A FULL SATISFACTION CONCERNING A DOUBLE ROMISH iniquity; heinous Rebellion, and more than heathenish equivocation. Containing three Parts: The two former belong to the Reply upon the Moderate Answerer; the first for Confirmation of the Discovery in these two points, Treason and equivocation: the second is a justification of Protestants, touching the same points. The third Part is a large Discourse confuting the Reasons and grounds of other Priests, both in the case of Rebellion, and equivocation.  DEUT. 32. VERS. 32. 
Their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter.  
Published by Authority.  
LONDON, Printed by Richard Field for Edmond Weaver. 1606.   

TO THE PVISSANT AND MOST RENOWNED PRINCE, OUR GRACIOUS Sovereign, james by the grace of God King of great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Apostolic faith, etc.  
IT is not long sithence (most gracious Sovereign) that one inscribed A moderate Answer, did traduce before your Majesty the late Discoverer of Romish rebellious Positions for an injurious and slanderous Pamphleter: Now therefore innocency, which (
* Gen. 2. 25.  though naked) was never ashamed, hath charged me to manifest myself unto your Highness, and, together with my Adversary, to appeal unto your incomparable wisdom, which I do in so constant assurance of an upright conscience, as that I shall willingly remit that just advantage, which the difference of comparison both between a legitimate or conformable subject, and a person suspiciously degenerate; as also between a Minister of simple truth, and a professed Aequivocator, doth offer unto me: and to be contented only with that respect which the equity of my cause may allow. It hath pleased my Adversary thus to decipher me: 
* Answer cap. 1. in initio.  The Discoverer (saith he) is like to the espial of king Alexander, who brought word that an army of enemies was approaching, when they were but a small company of silly Apes, imitating soldiers in a march from the mountains: thus he, as a man distempered in his brain, and deluded in his fantasy, hath beheld our Catholic Priests, whom in every page he calleth seditious and traitorous persons. This then only was my error; I thought, indeed, that I had discovered a company of men, but my Answerer telleth me they were but beasts: and I partly believe him, for what men could ever be so savage, as (for so they have professed concerning Protestant's) to deprive men of the due respects of all humanity? Notwithstanding though I had been so much mistaken, as not to know that his Monks were but Monkeys, and his Priests but Apes, yet sure I am (and he so acknowledgeth) that they were a company of creatures which did imitate soldiers on the mountains. This I then partly discovered, and now (God willing) will prove more plentifully in this Reply. The mountains, from whence they march, be those 
* Apoc. 17. 9  Seven hills of Babylon, whereon the woman clothed in scarlet sitteth: which (by the confession of two most learned 
* Ribera & Viega in their commentaries upon this place.  Jesuits) doth signify Rome, as it must be in the days of Antichrist. May it now please your sacred Majesty, to see how exactly they imitate Soldiers in their march? Parsons, teaching persecution against all Kings and States Protestant, doth propound for his imitation the example of David in his conflict against Goliath; Allen the example of Eliah in calling, if it were possible, for fire from heaven to consume the messengers of Kings; Renalds the example of jabel to knock Generals on the head; Bellarmine the example of jehoida and other Priests for murdering of opposite Queens; Sanders the example of Mattathias, who fought against King Antiochus; Simancha the example of Heathenish Scythians, who murdered their natural King Scyles; Buchier the example of Samson, to kill, if they can, a thousand, of his supposed Philistims with the jaw-bone of an Ass. These, and many such like be but his silly Apes: which I should rather judge to be of that kind whereof the proverb speaketh, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they cannot be discerned but by events. But this Moderate answerer may be referred to our faithful Reply, wherein he will appear often to have betrayed his own title, except some will call that moderation, which hath in it neither modum nor rationem. After the Reply is finished, there is presented to your Princely and most religious judgement, a Confutation of the reasons of two of their more than unreasonable positions; as namely, of heinous rebellions, and execrable equivocations: both which are refelled (I hope) sufficiently by the testimonies of their own most principal Doctors. A course which I profess in all disputes; knowing that by no better wisdom may this new Babylon be confounded, then wherewith God wrought the destruction of the old, even 
* Gen. 11. 7 & 9  The division of their tongues. In the first part of the Confutation is examined the ambition of Romish prelacy, who would advance their miters above sceptres: which usurpation the right honourable Earl of Northampton, at the arraignment of Garnet, did, according to his singular learning form and habited with sound judgement, publicly convince of palpable novelty, and insolency intolerable. In the last place is discovered the other mystery of iniquity, a book which hath this inscription by the Author, A Treatise of Aequinocation, but thus altered by the Authoriser thereof, A Treatise against lying and fraudulent dissimulation. We read of the idolatrous jews, who, worshipping a 
* Exod. 32. 5.  Golden calf, did name their adoration of an abominable idol, an holy day unto the Lord. Plutarch maketh mention of certain Apothecaries who painted upon their boxes of poison the titles of Antidote or Presernatives against poison. Polydore observeth, that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase, viz. the elected if he were by natural disposition fearful, was named Leo; if cruel, Clemens; if uncivil Vrbanus; if wicked, P●…s; if covetous, Bonifacius; if in all behaviours intolerable, Innocentius. So now this Popish Treatise of equivocation, the notablest Art of lying, & most bottomless dissimulation that ever the prince of darkness did invent, will be styled, A Treatise against lying and fraudulent dissimulation. Yet why may not a lying title best befit the doctrine of lying & dissimulation? Which kind of public transfiguration of sin into the habit of virtue, (as it were the Angel of darkness into an Angel of light) S. Bernard often nameth Daemon meridianus, The devil at noon day. Notwithstanding lest that the publishing of this cursed Art might in respect of the more carnally minded, aedificare ad gehennam: edify unto hell (as that reverend Bishop of Chichester, & learned father of our Church hath said:) I have so framed this dispute, that it may seem (I hope) to be like Aristotle his books of natural Philosophy, So published, as not published; because the clause of mental Reservation (the tail of this serpent, wherein the whole poison lieth) is always delivered in Latin phrase, to this end, that only the guilty party by his sensible conjecture may perceive his error confuted, and yet the ignorant, though desirous to touch pitch, may not be defiled. Which doctrine because it is acknowledged by your Highness, in your admirable wisdom, to be in Religion most sacrilegious and detestable, in politic state most pernicious and intolerable, & in every actor most baneful to the soul of man: it may please your excellent Majesty to provide in this behalf for your faithful and religious Subjects, that they never be so intoxicated with this Antichristian spirit, as either to deceive or be deceived thereby. First not to be deceived: but seeing that the authors of equivocation are by it, as by a Gyges' ring, made in a sort invisible unto Protestants to plot and practise against them what & when they will, and Ulysses-like make a very Polyphemus of your most noble State, that whensoever they be asked, who is the Traitor, licence themselves during life to answer (till they be convicted) by that aequiuocating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that therefore against such as cannot hurt us but by our credulity, there may be enacted, (the only refuge of Tully) Lex non credendi; a law of not believing them. Concerning deceiving by the same policy more subtle than any Machiavellisme, I would be a most humble suppliant to your gracious Highness, not to permit any, of what condition soever, in the cure of the diseased body politic, (as it were driving out poison with poison) in winding out these aequivocators to aequinocate. For this purpose the counsel of S. Augustine is most sovereign: 
* August. cont. mendac.  Non minùs pernitiosè mentitur Catholicus, ut haereticos capiat; quam mentitur haeretiens, ut Catholicos lateat; nec cuiquam persuaderi potest hominem non mentiri, nè capiat; 
ur  qui mentitur ut capiat. For it is certain 
* Ephes. 4. 11.  We (to speak in the Apostles tenor) have not so learned Christ as the truth in jesus: by whom we are taught that the new man must crucisie the old man, and therefore not to seek by such devilish exorcism to drive out Satan by Satan, but to mortify ambition by humility, intemperance by sobriety: in brief, to conquer all evil by goodness, and therefore only truth must catch and kill a lie. Let not your Majesty be offended with my boldness in exceeding the measure of an Epistle against my accustomed brevity in all my labours: it is 
* Psal. 116. 10.  Credidi that begetteth Ergolocutus sum. Therefore speaking from the truth, I could not but speak for truth: and now, in high detestation both of idolatrous superstition, and hellish equivocation, beseech the God of truth to make your name glorious in Christendom, in the zealous defence both of the true faith of Christ, and Christian faithfulness: establishing your majesties kingdom in peace, your person in safety, your soul in grace, your Queen in mutual joy, your royal Succession in happy success as long as the world endureth; and in the end of mortality to crown you all with endless blessedness.  
The unworthy Minister of Christ, and your majesties most dutiful subject, Thomas Morton.   

TO THE SEDUCED Brethren, Grace and peace in Christ jesus.  
AFter that I had discovered unto you (my Brethren) the heinous positions of your Priests, there arose some one, I think, of that priesthood, entituling himself A moderate answerer; and me A slanderous and lying libeler: And why? Because the testimonies alleged (saith he) are falsely applied. For proof of this, scarce examining one of twenty, he commonly returneth this answer: If this (saith he) be the opinion of these Authors, or if these Authors write thus &c. wilfully seating himself in the chair of those Doctors, whom the Apostle hath described: 
* 1. Tim. 1. 7.  They will be Doctors, and yet understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. To the manifold and manifest 
* In the 1 and 2. part.  proofs, I may now add the 
* In the third part  Arguments of the same Priests for the defence of their discovered rebellious conclusions. By what reason then can my Moderate Answerer charge me as slanderously misreporting that to be the doctrine of those Priests, which the Priests themselves by Reason's labour to confirm? Wherefore I persuade myself his intent in answering was not to answer, that is, to satisfy the judicious: but only to be thought to have answered, that is, to delude the too credulous: like the answer which the priests of the Synagogue did prescribe, for repressing the discovery of the resurrection of Christ out of the sepulchre, saying: Whilst we slept his Disciples came and stole him away. Common sense might have replied, How could you tell what was done when you were all asleep? But minds enthralled in the opinion of a never c●●ing Priesthood (which confirmed that Answer) could not possibly but err with their Priests. Such, alas, is the case of all them, whom (because they will not seek or see the truth) God in his iustce 
* 2. Thess. 2. 11  Deliveteth up to believe lies, as idle and fabulous as fancies and dreams of men asleep. Of which kind be many of your lying Revelations: as that of the Deliverance of the soul of trajan out of the lowest hell. Many lying privileges, as that temporal Donation of Constantine: and the other Ecclesiastical forged Canon for Appeals to Rome. Many lying Traditions, as that Bodily assumption of the blessed Virgin into heaven. Many lying Saints, as that of Saint Christopher (except in a picture) never seen. Many lying Sanctities, as that of S. Francis in harbouring of alouse. Many lying Histories, as the Golden Legend, an abstract of a leaden brain. Many lying reports, as of the now Miracles among the Indians: to omit many lying prophecies and reports; with infinite such other, which they call Piae frauds, that is, godly cosinages: invented to keep the people in devotion, and their priesthood in estimation. But that which excelleth all the rest in falsehood, is their equivocation, as being not only allying Art, but also an Art of lying. This is now practised (as will be proved) in most detestable perjuries for covert of the horrible treasons of their priesthood: teaching you to imitate the wisdom of the Ostrich; which bird, if she can but cover her head, thinketh all her body safe. Notwithstanding that Romish See, like to the 
* Jud● v. 13.  raging sea (when none sought to discover it) foamed out her own shame: especially in these two mischiefs which are noted as individual companions in holy writ, 
* Psal. 5. 6.  Speaker of lies, and the blood-thirsty man; 
* Prou. 6. 17.  Lying tongues, and hands that shed blood; 
* Esa. 59 3.  Hands defiled with blood, and tongues that speak lies: Such are their hands of Treason, and tongues of equivocation. But hearken a little, 
* 2 Tim. 3. 4.  In the last days (saith the Apostle) shall come perilous times, when men shall be void of natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, Traitors. All which we prove to be the express characters of your Priests. O but it may be thought that the Apostle doth not describe any that do such things with any religious intent, but only desperate and profane miscreants, who make no conscience of sin: not so: for in the next words the Apostle describeth the colour of their cloak: 
* 2 Tim. 3. 5.  Having (saith he) a show of godliness, but deny the power thereof. A prophesy plainly verified by your Priests in their godless practices and godly pretences. Wherefore you are exhorted in the words following, Turn away from such. You should have had this Reply two months ago, but that I was to add another discourse of greater importance, which is contained in the third part. You see Beloved, how upon all occasions, as I am exhorted by the Spirit of God, I 
* 2. Tim. 2. 25.  cease not to instruct you, though contrary minded, trying if at any time God will grant you repentance, that you may acknowledge his truth. And now the God of truth and life illuminate and sanctify your hearts in knowledge and obedience of his will, to the glory of his saving grace in Christ: In whom  
Yours, T. M.   

The first Part of this Reply, containing the Confirmation of the former Discovery against the frivolous Cavils of the immoderate Answerer.  

CHAP. I.  
The Discovery of Romish Positions and Practices rebellious.  

The first Reason.  
THeir general Assumption, whereupon all their rebellious Positions are founded, is this, that All Protestants are Heretics and Excommunicate.   

The Answerer. A moderate Answer to an injurious and slanderous Discovery.  

a Answer cap. 2. § Wherefore.  I answer, that this Position of the Discoverer, [All Protestants in the censure of Catholics are Heretics and Excommunicate,] is no general assumption in Catholic Religion: from whence it will follow, that none of our Positions are to be judged rebellious; because he telleth us that all these are builded upon this Assumption.   

A faithful Reply.  
By which answer I am challenged to a double employment: first, to confirm this my former Assumption, [All Protestants in the common censure of Papists (superarrogantly called Catholics) are esteemed as Heretics and Excommunicate: the second, to improve this your illation and consequent, [If we judge not Protestants Heretics and excommunicate, it will follow that our Positions cannot be proved rebellious.] Our Assumption you impugn both by ample asseveration, and also (in your opinion) by learned proofs a●d demonstrations. Your Asseveration followeth.   

The moderate Answerer.  

b Answer chap. 2. § Wherefore.  I suppose that not one particular learned Catholic in this Kingdom (yet such can best judge of our country cause) doth or will defend this opinion, that Protestants are Heretics and excommunicate: for there is not one Protestant esteemed with us to be in that case within the dominions of our Sovereign, of condition whatsoever in my knowledge.   

