister discouragement to the forward and hotspirited Catholic, he cleareth it, and directeth them when they are to refuse their allegiance unto their Sovereign, and take arms against him for execution of the said sentence. He doth therefore (the Bull and the denounciation thereof being supposed to be of sufficient validity) teach and instruct 
●g. 255. r 256.  them, that when they may without any notable hurt or loss unto themselves, withdraw their obedience from their Prince, and do otherwise find themselves enabled for the prosecution of this service, they do then stand bound to see the say de Bull executed. Now whereto is the publication of this seditious and treasonable doctrine addressed? Is it not to resolve, prepare, and direct the hearts of all Catholic Subjects, to a most disloyal attempt, for displacing her Majesty from her Imperial throne, with a final extinction of the light of the Gospel? Might he prevail in his mediation, for liberty to reconcile whom he could, to obedience unto the Sea apostolic, and for the ride dance of so many thousands her Highness most affectionate servants and Subjects, as he so often brandeth with the odious title of Puritans: then would he no longer dispute this question of expediency, but found the alarm to the field. And whereas now upon consideration of the punishments justly inflicted on the Catholics, for enterprising the execution of excommunications against her Majesty, he doth with all bitterness censure and reprove both the procurers and actors thereof: had their unnatural and detestable proceedings for●ed to effect: then would he have chanted io poean, and composed Panegyrics in their honour: then should you never have received from him any satires against the jesuit. But sith these Papalb censures have in issue been prejudicial unto them, and occasioned question of their lives, liberties, and goods: now out of policy to amuseus, and to mask the carriage of their designs, under the credit of the Seculars loyalty: they must tax the Pope himself with credulity and indiscretion, his Bulls with invalidity, the denounciation of them with insufficiency, the plotters, abetters, and actors, with treason and rebellion: the lesuits who contrived the tragedy, must be capital enemies to her Majesty, and the Secular Priests who acted it, loving and faithful subjects.  
I will end the question of the Quilibets main end, with an argument drawn from the consideration of the pretended difference betwixt the jesuit and the Secular. If the said difference which is ●pilried in show on the part of this Priest, as well with all violence of spleen and detestation towards the jesuit, and with ●● small prejudice and dishonour to the Pope and Spaniard, as with profession of extraordinary duty and allegiance to her Majesty and the State, be notwithstanding a matter only of colour and disguisement: I hope the Seculars themselves will acknowledge (considering the correspondence held betwixt them and the heads of their faction in all proceedings of moment and consequence such as this is) their intent and drift in this Decacordon too be principally, an endeavour of furthering the Pope to a recovery of the interest and title he challengeth in the Sovereignty over the Church of England, and consequently, of transferring the Crown imperial, from that sacred and most Princely head, whereon it now resteth. For what else can they intend and aim at, in the course taken by them for gaining of favour and reputation to their side, in their intercession for a repeal of the said penal Statutes, in their mediation for the free exercise of labouring the conversion of the Realm unto the Pope's obedience, in their urging the utter extirpation of all Protestants under the name of Puritans, in their publishing of doctrines, whereby to resolve and direct all Romish subjects in the question of executing those barbarous and Satanical Bulls? Howsoever the consecution deduced in this proposition here laid down, may happily pass without controlment: I doubt not, but my assuming, that the said difference is only a counterfeit and politic scolding, will receive special opposition. This assumption therefore I am to clear: which because it is a question of importance, shall be debated severally, and by itself, in the next chapter, and so serve to furnish an whole Antiquodlibet.   

CAP. 3.  
That the contention betwixt the jesuit and Secular Priest, being in such nature, and in such degree as is pretended, is a colour and pretext only: or in case it be unfeigned on their part, yet on the part of the Superiors and heads of their faction, it is interteyned out of a policy dangerous to her Majesty and the State.  
IF I seem in this question to impugn a known and currant truth: it may please the Reader to spare his censure till he have perused the whole discourse thereof: and then also, to make judgement of the same, not by one single argument, but out of the joint consideration of all the particular presumptions. And let not in the mean time either any detection already performed by the Seculars, of practices against the State, or their present profession of future discoveries, move him to apprehend the said contention to be unfeigned. For there have been ever some amongst them, in the time of their best agreement and peace, who have given intelligence of the treasonable designs and attempts against her Majesty: and therefore this disclosing of them on the part of the Priests, no argument of so peremptory and violent a quarrel betwixt them and the jesuits. Besides, what will these Seculars reveal other than such projects and devices, as are of purpose contrived to delude us? Or if they shall at any time detect some secret practises interteyned really, and out of a malicious intent against the State, it will be with purpose only to win credit, and opportunity to deceive in matters of like or greater moment. And for detections of this nature and service, they have undoubtedly received dispensation, according to the course held with their predecessors: with whom it was ordinary, and answerably to their commission, to pretend and perform also the disclosing of Secrets. But let us proceed to clear the position in hand.  
If the say de contention being such as is pretended, would frustrate the plots and courses embraced for the public interest and good of the Romish Church: And if for that regard there have been always had a careful and vigilant eye on the part of the Pope and his faction, to prevent and moderate all accidents that might trouble the common peace of the best Catholics, and impeach their disseignements for advancing the authority of Saint Peter's Chair: then either the Seculars entertain not the said contention, or in case they do they renounce all respect of giving furtherance and support to their common cause. That their difference being of the nature and reach as is supposed, will disappoint the proceedings held for the public good of the Romish Church, may appear first by this, in that it is accompanied with a profession to reveal all treasonable courses against the State, whether open hostilities, or secret conspyracies. Now all the practices for re-establishing the Soveraygnty of the Pope over the Church of this land, fall within the compass of treasons: so as if the Seculars do effectually answer this their profession, the State may upon notice given of them, take sufficient order for their prevention. Again, as they profess this discovery, so they pretend also a peremptory resolution to oppose personally against all attempts of this nature, and further to draw unto an actual correspondence with them herein all Catholics, with whom they shall be able to prevail. Moreover, not reason only, but experience of all times hath taught, that the disunion of confederates▪ though followed on the one part only with the extremity of malice, never faileth either to work and raise impediments to the common cause, or to seek the weakening and suppression of the adverse party. Further, whereas it is affirmed, that there hath been a careful course held to prevent the disturbance of their common peace, and of their designs, the truth hereof will be testified, by the directions they receive ordinarily from their Superiors, how to carry themselves in matters of weight, by the order and discipline established amongst them, to encounter and remedy scandalous accidents, by the intercourse of intelligence that is betwixt them and the Commanders of their faction, by their watchfulness and continual preparation to take advantage of all occurrents and times fitting their intents. Hereupon it is, that they want not their Catalogues of the number in each Shire and City, devoted to their side, and how they are furnished with arms, munitions, and other abilities. Wherefore upon the considerations above remembered, I do infer, that either their quarrel is colourable, and entertained of policy, or they instruments of hindrance to the advancement intended unto the public cause of the Sea apostolic. If any shall in this place out of the objection above mentioned, reply that their profession to discover and oppose against all treacheries, whether in plot or action, doth clear the pretended difference from the imputation of disguising and fraud: Igraunt it doth so, in case it be really and sincerely upon all occasions performed, what is verbally professed But in doing hereof, they shall be found guilty of high Treason against the authority of the Roman Church, whose cause by this course of detection and opposition, they do wilfully betray. But against this later, they do contest and openly profess all readiness to shed each drop of their best blood, for the public good and honour of Saint Peter's Chair. What therefore can we conceive and conclude other than this, that both the pretended contention and the said profession, accompanying the same, is counterfeit?  
Besides, for a further proof hereof, let us draw into examination the vehement protestation tendered by the Seculars of all sincere and dutiful allegiance to her Majesty, and likewise of all detestation towards the Spaniard and his title. If the protestation both of the one and the other proceed not from any found affection, but from a fraudulent intention of the heart: we may then with good reason charge them with want of loyal and faithful meaning in their pretended difference. For of these three, namely their zeal to her Majesty, their hatred to the Spaniard, their quarrel with the Jesuits, there is originally the same ground and end, viz. the advancement and good of their common cause: and the two first are made the motives of the latter. For out of a zeal to the surety of her majesties state, and upon hatred of the Spaniard and his title, they pretend a capital abhorring of the jesuits, whose complots tend to the destruction of the one, and to the advantage of the other: so as of what quality and tincture the two former are, of the same we are to judge that to be which groweth from them. But the question is of this protestation whether it be feigned. First, that it is so in that part thereof which is of duty and allegiance to her Majesty, I have these presumptions to persuade me. Where the same opinion in Religion, the same obligation of dutiful respect and obedience to the Pope, the same endeavours of supplanting the Gospel and advancing Popery, the same distrust and fear of her Majesty infinitely wronged and dishonoured by them, the same apprehension of supposed vexations and tyrannies executed upon them, and in general, where the same cause of malice and hatred to her royal person and the State doth remain, there in all likelihood can be no change of affection. For the disposing of a malicious and traitorous heart to duty and fidelity, must proceed from a surcease of those causes which gave life and breath to malice and treachery. As they nourish in heart the original and spring of their disloyalty and malice: so is there no probability of their inclination to alter and remove it, their means being as great as heretofore, their confederates as many and strong, their advantages against us increased: as may appear by their glorious vaunts of favour in Court and Country, their enlarged hopes and insolency, their conceit and report of desperate hostility betwixt Protestants and Puritans. Besides, were they out of a grieved heart, for their former rebellious carriage sincerely affected to the safety and preservation of her Highness, would they persuade the grant of such means, as threaten a present and an inevitable danger to her person and the state? They press a repeal of the Statutes which secure her Crown and dignity: they solicit a toleration of their religion, that they might without peril and controlment employ their service in effecting reconcilements to the Pope: they direct catholic subjects when to proceed to the execution of most Antichristian censures and Bulls, for deposition of our Sovereign: lastly, they labour a final disunion and division, first, betwixt her Majesty and her Subjects, and then betwixt Subject and Subject: and so consequently, the subversion both of Prince and people. Can they solicit and labour the ruin of her Majesty, and yet be reputed sincere and unfeigned in their profession of allegiance and fidelity unto her? Again, were they resolutely and sound devoted to perform loyalty and duty unto her in all such points of service as concern her honour and safety, and particularly in detection of treacherous disseignements, in recovery of disaffected subjects from the Pope to her obedience, in adventuring their persons and goods against all foreign attempts: then would the Pope and Spaniard surcease their plots and practices against this State, upon fear of their discovery, defection of Catholics from them, and despair of prevailing. To conceive, that the inuadors will come furnished out of their own sufficiency, and so stand absolutely upon their domestical and proper strength, not looking to find the help and succour of a faction amongst us, is idle: or to think they shall be able to prevail, notwithstanding the discovery made of their projects and attempts, were to hold us for accessary to our own ruin, in leaving to the inuadors the helps they attend and hope for, and in failing to furnish all due means on our part for resistance. If then upon seasonable advertisement given of their intended enterprises, we shall disappoint them of the strength and supplies they expect, and enable ourselves in every respect, with preparations of all natures fitting an honourable and assured defence: they grounding their attempt partly upon our weakness and defect of preparing, partly upon hope of a faction and all needful supplies amongst us, and finding a frustration of their hopes in this behalf, will in all probable discourse lay aside their thoughts and intents of proceeding against us. If it shall be objected that the surcease of attempting above mentioned, is already performed on the part of the Pope and the Spaniard: their late combination and practice for the conquest of Ireland and Ostend, the present courses held for reconciling unto the Pope, the directions given and secretly executed for winning a party unto the infanta, or to the King regnant, will sufficiently answer and convince this doubt. But for a further enforcement of the Seculars protestation in this particular of their allegiance, and to win credit thereto, it will be anouched, that the ancienter sort of them ever misliked this course, of restoring religion by treason and invasion. If they always disliked it, why did they not detect it, and so prevent (as much as rested in them) the peril intended to her Majesty and the State? They answer, That the respect of their common cause, and the hope they had, the political Fathers would 〈◊〉 grown more moderate in their disseignements against our Sovereign, moved them to be silent in this behalf. Which is in effect, as if they should say, the hope conceived that their said disseignements would in the mean time have prevailed, moved them to this silence. Were they touched with so simple and light a regard of her majesties life, that they had rather she should in her person receive a mortal wound, th●● themselves utter a word to prevent it? Is it in the imminent danger of the Church and State, which by their disclosing might be diverted, a sufficient justification of their silence herein, in that they hoped the contrivers of the peril would have reclaimed themselves? If the issue had answered your desires, than would you have honoured the Machiavillian Fathers with a crown of glory, whom now in show you pursue with the greatest infamies and indignities. If then in the time of so present an hazard, you refused (notwithstanding your pretended fidelity and mislike of the course in hand) to afford so much as one syllable from your Priestly lips, for preserving the life of your Sovereign: there is no probability, that hereafter in the like case of attempt and hope of success on your side, you retaining the same dutiful respect to the Pope and your common cause, rather in an higher degree of affection then heretofore, you will fall to a ready performance of the loyal service, whereof you make so often profession. But what is it that drew you to a mislike of the practices entertained by the jesuitical Fathers, for executing the Pope's sentence? It cannot be the consideration of any unlawfulness in them. For howsoever you find it against the reason of expediency, that either the Pope should excommunicate, or the catholic subject execute the sentence denounced, till the proceeding thereto might be without notable hurt and prejudice: yet you hold both the one and the other to be lawful. Neither can it be the inconvenience and trouble which befell unto your persons, upon the issue of the said practices, that moved you to detest them. For in the question of advancing the honour and good of the Roman Church, you hold no account of liberty or life: the glory of your supposed martyrdom, doth weigh more with you then any worldly respect: you are not either so unwise as to esteem of the resolutions and courses by the event, or so enamoured with yourselves, as to prefer your particular before the general. Besides the said course being not only warrantable de iure in your opinion, but de facto, plotted with all politic foresight, out of due consideration of the means, for prosecution and compassing thereof, out of the best intelligence that could be procured, and with special regard to the good of the Seculars: what ground of just exception can they have against it? If there were imperfection in the carriage of it: the blame must rest upon the Actors, and not upon the plot. Again, whereas the success of the courses held, became also prejudicial to the jesuits, why do not those Fathers indite Satyrs against the Seculars? Why do not they who had their part in contriving of them, discharge their spleen against the Seculars, who had a principal hand in acting them? Or why do not both jesuit and Secular, publish their detestation of the Pope, by whose warrant and authority they proceeded, both to the plotting of their courses, and the execution of them? If then the Seculars hatred of jesuitical practices, cannot probably grow from the ground and cause pretended by them: it cannot run in other account then of forgery: and therefore their protesting of showing loyalty to her Majesty, in opposing against the said practices, must needs receive the like ●●and and censure. But let us grant unto them that, whereof they would have us to rest persuaded: viz. that the enacting of penal laws, the restraint of their persons, and in some the loss of life and goods occasioned by the said practices, did draw them to a dislike of the same. First, in this confession they contradict themselves: this their pretended dislike being a censuring of the said courses for detestable treasons: and so are they styled by them in sundry passages. Now if they partake in nature with treasons: how can they be reputed lawful? But you allow them for lawful: and give direction when they may be executed. Secondly, if the said inconvenience to your persons and goods, were the principal motive of your hatred to the said courses: then did you approve them considered in themselves, and so far forth as they intended her majesties destruction. And this latter would you have well digested, in that her proceeding against you, was adjudged by you to be a tyrannous persecution and oppression. You never notified your mislike of those courses, till experience acquainted you with the danger of them to your persons▪ you betook your sel●es to your beads, solicited all your Saints, plied the mumbling of Masses, persuaded others to their particular devotions for the happy success of the same: and were ready also to be employed personally in some part of the appointed service. If then the designs in question (they being considered in themselves, and for such, as by warrant from the Pope, did intend the advancement of the Sea apostolic, with the suppression of her Majesty) were allowed by you: and if the supposed persecution only, occasioned by the issue of them, moved you to mislike thereof, and to an hatred of her Majesty, as may appear by your infamous discourses and libels: what are we to apprehend of your professed allegiance? which grows not from conscience of duty, nor from persuasion of unlawfulness in the said designs, nor yet from consideration of the pretended hurts you have received by them.  
Hitherto touching that part of the Seculars protestation, which is of allegiance to her Majesty. Let us consider the other, which is of detestation to the Spaniard and his title. And this also I hold for a me●●e disguisement. For neither hath the Spaniard done any act, that can justly incense them against him, neither is there in the opinion of Catholics, any so choice and meet a person besides, on whom in reason they may rely and build their future hopes. If they object his plots and several invasions, they were solicited by some of their own coat and profession: and furthered by their advertisements: they were in part for their advancement and good: they were warranted by the authority and commission from the Sea apostolic: they were assisted not only with contributions from the Pope, but with supplies of other quality. And therefore no ground out of this objection for their hatred to the Spaniard: unless they will both hate him, who was at an extraordinary cost to relieve and advance them, and likewise detest the Pope who was in this action a principal concurrent with him, yea themselves also who were deeply engaged in it. If the fear of his future cruelties doth stir this passion against him: they ground their hatred upon an incertainty and accident which the Seculars should not do, considering the experience they have had of his favourable inclination towards them in his public attempts and private courses: out of which he hath afforded them succours and relief in their distress and peregrinations: erected Colleges for their maintenance: allotted unto sundry of them annual pensions. Neither can their hatred upon this original be in that degree as is pretended. For having received at his hands sundry demonstrations of his princely favours, and never any disgrace or wrong of note: there cannot be any foundation for so great a fear and hatred of him, as they publish. And shall we think that they will without special ground and cause show themselves so ingrateful as to hate him, who hath so often reached his hand of strength and bounty to their help? and who concurreth with them in religion and in purpose to advance the same? whereas also in the conceit of most Catholics, he the said Spaniard, as well in regard of his power and opportunity of means, as of his resolution and readiness to restore the Popedom amongst us, is the fittest & sufficientest Prince, on whom to repose for their future hopes and advancements: in case they abandon him to whom will they have recourse? if to any besides him: they encounter the Pope's design and resolved furtherance of the Spanish title: they incur the danger of his heavy censure: they run a course repugnant to their profession and oath of being ordered by him in all cases and actions of this nature. To rely upon some domestical competitor, Dolmans' censure will not permit them, they being not assured either of his abilities or devotion to the Pope. And as for the Scot: how can they hope for toleration under a Prince of his profession, and who hath seen experience in her Majesty, in himself, in other States, of the advantage and benefit growing from the suppression of Popery and sufferance of the Gospel only? The law of God therefore, the precedent of other Princes, the consideration of the perilous inconveniences accompanying the said toleration, will make him a professed adversary thereto. Seeing then there is rather cause of their love unto the Spaniard and dependence on him, than any just pretext of hatred towards him and his title: I do conclude that this part also of the protestation in question is to pa●se in account for a fiction. If therefore this their whole protestation be in the several parts thereof unsound and fraudulent: what can we judge their pretended quarrel with the lesuits to be, other than a plotted and devised brabble? Which may further be cleared by consideration of the gain and advantage that will accrue unto the state of her Majesty and the Gospel, in case the opposition betwixt them the said Seculars and jesuits be serious and with a resolute intent to discover and withstand all practices and attempts entertained against her highness Throne and the Religion established by her. For this course of opposition will serve to secure and advance her imperial Crown and the sacred truth professed within her dominions. But such means as are directly and effectually serviceable to this use and purpose, will not be embraced and followed by them, who protest and offer even unto death the performance of all duty and ready service for recovery of the Pope's interest and sovereign power over this Church of England: it being a principle in reason and policy, that no faction or multitude will betray and frustrate the advancement of that cause, which out of conscience and hope of future benefit it doth affect: so as I may probably conclude, that one thing is pretended, and another intended by them.  
Moreover, whereas they concur, according to their solemn protestation on this behalf, in the same general end for the good of the Romish Church: as difference in ends and intentions doth ordinarily divide confederates: so this concurrence will hold them so far united, as that they will not for particular respects expose to peril and ruin the general cause. For in doing hereof they could not be said to concur in the same end: so as either the Seculars fail in this concurrence and aim, or if they rest constant therein, they will not prosecute the means whereby to overthrow the said common end: and therefore not be carried in so violent a course of opposition to the jesuit, as is pretended.  