The Reply.  
What is this? No Papist doth judge any Protestant an Heretic or excommunicate to your knowledge? As though you could instruct us, how to know, when you speak from your knowledge: knowing that you profess yourself to be one of that sect, who cannot possibly be known of us, so long as you lurk in the hole of that Fox, which you call equivocation. And surely this your mincing Suppose giveth us cause to suspect in you some such prodigious conceit: whereof 
* Part. 3.  hereafter. In the instant we may demand, why you, who fetch all practices and positions, as it were Dags and their cases, from beyond the sea, should now stand only to the judgement of the Papists of This kingdom in this your Country case? Is the cause of us Protestants the same, and shall we be subject to contrary Tribunals? Have you 
* 1. Reg. 12. 29.  One God in Dan, and another in Bethel? Not, but that we wish that the same sea, which severeth our country Region from Rome, might likewise distinguish your Religion. But, to leave your Suppose, we will examine your proof.    

CHAP. II.  
Containing five of the Arguments of The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer chap. 2. § Fourthly.  NO man doubting in faith, 
b Ibid. § For first. & § Secondly.  But only such as be obstinate; 
c § Thirdly.  No ignorant believer, or, 
d § For first.  deceived of Heretics, but he to whom the truth hath been made known; 
e § Fiftly.  None only internally infected, but he that is a manifest professor, is subject to the censure of Excommunication for Heresy. But Protestants (in our opinion) are of these conditions (implying that they be doubting, and not resolute; ignorant of the contrary Romish faith, and not understanding; internally infected, and not outward Professors of their faith) Therefore (in our opinion) no Heretics.  

The Reply.  
We may not be ignorant, first, that, seeing the nature of Heresy is such, that 
f Malitia huius peccati in intellectu, non voluntate consummatur. Vasques jesuita dist. 126. cap 3. num. 6.  It is a vice proper to the mind; it may denominate the subject whatsoever an Heretic without obstinacy, which is only a perverse obliquity of the will: and therefore man may be an Heretic, though he be not obstinate. Secondly, because 
g Ecclesia non potest aliquid praecipere circa actus interiores aut punire: ut docent Scholastici. Tolet. Jes. Instruct Sacer. lib. 1. cap. 19  The Church, consisting of men, doth only judge of outward actions of men; we must consider that there is difference of the judgement of an Heretic, 
h Cuncrus lib. de Offic. Princ▪ paulò ante finem.  Fori & poli, namely, of man judging the outward act; & of God, who discerneth the inward thought. And may hereupon conclude, that 
i Posset esse aliquis occultè Haereticus, & tamen exterius ob metum, aut aliquod lucrum fidem profiteri. Bellar. Ies. & Cardinal. lib. 3. de not. Eccl. cap. 10.  There may be an internal Heretic, though not manifest unto the Church. But because you do only understand outward Heretics subject to the censure of men, I approach to the Question, to disable both your Propositions by the general and ordinary, but (in some points) new and unreasonable determinations of your own school, By a threefold evidence: from a Popish 

1. Definition of an Heretic,  
2. Explication of a person excommunicate,  
3. Application of Romish censures to them both.      

CHAP. III.  
Popish definition of an Heretic.  

a Haec est Religionis sola ratio, ut omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum, quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat. Cunerus lib. de O●…, Princ. cap. 13.  THat is only true Religion (say your Romish Doctors) which is taught in the Romish Church. And therefore 
b Qui intelligens aliquam sententiam expressè ab Ecclesia damnatam, eam retinueri●, Haereticus pertinax est censen dus. Alphons. de Castro lib. 1. de justa punit. Hare. cap. 10. & Tolet. Ies. Instruct. Saccrd. lib. 1. cap. 19  Whosoever maintaineth any doctrine condemned in that Church, must be accounted an obstinate Heretic. What, obstinate? It may be, some do but doubtingly defend it; what will you judge of these? 
c Qui voluntariè de side dubitat, censeiur verè & propriè Haereticus. Azor. Ies Inst. Moral. lib. 8. ca 9 § Sexto. Eodem modo Tol●t. Instruct. Sacerd. Alphons. & alij.  If he doubt thereof willingly, he is certainly an Heretic. But, it may be he is ignorant; will no ignorance excuse him? 
d Ignorantia cras●a non excusat aliquem à pertinacia. Tol. Ies. lib. 1. instruc. Saccrd. cap. 19 § Haeretici & Azor. Ies●nstit. Moral. pag 949.  Affected ignorance doth argue him an obstinate Heretic. Yet it may be, he is no principal one to profess the supposed heretical doctrine, but only to favour the Doctors or professors thereof: 
e In prima Excommunicatione Bull ●…coenae, ex communicatio ●ulminatur in omnes Haereticos & eorum credentes; nec tantùm in istos, sed etiam defensores & fautores. Tolet. instr. Sacerd lib 1. cap. 19 Alphons. lib. 1. cap. 7. Turrecrem. part. 2. lib 4. cap. 21. Azar. I●s. instit. lib. 8. cap. 15.  Yet then doth the Bull of Excommunication, called Bulla Coenae, thunder against them; and not only them, but also all wilful defenders and favourers. Of which kind all such, as 
f Credentes, qui optant in eorum fide mori. Tolet. quo supra.  Wish to die in their faith: 
g Defensores, qui scientes opem illis praestant. azure. les quo suprà.  Harbour their persons: 
h Fautores, qui verbis, scriptis, aut factis ●os laud●nt ut bonos viros, & eorum causae patrocinantur. Tol●t. Ies. quo suprà.  Commend their behaviours: 
i Illi sunt intelligendi Haeretici manifesti, qui contra sidem Catholicam publicè praedicant aut profitentur, seu defendunt errorem. Alphons. de Castro.  Or do either publicly preach or profess their doctrine, are to be accounted manifest Heretics. In brief, our countryman upon this case of conscience. 
k Contumax Haereticus est tam praesumptus quam manifestus. Sayr. Casib. Consc. lib. 1. cap 9 § 3●.  An obstinate Heretic is as well he that is presumed so to be, as he that is manifest. Now let me be beholden unto you for an Answer, whether that all Protestants of all conditions do not renounce your Romish Religion? Do not Ministers preach publicly, and people also profess the contrary? Doth not the King and whole state enact laws, and Magistrates execute them to ruinate your Babel? What sort of people is there in England (Recusants excepted) which doth not either believe the doctrine of Protestants, or defend their persons, or read their books? etc. Seeing therefore 
* jam supra lit. k.  That (as your great Casuist hath said) every one presumed to be an Heretic, is taken for an obstinate. What one is there among all these kinds who can be free from your censures against Heretics? For when your Leo Pope as 
* Apolog.  Taking ears to be horns, shall judge truths to be errors, what shall then become of innocents? But lest your invisible modesty may deny this, it will be largely proved in the fifth Chapter.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Concerning the second evidence by Romish Exposition of a person excommunicate.  

The moderate Answerer in two other Arguments.  

a Cap. 2. § Sixtly.  Sixthly, before Excommunication no communion is forbidden with any, whatsoever this Discoverer objecteth from 
b I●sia Rat. 4.  Panormitanus, [that where the crime is notorious;] such as the man telleth us heresy is, [There needeth not any declaration of Excommunication.] For it is absolutely against the general Council of 
* Conc. Lateran. cap. 3. Haereticorum. Cunerus de Offic. Princ. cap. 7. 8. Navar. de Concil.  Lateran, to the which consenteth Cunerus, and Navarr. 
c Ibid. § Seventhly.  Seventhly, no Protestant or Heretic not Excommunicate by name (as none in England is) lieth subject to any penalty pretended.   

The Reply.  
I have justly manifested your darkness, and now also hold it necessary to continue a Discoverer, when you make yourself so notorious a coverer of so many palpable untruths, which I must unfold in every passage. For the present three. 1. No communion forbid to any before Excommunication. 2. No Heretic, not excommunicate by name, is subject to any penalty. 3. No Protestant is excommunicate by name. The falsehood of all which is discovered by the judgement of your own school. First, Panormitan, you know, defendeth that 
* jam supra lit. a  When the heresy is publicly known, there needeth no pronunciation of the sentence of Excommunication. But this is but as one swallow with you. Whatsoever (say you) the Discoverer objecteth from Panormitan, etc. to make your Reader suspect, that I relied only upon the judgement of Panormitan for a point of so necessary consequent. Did I not allege also your most famous jesuit Gregory of Valentia for confirmation thereof? though then indeed the exigence of time would not permit me to translate it, and my presumption of a Modest Answerer whomsoever (as of one that would understand Latin) thought it also superfluous: yet now for your better information, and the Readers satisfaction, I am constrained to English it. 
d Crimen haerefis, etc. Greg. Valent. Vide R●●. 4.  If the guilt of heresy be so notorious (saith he) as that by no evasion it can be concealed, the party doth incur the penalty thus far, that his subjects may deny such a Lord all fealty, yea before the sentence of judgement.  
I did also allege a third, namely, Bannes, a man famous among your Doctors, and guarded in this point with the common consent of the school. His words are these: 
e In hoc Articulo, etc. Infra Rat 4.  In this Article do Felinus and Caietan, and the more common opinion of the Scholars of Thomas concur: proving that the evidence of the fact is as effectual in this caese, as a public sentence in judgement. I did furthermore (pardon me if I must discover your partial concealments) add yet another jesuit, your Father Creswell, avouching that this opinion 
f Hoc universa Theologorum, etc. Infra Rat 4.  Hath the universal consent of Lawyers and Divines. I might have cited more witness to appear, if I had thought it as necessary for evidence to the cause, as I feared lest it should be tedious to the judicious Reader.  
But lest you or I may seem to unisconstrue (because you name it) the Lateran Council, give your own Doctors leave to interpret it. 
g Arma in Regem sumere, etiam ante latam judicis sententiam, ubi crimen est notorium, Bannes 2. 2. q. 12. docet. idque patet ex Conc. Lateranensi, [Si Princeps incidit in sententiam Canonis, incidit in poenam designatam citra nowm judicium.] Author de Jast. Abdicat. pag. 352 & 357.  It is evident (saith your jesuit) from this Decree of the Council of Latèran; If the Prince fall into the sentence of the Canon, forthwith he falleth into the penalty denounced, before any further judgement. Your next Author, whom you name, 
h Manifestum est ex Concilio Lateranensi contra Haereticos decretum esse in haec verba: [Sub Anathemate prohibemus, ne quis eos in domo vel in terra fovere praesumat] Cunerus lib de Offic. Princ. c. 9  Cunerus, doth only report the sentence of Anathema: but that an Heretic is not to be exempted from all communion before a judicial and personal sentence, he dareth you no voice, but proveth the contrary. Wherein I further marvel that you dare match the the Council of Lateran, and your Author Cunerus in one consent, because if you follow that corrupt Council, you must necessarily be disloyal: if you yield to Cunerus, there is hope you may prove a good subject, as 
* I●fra in the 3. Pa●●.  hereafter will appear in due place.  
Lastly, those others you only would name, may not be compared to our witnesses which we have expressly named, Panormitan, Bannes, Thomas and his Scholars, Creswell and the universal voice of Schools.  
Those other also which (I say) I might have cited, do now approach, as namely, your Cardinal, and sometime jesuit, Tolet from the nature of judicial Excommunications in Counsels, 
i juris Excommunicatio semper est generalis, non enim ponitur contra determinatam personam, sed determinatè contra facientes vel non facientes hoc vel illud. Tolet. Jes. instruct. lib. 1. cap. 5.  The Excommunication of the law is general, not directly against any determinate person. Which will appear presently in the use of 
* Infra cap. 5.  Anathema: so that (as saith your jesuit Sà) 
k Excommunicatio sine monitione ferè semper est invalida: Suffici● tamen in Excommunicatione generali generalis monitio; & quidem ipsum praeceptum generale promulgatum monitio est, & quaevis prohibitio peccati futuri. Eman. Sd Aphor. Tit. Excommunicatio.  A general Admonition is sufficient to infer a general Excommunication; and that which is generally published containeth in it a general Admonition. So general, that your jesuit Azo●ius doth wickedly extend the censure not only to the nameless, but also blameless sons of his supposed Heretics. 
l Poenam haeresis contrahunt filii Haereticorum, si filii sunt eorum, quos Haereticos esse constiterit, ●ue per evidentiam facti, five per sententiam judicis. Azor. Ies. instit. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 13.  The sons of Heretics (saith he) are subject to the punishment of heresy, if they be the sons of known Heretics, whether known by evidence of their offence, or by sentence of the judge. And upon this Assertion your Cardinal Allane is bold to conclude, 
m Allan● in his book against the executi●● of English justice, entitled, A modest Defence of English Catholics, pag. 87.  The Canon laws being Authentical in all lawful Tribunals, do make all Heretics, not only after they be named particularly, but ipso facto, as soon as they be Heretics, de jure, by law excommunicate for the same to be deprived. If this his (so entitled) Modest Defence be true, then doubtless in this your Moderate Answer (as you term it) your last Arguments you call Sixthly, and Seventh-ly, must be taken as the sound of their last syllables do import. Hitherto we have confuted your only exceptions of an Heretic, and an Excommunicate from your own explications. We furthermore disprove them by    

CHAP. V.  
The third evidence from Popish Applications of Censures proper to Heretics.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 2. § Seventhly, & § For first.  NO Protestant in England is, in our opinion, excommunicate by name; and therefore lieth not subject to the penalty pretended. Ergo The foundation of this Discoverer is ruinate.   

The Reply.  
This your Proposition, [None is excommunicate who is not excommunicate by name,] we have discovered, by many witnesses, to be your proper forge and miserable refuge, which the desperateness of your cause did enforce you unto. That no English Protestant is excommunicate by name, how can you warrant us? If they be all excommunicate in the name of English, or in the name of Caluinists, or in the name of Protestants, or in the name of Heretics; are they not namely excommunicate? To expect that all Heretics should be cited by their surnames of Tesimond, Garnet, Blackwel, etc. is against the tenor of Counsels in this word Anathema, as will appear. Shall we think that the grand Heretics, the Arrians, were thus formally denounced? This in those times, for their infinite number, had been impossible: much less can it be possible in these days, (though the Heretics were but ten) because each party by change and multiplication of names, may alter his summons; as by your late example to be called 
* The Proclamation against Garnet.  Garnet, aliâs waly, aliâs Darcey, aliâs Farmer, aliâs Philips: and so, like an Individuum vagum, in infinitum. But I dispute.  
Those who both doctrinally and practically apply the laws and censures of Excommunication, proper to obstinate Heretics, unto the professed Protestants of all conditions, do thereby manifest that all professed Protestants be, in their opinion, obstinate Heretics. But all Romish Priests and Jesuits do apply the sentences and censures, which they hold to be proper to Heretics, and truly excommunicate, against all sorts of professed Protestants. Ergo your former Suppose can be no sufficient repose for any Protestants to rely upon.  
The Minor proved by Popish 

1. Counsels,  
2. Bulls,  
3. Doctors.    

First, the Council of Trent in their general Anathema: for 
b Maior Excommunicatio multis private bonis, eâque de causa absolutè dicitu● Excommunicatio, & sole● let Graeco verbo exprimi, sc. Anathema: quasi seorsim positus, & separatus a c●m●…unione fidelium. Aduerte igitur quòd Anathema non differt ab Excommunicatione maiori, quoad vinculum, sed tantùm quoad solennitatem. Tole. Ies. instruct. Face. lib. 1. cap. 5.  Anathema (saith your Cardinal and jesuit) is to be numbered in the great Excommunications: signifying a separation from the Communion of the faithful. Whom did they intend to excommunicate in their some hundred anathemas? Was it not the Protestants? Whereof there can be no better Interpreter than Vega, 
c Fuit Vega vir eruditus, & in Primarijs Gonc. Tridentini Theologis, Doctorum judicijs, numeratus, & in eius Conc. expositione studiosèversatus. Canis. Ies. Praef. in libro Veg● de Justificat.  A man (as your jesuit saith) very learned, and reckoned among the chief Divines in the Council of Trent: who afterwards performed good diligence in the expounding of that Council. This Vega answering Cal●in in one point, saith, 
d Non paucis vos omnes (Protestants intelligi●) Synodus ferijt Anathematis. Vega lib. 15, de justif. cap. 23.  The Council of Trent hath pierced you all with many anathemas.   

Secondly, the Pope's Bulls.  
The Bull of Pope Vrban against Protestants in this form: 
e Statuimus itaque sancientes ut Haeretici omnes quocunque nomine censeantur, ubicunque per imperium damnati fuerint, animaduersione debita puniantur. Volentes ut de Imperi, finibus haereticae labis germina modis omnibus deleantur. Constit. Vrban. 4. Cap. 2. § Statuimus, & § Siverò.  We decree that all Heretics within the Empire, by what name soever they be called, be punished, and that by all means they be rooted out. The Bull of Pope Paulus 3. against King Henry the eight: the form: 
f Praeterea sub Excommunicationis poenamandamus, ne ullus Princeps Christianus dicto Henrico Regi Angliae, eius nominis octavo, aut eius fautoribus, direct vel indirectè sub praetextu confederationum & obligationum quarumcunque etiam juramento aut quavis alia firmitate roboratarum: quas omnes confoederationes atque obligationes factas absoluimus, & sanciendas sub eadem poena prohibemus. Insuper Principibus praedictis, alijsue quibuscunque personis in virtute sanctae obedientiae mandantes, ut adversus Regem Henricum eiusue fautores, dum in erroribus praedictis permanserint, armis insurgant, eosue & eorum singulos persequantur, & ad obedientiam Sedis Apostolicae redire cogant, & nostris mandatis non obtemperantes, ex regnis & dominijs suis expellant; & ubicunque eos invenerint, bona eorum mobilia immobiliáque quaecunque possint, capiant. Bulla Pauli tertij lib. Constit. Papal. de Pauli 3. Bulla cap. 2.  We, under the pain of Excommunication, command, that no Prince Christian entertain any league or covenants with this King, or any of his followers, or favourers whomsoever: but that every one of any condition do take arms against them, thereby to compel them to the obedience of the see of Rome. What was their principal Error? 
g Quia pestilentem Lutheranorum haeresin amplectitur, & omni crudelitatis genere in Catholicos bacchatur, induratissimus Pharaoh. Petrus Math. Com. in eam Bullam.  Because they embraced the Lutheran heresy. The third. The Bull of Pope Sixtus Quintus against all Protestants, whom, as though they differed in substance of Religion in substantial points, he therefore repeateth in divers names. The form: 
h Nos excommunicamus & anathematizamus quoscunque Vssitas, Lutheranos, Zwinglianos, Hugonottos, & alios Haereticos quocunque nomine nuncupentur, ipsorumue receptatores, & generaliter quoslibet defensores, & libros eorum ●ine authoritate nostra scienter quomodolibet legentes a●t tenentes, imprimentes seuquomodolibet defendentes, ex quavis causa publicè vel occultè quovis ingenio vel colore. Constit. Sixti quinti cap. 13.  We excommunicate and anathematize all Hussits, Caluinists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Hugonots, and all other that receive or favoitr them, by what name soever they be called; and generally whosoever shall either publicly or privately read, print, or defend their books not licensed first by our authority▪ This is the Bull; can any Protestant now escape his horns? Nay, but that we may know that these are those Excommunications, which are à lure (as they term them) 
i Excommunicatio a iure huiusmodi est quae perpetuo statuto lata est, quaeue semper valet, etiamsi admonitio nulla praecedat. Felicianus Epis●. E●chir. de Censuris. cap. 9 Talem dicimus Bullam Coenae Domini, quae (ut patet ex forma ipsius Bullae) duratura ●rat donec à Pontisice alio revocaretur. Ibid. cap. 16. Forma eius huiusmodi fuit, Nos excommunicamus omnes & singulos Lutheranos & Calninistas, etc. Ibid. cap. 14.  Which is such a kind of Excommunication as doth continue after the death of the maker, and is in force though there be no admonition thereof given. Such is the Bull called Bulla Coenae, excommunicating Lutherans, and Caluinists all and every one. This Bull all 
* Tolet. Ies. Instruct. lib. 1. cap. 19 Alphons. de Castro de punit. Haeret. lib▪ 1. cap. 7. Tu●recrem. lib. 4. part. 2. cap 21. Azor. Ies. Instit. Moral. lib. 8. cap. 15. Sayr de Casib. Consc. lib. 1. cap. 9 § 13. Cunerus de O●●ic. Princ. cap. 9  Jesuits and Romish Priests have always enforced upon all Protestants of their times. Seeing therefore that these Bulls run upon Protestants so madly, as that (according to their tenor) they anathematize all Lutherans and Caluinists with all their favourers whomsoever, to be subject to censures due to Heretics, whatsoever, and to be inflicted upon them by means howsoever: can you secure All, or any one Protestant, that he is (in the opinion of the Popes) no Heretic, or not excommunicate? But because in modesty you would seem to favour his Majesty, as being no formal Heretic in your opinion; we must entreat you to drive away three other Bulls, which do violently assault him: 
k Qui terminârunt quòd non solùm Insideles ad regnum sunt inhabiles, sed etiam Haeretico, e●si improptiè Haeretico sint: ut Greg 2. Clem. 5. Bomfacius 8. Isidor▪ Mosco●…. de mayest. milit. Eccles. lib. 2. Part. 1. cap. 2. pag. 657.  Three Popes ordaining, that no Heretic, though improperly an Heretic, shall be capable of a Crown. From Pope we may descend to   

Popish Doctors.  
I may evince my former Assertion from the effects proper to persons excommunicate: which (as your Doctors do define) are of divers kinds: wherein we must make bold with you to justify Protestants in despite of all Popish adversaries.   

The first.  
The first censure is, 
a una Haereticorum poena est ●…a, ut Haeretici appellentur. Az●●. Ies. Inst●t lib. 8. cap. 13. § Septima.  Infamy to be cal'ed Heretics. But your Popes have censured them * Heretics: and your Popish Authors call them 
b Rhemists upon Ephes. 4. 29.  An adulterous generation of Heretics: and 
c Rhemists upon Joh. 2. 19  Very Antichrists, 
d Haeretici, Ranae Aegyptiacae, incircumcisi Philistaei. Canis. I●s. Epist. ante lib. Vegae de Ius●ificat.  Heretics, Egyptian frogs, and uncircumcised Philistims. And 
e Gygantes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. F●uardent. lib. qui si● inscrib●…r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Giants sighting against God. 
f Audaces, astuti, factiosi Haeretici. Staplet. Com. in Act.  Impudent, subtle, and factious Heretics: 
g Nullus profectò Haereticus unquam fuit, aut es●e possit, si illi non sunt Haeretici. Maldon. I●s. Com. in Mat. 13.  For who is if these be not Heretics? 
h Quos Haereticos Catholici nunc maiori odio, quam Gentes, prosequuntur, quia periculosius est cum his quam cum Mahometanis agere. Maldon Ies. Com. in joh. 4.  Which Heretics all Catholics now hate more than Infidels, holding it more dangerous to dwell with them, than Mahometans. 
* Bellarm●l olet. B●zius, Valentia, Allane, Creswell, etc.  They are, etc. But a whole Volume would not serve me only to recount the name Heretic, and arch-heretic repeated almost thousands of times in most of the Volumes of Priests and jesuits. But cease your blasphemies you sons of Shimei, and revile not Protestant Princes the Anointed of God, for this is a certain truth, Protestants are no Heretics.   

The second.  
The second Censure is to be denounced 
i Poena Haereticorum est dici Anathema, quae est separatio a communione fidelium. Toletus jesuita instruct. lib. 1. cap. 5. Quae vox (●t Hie●onymus exponi●) est maled●ctus. Vega lib. 15. de justificat.  Anathema, signifying a separation from the faithful communion by a spiritual curse. From which ariseth, 
k Ab Haereticis non solùm quia excommunicati, sed quia Haeretici, Sacramenta recipere prohibemus: quia Haeretici omni iurisdictione ca●ent, ut docet Thomas. Azor. Ies. Inst. Mor. lib. 8. cap. 10. § Septimò.  Not admitting any communion in their Sacraments: 
l Haeretici a Sacramentis arcentur. Al●hons. de punit. Haeret. lib. 1. & Azor. Instit. cap. 10.  Nor permitting them ours: 
m Ob Haeresin quilibet in rebus divinis evitandus est. Azor. idid. § Primò.  But utterly excluding them from all divine Service: 
n Et publicis Ecclesiae precibus privatur. T●let. lib. 1 Instruct. Saccrd.  And depriving them of the aid of public prayers. Hearken now therefore you Priests of Trent, Who have pierced Protestants with so many anathemas: fear you the path of Balaam, and know that cursed are your curses against Protestants, as Heretics, for this is a Catholic defence: Protestants are no Heretics.   

The third.  
The third and last 
o Poena Haereticorum est capitis supplicium. Azor. quosupra cap. 13.  Is to put them to death: 
p Poena Haereticorum est pri●atio sepulturae, specialiter in Haereticos constitute, posteà irrogata in omnes excommunicatos Azor. jes. ibid.  And after death to deny them Christian burial, a punishment first ordained as proper to Heretics. Wherefore you Conspirators, in that which you call 
q in●ra.  Holy league, 
r Infra part. 2.  Butchers of twenty thousand Protestants in one month: and you Officers ordained hereunto, namely, Inquisitors of Heretical impiety; but impiously urging one newly invented Article of your Creed, 
s Nostri Inquisitores haereticae pravitatis jurisdictionem suam, in Pontificum Decretis fundatam, crudelissimè exercent; non aliud quaerendo expostulantes, quam si credat in Romanam Ecclesiam: quòdsi quis opinionem suam ex sacris Scripturis defendere conetur, cum Haereticis (inquiunt) non Scripturis sed igne & fasciculis decertandum esse. Maior erat Ecclesiae veteris mansuetudo, Haereticos per Scripturas convincendi. Cornelius Agrippa lib. d● vanit. Scient. cap. 96.  To believe (as saith your Doctor) in the Romish Church, answering them only with fire and faggots, who maintain their cause by (the fire of the holy Ghost) the word of God; howl and cry in the foresight of God's wrath, who will revenge the blood of his servants: for this is a conclusion to be held of all Catholics: Protestants are no Heretics. But let us (if it please you) conclude this point.   

The Conclusion of the modest Answerer.  

t Cap. 2. § Thus I have.  Thus have I proved at large, as my violent and distressed leisure would give me allowance, that the chiefest building of all these slanders against us is ruinate and overthrown: that we do not esteem all Protestants for Heretics, and excommunicate, as he pretendeth; neither that they are subject to such penalties as he allegeth.    

The Reply.  
Thus have you proved yourself a distressed, or rather desperate Answerer; and such an one as may be thought rather vinolently then considerately to have undertaken this task. Notwithstanding as Caiphas 
u A mente mala vera verba prophetiae protulit, o'er eiu● usa est gratia, cor contaminatum non tetigit. August.  Did deliver a good sentence with an evil mind: yet must we think that the spirit of grace might use his tongue, which never touched his corrupt heart, saith Saint Augustine. So you, though in your mind you gain say that which with your pen you publish, yet will we acknowledge grace in your pen, and leave the spirit of dissimulation to your equivocating mind, and with good consciences concur with you in this conclusion, Protestants are no Heretics.  
Thus have we been beholden unto you for your answer, Protestants are no Heretics: Not that we care to be called Heretics of you, so long as we defending the Apostolic truth, are taught by the Apostle how to answer, [
* Act. 24. 14.  After that way which you call heresy, so worship we God.] Yet because it is comfortable to the arraigned, when against many crying, 
* Luc. 23.  He is a seducer, crucify him, one judicially shall stand up and say, 
* vers. 4.  I find no fault in the man, and stop the mouth of the blasphemous and murderous. Notwithstanding you are taught by this parenthesis of the Apostle [That which you call heresy] to acknowledge truly with your fellows, that you call them Heretics, whom so often you falsely call heretics, yet one thing I mislike much in you.   

The moderate Answerer.  

x Answer ibid.  Thus is his chiefest building of slanders against us ruinate.   

The Reply.  
O (good Sir) you might have learned this good by others late evils, to take heed you intermeddle not in ruinating of buildings.    

CHAP. VI  
Hitherto have we only confirmed our Antecedent, namely, That Protestants in the common censure of Papists, are esteemed Heretics: It remaineth we now disable your consequent following.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer Cap. 2. initio.  HIs Assumption being ruinated, that Protestants are not esteemed of us Heretics, or Excommunicate: it followeth, that no positions, which we maintain, are rebellious; because he telleth us that all such are built upon this Assumption.   