Besides, it is acknowledged by them that they are resolved to continue in all faithful obedience to the Pope even to death, and witha● in word and fact to maintain the honour and authority of his sword. If they stand thus affected: it is altogether improbable they will proclaim against the jesuit a war of that heat and fury, as shall draw them either to tax and challenge publicly the Pope's indiscretion, his credulity in matters of information, his rashness in excommunicating, the invalidity of his censures the insufficiency of Commissions given to his Legates and ministers: or to contest openly and oppose against him in case of his personal coming into England. For hereby they should wilfully bring S. Peter's chair, unto which they profess all reverence and duty, and to whose censure they submit all their actions, into public contempt and obloquy: and themselves into an estate of present and exceeding danger, unless his Hollowness should out of his fatherly compassion be pleased to seal them an Indulgence. Whereas therefore out of the sharpness of their humour and spleen to the jesuit they have entered into this course of disgrace and reproach to his Popeship: either they are serious therein: or they do it upon a presumed dispensation to make it so much the more probable that they 〈…〉 contention with the jesuit. But their often and unfeigned protestations to the contrary, do apparently convince them of not being serious therein. Whereupon I do infer it to be done to win at our hands a belief that their quarrel is such as is reported. But it will be said, that the Popes have been abused with misinformations, and so drawn to excommunicate her Majesty and to proceed accordingly. Whereto I answer, that it standeth with no likelihood that so many holy Fathers and Potentates joining with them, should not discern the insufficiency of the suggestions presented. Pius 5. Gregory 13. Xistus 5. and the King of Spain, with some other Princes of the same confederacy, received from England the best intelligence and direction for the carriage of their designs against her Majesty, that the Catholic Laity or Clergy, Nobles or Gentry, Soldiers or Mariners of the Realm could afford: so as the objected misleading through informations is not likely. And if error herein had been committed by one of them, the matter being of that consequence it would have ●●n reform by another.  
But let us examine the original of this their contention, and see whether it will not yield some argument whereby to charge them with collusion. In the first Quodlibet the jesuits affecting of sovereignty over the Seculars, is set down for the true original and cause of this strife. In other places he imputeth it to the inconveniences and h●●●s which ensued upon the practices held by the jesuits against the State. Touching the superiority affected by the jesuits: it is strange it should be the root of so dangerous a war, as wherein the Pope himself is like in the point of his supremacy and in the grand cause of the Catholic Church to receive a deadly and incurable wound, It was granted and ordained by his Holiness, advisedly no doubt and upon due consideration of the necessity thereof. Could not this respect of the Pope's authentical grant and ordination, be of force to temper and satisfy the Seculars, who profess all dutiful obedience and ready submittance of their actions unto him? If it could not stay their priestly wisdoms from quarreling and from notifying their ambition and pride unto the world▪ might it not yet have restrained them from proceeding to a contention in so high a degree and of such sequel, as will by discoveries secure the estate of her Majesty and the Gospel, defeat the hope and cause of the Roman Church, cast reproach upon the Pope and his authority? will they for a matter of private spleen run this desperate course? Themselves disclaim it: their profession of hatred to the Gospel, of their vowed endeavours for advancing the good of their Church, of all reverence and devotion to the Pope will testify the contrary. If then they run not this course of ruining their common cause: the said contention, touching this degree and the effects thereof, is feigned: and so the said affected Sovereignty no cause of the same. Doth it then take budding and growth from the supposed persecution and oppression inflicted on them, by occasion of the practices and conspiracies which the jesuits wrought against the State? The persecution they speak of, which was in truth no other the a justifiable, moderate, and necessary severity in the punishment of detestable treasons, was for priority of time before the question of sup 〈…〉 betwixt them: so as either the affecting of Sovereignty gave not beginning to their pretended contention, or in case it did, then cannot the original thereof be ascribed to the supposed persecution: of which because there hath been already sufficient speech and proof made, that the Seculars hatred to the jesuit and his courses can have no just or probable foundation thereon, I will insist no further in this argument.  
To these presumptions of dissimulation in the said contention, may be added the repugnancy showed in the Quilibets affection and speech. For were the quarrel of that nature and in that condition of heat and reach, as he would make it, and the heart of the Quilibet of such sincerity and singleness, as becometh the profession of priesthood: he would not breath out and publish repugnancies in the discovery of his intentions. He admires her majesties proceedings for gracious and moderate, yet calleth them an unjust vexation and heavy persecution: he professeth a perpetual hatred to the jesuit, and an infallible allegiance to her Majesty, yet he submitteth himself in this behalf to be ordered by the Pope. He 〈◊〉 all unfeigned loyalty and duty to her Majesty, yet instructeth and directeth her subjects when they may take arms against her: He professeth the performing of all faithful service to her Majesty, and yet would for her overthrow raise a mortal division and war betwixt her and her loving subjects, as also betwixt subject and subject: He professeth all careful endeavours for securing her person and State, yet would ●ee strip and deprive her of the best means for her preservation and safety; He commendeth the ancient Seculars for their mislike of treasons against her Majesty, and yet approveth their concealing of them in the case of imminent danger to her royal person and Crown: He pretends detecting all jesuitical practices against her Highness and the State, yet laboureth under hand a reconcilement of her subjects unto the Pope: He pretends a kind conceit and affection towards the Protestants, yet would work a subversion of them and their religion: He censureth for rebels all such as attempted to execute the Pope's excommunication, yet alloweth the execution thereof when it may be performed without 〈◊〉 and loss to the actor's: He protesteth his devotion and employment of his person with the loss o● his life for the advancement of their common cause: and yet offereth her Maiesti● his service for discovery of the designs and means that tend to the said advancement: He challengeth the Pope for ●●dulous, indiscreet, rash, partial, and exposeth his authority to contempt and obloquy, yet professeth all readiness even to death, to maintain the honour and reputation of his holy Fatherhood: He purgeth the Seculars from the crime of disloyalty to her Majesty, yet acknowledgeth their privity and allowance of treasons: He protesteth a perpetual detestation of the Spaniard and his title, yet offereth herein to be ordered by the Pope: He condemneth Jesuits for contriving the treason, and commendeth the Seculars who acted it. Whether these and such other repug●ancies do not discover in the Quilibet a double and disguising carriage of himself in his Quodlibets, I refer to the judgement of the wise and unpartial reader.  
Hitherto hath been showed that the contention betwixt the jesuit and the Secular priest being of such nature and in ●uch degree as is pretended, is counterfeit: ●t remains to prove that in case it be unfeigned on their part, yet on the part of the superiors and heads of their faction, it is ●tertayned out of policy. The reason inducing me to this apprehension is this:  
The said Superiors and heads being ●ade acquainted with this contention, and particularly with the whole nature and carriage thereof, do either politically entertain the same, or labour the suppression thereof: it being clear, considering the terms wherein now it is, that it will be of advantage or prejudice unto such their designs as concern our State: and it being likewise not unknown, that all occurrents and matters of moment are carried and ordered by direction of the said Superiors: who are so careful for advancing the common interest and good of the Romish Church, as they will not suffer any course to proceed that may be an impediment or heart to their projects & practices in this behalf. Such is partly their inconsiderate zeal to the Sea apostolic, or rather Antichristian Synagogue of Rome, and partly their hatred to our profession, and desire of revenge upon many & great supposed wrongs and 〈◊〉 offered by this State unto them: so as what opportunity and advantage the time or i● expected accidents shall present for furtherance of their proceedings, they are real to embrace it. Upon consideration where of I take it for evident and confessed, that they will not in an accident of this importance demean themselves in the quality of neutrals or idle spectacles, but according to the use they may make thereof to their common cause, they will entertain it in policy, or suppress it. But the suppression of the same is not laboured by them. For in case it were: then would the said difference betwixt them expire and determine. If, notwithstanding the endeavour and course taken to suppress it, the prosecution of the same be continued on the part of the Seculars: then the insuppression groweth either from want of power in the Superiors to effect what is meet in this case, or from the desperate contumacy of the parties who will not be ordered. But it is apparent that there is no defect of sufficient authority and power whereby to ●ompell the said parties unto order and agreement. And as for the point of contumacy. they do renounce it, and publicly profess an absolute submittance of ●ll their actions to the censure and ordering of the holy Father. I conclude therefore that in truth they labour not to suppress it. Besides, there is no cause that ●ay justly induce them to stay and end ●e same, as may appear by this, in that the carriage of the said quarrel, howsoever prejudicial in show to the Catholic cause in regard of the profession made for discoveries, is indeed of special advantage and consequence for advancing the public good of the said cause. For it holdeth a course of winning favour and credit to the Seculars, in respect of their ancient dislike of treasons, their pretended detections, their profession of all allegiance to her Majesty, and of opposing to the Pope himself: it soweth discord, and endeavoureth a disunion betwixt her Highness and her subjects, and betwixt subject and subject: it soliciteth a repeal of penal statutes, and a toleration of the public exercise of Popery. If then the said contention be not suppressed, as appeareth by prosecuting the same in printed pamphlets: and if there be neither labouring for suppression thereof, nor any 〈◊〉 prete● why it should be suppressed, but speci●● cause why it should be entertained: I do hereupon infer, that it is entertained by the heads and Commanders of their faction's, out of a policy dangerous to her Majesty and the State.   

CAP. 4.  
That toleration of Popish religion is persuaded by the Quilibet, upon idle and false grounds.  
AMongst the means which are serviceable to the main end aimed at in the Quodlibets, Toleration of Popish religion is one which yieldeth very special and assured furtherance thereto: and therefore in four several passages cunningly persuaded by the Quilibet. Now because the fog and mist of this persuasion standeth betwixt our eye and the light of truth: it shall not be inconvenient, to disperse and remove the same. He doth insinuate, pag. 151. that the jesuits for sundry particular re 〈…〉 vued and absolute dislike of toleration, will employ their best endeavours with a brace of thousand pounds to undermine and cross all motions in that behalf. Wherein as they should, in case of their serious disaffection thereto, do a service more advantageable to the state of religion, then agreeable with their humours and designments: so there being no likelihood of the least opposition in them to the same, we are upon observation made of the disguising used by the Seculars herein, justly occasioned to raise and improve our suspicion of extraordinary fraud on their part. The Quilibet forsooth will not directly and as from himself present any motives in this causes lest he might seem to be carried rather with respect to the particular good of the Seculars and their faction, then with any due regard to the public interest of her Majesty and the State. And therefore to deceive our eye, and so to win favour and approbation with us, whom he knoweth to be already incensed against the jesuits, he pretends that toleration is infinitely odious unto them, and that in hearkening thereto we shall not so much satisfy the Secular, as distaste the Jesuits and impeach their courses, to the inestimable benefit and security of her highness royal Sceptre an present government. But let us weigh the reasons, which having drawn the Ignatian Fathers to so extreme an hatred of toleration, as that they prefer in their choice death before the same, may on the contrary induce her Majesty to approve and embrace it. The first is an effect proceeding from toleration, concluded thus: 
What course will dull the spirits of English Catholics, and disable them for practices and attempts against the State, the same her Majesty may with good reason approve and embrace.  