The Reply.  
Which [It followeth] wanteth feet to follow, because there be two other reasons to prove your doctrine rebellious. The first from the effects we see; the second from another principle of doctrine, which you generally maintain.  
The first. He that looketh upon a goodly building, though he be deceived in the foundation (which is the cause) whether it be a rock, or artificial work; whether wool or stone, because it is covered in the earth: yet can he not be ignorant in the building itself, which he beholdeth in the clear sun. Whether therefore I might mistake the cause of your rebellions, as not to discern whether it be in the Protestants schism, or heresy, or in yourselves (whereof I make no question) malice, covetousness, or triple-crowned pride: yet when we show these your positions, as it were turrets of your Babel: No Protestant may be elected a King, being enthronized must be excommunicate, and deposed, and being hopeless to be reclaimed during life, must be violently cut off by sudden death. Neither this only, but All Protestant Magistrates and people, and their favourers are subject to like censures, their kingdom is to be invaded, and themselves expelled: Reason teacheth us to judge from these doctrines of the effects to the doctrine of the cause, and justly to esteem them rebellious.  
The second reason; though they be not yet excommunicated or censured Heretics by your Pope, yet is this but durant beneplacito, or as in the Council of Trent, [
b Concil. Trid. ●ess. 15. Saluus conductus datus Protestantibus. etc.  Pro hac vice saluus conductus:] Protestant's shall have safe conduct for this time. Mark here your Censurers, Only during the time of the Council Protestants must be safe. Plainly signifying that they accounted Protestants heretics before judgement; and not that only, but before judgement also (praeiudicium autem tollit judicium) against common rule of justice had resolved to account them Heretics ever after. As our borderers to them they have in deadly feud, if peradventure they find them at their own house, will give kind entertainment, yea and defend them from violence, but after they be dismissed, saying, only for this time, do honestly give them a watchword ever after to look to their own safety. And this yourself will tell us, for 
* Infra Cap. 13.  His holiness (say you) sent lately a jubet of obedience, and prohibet of disobedience in behalf of our King, therein not obscurely confessing, that if the Pope shall turn his style of jubemus, then will you also turn your pikes of paremus; and what then but rebellion? 
* Infra.  Then no duty to King, Magistrates, husbands, wives, creditors, fathers, children; but among all conditions of Protestants hellish confusion. Think you so to babish the wisdom of our State, as not janus-wise to look as well before them as behind? No, for when they remember what hath been 
* Vide suprae cap. 5. & Infra.  Kings and Queens English excommunicate by the Pope, and assaulted by secret treasons, and open invasions by his instigations; they well know that there is no safe repose in an arbitrary power of excommunication: but being warded by God's hand from your last mischief, will so provide, as not to lie open to a second terrible blow. And thus our building (if our former foundation should have failed) by these two reasons might be sufficiently supported. Thus much in defence of our Assumption. We proceed to the confirmation of our several reasons.    

CHAP. VII.  
The discovery in the first Reason in the Mayor.  
THey who by their slanderous doctrine make all Protestants (in their common opinion Heretics) so odious, as unworthy of any civil or natural society, must necessarily be judged seditious and intolerable amongst the Protestants.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Cap. 2. § Now will.  My answer is absolute before, that no learned Catholic reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this Kingdom an Heretic.   

The Reply.  
And my Reply hath already passed to encounter your Answer, showing that you by this your Answer have made your greatest Doctors of all kinds Friars, Jesuits, Cardinals, Popes, yea Counsels not only no learned Catholics, but even no Catholics; but (as they be) impious traducers, iniurers, murderers of Protestants, no heretics, for heresy: for which Answer made to us how you may answer them, you may deliberate.   

The Discovery in the Minor.  
But the Romish Seminaries and Jesuits do brand all Protestants with detestable crimes, thereby to deny them of all civil, or natural respects. Ergo  
The Minor hath two parts, both proved, 

Crimes slanderously objected.  
All human society detracted.     

The first part proved.  
First a Stranger saith, that 
b Protestants articulum omninò nullum tenent symboli Apostolici Audraeas Iurgi●ici●… lib. III. evang. quinti Proses●ores.  Protestants believe not one article of the Apostles Creed. Our countryman more strangely: 
* Wright in his late book of Articles.  Protestants have no faith, no Religion, no Christ, but are mere Infidels. The Master of the Seminary at Rheims writeth, and entitleth his book 
c En calvini Turcismum, & plane Mahometismum. Reinald. in lib qui inscribitur, Caluinoturci●mus.  Caluinish turcism, and pla●…e Mahometisme. Which book Deane Gifford doth no less impudently then impotently maintain, saying, that 
d Calui●… pseudo evangelium Alcorano esle in nullo melius, in multis te●●iu● & flagitiosius. D Gifford Decan. D. Petri, pr●f. in lib. D. Keinaldi.  Calvin's doctrine is worse than the Alcoran of the Turks. The jesuit 
e Institue Protestantium Atheismos explicate etc. Possivin. Ies. lib●llo de Atheismis Protest.  Possivinus with the same spirit of blasphemy doth compile a book, wherein he calleth Protestants doctrines, concerning Christ, mere Atheisms. And all to this end, that all human society with Protestants may be utterly dissolved.   

The moderate Answerer.  

* Answer Cap. 2. § Therefore.  This is no more than other Protestants charge Caluine, and such like with: as first the Dean and College of Tubinge, writing a book of this subject, giveth it for a title, Fundamentorum Caluinianae sectae cum veteribus Arianis & Nestorianis communium detectio.   

The Reply.  
That which they did in the spirit of opposition, and contention, is not much to be regarded; especially, seeing (as it may seem by their objections) their judgement hath been depraved by your malignant Doctors. For first concerning Arianisme, 
f Heresin Arianorum calvinus docet, ubi dicit Patrem esse per excellentiam Deus. Bellar. lib. de notis Eccles. Cap. 6. § Ariani & pref. contro. de Christo. § Sed iam. Greg. Valent. lib. 1. de unitate & Trin. Cap. 9 Armand●…s Ies. epist. ad Cami●…. Possivinus Ies. de notis divini verbi. lib. 3. pag. 78.  Caluine (saith your Jesuits) doth plainly teach Arianisme, saying, that the Father is by a kind of excellency God. Whereas both the speech and sense is most orthodoxal, and agreeing with the tenor of holy writ, and judgement of all ancient Fathers, as your own learned jesuits confess. For the words of our Saviour are plain, 
g Apud joh. 14. [Pater maior est me.] Quidam ratione divinitatis Pat●… dici censent, non ratione substantiae, sed ratione originis: & hanc expositionem sequuntur illustres Doctores, inter quos Athanas. Nazianz Hilar Orig. Tollet▪ jes. Com. in joh. 14. Etiam Epiphanius, Leont. Cyrill. Theoph. Euthym. Maldonat. Ies. in eundem locum.  joh. 14. [My Father is greater than I:] in the true sense, Is, (say your jesuits, and truly) The Father is greater not in substance and being, but by reason of Birth & begetting. For their Authority they produce an inquest of Fathers of free Caluine in this point: who was so far from Arianisme, that your own Bellarmine doth acknowledge that 
h Arianos calvinus impugnavit Bellar. lib. de not Eccles. Cap. 9 § Primum erro●em. Vid● plenius sp●●su●… Apolog. Cathol. part. 1. Cap. 31.  Caluine did impugn the doctrine of the Arians. Your Jesuits likewise impute 
i Bellar. lib. de notis Eccles. Cap 9 Valent Ies. Tom. 4▪ Disp. 1. q 2. punct. 2.  Nestorianisme: whereof Caluine doth free himself saying, 
k Procul abigédus est Nestorij error, qui Christi naturam distrahere potius, q●…m distingue●e volebat, Script●râ clarâ voce reclamant etc. Caluin●● Jest'st. de ●oc articulo, [Natus ex Virgin] Vide de hoc plura Apolog. Cath part. 1. Cap. 43.  We must therefore abandon the heresy of Nestorious, who rather distracted then distinguished the nature of Christ, against the doctrine of the holy Ghost in Scripture. It would therefore become your modesty, to have omitted these imputations: but we shall find your moderation immoderate in this kind.   

The moderate Answerer.  

l In the place above. § I will.  I will next bring in Master Hugh Broughton, a man greatly commended by Master Willet, who telleth the Bishops of England that their translation of the Scripture is corrupt; and that Christianity is denied here in England.   

The Reply.  
Master Broughton (which I am able truly to witness) was as greatly commended and reverenced for his learning among your greatest jesuits at Mentz, and the Bishop elector there, yet he never allowed your Translation, but debaseth it more than any other: neither did he ever go to Italy or Spain to learn Christianity there. How you ought to esteem of our Translation, I have made it elsewhere evident from your own 
m Vide Apolog. Cathol. part. 2. lib. 1. Cap 14.  Romish censures, who have given the translation of Tremelius as good an approbation, as any Protestant would require. Where also may appear, by confession of your most learned Jesuits and others, the 
n Ibid. Cap. 10. & deinceps.  manifold depravations of your vulgar, falsely entitled 
o Ibid. Cap 8. & deinceps.  S. Hieromes Translation. But what modesty can this be in you, to object unto us a man, whom you know to be sequestered from us rather by impotency of passion, than any difference of Religion; living now among them who maintain both the same profession, and the same Latin Translation? so immoderate in speech (to confess that which all, that know him, can witness) that the least error he heareth he nameth heresy, and the least opposition to his opinion, infidelity. This is but the language of passion, which no moderate Answerer may mention to prejudice the moderate.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

p Cap. 2. § The Admonition.  The Admonition to the Parliament, written with no small consent, useth these words; That no man, in whom there is any spark of grace, or conscience, can live in the Church of England, whose inhabitants be all Infidels, going to the Churches of Bishops, and Archbishops, whose government is Antichristian and devilish.   

The Reply.  
This writer and you may both join fellowship: You dedicate your book to the King, he to the Parliament. He pretendeth the consent of a thousand; you [No Catholic will say Protestants are Heretics,] imply a thousand thousand: He with all his consent is not many; and you (for aught you well pretend) but one, both invisible and nameless, neither of both able to make up any great consent, except you multiply the name of forenamed Aliâs A, aliâs B. etc. You see what is themaladie of this Admonitor, namely, to condemn our Religion only because of Bishops, as, in his illiterate brain, an order Popish, and therefore Antichristian. Say now, do you think his Admonition tolerable? then must you (who do defend that Bishop of Rome) conclude yourself an Infidel, and an Antichristian hireling. Do you think it immoderate? then are you no moderate Answerer to condemn us by that Admonition, which yourself doth condemn. Let us hear something else which may prove Protestants guilty of the imputation of Turcismes and Atheisms.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

q Cap. 2. § Therefore first.  The denial of Christ to be God, which Master Willet and Doctor Fulke do, denying Christ to have received the substance of his Father; or that he is Deus de Deo; God of God: as the first general Counsels defined.   

The Reply.  
Deny Christ to be God? God forbid: but to be God of God only in a particular sense, this indeed they do; but can you find no more Protestants of this opinion? Your 
r Campian. Ies.  lesuite reckoneth up Calvin and Beza; and I think he saith truly: I would either he or you did as truly understand them. But yet we wish to hear what your Doctors think of this Protestants opinion: your Campion calleth it 
s Portentum. Rat. 8. § Mox.  monstrous: your 
t Haeresis ut refert Bellar. lib. 2. d●… Christo. Cap. 19  Genebrard, Lindan, Canisius name it Heresy: your 
u Nefaria haeresis. Staplet. Prompt f●r. 3. post Domin. Pass.  Stapleton and Fevardentius do aggravate it by an epithet, Heinous heresy: your 
x calvini Atheismus. Possivin. Ies. lib. 3. de notis verbi Dei. ca 74.  Possivinus noteth it of Atheism: and your 
y Blasphemy. Annot. in Joh. 1. vers. 1.  College at Rheims of Blasphemy. And now, belike, this is that doctrine which deserveth your general clamours, which being examined with the eye not overcast with the web of prejudice, 
z Dum rem ipsam excutio, non facilè audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse: quia non videntur velle negare filium esse à Pa●… sed essentiam genitam esse negant. Quae sententia non video cur Catholica dicenda non sit. Bellar. lib. 2. de Christo. Cap. 19  Doth (in the judgement of your famous Bellarmine) seem Catholical: because they deny not the Son to be from the Father; but they deny the essence of the godhead to have any generation. This likewise is not the part of common modesty, to blindfold yourself, and strike you know not whom.  
To the former invectives I must add another of the same die, even deep black malice: 
a Speculamini Angliam, non iam Catholicorum, sed Anthropophagorum, & immanium Cyclopum Insulam reperietis nulla n● minima quidem vestigia his terrarum partibus fidei Catholicae superesse. Lodovic. de Orleanc. pag. 48.  Look upon England (saith your french Rabsacah) and you shall find it to be an I'll of men, who eat men's flesh, and who have not among them (yet they profess jesus Christ and the Apostles creed) the least footstep to Catholic Religion. This we see written, which giveth us cause to believe that which is reported by our travelers, who affirming, that in our last Embassage into Spain, the people there gazed upon our English Nobles and Gentlemen with that eye which Pope Gregory a thousand years since beheld them, when they were Pagans; and admiring the comely feature of their personages, and the fairness of their complexions, asked 
b Quaerens cuiates essent negotiatores quidam Britanni, & audience Anglos fuisse: Bene, inquit, Angli, quasi Angeli; sed proh dolour quam splendidas facies Princeps tenebrarum nunc possidet!  Who they were, and hearing they were named English, they may well be called Anglish, (quoth he) as it were Angels But, alas, what fair faces doth the ugly fiend and Prince of darkness now possess? Thus the vulgar in Spain are said in their Christian charity to have bewailed the misery of the English, Alas, that these men have not the knowledge of Christ! Being persuaded by their Monks that we worship the devils, which is more probable by their writings, as, 
c Caluinistae furentes detestantur Christum Dominum nostrum. Pintus in cap. 3. Dan.  Caluinists are Heretics detesting our Lord Christ. 
d Caluiniana haeresis est Sarecenismo & Paganismo detestabilior. Reinaldus in Rosaus.  Caluinish heresy is more detestable than the Religion of Turks and Pagans. What is this else then to dissolve all communion with Protestants?    

CHAP. VIII.  
The Discovery in the second part of the Minor.  

1. In Neigbors.  

a Haereticis licitum est auferri quae habent; melius tamen est quòd authoritate judicis fiat. Decretum Papale apud Gratian. Caus. 15 q. Glossa.  Neighbours, if Heretics, may lawfully be spoiled of their goods (by force:) though it be better to be taken from them by authority.   

2. In Parishioners.  
Where the question is concerning paying of Tithes, it is resolved: 
b Non est dubium quin populus Catholicus iure posset haereticos Pastores Decimis defraudare. Alanus Card. & Parsonus.  Parishioners may lawfully defraud Protestant Ministers of their Tithes.   

3. In Debtors, and whosoever have any matter of trust committed unto them.  

c Is apud quem Haereticus aliquid deposuerit non tenebitur post manifestam haeresin rem depositam illi reddere. Simancha Instit. Cathol. Tit. 46. Sect. 73.  Such are not bound to restore that which they have received, or to satisfy their Creditors, who are Heretics. 
d Non tenentur reddere rem verbis contractam. Tolet. Jes. instruct. Sacerd. de Excom.  They are not bound thereunto. 
* Si iuravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam, qui excommunicatur, non teneor exsoluere: quia qualitercunque possumus debemus venare malos, ut cessent à malo. Apud Grat. Caus. 15. q. 6. Glossa.  This is an ancient Decree.   

4. In Servants.  

f Custodes arcium, & caeteri Vasalli eâdem constitutione liberati sunt à vinculo Sacramenti, quo Dominis sidelitaté promiserant. Simancha Episc. quo supra sect. 74.  Also keepers of forts, and all other vassals and slaves are freed from the oath of subjection to their Lords.   

5. In Wives.  

g Quinetiam uxor Catholica viro haeretico debitum reddere non tenetur. Simancha in instit Greg. 13. dicatis, & eius jussu Romae impressis.  Wives are not bound to render due benevolence to their Husbands, if Heretics.   

6. In Parents.  

h Pater, qui filium habet haereticum, qui converti non velit, si pater liber & sui juris esset ad disponendum de bonis suis ut vellet, tenetur exhaereditare filium talem. Huc adiunge. Parents mortaliter peccant tradendo filias matrimonio Haereticis Card. Allanus.  The father must disinherit his son, if he will be a Protestant.   

7. In Children.  

i Sacerdos in Angliam reversus, & rogatus de parentibus, qui sunt Haeretici, respondere possit & veraciter negare eos sibi esse parents, intelligendo quales habere debeat: quia Patres solent respuere filios propter Religionem & silij Parents. Allanus & Parsonus.  A Priest returning into England, if his father be a Protestant, he may deny him to be his father: meaning that he is not such an one, as he ought to acknowledge his father. 
k Nam propter haeresin patris filii sunt sui juris. Simancha quo supra. Tit. 46 Sect. 74.  For by the heresy of the father the child is freed from obedience.   

8. In all Kindred.  

l Haeretici filii vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed juxta Legem, Sit manus tua super eos, ut sundas sanguinem ipsorum. Apud Grat. Glos. in Decret. lib. 5. ex Greg. 9 Ca●s. 23. q. 8. Cap. Legi.  Heretics may not be termed either Children or Kindred, but according to the old law, Thy hand must be against them to spill their blood.   

9 In Natives.  

m Si Civitas tota, vel maior pars sit haeretica, potest ille negare hanc esse suam patriam●intelligendo, quòd haereticam non habeat loco patriae. Card, Alan. & Parsonus.  If any find his native City to be most part infected with heresy, he may deny it to be his Country.  
Finally, by 
n juxta Constitutiones Greg. 9 Haereticus privatur omni dominio naturali, civili, politico. Simancha Jastit. Tit. 46 Sect. 74.  Pope Gregory his Constitutions; By heresy a man is deprived of all his jurisdiction, whether natural, civil, or politic. So that the tenor of the oath of the Leaguers in France is this: 
o Si unquam ad Haereticorum partes deflexero, ●i amicitiam, si foedus, si matrimonium cum iis faxo, si opem fidemue do, si ave, si Vale dixero, illa die fulmine ferito. Ledovicus de Orleans Part. 29.  If ever I make marriage, use traffic, yield aid, hold friendship, give credence unto Heretics, or once salute them; then let God confound me. Shall we call this Religion which dissolveth the duty of Servants, Subjects, Debtors, and strangleth the vital spirits of human society? and by not acknowledgement of natural duties of Wedlock, natural Parents, natural Children, natural Country, doth bowel up nature, as it were, and deprive men of humanity itself? O Babylon! to prove this in all particulars were needless; one kind may satisfy.   

Practice.  
The Papists in France did libel against 
p Henricum 3. haereticum, homicidam, etc. Lib. de justa Abd●cat. Henr. 3.  Henry the third as heretical, a manslayer: so likewise against this Henry the fourth, callinghim a 
q Henricum 4. Culinaren canem, pogonarum lulianum, bipedun nequissimum, foetidum Satanae stercus. Lod. de Orleans.  Kitchin-dogge, long-bearded julian, most heathenish Apostate, and the very excrement of Satan. No less was the rank or of our Cardinal Pool against his Sovereign, 
r Si Caesarem intellexerim cum omn● sua class adversus Turcam cursum dirigere, acsi iam Hellesponti fauces tenentem conspiceren, nunquam acquiescerem donec conveniten, & in haec verba apud eum prorumperem: Caesar, quò par●…? quid cogitas? Si amor Reip. Christianae te movet, ut Rego Turcarum, antiquum Christians nominis hostem aggrediare annon unde maius periculum Reip. Christianae imminet, & ubi nou●s hostis viget, multò quam Turea infestior, eò potius cursum convertere oportet? viz in Angliam, cu●us semen adulterinum vix à Turcaico internosci possit? Card. Poole ad Henric. 8. pro unit. Eccles. defence. lib. 3. pag. 384.  Desirous to divert the Emperor's forces from the Pagans, and to enforce them upon Henry the 8. as upon an enemy more pernicious than the Turk.   

The modest Answerer.  

s Cap. 2. § The rest.  Those penalties this Author allegeth as belonging to the Excommunicate, and such Heretics, as spoiling them of their goods, denying Tithes; I answer, that these Societies of neighbours wives, and such like are not to be denied to the Protestants in England, because we do not esteem them in the case of Heretics; again, we perform these communications and respects aswell to our Country Protestants, as they themselves. Lastly, I answer that those penalties mentioned were not of purpose ordained against Protestants, but Decrees against Heretics of those times, and not now in use in France, Helvetia, Sweveland, Denmark, and most part of Germany. And if the penal Constitutions of the Council of Trent are not yet after 40. years continuance received into those recited Provinces and Kingdoms; there is not so great fear that those Papal pains will ever give to this man so much cause of so outrageous exclamations.   

The Reply.  
If all your Sect would allow your Answer, we should need no clamour: for first your answer de iure, Protestants are not to be deemed these duties: secondly, de facto, that You do not deny them: for confirmation of the right you infer: that These punishments were not ordained against Protestants; and avouching the fact, you instance in other countries, where these penalties are not in use. Concerning the fact, let us admit that these are performed, yet the Apostle distinguisheth of performance of duty, & propter Iram, & propter Conscientiam; one for fear of civil power, the other for conscience sake. Whether bond doth tie you to obedience the subsequents will manifest. We do likewise acknowledge that some part of those penalties were more anciently ordained against others, and not against Protestants; What then? if they be now extended against Protestants? For thus dealt the jews against our Lord Christ, 
* 1. Pet. 2.  We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he hath spoken blasphemy. The law they had, was, Holy, just, and good: but the application was their own, ungodly, furious, and murderous; we may herein compare Christ's blasphemy, and Protestants heresy. And if your late penal Decrees of Trent be not of force in other countries, you have given us a reason, Quia vires desunt: because they want outward force. Otherwise I have showed that those penalties, as nonpayment of Tithes, are by your 
* john 19 7.  Allane extended against Protestant Ministers; of Debts, by your 
* Insra.  Tolet; against Protestant Creditors; of due benevolence, by your 
* Supra.  Simancha against Protestant husbands; of due reverence and acknowledgement, by your * Parson's, against Protestant fathers; of allegiance, by your * Simancha against Protestant Kings and Magistrates. And for further evidence,    

CHAP. IX.  
I add a Supplement to your former Positions.  

a His admonition to the Nobility and people of England. Anno 1588. pag. 41.  IT is clear (saith Allane) that what people and person soever be declared to be opposite to God's Church, by what obligation soever, either of kindred, friendship, loyalty, or subjection I be bound unto them; I may, or rather must take arms against them: and then must we take them for Heretics, when our lawful Popes adjudge them so to be. A little after he striketh an Alarm, 
u Pag. 53.  Now therefore my Lords and dear Countrymen fight, etc. In the whole book the English Clerk exhorteth now (since the Council of Trent) the English gentry to take arms against their English Sovereign. Say now (moderate Answerer) will your modesty give your face leave to blush at this doctrine of your Cardinal? The like trumpet of rebellion against German Protestants, after the Council of Trent, did Friar Alphonse sound aloud: 
x Licitum est Haereticos bello oppugnare, postquam de corum pertinacia constiterit, bona enim intentio est fidem Catholicam exaltare: quae fuit intentio Caroli Caesaris in bello suo adversus, Protestants, Germanos. Alphons. de Castro.  It is lawful to overcome Heretics by force of arms. As long then as we hear of such Proclamations, sounding nothing but Arma virumque: there may be reason given of our exclamations. But you insist.  

The moderate Answerer.  

y Answer cap. 2. pag. 12. § The rest.  We have not now another Queen Marie inheretrix to the Crown, to be joined in marriage with a potent Prince, symbolizing with husband, conformity in country discipline: to breed scruples in this behalf.   

The Reply.  
This Answer giveth us no more security, than the Cat doth the Mouse, when she seemeth but to play with it: for though you have not a Maria, yet may your Dolman have an Infanta, or your Catesby and his Complices an Elizabetha to match, and to overmatch also at their pleasure, making her but as a garland of flowers in a May-game, to flourish for a day or two, and then to wither and perish. And before him your Watson saw no metaphysical he or she to succeed. But though there be no such heir apparent, yet a man by troubling the water, may think peradventure to catch an Eel, and 
* AEsop. in Apol.  The little Fly hath power enough to set the Eagles nest on fire. I leave the confirmation of my Discovery, and come to the confutation of those denied duties. It is written, 
* Rom. 13. 8.  Owe nothing to any man, but love one another. And therefore that debt of Tithes which joseph (as due unto them) paid to the Egyptian Priests: of Debts and due benevolence, which was never denied to Infidels: of Allegeiance and Homage, which Saint Ambrose did perform to an Apostate: may not be denied to any, though in case of heresy, much less than to Protestants. But to conclude with your own words, Those duties are not to be denied unto Protestants. It were well if either you writ as you thought, or that your Doctors did think as you write: and so should we have less cause of scruples, to fear either you or them. Let us proceed to the second Reason.    

CHAP. X.  
The Discovery in the second Reason.  
MAior. Whosoever do profess any civil power sovereign, whether directly or indirectly, are to be accounted seditious. Minor. But all Popish Priests do profess a double prerogative over Kings, democratical and Monarchical, namely, both of people and Pope. Both which are proved by the Positions.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 3. in initio.  To the Mayor. I would wish him to except the Emperor of Germany, and such as be subject to the Empire, and such cases: I say Transeat Maior for Christendom.   

The Reply.  
Why Transeat? Do you then make all Kings in Christendom subject to the Emperor? I know you dare not proclaim this in 
b Quae regna Regibus suis contenta, nullius dominio unquam paruerunt. Francisc. de Victor. Relect  France or Spain. Dare you, (who thus insinuate yourself into grace with his Majesty: 
c Epist. Dedic. to his Majesty. § Therefore.  I, one of your highness obedient subjects) subject your Sovereign to a foreign State? as namely, to the Emperor, so far from Imperial, that (as one jesuit confesseth) 
d Romanum Imperium iam ferè deletum est. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2.  It is almost ruinate: Yea, considered as it is called Roman Empire, 
e Imperium illud Romanum iamdiu eversum est. Salmeron Ies. Com. in 2. Thess. 2. Disp. 2. § Caeterùm.  It is (as another jesuit acknowledgeth) long ago (an unfallible note of the prophesied time of 
* Vide 2. Thess. 2  Antichrist) utterly extinct. 
f Cui vix Germani ipsi obtemperant. Costerus.  Whereunto (saith your Costerus) scarce the Germans (whom you object) do obey. Which is very true; for, in the tenor and form of Election and Coronation of the Emperor, you may find, as I remember, this power ascribed to the Prince Palatine Elector, that he (as being Steward rather to the Empire, than Emperor) may cite the Emperor to the diet of the State, and constrain him in some case to yield satisfaction. And therefore my Mayor may still reside in Christendom.   

To the Minor Proposition.  
The moderate Answer is of two kinds, 

1. Recrimination against Protestants.  
2. Apology and defence for his own Priests.     

1. Recrimination or Accusation.  

g Answer ibid.  And thus I frame my Minor. But all Protestant Writers do ordinarily teach, and practise this doctrine, as I shall prove.   

The Reply.  
This kind of Answer of retorting, which you call returning the Argument upon Protestants, you use in every Answer: if truly, you shall prove your sin to have been more common, which cannot justify yourselves; If unjustly, you shall but slander them and multiply your wickedness. Which will be proved, when we come to give the 
* Vide infra in the second part.  justification of Protestants in answering your blindfold exceptions.   

The moderate Answerer in Apologizing for his fellows.  
His second Proposition is this, [But all Popish Priests do profess a double prerogative over Kings, democratical or Monarchical, namely, both people or Pope. Ergo) This his conceit fighteth with his own Assertion, and present Position of the Pope's Monarchical prerogative over Kings: for where there is a Monarchical power and government in one, there is an unpossibilitie of a Democracie and Democratical power and regency in the people: and yet this simple Disputer doth thus argue.   

The Reply.  
Simple I confess, professing also that simplicity in Christ, as never either in word or writing to aequiuocate. Notwithstanding your simple Disputer wisheth that he had met with so subtle an Answerer as could have distinguished betwixt mentiri, and mendacium dicere: to lie, and to report a lie. Say: this proposition, The Pope is taught to have a Monarchical power over Kings, and people democratical, doth it imply contradiction? Seeing then I only show, in this present reason, that your Jesuits defend both, it is an unreasonable modesty to favour the authors, and inveigh against me the reporter: which I have done justly in both, as will appear in due order. Be not idle, but conform yourself to the laws of dispute.   

The Discovery. First, of the people's power.  
Parsons. 
g Parsons in his Dolman.  The Commonwealth hath authority to choose a King, and to limit him laws at their pleasure. The French jesuit showeth a Reason. 
h Maiestas regni est in populo potius, quam in persona Regis. Ies. lib. de i●s●a Abdicat. pag. 36.  For Majesty (saith he) is rather seated in the Kingdom, then in the King. Like to Stapleton his Gloss. 
i Non populus in Principum gratiam factus; sed Principes in populi gratiam creati. Didymus pag. 261. Stapl.  People are not ordained for the Prince; but the Prince for the people. But more finely Reinalds. 
k Rex humana creatura est, quia ab homimbus constituta. Reinald d●i●▪ s●a authorit. pag. 8  A King is but a creature of man's creation.   