But toleration is a course that will dull the spirits of English Catholics, & disable them for practices against the State.  
Therefore toleration may with good reason be embraced by her Majesty.   
The proposition is a 〈◊〉 and may not pass without check. For howsoever her Majesty may in politic reason wish all popefied persons blunted and dispirited in matters of device and conspiracy against her: yet can she not allow and accept of the course leading thereto. unless she find it warranted by the law of God, and standing with the public good and honour of the State. Wherein the course of toleration faileth, having no such ground. For as the doctrine of Rome is in the worship it tendereth unto the Lord, and in sundry other particulars of greatest moment opposite to the law of God: so must it needs be even for that respect of special prejudice and dishonour to the State: considering that the prosperity and glory of a kingdom proceedeth from entertaining such constitutions and decrees in religion, as God himself hath enacted and delivered. And whereas the said doctrine and practise thereof doth privilege the whole state Ecclesiastic, against the judicial Court of the Magistrate and in the case of ordinary contributions, and doth likewise deny unto the Prince himself an absolute sovereignty within his dominions, rendering him subject to a foreign power, and reputing him, whensoever he shall pass under the censure of excommunication, a Prince de facto only, and not de iure: how can her Majesty without apparent hurt to her honour and state, entertain the toleration of such a docttine? Besides, the practices of the Ro●●●●●ts being uncertain and defeaseable, whereof her Majesty (to the praise of God's power and mercy towards herself and her subjects) hath had often experience: it were not sitting with the quality of ordinary wisdom, much less with the deep reach of a Prince to remedy uncertain and the lesser accidents, by opening free passage to more assured and greater perils. The Assumption likewise must run in the same account. For how doth it appear that public liberty of conscience will make the Romanists unfit for practices against the State? It cannot be said that they have in this case attained unto their end, and will for that regard retire their thoughts from all further complots: the said liberty being only a step and subordinate mean to the end propounded unto their designs: so as the said end remaining uncompassed, their desire and inducements to recover it continuing the same, their possibilities greater, their distance from it less than heretofore, what hope is there they will abandon all care and study of the means whereby to come unto it? The nearer we draw to our long attended good, the more eager and sensible we are in our appetites thereto: and the more we do sharpen and bestir our conceits for the remove of all impediments, which may disappoint our approach and full enjoyance of the same. Neither can it in favour of the Assumption be alleged that grief and trouble is inventive and stirring: & therefore such as live under it more apt for practise and attempt. For first it is by accident that it hath this effect, it being of a far different operation in many natures, which are so altered and dejected by it, as they lay aside all apprehensions of practising their deliverance, specially by means indirect and perilous. Secondly, when trouble is accompanied with passions of fear, extreme malice and revenge, as we find it in the case of priesthed and jesuited Romanists, than the eye of the mind and wit beholding as it were through the dim glass of the said passions such objects as present themselves, must likewise be dimmed and hindered in the sight of them, and consequently fail in discerning and judging, if not of the thing itself to be done or omitted, yet of the needful circumstances of time, place and persons belonging thereto: whereas when the mind is in some 〈…〉 me from these passions, it is clear and not dim of sight, mature in deliberation and advised in execution. Thirdly, these Romanists retauning in their hearts, notwithstanding this release from trouble, the true and ancient causes of aptness and readiness to practise against the State, namely an inflamed desire of re-establishing the authority of S. Peter's chair, together with the humours of malice and revenge, which the said toleration agreeably to the nature of the Romish reconcilement & doctrine, will from time to time feed and nourish: how can it be true either that their resting in the condition wherein they are, is the principal cause of their practising, or that their enlargement from the same will be a mean to disable them in this behalf?  
The second argument to persuade tolerat on is this: 
If upon grant of toleration there will be no pretext left to traduce in foreign nations her Maisties' proceedings against Catholics for cruel and tyrannical persecutions: then may it with good reason be allowed and entertained.  
But upon grant of toleration there will be ●● pretext l●●t to such purpose.  
Therefore toleration may with good reason be allowed and entertained.   
The proposition is a ridiculous fancy of an idle brain. For to entertain and establish toleration of Popery, that there might be no pretext left to slander her majesties proceedings, were to cure an ulcer by admitting a gangrene, and to remedy a scratch of a pin by a potion of poison. If we compare the slanderous reports vented out against the State with the toleration solicited, and diligently consider as on the one part the authors of the said reports, the insufficient ground of them, and the little measure o● prejudice grown thereby to the honour of her Majesty, so on the other side the inevitable dishonour, danger and mischief of the said toleration: we shall easily discern that the former is not worthy of the least regard with us, when there is question of the latter. It is an admonition no less wise than ancient, that in matters of mean importance, Non sunt ponendi rumores ante salutem: much less therefore in the case of a kingdom, and such as concerns not only the sceptre of a Prince on earth, but the glory of the immortal God: from the advancement whereof no respect of peril o● obloquy ought to withdraw a Christian Magistrate. If it be replied that the said reports, how lightly soever we value them, have wounded the honour and reputation of the State: to omit the disbeleefe and contradiction they have encountered amongst all foreign States and persons, who are not car●ed with partiality or passion against us, it is clear that her majesties proceedings against the Romanists, cannot in equity receive blemish or stain thereby, unless it appear by sound proof that they have been unjust oppressions or tyrannous persecutions, and not moderate and justifiable punishments upon offences of treason. They exclaim in Courts of Princes, and blaze through all parts of Christendom by their malicious libels, that they endure a most barbarous and extreme persecution for religion: and this jesuitical Quilibet, howsoever he seemeth elsewhere to admire her majesties clemency and equity in her proceedings, being rapt into a wonder that (the occasions and circumstance of their offences considered) any Romanist should be left alive, doth notwithstanding exceedingly deprave the honourable justice of the State, call it an injust vexation, & vaunting that numbers of their faction have d●ed of late years amongst us in the glorious condition of Martyrs. For disproof whereof, and in justification of the proceeding held against them, I will by way of a pertinent and allowable digression, present to the grave consideration of all wise and unpartial men this brief dispute: 
If the Romanists suffer for the true and Catholic religion, the religion for which they suffer is grounded upon and warranted by the word of God.  
But the religion for which they suffer is not grounded upon and warranted by the law of God.  
Therefore the Romanists suffer not for the true and Catholic religion: and consequently are no Martyrs.   
The proposition is free from all just exception: the whole scruple is touching the Assumption, which is cleared thus: 
No religion in the articles thereof grounded upon and warranted by the word of God, is treason against the lawful authority and state of a prince. For in case such religion were treason▪ ●●en ●●ou●d God be repugnant to himself, and maintain in his word a direct opposition betwixt his own ordinance, which is the lawful authority of Princes, and the articles of doctrine delivered in his said word.  
But the popish religion is in the articles thereof, for which the Romanists suffer, treason against the lawful authority and state of a prince.  
Therefore the p●pish religion in the articles thereof for which they suffer, is not grounded upon and warranted by the word of God.   
For proof of the Assumption in this latter syllogism, it must be remembered that the Pope's excommunication or bull is with them a matter of religion: and that they do in general acknowledge the same for a lawful and just censure, and likewise themselves bound to see the contents thereof executed in case of his commandment And whereas in particular the said bull doth import and declare his Popeships sovereignty above her Majesty, by virtue whereof he proceeds against her, the ground of his proceeding, namely her defe●●●on ●●om the Roman faith, his depriving her from the Crown imperial of this Realm, his discharging her subjects from all allegiance unto her, his charging them to disobey her and her laws: hereupon our English Romanists out of a persuasion of an erroneous and misguided conscience, carrying them according to direction given in that behalf to an execution of the said censure, have taken boldness to avouch their immunity and exemption from her majesties power over persons & causes ecclesiastic, to repute and adjudge her for an heretic, to deny her to be the lawful Queen of England, being in their judgement justly deprived of all such regal title and dignity, to hold themselves absolutely discharged from all duty and subjection to her and her laws, to reconcile and withdraw whom they could from allegiance to her Majesty unto the obedience of a foreign Potentate, thereby to fit and prepare them for courses of alteration, to plot and practise the destruction of her royal person, to solicit both domestics and strangers to take arms for her deposition, to allow and justify home insurrections, and the Pope's hostile proceedings in war against her, to give interta●●ment, comfort and advice to such whose hand is in conspiracies and attempts for subversion of the State, to indite and disperse seditious writings, whereby to raise all contempt to her Majesty, and all reverent estimation and respect to the Pope's bull. Now out of this, which is here set down, I deduce this conclusion, which is a confirmation of the assumption in question: 
The actions above mentioned for the execution of the said bull, are treasons against the lawful authority of her Majesty and the State.  
The articles of popish religion, for which the Romanists suffer, are the actions above mentioned for the execution of the said bull.  
Therefore the articles of popish religion, for which the Romanists suffer, are treasons against the lawful authority of her Majesty and the State.   
The proposition being the express letter and text of the law, falls not within the compass of controlment: unless ●t be auerrred that the royal authority of her Majesty is usurped and unlawful, as some of the Priestly and levitical progeny have not blushed to publish, taking for warrant of this their treasonable assertion the said bull of Pius 5. and his successors. In refutation whereof, though unworthy of answer, we may allege what the Quilibet in this question of her Majesties in deprived and lawful authority, hath from such his authors as are of note and account with the Church of Rome, received and set down, viz. that Princes cannot be removed from their sceptres propter defecti●nem a fide: pag. 250. Item 293. where he hath laboured to yield an ample demonstration hereof, agreeably to that maxim of reason and law: Cuius est imperium adimere, ●iusdem est confer. But the Pope hath no warrant either from the law of God, or the particular laws of this State to confer, and bestow the Crown of England. Therefore it resteth not in him to transfer it from that most princely and sacred head, on which it is invested and feared by God himself, according to the right of succession by blood and inheritance established by the laws and statutes of this land. Were it not a labour needles in so cleere● sunshine of truth▪ I would further insist upon the illustration thereof.  