The moderate Answerer.  

* Answer cap. 3. § But let.  People were in the beginning without Kings, and made Election of divers kinds of Regiments, as they thought meet and most secure for their defence: for as I have made demonstration, and his majesties words in the Parliament do conclude: Although a Kingdom and people be relata, yet can he be no King if he want people and subjects.   

The Reply.  
This Position, People, as subjects, were before their Governor, doth taste too much of Machiavellisme: for in nature the birth is called prodigious, which is delivered with heels forward, from whence some have received their names to be called Agrippa: such is this politic curse which you fancy, but remember that though, as you truly affirm, King and subject be relatives, even as Father and Son: yet consider them in the nature, in the real foundation as things, and not of accidental relation; and then (I hope) you will suffer the Father to go before the Son. And so Adam, as an Ecumenical King, was before his family; after his decease, always the right of government was invested in the first-born, as a birthright: so God did signify to Cain, [
* Gen. 4. 7. l Baldus lib. ex iure D. de just. Andr Hostensis, Pet. Ancoranus, Card. Florentinus, Panorm. Olradus, Albericus, Angelus, Felinus, Paulus Castrens. Barbatius, Fran. Curtius, Card. Alex Phil. Francus, jason, Philippus decimus, Carolus Ruinus, Anton▪ Corsetta, Ripa, Caldrive, Al●iat. As I find them cited by M. Haywood in his answer against Dolman. Pag. 17.  And thou Cain shalt rule (meaning Abel) over him. And that Kingdoms have been successive by law of nations in the first-born, is confirmed by a grand inquest of your own 〈◊〉 Lawyers: not that we deny Election of people to have been upon necessity usual; but so to magnify the power of a people electing, as to continue still Sovereign over the Prince elected, this is that which we call a position rebellious: the very intent of your forenamed Authors, making regal power to be from the commonwealth, but as 
m Parsons in his Dolman. pag. 73.  Potest as vicaria & delegata: delegate and by commission; to this end, that establishing the people's dominion, they may use them at their assignment for the subversion of the King, as their places alleged do manifest, and is yet more amply avouched by another jesuit, saying, that 
n Si quis Rex fieret Christianus, & Catholicus, & postea fiat haereticus, aut Apostata; ratio exigit ut inter Catholicos populos a regni administratione re●ou●atur: & hoc iure, quia protestas prius in populo est quam in rege; & a populo in Regem derivatur. Salm. les. in epist. Pauli, in Gen. Disp. 12. § ●a●… de.  If any King Catholic shall prove an Heretic, it is reason for the people to depose him: because this power is in the people, which is derived unto the King from the people. This is that position which we called rebellious, and yet behold Abyssus abyssum invocat; one depth of rebellious disloyalty, in deposing, doth draw one another of cruelty, in murdering their Kings, where the French yieldeth them 
o In populo est potestas vitae & necis, Author de iu●●a Abdicat. pag. 33.  Power of life and death over their Sovereign. To overthrow this many-headed beast, by weapons borrowed from your own men.   

The Confutation.  
There is one honest Friar that dare adventure to light a candle to discover the murderous: for speaking of the power of and by Election, 
p Nemo potest ●e Regem facere. sed populus Regem eligit; sed Rex iam factus & constitutus, non potest populus jugum à cer●●ce sua repellere: populi voluntas in necessitatem conue●titur. Roiardus Dominic. 1. Aduent.  Though there be (saith he) in the people a freedom of Election, yet after they have chosen their King, they have no more power to remove the yoke, but stand in necessity of subjection. This man was but a Friar, and therefore peradventure in your Synods may not have any definitive sentence, 
q Bellar.  which (you say) is proper to Bishops. Here is therefore (one of this order) Bishop Cunerus, who from the holy writ doth mainly impugn your former assertion, 
r Quidam putant Regum autoritatem, solùm explac●to & consensu pendere subditorum, qui Principes eligunt, vel re●ipiunt: caeterum B. Apostoli, qui spiritu scrutabatur profunda Dei, longè altiùs potestatis eorum originem ac fundametum errand. etc. Cune●us lib. de Ossic. Princip. Cap. 5.  Some there be (saith he) who imagine that the authority of Princes dependeth upon the courtesy of people, as to think that they, who gave consent to choose Kings, have likewise now a power to depose them: But the blessed Apostles, who by the holy Ghost were enabled to search the mysteries of God, have more profoundly inquired into the foundation of the state and authority of Kings. * Saint Peter (saith he) entering into this argument, doth thus admonish Christians. Be ye subject unto the ordinance of man, whether to the King, as to the more excellent, or his messengers sent from him; to the punishment of wicked, and praise of the godly: so is the will of God as free, and not as having liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. And S. Paul, 
* 1. Pet. 2.  There is no power but of God; and whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God etc. From whence he inferreth, Though all means whereby Kings come to the Crowns be not commanded of God, yet whatsoever means they use, whether by Election, Succession, or invasion, whensoever they are by consent of the Kingdom once established, this is the ordinance of God: and henceforth he, as sent from God, is to rule, and people to obey; the Apostle saying of the people, 
* Rom. 13. 1.  It is necessary to be subject. This witness yourself called for, saying, [
* Answer supra Cap. 4.  As saith Cu●erus,] so I, thus saith Cunerus. You may not in equity refuse him. For this was justice in the Governor, when S. Paul said, [
* Act. 25. vers. 11. and 12.  I appeal to Caesar, to answer, And to Caesar shalt thou go. Yet if he be not sufficient, behold a jesuit will plead our cause, 
s 
Quamuis Principes subinde non admodum boni sunt, & humanis saepè medijs vel artibus principatum obtineant, nihil tamen horum Apostoli Christianos attendere volverunt, sed ordinationem Dei, per quam potestatem habent, non quod semper media, quibus facti sunt reges, à Deo fiant, sed quòd à Deo or dinentur: ita utquicunque sublimiori potestate praefulget, huic ex voluntate & ordinatione Dei competit autoritas, qua subditis potest imperare, & cui subditi parere tenentur. ut licet medijs humanis, nempè, contractibus vel electione, vel postulatione, vel successione, vel quacunque regni consensione, vel iure belli, vel simili ratione Princeps fiat, Principi tamen nunc facto haec divinitùs potestas adest, & competit autoritas, quasi ipso Deo regnum & potestatem illi dante, & populum illi subjiciente, unde de jeroboam 2. Reg. 12. Te assumam & regnabis. Et 3. Reg. 11. Dedi te ducem super popul●…. Et 3. Reg 14. Scidi regnum domus David, & dedi tibi illud: Sicut apud Daniel. 4. Dominatur excelsus in regno hominum, & cuicunque volverit dabit illud postquam constitutus est rex, tùm dicit Apostolus de populo, [Necesse est subijci.] Rursus.  
Qui velit concludere à Barbaris imperium esse eripiendum, quia sunt imperiti & compara●… ad parendum, eadem ratione consiciet, à foemina aut adolescente, ubi regnat, posse per vim extorqueri dominatum, itémque à Rege imperito regnum, à Praesule indocto Pontificatum: Aliud est enim quid faciendum est ex ratione & secundùm naturam; aliud quid, si fiat, infectum sieri nequeat jure igitur Sapientiorés regnant, sed reipsa imperitus & barbarus si regnet, iniuria est de regno hunc pellere: alioqui rapinae & caedi res mortalium omnes expositas esse opo●tebit. Haec joseph. Acosta jesuita lib. 2. de Indorum salute. Cap. 5. * 1. Pet. 3. 1.   Though it be better to have a more wise King, than a simple; yet when he, whom we have is but silly, then may he no more be deprived of his Kingdom, than an unlearned Prelate of his Bishopric: otherwise the state of mortal men should be exposed to rapines and bloodshed. But to return to the Oracles of God, S. Peter called man's entrance into the kingdom by consent of people, man's creation; upon this ground, it may be, your Reinolds did descant, where he called the King, men's creature: as though he could see in man's election nothing but man, whereas S. Peter in the same place saith to man creating, Be ye subject unto the creation of man, Propter Deum, for the Lords sake, in the creature beholding God: Why? S. Paul will satisfy, Because the powers that are, be ordained of God. Rom. 13. So that man's creation is but the body of sovereignty, God's ordinance in that means is the very soul thereof, and aught in all Christians to be the life of loyal subjection.   

The Answer retorted.  
In the last place I must make bold to strike you with your own sword: There is no King to rule (say you) where there is no people to be ruled: for King and people be Relata. All this is most true: Well now our Question is, whether after the people's election of a King the power to depose a King remainestill in the people; you affirm, we deny it, strengthened by this your Argument from relation original, thus. The power of government resteth rather in the Ruler, then in the party to be ruled. But a King is elected to rule the people. Ergo the rule remaineth not in the people, but in the King. In conjugal society before the contract the woman is free, but after contract (à relatis) now his wife: there followeth a necessity of subjection, not to be dissolved: * Let the wife be subject. Notwithstanding in your conclusion you bewray this modesty, to exact Learning in your Accuser, and show none in your Answer. Thus much of your people, now we proceed orderly to the Pope.    

CHAP. XI.  
The Discovery. Secondly of the Pope.  
TO avouch his pre-eminence, these men go beyond the Moon: as first Bozius. 
a Pontisicem esse Caput totius Ecclesiae, & habere potestatem etiam circa omnia temporalia, probamus ex Theologis & Canonistis. Bezius de Eccles. Monarch. Tempor. Epist. Dedicat. ad Clement. 8. Pontif.  The Pope, the head of the Church, hath power in all temporal causes and States.  

The moderate Answerer.  

b Answer Cap. 2. § But it.  It will be objected from the second Reason, that Catholics hold the Pope head of the Church in civil power; and also over Kings, & circa omnia temporalia: Therefore he may depose Princes, and command Subjects to take arms against them once excommunicate. First I answer.   

The Reply.  
But first I ask, why would you answer this in discourse of the first Reason, and omit it here in this second, where (being his proper place) you had reason to answer. I should think it was for love of brevity; but that your manifold superfluous repetitions do except against it: yet I rather think it was your modesty, lest that my accusation and your Answer (as different colours) jointly examined, might one illustrate the other; that, to be constant and just; this, a mere fugitive. But (be not offended) we must compare them, seeking your Answer where it is, seeing we cannot find it where it should be: your first and second and third must be discovered in the reason following. What say you to the present point? Have Pope's prerogative over Kings in causes temporal, as of authority to depose them?   

The very moderate Answerer.  

c Answer Cap. 2. § Secondly.  I answer for all Catholics in general to the main Objection, that Henricus, Victor, johannes de Turrecremata, Couor●●ius, & the common opinion of Schools do teach, that there is no such temporallor regal power in Popes over Princes in civil affairs. And again: 
d Ibid. § Sixtly.  These authors do not say that this civil power is simply and absolutely subject to the Papal authority. And yet again, 
e Ibid. § Therefore.  The discoverer cannot find any such power sovereign over Kings challenged by Popes, against which he so much inveigheth.   

The Reply.  
The sum of your Answer is, that the general doctrine of Papists is to deny all temporal and civil power absolutely over Kings; and that no Pope did ever challenge it. And yet behold, before your eyes, in this Reason to which you now would answer, your own Doctor Bozius produced against you, who in his book inscribed, 
f De Temporali Ecclesiae Monarchia. Clementi 8. Pontifici Opt. Max. Franciscus Bozius.  Of the temporal monarchy of the Church, and dedicated to the last Pope Clement the 8. is so absolute for this absolute temporal jurisdiction of the Pope above all estates whatsoever, that he extendeth it throughout the universal world, even 
g Etiam Ethnici, quoad temporalia Ecclesiae, adeóque summo Pastori eius Romano Pontifici subijciuntur, ut docent Innocentius, johan. Andraeas, Hostiensis, Sylvester, S. Antoninus, caeterique Doctores Canonistae, cosque puniri posse affirmant poenà etiam temporali. Bezius in codem libro.  Over all Infidels, to punish them for some causes with corporal punishments. And he challengeth herein the consent of Andraeas, Sylvester, Antoninus, and other Doctor's Canonists; yea also (which you denied, that it can be shown) Pope 
* jam infra.  Innocentius doth challenge it. A doctrine so common, that Bellarmine doth confess, that 
h Affirmant hoc Aluarez, Sylvester & multi alij. Bellar.  Aluarez, Sylvester, and many others do affirm it. Furthermore (because you say, Your Discoverer cannot show etc.) I must yet discover a greater and grosser consent amongst your School in this point. Alexander Carerius Patavinus of late hath writ; the title of his book is this, 
i De potestate Romani Pontisicis adversus impios Politicos, & huius temporis haereticos Libri istius inscriptio.  Concerning the power of the Pope of Rome against all wicked Politicians and heretics of this time. This sure will be something to the purpose: say on. 
k Hanc opinionem, [Summum Pontisicem iure divino habere plenissimam potestatem in universum orbem terrarum tùm in rebus Ecclesiasticis tum in politicis,] sequendam censeo, quam communis Theologorum schola secuta est: Thomas, S. Antoninus; cui opinioni subscripserunt (enumerat vigi●●i duos, inter alios verò) Franciscus Mayronus, cognomento Doctor illuminatus, nuperrimè verè Celsus Mancinus, qui in Tractatu de luribus Principatuum. lib. 3. Cap. 1. & 2. ita scriptum reliquit: In summo Pontifice est utravis potestas, seu iurisdictio spiritualis, & temporalis: & uti omnium est eminentissimus in spirituali potestate, ita etiam in temporali; ita ut liceat de Pontifice Romano illud similitudine quadam asseverare, quod Plato in Timaeo, quidnam esset Deus respondit, Non est homo, non coelum, non bonum, sed quid? praestantius. Roget quis an summus Pontifex sit Dux, an Rex, an non Imperator; caute respondebit, si negando asserat, esse quid praestantius, quiduè eminentius. Haec ille. Et ex illo haec Carerius lib 1 de Potest. Rom. Pont. Cap 9  This opinion, namely, that the Pope by the law of God hath most full power throughout the world even in all temporal or civil causes, I defend: and hereunto the common Schools of Divines do subscribe. He numbereth two and twenty Authors, and among others one called The illuminated Doctor, and an other called Celsus, by interpretation, High or Aloft; and therefore insignes him with Verè Celsus, as truly so named, and so truly he may be, if we judge him by the loftiness of his style and conclusion, which only this Carerius doth therefore express, as being more eminent than any other. Such and so great is the spiritual and civil power of the Pope (saith Celsus) that as Plato to one ask what God was, answered, he is not man, not heaven, not good, but what? more excellent: so if any shall demand what the Pope is; by a kind of resemblance one may warily answer, he is no Duke, no King, nor Emperor, but more excellent. What can this be else (seeing God only is for excellency called 
* 1. Tim. 6. 15.  King of Kings, and Lord of Lords) but an other God? Warily answered, but wickedly. Next he assumeth for authority of his defence 
l Eadem opinion probatur ex Canonistarum, testimonio, qui sic adhaeserunt decreto desumpto ex C. per venerabilem: qui filii legitimi: ut infinitum sit illos enumerare. Carerius ibid. Cap. 9 & 10.  The common judgement of Canonists, all building this opinion upon the Decrees of Popes. As if they should say, if we be deceived in our opinion concerning the Pope's jurisdiction, than the Popes have deceived us. What is that which Pope Innocentius decreed? 
m Secunda Canonistarum ostensio sumitur ex C. Solitae de maior. & obed. ubi Innocentius tertius ait: Deus creavit duo luminatia in coelo, solemn & lunam; id est, duas instituit dignitates, quae sunt, Pō●ficalis, & Regalis: harum quae praeest diebus, spiritualibus, scz. maior est, & dignior eà quae temporalibus praeficitur; ut quanta est inter solemn & lunam, tanta inter Papam & Imperatorem cognoscatur differentia. Optimè explicat summus Pontifex hac decretali Pontificiae dignitatis eminentiam. Carerius ibid. Cap. 12.  That God created two great lights, the Sun to rule the day, and the Moon to govern the night: signifying two dignities, the spiritual, which is the Papal, and the temporal, belonging to to the Emperor like the Moon. Yet so, that there is as great difference of excellency betwixt the Emperor and the Pope, as betwixt the Moon, and the Sun. What can you infer from hence? 
n undè sic formo rationem; Ea est proportio inter Pontificem & Imperatorem, quae est inter solemn & Lunam; sed sol est praestantior lunâ, quae ab illo mutuat splendorem ac lucem: Igitur Imperatoris potestas à summo Pontifice pendet. Carcrius ibidem.  That as the Moon hath no light, but that it borroweth of the Sun: so the Emperor hath no power, which is not depending of the Pope. Thus Pope and popish by too much gazing on the Moon, are become lunatic, who by a spirit of pride carnally pervert the literal sense of the holy Ghost, as it is 
o Vide Apolog. Catholicam. Part. 2. lib. 5. Cap. 17.  Proved. And the whole doctrine will be plainly confuted in the 
* Infra part 3.  Confutation. Wherefore seeing that this temporal universal jurisdiction of the Pope, some Papists with great consent, even from Popes, have proclaimed, all which you have unfeignedly denied, which will yet be further confirmed in the next Chapter: learn henceforth a necessary point of modesty, not to avouch a negative, No one Papist saith so, till you have read sufficiently what they say. Thus much of the temporal power popish, considered directly: Now must we inquire how it may concern him indirectly.    

CHAP. XII.  
The discovery of the common doctrine of the jesuitically opinionated.  
THat the Pope hath power in temporal causes. 
a Habet tamen indirectè in ordine ad bonum spirituale. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 6. & 7.  This is true (saith Bellarmine) understood undirectly, as it may avail for the spiritual good. In brief, 
b Stapleton in his English Counterblast against Master Horn.  This supremacy of the Pope (saith Stapleton) is a doctrine to be holden of all Christians upon pain of damnation, and separation from the Church of God.  

The moderate Answerer.  

c Answer qu● supra Cap. 2. § Secondly.  But Catholics defend only a spiritual, as that is which they claim in temporals, in ordine ad Deum▪ (that is, for God's cause) and is not to use the Disputers words, A civil power [Sovereign over Kings directly:] but only a spiritual pre-eminence.   

The Reply.  
Use my words, but abuse not my meaning, to make the Reader think I only entreated of the power temporal over Kings directly: whereas in the Discovery there is express mention of the temporal jurisdiction challenged of Papists both directly, and also indirectly, both which are hereafter confuted. Here only we are to explain them, and to show, how both of them challenge a power in the Pope at his discretion to depose Kings. This hath been manifested in the former, now it will appear in the second, which you, forsooth, 
d Answer in his Epist. § Therefore.  His majesties most loyal Subject, do now maintain, namely, A power spiritual (say you) in temporal causes, as it may be behoveful for God's cause. And how that is meant, your Bellarmine doth interpret. 
e Altera sententia in altero extremo posita est, Pontisicem non habere potestatem aliquam temporalem iure divino, nec pos●e ullo modo (Ex civili autoritate) imperare Principibus secularibus, nedum eos ●egno & principatu privare, etiamsi alioqui priu●ri mereant●r: non habet ha●e potestate direct, said indirect in ordine ad b●… spi●…, habet potestatem eá●que sum●●m in tempo alibus. Hoc modo possit Reges deponere, regna transfer, uni auferre, alteri confer, tan●…m sum●us Pontifex. Hanc sententiam Protestantes negant; quam communis Catholico●um scho●… defendit. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pent. Cap. 1. & 6.  Protestants deny (saith he) that the Pope hath any temporal or politic jurisdiction and power over Kings by the law of God, as to be able to command Kings, much less to depose them from their thrones, and dispose of their Kingdoms. But the common consent of Catholic Divines is, that indirectly and mediately, that is▪ so far as it may concern the spiritual good of the Church, the Pope hath a supreme power even in temporal causes, to put down Kings, and bestow their Kingdoms. And yet you deny, 
f Superest ut demonstremus Papa non habere direct ullam temporalem jurisdictione iure divino. Bellar. ibid. Cap. 4.  That he hath directly any temporal government by the law of God. A spiritual cozenage, as is proved by arguments in the 
* Infra part. 3.  Consutation, & only in this place to be exemplified. You may peradventure remember that King, whose name I have forgot, who being desirous to decree something contrary to that law whereunto he was sworn, required counsel in this case: Sir (saith his counsellor) the Law directly forbids you this; yet there is another law which permits the King to do what he list. A dangerous State, where the King's lust is his law. Now how is it in this your controversy? to say the Pope can directly judge and depose Kings. O no, you will not, For (say you) we deny: This opinion (saith Bellar.) is the first extremity, as though you would acknowledge that to be directly a ground of treason: yet you hold it lawful, When the Pope shall think it behooveful for the spiritual good, than he may judge, depose, and kill. Herein giving us a special argument of your singular modesty; whereas being ashamed to give the Pope Direct Sovereignty over Kings, have closely conveyed unto him the same power by the other term, called Indirectly. It were to be wished you would leave that subtle modesty, and learn honest simplicity. It may be we shall perceive some dram thereof in your fourthly.   

The moderate Answerer.  

g Answer cap. 2. § Fourthly.  Fourthly, the maintainers of this doctrine do not urge greater indignity, or defend any sentence more offensive (in equal judgement) to any Pralate, sheep, or shepherd; then to the chiefest Shepherd under Christ the Pope himself: for they all with one consent affirm, that in case of heresy (now in question) he is either actually and really deposed, or to be deposed; The Canonists do hold, that he is ipso facto deposed, if he fall into heresy; with whom Turrecrem. Castr●, and others do consent.   

The Reply.  
Wherein I dare appeal to any equal, or almost any unequal judgement of my greatest adversaries, to determine whether this your answer be not absurdly false in two degrees.  
First: 
h Answer cap. 3. § Secondly.  Those (you say) who urge this opinion, of deposing Princes in case of heresy, offer no more indignity to any sheep, then to the chief shepherd under Christ the Pope: and yet in the same Chapter, I Answer (say you) if any man hold that opinion of such power over Princes in Popes, yet they will plead it more tolerable in the authority of one supreme Pastor in the Church, whereof Princes be sheep, etc. The argument then of these men, as you confess, and 
* Infra Part 3.  is hereafter showed, is this, As the shepherd to the sheep, so the Pope to Kings: but shepherds have power over sheep, and not sheep over shepherds. Ergo Popes may depose Princes, and Princes may not remove Popes. This is your Popish and (as it is 
* In the third part.  after proved) your sheepish conclusion: wherein whether there be not offered greater indignity to Princes, then to Popes, let the equal Reader judge.  
Secondly, the Authors of the doctrine of deposing of Kings in case of heresy, do profess concerning Popes, 
i Bellar. Ies. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. ca 2. Greg. Valent. Ies. Analys. lib. 8. cap. 3. Salmeron Jes. Com. in Gal. 2. Disp. 24. Canus loc. T●●ol. lib. 6. cap. 8. Staplet. Doctr. Princ li. 6 Cos●erus Enchir. Tract. de Pontif.  That they cannot possibly be Heretics, as Popes, and consequently cannot be deposed: Not (saith 
k Bellarm. in●ra.  Bellarmine) by any power whether Ecclesiastical or temporal, no not by all Bishops assembled in a Council. Not though (saith 
l Ibidem.  Carerius) he should do any thing prejudicial to the universal stat● of the Church: Not though (saith 
m Ibidem.  Azorius) he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiastical, or pervert the laws of Kings: Not though (saith your 
n Ibidem.  Gratianus Gloss) he should carry infinite multitudes of souls headlong with him into hell. And these forenamed Authors do avouch for the confirmation of this doctrine the universal consent of Romish Divines, and Canonists for the space of an hundred years. Whether therefore to affirm, that Kings may be Heretics, and for that cause deposed, and that Popes cannot be deposed, because as Popes they cannot be Heretics, be equal indignity to Popes and Kings, let (if you will) your unequal Reader judge. And now (not to stand upon other transparent absurdities of these Authors) your modesty is to be put in mind, not to appeal unto equal judgement in that, wherein you manifest your total eclipse of judgement. Hitherto have we disputed of the power of people and of the Pope, considered as it were intensively. Now we approach to examine both of them in their extent and execution.    

CHAP. XIII.  
The Discovery in the third Reason.  
Whosoever upon any pretended supremacy, whether of Pope or people, do deny the necessary right of Election. or of succession of Protestant Princes; are to be holden amongst all Protestants seditious: But all Popish Priests do utterly abolish the title of Succession in all Protestant Princes, by pretended prerogative of Pope and people. Ergo: The Minor proved by their Positions.  

In Election.  
1. The Romish Cardinal: 
a Nulla est Imperatonis aut Regis electio, si cum eligitur, excommunicatus sit. Tolet▪ jes. & Cardinal. lib. 1 instruct. cap. 13. § Aduett. autem.  There is no election, whether of King or Emperor, of any force, if he that is elect (such as they esteem all Protestants) be excommunicate.   

In Succession.  
Reinalds: 
b Ius ad regna Christianorum maius est in Religione, quam in Successione: maius in ultione haeresis (loquitur de Protestantibus) quam in cognatione sanguinis. Debent igitur Christiani omnem tali spem praescindere, ne ad eam celfitatem aspiret▪ Reinald Anglus in suo Ros●us pag▪ 649 & pag. 670.  The right of King's Christian must depend rather upon their Religion, then upon order of Succession: and therefore all Christians are bound to cut off all hope, lest that any such (speaking of Protestants) may aspire to the throne. 
c Qui contra facit, Deum homini postponere, carnem spiritui anteponere dicendus est. Staplet▪ in suo Did●m. pag. 122.  Otherwise (saith Stapleton) what do people else but even prefer man before God. Hereupon doth Simancha conclude, that 
d Regnum Haeretici defuncti ad filium Catholicum pertinet: quòd si filius & consanguinei eius haeretici fuerint, Regnum Catholicum possit Regem orthodoxum eligere: si verò Regnum haereticum fuerit, Electio Regis Catholici ad summum Pontificem pertinet: sed & r●gnum illud possit a Catholicis occupari.  The Kingdom of an Heretic departed doth lineally descend upon his son: but if the son in the race Royal be heretical, the Catholic Commonweal may choose him a Prince: but if also the Kingdom be heretical, than the choice of the King belongeth to the Pope: and so the Kingdom may be taken by Catholics. And lest, peradventure, any should consent to the lawful Succession, father Parsons doth pronounce sentence. 
e Parsons in his Dolman. pag. 216.  Whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant, is a most grievous and damnable sinner. Thus far of the Position. Now behold their   

Practice.  
1. In France. Reinalds doth forewarn the French. 
f Vultis in Regno Galliae Christianissimo Regem proclamare Nauarraeum Caluinistam? eadem opera hominibus imperare iubetis canem; templum Dei viventis prostituitis Satanae, & in vineam Domini immittitis truculentum aprun, qui illam vastet & depascatur. Reinald in suo Rosaeus. pag. 466.  Will you proclaim Navarre a Caluinist King of France? What is this else then to advance a dog to be Sovereign over men? 
g Illi nè clament Vive Rex, quem ne salutare possint, nec in domum suam recipere? Ibid pag. 476.  Shall Catholics pray, God save that King, whom they may not admit into their houses? 
h Dicit fortassis Navarraeus, Ego saniorem Religionem induco, sed hoc ad rem nullo modo pertinet; tenetur enim Religionem Romanam defendere. Creswellus in suo Philopater.  For suppose (saith Father Creswell) that he profess to bring in a more sound Religion; what is this to the purpose? he is bound to defend the Romish faith. From France we will return home, where father Parsons busieth himself to disable the title of Succession of our most dread Sovereign King james: 
* Parsons in his bocke called, A Conference concerning the next succession of the crown of England.  with intent to advance the Infanta of Spain thereunto. Thus much of Successors, now of Possessors.   

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 4. § I Answer.  Let all be true which he citeth, and that they so teach: yet if five particular men could make a general Council, and their sentence be termed a public Position: yet they speak only of a Prince excommunicate before his Election; which case is not now in rerum natura, much less in England, as this unjust Accuser would prove.   