The assumption is a matter of authentical record in such Courts of justice where the Romanists have judicially received trial and sentence: and sundry of them have under their hands, as may yet appear, confessed the actions and disloy●lties charged upon them. Neither is it now a competent and justifiable plea in behalf of the condemned Seminaries, to affirm the proceeding against them to be for matter of Religion and conscience; when the politic laws of the State, agreeable with the holy ordinances of the Lord, do find such Religion to be treason, and censure such conscience for a disloyalty in ●udgement and affection. And were the above named actions, which are warranted by the said bull, of the nature and quality that is pretended: then would there ensue ● confusion of matter civil with spiritual: whereas both divine and human reason hath ever distinguished betwixt them: ●olding that for matter of Religion and ●avth, which being prescribed in the first able is a part of God's worship, and directly regardeth a future life: and that for ●iuill, which 〈…〉 ded in the ●●cond, is not originally, and in itself a part of God's spiritual worship, but may oncerne the fame and the life to come, ●v consequent and interposition of some ●hird thing. And therefore the saved bull, 〈◊〉 far as it importeth the deposition of Princes from their regalities, being in ●uery particular article and action leading thereto, a direction for matters of this world, enjoined or prohibited in the second table, and not communicating in nature with the spiritual service of the Lord, cannot fall under the account of a matter spiritual and of faith. And so the poyn● of Supremacy being no part of the worship required in the first table, but a sovereign power delivered unto Princes from the second, to see the said worship accordingly performed, must not be reputed for other than a temporal and politic royalty or sovereignty. It is true, that by consequent, and in regard of the thing ordered by direction from the same, it d●● concern faith and Religion: but it is n● employment in any function or office Ecclesiastic. For had it been of other the of a civil consideration: the religion Kings of juda 〈…〉 in●● meddling in the same, as a matter not compatible with their callings.  
The sum therefore of this latter ●●gument is this: 
Matters of Religion and faith, are parts Gods spiritual worship, and prescri● in the first table.  
But the articles and actions for which Romanists suffer, are not parts of God's spiritual worship, and prescribed in the first table.  
Therefore the articles and actions for which the Romanists suffer, are not matters of Religion and faith.   
The Assumption may receive proof hereby: 
Matters of this world, and which concern obedience or disobedience to princes, commanded or forbidden in the second table, are not parts of God's worship prescribed in the first.  
But the articles and actions for which the Romanists suffer, are matters, of this world, and which concern obedience or disobedience to princes, commanded or for bidden in the second table.  
Therefore the articles and actions for which the Romanists suffer, are not parts of Gods worship prescribed in the first: and consequently no matters of Religion and faith: and so the said Romanists no Martyrs, but Traitors justly executed.   
Thus much of the second argument and of the persecution implied therein, and charged upon the State by the Quilibet, though indirectly.  
The third not unsuitable with the second, is of this sort: 
Upon the grant of toleration, the jesuits can have no cause to publish and traduce England for the nursery of all faction and war amongst the potentates of the world.  
Therefore her Majesty may with good reason admit and entertain the said toleration.   
First, touching the antecedent, we cannot pass our allowance thereof. For if the rejection of Popery from amongst us were the motive on their part for delivering a slander of this nature against the State: then the same Popery, notwithstanding the admittance of toleration, standing rejected and disclaimed, as yet some remarkable degree by the law● of the land, and the public profession of he Majesty, and the best part of her subjects, the jesuits will proportionably, and with respect to the degree of disgrace continued upon their religion, continue likewise their course of slandering in this behalves For they being resolved, as the Quilibet reporteth of them, either to have a perfect and entire reformation or none at all, will not be induced through the grant of toleration, to an absolute surcease of their defaming and malicious tongue. Besides, this surcease being altogether uncertain and accidentary: it cannot be in policy a sufficient ground for the embracing of so important a matter as is in question. But if the publishing of the reproach here mentioned, and the occasion of offering unto the State so great a wrong, hath originally proceeded either from the humour of malice and hatred conceived against the truth we profess, or from some discontentment, in that others have found grace and preferment before them: then what likelihood is there, that (while they shall in their hearts entertain and feed the very spring of this odious proceeding held by them, which no toleration is of force to dam and stop) they will retire their tongue or pen to a course of silence herein?  
But let us suppose a truth in the antecedent: yet the consequence deduced thereon, is fond and unworthy of regard. For were it an act answerable to the wisdom of so renowned a Prince as her Majesty, by admitting toleration, to prefer the stay or prevention of a slander before the glory of Christ, the safety of her person, and the public good of her most affectionate subjects? or in case policy could allow the redressing of a light and uncertain distemper in the body politic, by a wound in the heart, were it not yet exceedingly offensive and against sense, to commit evil in an high degree, and of a perilous issue, that some mean and slender good may grow thereof? For the good yielded to the State from the silence of a few seditious Fugitives, what is it in respect of the mischiefs accompanying toleration?  
The fourth argument followeth: 
What course will be a mean to stay all Catholic potentates from hostie attempts against the Realm, the same her Majesty should in politic reason allow and embrace.  
But toleration will be a course and mean to stay all Catholic potentates from hostile attemptsses against the Realm.  
Therefore her Majesty should in politic reason allow and embrace it.   
As against some part of his sophistry already presented unto us, so against the proposition of this syllogism, I must allege these two maxims: the one, Non est faciendum malum ut inde preveniat bonum: the other, ex periculis minus eligendum. Now in the case proposed, toleration for the free exercise of idolatry, and for publication of doctrines, whereby to displant and remove Christ jesus from amongst us, being a capital sin, and in an high degree of treason against the majesty of God, and being likewise a course of more certain perils, then in reason the hostile attempts of Catholic potentates can be: (which in that their carriage is open, and such whereof good intelligence may be had, are preventable, whereas toleration proceeding with show of holiness and duty to God and her Majesty, may by secret and inexpected practices, without suspicion taken of them surprise the State) the said toleration ought not upon any such regard of preventing foreign invasion, to receive place and entertainment with us: weighing with all the often experience her Majesty hath had of God's mighty protection, and manifold blessings upon herself and her people during this whole time of her resolute and most Princely opposition thereto, which consideration may be a worthy inducement to so worthy and unmatchable a Princess of remaining Semper eadem.  
Concerning the Assumption, that also is not to find credit with us. For it is not religion that hath ●●barked them in courses of hostility against this land (I deny not but it hath served in part for a pretext) but they have been drawn thereto, by the violent humours, partly of ambitious aspyres to a monarchy, partly of malice and revenge upon supposed indignities, and partly of securing their own greatness, by impeaching their neighbours: so as if the true grounds of their enterprising against us have been such as are mentioned, and not the cause of religion: why should we think that the grant of popish religion, which concerneth not the said potentates more, than the establishment of the Gospel within their dominions concerneth her Majesty, will be of such regard with them, as to move them to a surcease of hostility? They are not either so unwise or so hot in devotion, as for the pleasuring of English Fugitives and some our domestical malcontents, to enter a course of infinite charge to themselves, of blood and destruction to their subjects, of perpetual quarrel with their neighbours, of privation of traffic, of jealousy and envy abroad, of discontentments and mutinies at home. Howsoever they pretend an honourable care of restoring Religion: they will (notwithstanding a toleration admitted thereof) never grow to peaceable terms and capitulations of vnfe●ned amity with this State, until they either receive satisfaction in the respects which first drew them to arms, or be compelled thereto through some extraordinary necessity and disability. But let us suppose with the Quilibet the cause of Religion to be the ground of their hostile proceedings: shall we conceive that they will engage themselves in a war for toleration, and will attempt nothing for an absolute and perfect reformation? It is this latter and not the former, that is in special regard with them, if in this behalf they have been ●ed at all with apprehensions of Religion. Having therefore in the case of toleration, not attained to their disseignements, we cannot with probality think of any readiness on their part, to a surcease of hostility: but they will continue the same, either publicly as before, or secretly by way of indirect practices: the opportunity and means for interteyning whereof, the said toleration will fitly minister and supply unto them.  
The fifth reason to persuade toleration is this: 
Upon grant of toleration, the platform for establishing the jesuits monarchy over the whole world would be frustrated.  
Her Majesty therefore may with good reason embrace it.   
Here first, the Antecedent doth suppose the jesuits in so deep a melancholy, as to dream of a Monarchy, not over the parts of Europe only, but over the whole globe of the earth: which is altogether improbable, considering the reputation they carry for wisdom and discretion. Secondly, the compassing of such a monarchy, is a mere impossibily, and therefore the reason taken from thence of no force to persuade. Thirdly, in case it were a matter possible: yet would there fall out so many years betwixt the platform and the real existence thereof, as that we should not need for fear of the same to show the Seculars the least courtesy, much less run a course of special dishonour and prejudice. Fourthly, if the possibility thereof were such, as the erection of it amongst us were not otherwise impeachable then by admittance of the said toleration: yet for as much as the main end of toleration aimed at within her majesties dominions, is one and the same with the scope and drift of the jesuits, viz. the re-establishment of Antichristianity with the subversion of the Gospel and the State: for the effecting whereof, the course in question would be a fit and serviceable instrument to the jesuit: it were no less a frenzy to entertain toleration upon any such respect and ground, then for preventing the miscarriage of a ship to sail from Scylla to Charibdi●.  
But what confirmation hath the Quilibet yielded to the said Antecedent? If it be not of better strength than the in●erence depending thereon, it is not answerable to the credit of his reverend priesthood. Such as I find it shall be presented to examination. In this manner than he disputeth: 
What course will be a mean for establishing Catholic Bishops in England, the same will frustrate the platform of the jesuitical Monarchy.  
But toleration will be a mean for establishing Catholic Bishops in England.  
Toleration therefore will frustrate the said platform.   
Were he not a Secular Priest, that is, a professed enemy to the Gospel and the present government: I should think he did in this argument collude and betray the cause he hath in hand. For if toleration draw with it into allowance within the Realm the office and jurisdiction of Popish Bishops: then as the authority and commission of the most reverend Fathers and worthy Prelates of this Church will grow short and limited, they being not to deal with persons and causes subject to this new Romish Court and Hyerarchy: so likewise will there ensue an unsufferable incrochment upon her majesties sceptre and sovereignty: these new Bishops being to represent and supply the person and office of the Pope, in all such affairs as shall concern his supremacy. But let us examine the Quilibets reason. The proposition we may justly deny. For if the Bishops established, be jesuited in affection, or otherwise commanded by the Pope rather to give furtherance then any impediment to the said platform: then can it not be true that such course will furstrate the designs of jesuits in this behalf, and interrupt all dependency upon them, as will serve for erection of a Popish prelacy.  
The sixth motive for toleration, whereto I will add that which he setteth down for the eleventh, hath this conclusion: 
What course will be a mean to discover all malicious devices, plots and conspiracies against her Majesty and the State, the same she should in reason admit and embrace.  
But toleration will be a mean to discover all malicious devices and plots against her Majesty and the State.  
Toleration therefore should her Majesty in reason admit and embrace.   
He cannot with any art so colour the Proposition, but that the fraud thereof will forthwith appear, if we shall examine it by the square or rule of the maxims above remembered. For if we may not walk in the train of sin and disobedience to God, that thereby some advantage may grow unto us in our particular: and further, if it be a gross error in policy for the prevention of an accidentary peril, to make choice of a certain mischief: then cannot her Majesty, for the stay of projects and confederacies (they being incertain for their birth and carriage, as also liable to disappointment by the gracious providence of the Almighty, and such politic means, as have formerly in like cases been used) allow entertainment and place to toleration.  
Neither is there less deceit offered us in the Assumption. For if the free exercise of Popery will double in Romanists, their allegiance and devotion to the Pope, treble their detestation to our Religion, nourish and raise their desires of a full and entire re-establishment, that they may be in their professions and estates secured against all dangers of future alteration: how can it be probable that they will, contrary to the approbation of their conscience, and prejudicially to the public good of their Church and their private interests, tender such advertisements and discoveries as is pretended? Their exercises of religion being of the quality and operation as is remembered: will they, the more they malice us and our profession, be so much the more ready to do offices of extraordinary benefit and advantage to us and it? Will they, the more they love their religion and honour the Pope, so much the more endeavour to frustrate the advancement both of the one and the other? And will they, having as it were, gained the wall and places of special strength, in the siege of our jerusalem, sound the retreat and proceed no further? If the Merchant or Mariner should tell us, that after a long and tedious Navigation, being within ken of the port wished for, he would rest satisfied with the sight of the same a far of, and so lay aside all purpose, and cross all means of attaining thereto: we could not believe him, nor conceive him to be so phranticke and senseless in his apprehensions. The like opinion we are to have of the Seculars in this tale they propound unto us, of discovering practices and conspiracies.  
Besides, it being supposed that the Seculars and others so affected as they are, will be ready to do service to the State in this point of discovery: yet can they perform no more herein, then is answerable to their intelligence: so as if they are too short in knowledge of disseignements (as needs they must, it being certain, that upon notice of their disposition in this behalf, they shall not be made acquainted with any plot or practise of moment) what reason hath her Majesty to allow toleration in regard of an advantage, which she shall not rece●ue thereby?  
The seventh inducement is of this kind: 
What course will be a mean to prevent the rebelling of English Romanists, upon promise and hope of preferments under a foreign Prince, the same her Majesty may allow and embrace.  
But toleration will be a mean to prevent the rebelling of English Romanists, upon promise and hope of preferments under a foreign Prince.  
Therefore her Majesty may allow and embrace it.   
The Proposition having the same defect and imperfection that hath been observed in others above set down, is to receive the like answer. For we may not for the respect of any good, public or particular, attempt aught that is offensive to the highest Majesty: neither must we in the case of dangers, remedy an uncertain peril, by another that is assured and of equal hurt and mischief.  
The Assumption, lest we should censure it for an untruth, is thus demonstrated by him: 
A League being made with foreign Princes, French and Spanish, English Romanists can have no hope of preferments under them within England.  
But upon the grant of toleration, there will follow a League with the said foreign Princes.  
Therefore upon the grant of toleration, English Romanists can have no hope of preferments under them within England.   
I may justly dissent from the Quilibet, touching the proposition. For whereas Popish Princes hold all confederations no further obligatory, then may stand with the advancement of their particular designs: and do find also the violation of them dispensable by the Pope, in cases importing the interest of the Romish Church: why may not the English Romanists, (considering withal the variety of occurrents and causes drawing Princes to faction and division) attend a disunion of the said confederates, and so be carried into hopes of preferments under them, in case they prevail in their attempts? Now concerning the Assumption of this latter conclusion: how doth it appear, that upon grant of toleration, there will ensue a League with foreign Princes? If he could make it clear, that the true ground of their hostile proceedings against the State, were in that hitherto toleration hath not been condescended unto: I would approve his Assumption. But it hath been already declared, that other respects, and not this in question, have drawn foreign potentates to these attempts of hostility: and therefore no probability, the said respects continuing, of any confederation to ensue upon the only regard of the said grant. Further, why should we not rather apprehend, that upon our denial to yield unto a perfect and entire reformation pretended to be sought by them in their courses of invasion, they will refuse to grow to any capitulation and terms of alliance and peace with us?  
The eight argument, is to this effect: 
If toleration will cut off in English Romanists two bloody practices, the one for her majesties death, the other for the advancement of some Competetor: then may her Majesty with good reason allow the same.  
But toleration will cut off the said two bloody practices.  
Therefore her Majesty may with good reason allow it.   
Toleration concurring with all other jesuitical practices and attempts against her Majesty, in the main drift and issue, which these Priesting persuaders thereof, propound unto themselves: I must give such answer to the Proposition of this syllogism, as is formerly made to others of the same mould: out of which he would fashion a special point of wisdom for prevention of perils: it being according to the train of his persuasion in this behalf, no mean policy for avoiding our perishing in some other part of the Sea, to run a course over the Goodwin San●s. For so should we do in the admittance of toleration, thereby to prevent other practices of danger.  
To the Assumption he hath yielded this proof: 
What course will frustrate and waste all hopes and thoughts of alteration, the same will cut off the said two bloody practices.  
But toleration will frustrate and waste all hopes and thoughts of alteration. For the Romanists being freed from trouble, all disloyal apprehensions and affections will cease in them.  
Therefore toleration will cut off the said two bloody practices.   
He doth so reason in the first sentence of this syllogism, as if the said practices had originally proceeded from the desire of alteration in religion, and had reference only thereto, as to their main end: which being untrue in sundry of them, which had for their principal ground, in the chief authors and contrivers, either malice and revenge, or the humour of ambition for growing to an higher pitch of greatness, or some respect for securing their states, by casting this flourishing Realm into confusion and combustion: it is likewise untrue, that the said practices will determine upon the expiring and vanishing of the thoughts and hopes that tend to alteration. The second sentence also here set down doth carry with it an evident untruth. For having not attained unto their end by the grant of toleration: it is not freedom from trouble that will free their minds from thoughts and hopes of compassing it. They will no more rest satisfied in this behalf, than a traveler, who having passed the one half of his way, will not lay aside his hope and means of gaining the end of his journey. The Quilibet affirmeth pag. 232. that every man is bound to propagate and establish the religion he is of to the uttermost of his power. The Romanists therefore employing themselves with all care and diligence for the advancement of the public cause of their Church, some in one course of service, some in another, cannot but hope for such success of their endeavours, as shall both ruin the State of the Gospel, and restore unto the Pope his usurped heretofore and now challenged sovereignty amongst us. And can they hope for this issue of the toleration allowed them, and yet not hope for alteration? Further he saith, pag. 152. that many good Catholics are loyal subjects, who yet will not reveal any unnatural and monstrous conspiracies against her Majesty. To omit his treasonable description of a loy all subject: Can the Romanists stand thus affected in the case of a most barbarous conspiracy against her highness royal person and sceptre, and yet not conceive hopes and thoughts touching a change? If they find favour, they will in the opinion of the Quilibet renounce all wishes and cogitations of this kind. Being then scanted in their proportion of grace from her Majesty, they will return unto them. Further, if we consider the quality of the doctrines and multiplicy of jesuitical instructions, they are in this seed time of toleration to sow and disperse in each Province, City, Village, and corner of this kingdom: and shall with all remember that they are to proceed in this husbandry according to direction from the Pope and his subordinate officers: we shall then easily discern, that as some fundamental points of their Romish doctrine or capital treasons against her Majesty and this State, so howsoever they pretend a disclaiming of the said hopes and thoughts, they labour notwithstanding and attend no other event than an absolute alteration of the present religion and government.  
The ninth argument.  
What course will stay the combining of the English Romanists with the Spaniard, in case of his attempts against England, the same her Majesty may with good reason allow and entertain.  
But toleration is a course that will stay the combining of them with the Spaniard, in case of his attempts against England.  
Therefore toleration may with good reason be entertained by her Majesty.  
Touching the proposition: first the readiness he supposeth in the English to assist the Spaniard in his said attempts, is a matter improbable: considering that restitution of Religion, which must be the ground of this readiness, is not the scope and end the Spaniard herein propoundeth unto himself, as may hereby appear. For what should move him to undertake a service of this nature, whereto he stands no more bound, than her Majesty to the planting of the Gospel in Spain? Is it any spirit of zeal to the glory of Christ? An unlikely affection in a Prince trained up in pleasures, so little regarding the extirpation of Atheism, and moral enormities within his own kingdoms, served also by such who measure religion by the line of policy. Is it any direction or persuasion from the Pope? He is not so base as to be employed as a vassal and instrument at the appetite of a Priest. Is it the importunate solicitation of our English and a compassionate regard of them? It is neither zeal in himself, nor instigation of the Pope, nor any respect to fugitives, or to the supposed distress of others of their faction, that can draw a Prince of his wisdom to an enterprise of such difficulty and streams of blood, of so unmeasurable expense, of so infinite hatred and quarrel, of so little advantage to his particular. For having performed the restitution intended, what hath he gained thereby? If you say a kingdom, or the spoil of a rich and furnished Country, with a disabling of us to impeach him in his estate, or the benefit of confederation and alliance against his enemies, or a revenge of the dishonours and injuries offered him: the answer is frivolous and importing the end of this action to be other than the restitution of Religion: whereto only if he directed the aim of his attempts, having compassed his design, he is answerably thereto to retire his forces from hence. But let us grant that he intendeth the restoring of Popery: as I think he doth accidentally and by a collateral intent: it being credible that having seized upon the imperial Crown and sovereignty of this kingdom, he will erect, as jeroboam did, certain golden calves, whereby to draw the people from all thoughts of the Lords house in juda. Yet may we justly presume, that (his principal design, being to satisfic his ambition in the sceptre, and his malice in revenge) the due consideration of the infinite, both public and private indignities and calamities that will accompany the Spaniards attempt in this behalf, will restrain the better and wiser sort from combining with him. They will call to mind ●he experience and records of his proceedings elsewhere: and apprehend they cannot receive better measure from him; then the Portugeses in their cities and villages, the Italians in Milan and Naples, the Netherlanders in the Low Countries. They will remember the speech of the Duke of Medina: and thereupon conceive that he will not bring with him, an eye to discern betwixt a Papist and a Protestant. They cannot but retain in their conscience some remorse of duty to their Sovereign, some sparks of piety to their native Country, some fear of insolency and oppression to be offered on the part of the Spaniard. They will weigh with themselves, that a stranger, and the same a Spaniard, cannot be carried with that tender affection towards them, as her Majesty their natural Prince: under whose gracious and sweet government they may enjoy the private liberty of their conscience, the comfort of Wife and Children, the solace of their houses, lands and goods, the intercourse of kindness with their friends, and all privileges of a Subject, upon their outward conformity to her highness laws: whereas, in case they fall under the authority and sceptre of the Spaniard, howsoever they may happily be allowed the public and free exercise of that idolatrous Mass, yet must they be content to lie exposed in themselves, in the persons of their Wives and Children, in their houses, lands and goods, to the unbridled appetite and villainy of every Dom Diego. They will then find that departing from her Majesty to the Spaniard, they have exchanged a Solomon for a Rehoboam: whose little finger will exceed in weight, the whole strength of her majesties body. I doubt not, but these and other like regards will be to all English Romanists, no mean inducements for restraining them from all correspondence with the Spaniard in his enterprise against this State, at least during her majesties life.  
But let us with the Quilibet suppose in the English Catholics, a readiness to join with the Spaniard in his said attempt. Should her Majesty, for preventing thereof, entertain toleration? First, why rather at this present then heretofore? Are not her means for an honourable resistance in a most worthy cause, against an unprincely and irreligious attempt, as great and accomplished as formerly they have been? Are not her people as many, faithful, and valiant? Is not the providence and favour of God the same towards her? Secondly, are there not besides toleration, other as effectual and sufficient means to disappoint their concurrence with him in this so unjust an action? Thirdly, is not toleration as ready an address and instrument for the re-establishing of Popery as the Spaniards attempt? in admitting whereof, thereby to prevent all confederation with him, what should her Majesty else do, then amongst different ways to the utter desolation of her kingdom, make choice of that which will soonest direct & bring her unto the same? wherein she should also proceed disagreeably to the law of God by committing a sinful act, that some good may grow thereby. Hitherto of the Quilibets supposition and consequence included in the proposition of this latter syllogism.  
In the Assumption also he offereth unto us an abuse. For toleration is no more fit a remedy against the combination of the English Romanists with the Spaniard in the case of his said attempt, then is a large proportion of the noblest wine against a burning fever. Such is the nature of their religion: such the drift of popish reconcilement: such are the courses they hold to entertain their friends in the hopes of perfect reformation: and so to fashion and prepare them for all opportunities that shall be presented to that purpose. I cannot compare toleration more aptly then to a protection granted to the Irish rebel. For as he doth under the countenance and commodity of this protection repair unto the principal towns and places of his acquaintance, where he both giveth and findeth encouragements to obstinate himself and others in a rebellious disposition, with directions for performance of service against the State: and where likewise he receiveth intelligence as well of all resolutions and proceedings on our part, as of the means and abilities thereto, together with a supply of his particular defects and wants of victual, money, munitions: and being thus furnished in every respect, doth immediately renounce the benefit of his protection, and employ himself and his followers in courses of treason and rebellion: So upon grant and opportunity of the said toleration, the Romanists will boldly visit each Province, City, and corner of the Realm, where ministering to others, and mutually receiving from them some heat of encouragement they will bestow their best endeavours in the service of reconcilement unto the Pope, in raising to an higher degree the hatred already conceived against our profession, in cleared the doctrine and obligatory power of Popish bulls and censures, in procuring intelligence in Court and country, in giving and taking directions when and how to proceed in all services for the Romish Church, in supplying themselves with abilities and furnitures of each sort and nature: So as the time of toleration will not prove other then, partly a seed time as well of hopes and desires to have an entire re-establishment of the Pope's sovereignty amongst us, as of sundry projects tending thereto, and partly also a mean of special advantage whereby to fortify their side, and to enable it for the execution of the said projects. But for that the Assumption may seem questionable and doubtful, the Quilibet yieldeth it this light: 
If there be no excommunication against refusal of combining with the Spaniard, the English Romanists will not combine with him.  
But upon grant of toleration there will not be any new or old excommunication to that purpose.  
Therefore upon grant of toleration the English Romanists will not combine with him.   
Albeit the proposition be subject to question: yet shall it at this time pass for a probability. But the Assumption may not find the like favour. For who should hinder the procuring of a new and formal excommunication to that effect, or an absolute repeal of the old? Are the Seculars in greater credit and grace with the Pope then either the jesuit or the King of Spain, who is specially interessed in the cause? Will the Pope in so great a likelihood and opportunity of prevailing against our religion, and advancing both his own and the Spanish title, as toleration hath offered unto him, forbear to use in furtherance thereof so powerful a mean as excommunication is held to be? The Quilibet speaks in this assumption, if he disguise not, as if the Pope and Spaniard were at his devotion, and would in regard of a courtesy done to the Catholics in the cause of toleration, disclaim their titles of sovereignty to England: and the nearer they approach to the long attended and wished issue of their deseignments, the more irresolute and backward they would be in seconding the same.  
The tenth argument.  
Upon grant of toleration the jesuits should be disabled to entertain brokers of their treacheries and slanders, and to win any to their side.  
Therefore her Majesty may with good reason grant the same.  
To justify the Antecedent, he telleth us that the collections of money, which now the Jesuits enjoy, and whereby they stand enabled for the services here specified, would be otherwise disposed of upon the admittance of toleration. For answer whereto, first it is improbable that the jesuits, men of rare gifts, of special favour with the Pope and Spaniard, of extraordinary care and dexterity for the advancement of the Catholic cause, should be left unfurnished of such contributions and means as may serve them in that behalf. Secondly, though the said contributions should determine or be otherwise employed: yet should they not rest destitute of instruments for broking their treacheries, and many others that would side and confederate with them. For toleration would in a short time supply unto them gratis, a generation fitted to their humours. Thirdly, notwithstanding there were a truth in the Antecedent: yet the consequence implying that gross error in piety and policy, which hath been in this dispute so often observed, deserveth check and rejection.  
The eleventh motive is of no more validity than the former.  
Upon grant of toleration, every Catholic would be ready to abandon and expel the jesuits, as the authors of their former troubles.  
Therefore it may please her Majesty to admit it.  
The Quilibet so dealeth with us, as if the nature of toleration, and the effects, accompanying the same, were unknown to the State. When he telleth us therefore, that toleration will be a mean to raise in the hearts of Catholics, such a detestation of the Jesuits, as that they will labour the extermination of them and their confederates: we must apprehend and interpret it as a mere delusion: being not ignorant that the doctrine and directions, which will (during the time of toleration) be sown and dispersed, do require the employment of Jesuits, who in the account of the Commanders and heads of these factions, are reputed men of best sufficiency for managing the advancement of the Romish Church. And whereas he allegeth for the ground of this hatred against the Jesuits, that they have been the authors of trouble to the Catholics: herein the Catholics, (who knew that the plots and practices against her Majesty and the State, have been entertained, not only by the jesuits, but by the Secular Priests likewise, yea, by the Pope himself and the Spaniard) may justly censure him for calumniation and forgery. But it being granted that the Catholics would hold such proceeding against the Jesuits, yet the regard thereof cannot be a sufficient warrant to her Majesty, to commit an impiety, and such as is joined with dishonour and peril.  
Hitherto of the motives delivered by the Quilibet, pag. 151. Here he ceaseth not: but soliciteth elsewhere the same cause: and namely pag. 229. where he pleadeth thus by a twelfth argument.  
The twelfth argument: 
If toleration will secure the present interest of her Majesty, of the State in generals of the Nobility, of the Bishops: her Majesty may in reason admit it.  
But toleration will secure the present interest of her Majesty, the State, the Nobility, the Bishops.  
Therefore her Majesty may in reason admit it.   
The Proposition presenteth unto us an inconsequence. For unless the utility and advantage of toleration recommended therein, be evident and of continuance also (which points are not cleared by the Quilibet) it cannot in the case of so notorious a change, stand with the policy of this State, to allow and imbrac● it. Besides, if it were apparent, that the say de toleration would bring with it an assured and perpetual security to her Majesty and her Kingdoms: yet till it appear to be justifiable by the law of God, it ought not from the Sceptre of a Christian Prince to receive allowance. Let us examine therefore what proof he hath of this pretended security. The Assumption is to acquaint us herewith. First, he showeth the security her Majesty reapeth thereby.  
It is (saith he) a prevention of all dangers to her Royal Person: for it will discover them.  
Therefore it will secure her present interest.  
For answer to the Antecedent, and the reason thereof, it may please the Reader to allow my remittance of him, to the refutation already set down of the same, in the sixth and eight argument. The consequence inferred thereon, is no less idle and unworthy than the Antecedent. For he so reasoneth, as if her majesties royal interest and State, did wholly and entirely rest in the safety of her Person: whereas in truth it is in general extendable to each particular of her Sovereignty: so as she may be free from danger in her Royal Person, and yet suffer exceeding prejudice by incrochment upon her Crown and Supremacy, by reconcilement of her Subjects to the obedience of a foreign potentate, by courses held for the ruin of the Gospel, established by her authority, by practices for discovery of her resolutions, and for betraying some part of her dominions unto her enemies. The Quilibets consequence therefore being the concluding of a general upon a particular, is to receive no approbation from us. Secondly, touching the security that is to grow to the State in general: the ground of his dispute is the same which is set down in the precedent argument of safety to her highness Person: and therefore to receive the same answer. Thirdly, concerning the Nobility and Bishops, he yieldeth no proof of sesecurity growing by toleration unto them: as in deed he cannot: it being clear, that they shall receive thereby special prejudice, if not presently, yet at least, in regard of the proceedings likely to be held, for undermining the Sovereignty of her Majesty and the State in general, both Ecclasiasticke and Civil: unless it be conceived, that they are not to communicate in the public calamities and miseries of the Commonwealth. The Honourable and Reverend Fathers of our Church are not (I grant) immediately upon the admittance of toleration, to sustain any hindrance in they present incumbency, and the authority annexed thereto, or any abatement in their revenues. But who can warrant and assure their continuance in these terms for any time? Considering they are to have on the part of the Catholics sundry concurrents: who out of opinion that the honour and present interest of the places Episcopal belongeth unto them, will accordingly prepare the way for their future investiture.  
For a further inducement of our allowance to toleration, he persuadeth it pag. 271. The thirteenth motive therefore is this.  
Her Majesty permitteth Puritan, Brownists, Barowists, Familians.  
Therefore she may with like reason, tolerate the free exercise of Popery.  
Concerning the Antecedent: such of them as do scandalously and with schism withdraw themselves from our public congregations, refusing there to serve the Lord with us in Prayer, in hearing the word preached, and receiving the Sacraments, her Majesty permitteth not, but punisheth their contempt and irreligious carriage, according to the law provided in that behalf. The Antecedent therefore contains an untruth. The consequence also deduced from it, is no less exorbitant and out of square. For first, the Sectaries mentioned in the Antecedent hold not, for aught I know, any opinions directly opposite, either to the Majesty of God, or her highness Sovereignty, as the Romanist doth: and they were never found as I think, convict of treasonable practices against her sacred Person and the State, as numbers have been of the Romish faction: Secondly, if they did disloyally offend, both in opinion and practice, yet could it stand with no policy, by admittance of Popery, to add a multitude of Romanists to the said Sectaries, and so to suffer a multiplication and increase of disloyal Subjects. Thirdly, the peril from the said Sectaries, and the English Romanists, is not to her Majesty and the State alike: the latter being more dangerous than the former, not only in opinion of doctrine and undutiful carriage, but for their number and dependency at home and abroad. And this is the judgement of the State, as may appear by the sundry penal statutes, provided against the one, and not against the other. So as there is not the like reason for toleration of the Romanist, as there is for permission of the Brownist and the rest. But the Quilibet fearing the weakness of the said consequence, doth thus strengthen it: 
The consequence deduced by Athenagoras in his Apology to the Emperor Commodus, from the said Emperor's allowance of other sects, to persuade his allowance of the Christians, was sound and warrantable.  
Therefore the consequence from her majesties permission of the above named sectaries, to persuade her toleration of the Romanists and their religian, is likewise sound.   
If the Brownists and the rest above mentioned, were as impious in opinion as the Heretics and Idolaters permitted by the Emperor Commodus: and if the English Romanists were in the articles of religion as sound, and in the practice of obedience to their Sovereign as loyal, as the Christians were, in whose favour Athenagoras tendered his apology & humble suit: I would then take no exception to the said consequence, but allow of it for such as were no less justifiable than that of Athenagoras. But sith there appeareth a main difference betwixt our Romanists and the said Christians, these being free from just charge of Idolatry against God, and of disloyalty towards the Emperor, whereas the said Romanists stand convinced of both: and sith likewise the Barowists and Brownists do offend in a less degree of error and impiety, than the Sectaries and Idolaters to whom the said Emperor allowed place for the exercise of their superstition: we must censure and reject the Quilibets consequence in the case proposed for an inconsiderate point of sophistry.  
The fourteenth argument.  
The persecuting Emperors in former ages allowed unto the Christians some places for exercise of their religion, and were far from inflicting such a general and heavy affliction upon them, as the English Catholics do sustain.  
Therefore her Majesty being behind none of them in goodness of nature, should show the like favour to the English Romanists.  
The Quilibet being careful to record and publish to the world her majesties proceedings against some Papists, for such as exceed in barbarousness and tyranny the acts and courses of the greatest persecuton that ever breathed under the Sun, doth, not out of his own conceit and in his own name (for he would traduce and defan●● her Highness and the State, and yet without peril to himself) but out of the apprehension of others and in their name, deliver at large that all former persecutors come short of her Majesty in cruelty against Catholics. But in the end, lest he might (notwithstanding the carriage of this traitorous imputation under the shadow of others) be challenged for the same: he smootheth the matter on his own part, and as if he allowed her majesties proceedings, which elsewhere he brandeth with the title of an unjust vexation he tendereth an answer and defence in the behalf of them. He saith therefore that considering the English Romanists sought the death of their Sovereign, the conquest of their native country, the subversion of the State, the alteration of all laws and customs, the destruction of all the ancient inhabitants of the land: it is rather to be wondered that one Catholic should be left alive in England, then that their persecution hath been so great. Which answer of his her Majesty may take for a sufficient warrant for her forbearance of imitating the said Emperors in this particular of allowing Chapels and Churches for the exercise of Popery. The Christians, to whom this favour was yielded, were not in opinion, affection and action traitors to God and to the Emperors, as some pretended Catholics have been and are unto God and her Majesty: and therefore the cause of the said Christians and the English Romanists being so unlike and different, her Majesty is not to hold the like course towards the one, as the Emperors held towards the other.  
The fifteenth argument.  
Under the Persian and the Turk there is liberty of conscience granted to all men.  
Her Majesty therefore may with good reason grant the like liberty unto English Romanists.  
No action of a Pagan and atheall Monarch ought in a question of the worship and service of the Lord to be a precedent unto a Christian Prince. Besides, such to whom the Persian and Turk allow this liberty, do neither in opinion derogate aught from their sovereignty, nor in action attempt any thing against the same, nor for number or other respects are able so to do: whereas in the case of the Romanists within this kingdom it is far otherwise: they being for opinion adversaries to her majesties supremacy, for loyalty freed by popish bulls from acknowledgement of allegiance unto her, for affection devoted to a foreign Potentate, for their carriage in plot and action heretofore conspirators against God & their Prince, for intention and wish aymers at alteration, for number dependency, confederacy as well foreign as domestic and other correspondent abilities, strong and to be suspected. Upon which regards I do infer that the proceeding of the Persian and Turk in this cause of toleration, ought not to be unto her Majesty a direction for doing the like.  
The sixteenth argument.  
All Kings and princes of this age have thought it the fittest and safest course to grant liberty of conscience to their subjects: as in France, Flanders, Germany, and other countries hath been practised.  
Therefore her Majesty should allow unto Papists the same favour for exercise of their religion.  
The Quilibet offereth unto us an 〈◊〉 truth in the Antecedent. For the Princes and Governors of the Countries here mentioned, and all other Potentates holding correspondence in religion with the Pope as they do, have for the most part both in plot and action employed their utmost policy and means to the supplanting and extirpation of the Gospel and the professors thereof within their kingdoms and territories: having for warrant of their proceedings in this behalf the decree and resolution of the Council of Trent, particular directions from the Pope, and the judgement of the Prelates and Clergy within they own dominions. It is not unknown how passionate and violent the Spaniard hath been now a long time for an utter suppression of the holy truth, professed by some his subjects. His Inquisition, his secret combination with the Guisian, his armies by sea and land do testify against him. The rivers of blood that France in the days of Henry the second, but especially of his three sons successively hath seen in attempts and massacres against the Hugonots, are scarce yet dry. What should I speak of the courses held against the Gospel in Flanders? and heretofore in Germany and England? Is there at this day any popish Prince and governor, who is of sufficient power to displant and subvert the profession of the same within his several jurisdictions, and doth it not? If any shall allege the toleration of religion at this present in France: he must consider that the said religion is allowed upon the same ground of necessity and dishability on the part of the Catholics to expugn and ruin it, as it was in the time of Charles the 9 and Henry the third. ●or were they of sufficient strength to remove or abolish it: well might the memory and name of Hugonots remain in their records: assuredly their persons should not hold other place and interest there, then now they do at Sevil in Spain, or at Milan and Rome in Italy: in which places there is straight order taken to proceed with all rigour against them whereas if the Pope, Spaniard and other Princes of like judgement and affection in religion held it the safest course to grant liberty of conscience, as the Quilibet untruly insinuateth, they would repeal their Edicts and decrees against Protestants, cancel and frustrate the power of the Inquisition, spare all search after their persons, surcease their confiscations and all criminal process against them.  
As the Antecendent deserveth no credit with us: so the consequence inferred thereon may justly be censured. For, disproof whereof, we must remember that R●tion● & legibus vivitur non exomplis. Experience hath evicted it to be a course of peril for princes to govern themselves by examples, especially where there is not a concurrence of the same reasons and circumstances inducing thereto. Now in this case of allowing toleration, the circumstances and reasons are not like: first, in the Princes themselves, of which the Emperor, the French, the Spaniard, the Polonian, ●●e for outward profession and practi●●, devoted Papists: whereas her Majesty professeth the Gospel. Secondly, in the particular to be granted: they supposed to allow the free exercise of the Gospel, a doctrine in itself most lawful and holy, and which yieldeth unto Princes, every parcel of their honour, and every point of Sovereignty: whereas her Majesty is solicited to the admittance of Popery, a thing in itself impious, and which denieth unto Princes, a Sovereign interest and power over their Subjects, and transferreth it to a foreign Potentate. Thirdly, in the ground and motives of granting this liberty: the said Princes (I mean such of them as have yielded herein) induced thereto not out of humour to gratify their subjects, nor out of respects of security to their persons and States, but out of extreme necessity, as absolutely disabled to prevail against them: whereas no such violent and desperate regard doth as yet enforce her Majesty unto it. Lastly in the persons, to whom this favour of toleration is to be communicated: they, the said Princes allowing it to such, who repute and acknowledge them for their lawful Sovereigns, and who never plotted or attempted aught against their Crown and life: whereas her Majesty is to impart and yield it to those who hold her for dis-inuested by the Pope's bull of her imperial Crown and regalities, who have disposed of their allegiance to a foreign Prince, who have been interessed in projects and practices against her royal person and State, and who are ready upon opportunity offered, and upon direction mandatory received from the Vicar of Rome, to take arms for the subversion of her sceptre and the Gospel. So as the examples propounded to persuade and enforce an imitation in her Majesty, carrying with them so many differences in the circumstance of the persons and things in questions are not meet precedents, and such from which a sound consequence may be deduced to draw allowance from her Majesty of the toleration solicited.  
The seventeenth Argument is in pag. 280.  
Upon grant of toleration all occasion would be taken away of sending english youths to the Seminaries beyond the Seas, there to be trained and fitted for practices against the State.  
●●●refore her Majesty may with good rea●●n allow the same.  
●●●cerning the Antecedent: first, it is 〈◊〉 and uncertain, whether upon this occasion they would surcease transmitting their youths to the said seminaries. Secondly, if they should: yet their institution of discipline within the Realm, may be the same for substance, and to the same intent and purpose, it hath been formerly in the said seminaries: considering that toleration is able to furnish unto them instructors, and doctrines of the same quality and use. But let us suppose the contrary: should her Majesty, to prevent their training in a school of treachery, give place and entertainment to toleration? Were not this to cure the indisposition of some members of the State, by a remedy fitted in every respect to augment the malady, yea, to infect the whole body? Besides, to consent to an alteration of this nature and consequence, as toleration is of, were not only against the rule of piety and duty to God, but against the law also of ordinary policy and wisdom, except in the case of deliverance from greater and imminenter peril, and in counterchaunge of profits more importing. To receive and allow the free exercise of Popery in the State by public authority, were to broach a vessel of poison and to have the Antidote uncertain: or to raise a flame in a City, and to leave the quenching thereof to doubtful possibilities.  
FINIS.