The Reply.  
Unjust? not so, yourself will acquit me: I have instanced in six of your Priests and Jesuits, whereof four be our own countrymen, and therefore, by your own judgement, Best able to judge of our country cause. And you answer, Let all be true which he citeth, when you could not answer that one testimony was untrue. Secondly, you start back; If (say you) five particular men could make a Council, or their sentences be termed a public Position: as if we may not rather understand your public Positions by these five your best learned clerk, then by only you, who by that your [Yet if] would only seem to take exception unto five, and bring instance to the contrary from none. In all which you testify that I am not an unjust Accuser, but that you are now an idle Disputer.  
But if these five should be thought private, whose books are privileged with the most public and ordinary approbation of your Church; I could add five score more of your side conspiring in these Positions belonging to conspiracy. Thirdly, They speak (say you) of a Prince excommunicate, which is not our English case at this present. Good, Now at this present: namely, when you writ, and yet peradventure whilst I reply the case is presently altered, or at the Pope's pleasure may be. And is not this a safe case for our Sovereign, trow ye? Whereof more in the next Section.   

The most moderate Answerer.  

b Answer quo supra.  His Majesty was not excommunicate before his Election, neither is he now, but is both elected and settled in his throne both without any contradiction of the Pope, and with his jubet of all obedience, and Prohibet of denial thereof. All the Catholics of this Kingdom applauded it as much as Protestants, and his union and league with Catholic Princes and people abroad is sufficient Answer, that this is a malicious slander of holy Priesthood, and proveth Catholics innocent, Protestants guilty, and this man an unjust Accuser.   

The Reply.  
If his Majesty was not excommunicate by the Pope before his Election, (which you should rather call Succession) then was he unjustly (that I may so say) excommuned by the Pope before his Election: but your Superior Garnet confessed, that he had received two Breves from the Pope, to make use of, whensoever our late Queen Elizabeth should depart out of this mortality. The content of those Breves was this: that 
c Quamprimùm contigerit miseram illa foeminam ex hac vita discedere, etc. Garnet bis Comfession at the Bar.  None should be acknowledged King of England, but such as was a professed and resolute Catholic: Nulli, quantâcunque sanguinis propinquitate nitantur: that is, No other, though never so nigh in blood. Which Breves, he (perceiving the general applause of people yielding to the right of Succession according to dearness in blood) burned. Thus we see if the Pope's power had not been disappointed by want of force, his Majesty, though nearest in blood, might not have entered but with blood. Now therefore what a case am I in? If I shall deny my fonner assertion, than your superior Priest Garnet will accuse me for a liar; for his majesties case was not different from others, seeing The Pope gave contradiction to his succession: if I still defend it, than your Priestship doth accuse me for a Slanderer of holy Priesthood.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

d Lam supra.  Because the Pope gave a jubet of all obedience, and prohibet restraint of disobedience.   

The Reply.  
Yea, jubet of obedience? jubet? what is that? Every child can expound it literally to signify To command, but by Popish Gloss may happily signify to forbid: for we must not be ignorant of your like glozing in the public Decrees of Popes. Whereas your Canon is 
e Grat. dist. 4. col. 2. § Statuimus.  Statuimus, We decree: that is, (saith your Expositor) We abrogate, or disallow. Is it not as easy for you to turn jubet, to an id est, prohibet? Howsoever we perceive your subjection stands still upon the Pope's jubet, that (as it is recorded of the French) 
f Arnold. in Orat. ●●uers. Jes.  If he shall command to kill the King, you must be his subjects. Lastly, there is but one of these Authors above mentioned, who speaketh expressly of the excommunicate: and there is not one of them, but judgeth a public professed Protestant in the state of an 
g Vide supra. chap. 2. & 3. etc.  Excommunicate. To conclude therefore, be you admonished not to prejudice your modesty so much, as to tax any for an Unjust Accuser, against whom you can show no just exception. Yet there remaineth two other mysteries to be unfolded, the first is yours, the second is your Superiors.    

CHAP. XIIII.  
The new device of our moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 6. § But first.  TThere is at this present a great difference between the Emperor, who is created by the Pope's laws, and with his solemnities from whence he receiveth his sword; and a King that is absolute, and not so created or depending for power or jurisdiction, such as our Sovereign in England: for the Emperor is the Pope's Minister, as saith Molina.  

The Reply.  
We might peradventure be beholden unto you for this distinction, if we could presume you knew what you said: being guilty herein of a double falsehood, first, to think, That the Emperor hath no power, but from the Pope: the second, to say you think, That other Kings have not any power, which is not from the Pope. The former is confuted 
* Infra part 〈…〉  hereafter: the other now in this place. For your Carerius, making unction by Romish Bishops in Coronation of Kings to be essential to royalty, without which they be no Kings, saith: 
b Notissimum est Reges Galliae, Angliae, Scotiae, Daniae, Suethiae, nisi ungerentur ab Episcopis, non fuisle pro Regibus habitos: ut aperuit Thomas Bozius, etc. Carerius lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 17.  That this is a doctrine most commonly known of all, that the Kings of France, England, Scotland, etc. were never esteemed Kings before their Unction: 
c Parsons in his Dolman pag▪ 132  No more (saith your Parsons) in the rigour of justice before (Popish) Coronation, than the Mayor of London can be called Mayor before his oath. 
d Qui non sinit ●e à Sacerdotibus ut Regem ungi in eum finem ut Religionem Christianam defendat, nullo iure possit Christianos in Baptismo unctos regere. Reinald. in Rosaeus pag▪ 535.  Which Unction whosoever shall refuse (saith Reinalds) can have no right to govern Christians anointed in Baptism. In brief: 
e Allane in his Admonition. pag. 31.  None is lawful King or Queen of England (saith your Cardinal) without the approbation of the See Apostolic. All grossly false: for first: 
f In Francia Reges, qui iure haereditario succedunt, ante solennem inaugurationem & coronationem, ut ex amplissimi ordinis decreto constitutum est, pro consecrato & inaugurato habentur Barclaius lib. 3. contra Monarchomach. cap 2.  In France (saith your Barclay) Kings who are to succeed by inheritance, are judged as consecrate and inaugurate before they be solemnly anointed. And shall we think the French Kings to exceed our English herein? No, I have heard Lawyers say, The King of England never dieth. I think they speak not without book; otherwise Q. Mary could never have justified her act, when she beheaded the Duke of Northumberland, some months before her Coronation, for high treason against her royal person, I return to your argument. 
g Si Imperator saltem honore & dignitate cunctis Regibus in Ecclesia excellentior reputatur, à Papa demum reprobari possit, multò magis caeteri Principes à Papa punientur: nam, ut aiunt, qui eminentem Aquilam domat, facilè Accipitres comprimet. Carerius quo supra. lib. 1. cap. 3.  If the Emperor (saith your Carerius) who is held more eminent, at least in dignity, than any King, may be rejected by the Popes: then much more other Kings may be punished by the Pope's authority. For he that can tame an Eagle, may much more command hawks. Here we observe your spirits of contradiction: you from comparison of disparity between the Emperor and other Kings, would seem to free Kings, and enthrall the Emperor: your Doctor Carerius from the contrary disparity would bring all Kings into subjection. But know, that howsoever now the Eagle be entangled, whom you esteem no better than the Pope's vassal, yet Non facile Accipitri rete sternitur. And that neither Emperor nor King are lawfully subject to this yoke, is afterward made manifest.   

A second new device.  

h Garnet publicly at his Arraignment.  His Majesty is not in the case of Excommunication, as other relapsed Protestants, because he was borne in that faith which he professeth.   

The Reply.  
And yet the now Henry 4. King of France sucking Protestant's doctrine from his nurse, was excluded from his birthright of the Crown, till he was reconciled unto the Pope. And this same father Garnet had a Breve from the Pope to bar our Sovereign from Succession, except he should be found absolutely a Romish Catholic. If then the Born Protestants be free from Excommunication, why did the Pope exclude the King of France, or by his Breve to you, except against the King of England? If the case be otherwise, what Quacksalvers be you to offer a salve which cannot possibly cure the sore? I have digressed a little, but I hope not transgressed; for this point was, you see, pertinent. I return to you our moderate Answerer, and we will now join issue in the next Reason.    

CHAP. XV.  
The Discovery in the fourth Reason.  
WHen the King is established in his throne by the common consent of the Kingdom; whosoever shall manackle the hands of his subjects, detracting all obedience, may justly by order of law be challenged and condemned for a disordered and rebellious person. But all popish priests do dissolve the oath of obedience to all Protestant Governors. Ergo. The Minor proved by  

Their Positions.  
First one of their Bishops resolveth, that 
a Quamprimum Reges Christiani facti sunt heretici, protenùs eorum Subiecti ab illorum Dominio liberantur. Simancha Episc. Instit. lit. 23. sect. 11.  As soon as a Christian King becomes heretical, forthwith people are freed from subjection.  
Secondly their Cardinal. 
b durant excommunicatione qui obnoxij erant vinculo fidelitatis vel juramenti tali vinculo liberabuntur. Tollet. Ies & Card. Instruct. Saccrd. lib. 1. Cap. 13.  As long as the Prince continueth excommunicate, the subject is freed from the oath of subjection. By whom are they freed? 
c Non videtur negandun, posse Rom. Pontificem se & alios solvere à iurisiurandi religione & lege, modò justa causa subsit. Azor. Ies. Instit. Mor. Cap. 15. § Sextò quaeritur.  By the Pope (saith the lesuit) who upon just cause hath just power to absolve from oaths both himself and all others. Sometime the Prince is personally excommunicate, what then? 
d Postquam per Pontificem (nominati●…) excommunicantur, extunc Vasalli ab eius fidelitate denunciantur absoluti: Et terra eius exponitur Catholicis occupanda, qui eam, exterminatis hereticis, absque ulla contradictione possideant Massonius juriscons de Mayest. milit. Eccl. par. 2. lib. 4. de Imperijs pag. 676.  Then (saith their Lawyer) Subjects are freed from their allegiance: and all his heretical Assistants to be rooted out, and their land to be exposed to be possessed of (Strangers) Catholics. But how if he be not excommunicate by name? yea, what though not excommunicate? 
e cum est crimen notorium, nullâ est opus declaratione sententiae excommunicationis Panormitan. Cap. Come in homine extra de judicijs.  If (saith an other) his heresy be publicly known, there needeth no pronunciation of the sentence of Excommunication. 
f Crimen heresis, si fit notorium, ut nullâ possit tergiversatione caelari, etiam ante judicis sententiam, incurritur (ex part) poena praedicta: nimirùm, eatenùs, ut subditi licitè possint tali Domino negare obsequium. Valent. 〈…〉. 3. in Thom. Disp. 1. q. 12. punct. 2. pag. 463. § Nunc.  So that (saith the jesuit) Subjects may lawfully deny him obedience. How so? 
g In hoc articulo ●u●t ●chnus & C●jetanus, & communior scent 〈◊〉 ap●d ●…ulos D. Thomae, & probant, quia ia hac causa adest ●emper volu●tas interpretat●… Pontisi●●s, qui obtinet vim s●ntentiae, atque evidentia ●acti habet vim sententiae. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 12 Act. 2. Con●lus. 2.  For the evidence of the crime (saith their whole school) doth infer a sentence of condemnation, because (as the more common opinion defineth) there must we understand the Pope his will is to have him excommunicate, whom upon the knowledge of his fault he would excommunicate. Say, Father Creswell, is this true? 
h Hoc universa Theologorum & lurisconsultorum Schola tenent, & est certum, & decide. Cresa ●llus I●s. in suo Philopater. pag. 194.  It is certain and of faith avouched by the universal voice of Schools. Satisfy us yet in one question more: Suppose that the Protestant Prince have a just quarrel, what then? 
* In the copy of a letter sent by Card. Allen to Sir Willi●m Stanley. pag. 10.  No war can be lawfully denounced or waged by the Queen (being excommunicate by name) though otherwise in it self it were most just, because her power is unlawful.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

i The Answer cap. 5. in initio.  This is the first Proposition I grant unto; but how false and standerous his Assumption is, I have proved before. Secondly all his authorities he bringeth are private men, not able to make a dogmatical principle, or public position; again they entreat of such as be nominatim excommunicate: of which sort there is no Protestant Prince; neither can there be any just fear of the Pope's general proceeding herein: except any Protestant Prince should be incited by some such unchristian spirits, as this Discoverer seemeth to be possessed with, to exceed all others in persecuting Catholics, and offering indignities to the Church of God.   

The Reply.  
It seemeth you were now in your natural choler, because in this one Answer you do vilify your friends, threaten your Sovereign, traduce your Adversary, and in conclusion condemn your own ghostly fathers.  
Your friends: to call these your Doctors, Cardinal Tollet, Reinolds, Symancha, Creswell, Stapleton, Azorius, Panormitan, Greg of Valentia, Bannes, and such like, and the most of them most public and eminent Doctors your late Romish Church did glory in, and authorized with the common consent of Ordinaries, privileges of Colleges, and your universal school; to call, I say, such like private men, and not be able to oppose one private man of that sect against them, doth argue a spirit of rare modesty, and singular insufficiency.  
Your Sovereign: If he shall offer, as you misconstrue it, to persecute, and to cut off the most capital enemies to his state, and gangrenes of their country, than The Pope etc. O sir, remember yourself, One of his majesties loyal Subjects etc. This is not modesty, but hypocrisy.  
Your Adversary, The Discoverer, forsooth, an unchristian spirit: who doth discover only the hook, of treason, whereby silly souls are catched; and herein not chargeable with misieporting his authors, desirous to recall you to the ancient truth of Christian subjection, and (if it be possible) to saving health; And yet is thus censured as an inciter of his Majesty against Romish Priests, whom their own positions and practices do proclaim publicly to be persons seditious.  
Your Fathers: for this proposition, Whosoever shall manacle the hands of Subjects, denying obedience to their established Kings, must be judged a rebellious person, you say you Grant: now it hath been proved, that not only these above named Jesuits, but also your Popes have been principals in these kinds of Treasons both against the Emperor Henry the fourth, and also the mirror of all princely wisdom, Elizabeth our late Sovereign. And therefore in your conclusion you enfold your Popes in the root of these rebellions. These Popes we have discovered by their practices, as for example.    

CHAP. XVI.  
The Discoverer in the Practice.  
FIrst, Pope Gregory the seventh, alias Hildebrand, beginneth his pageant 
i Nos eos, qui Excommunicatis fidelitate & sacramento censtricti sunt, Apostolicà autoritate ●…ramento absoluimus. Greg. 7. Pont. ap●d Grat. Caus. ●5. q. 6.  We by Apostolical authority do absolve all from their oaths, which they have given to persons excommunicate. And another Gregory useth the like tenor, 
k Nos excommunicamus universos haereticos, ut absolutos se noverint omni fidelitatis debito, qui iis juramento tenebantur astricti. Greg. 9 Pont. lib. 5. D●cr●t. tit. 7. Cap. 5. Glossa.  We absolve, etc. in the same case. Lastly, Pius Quintus, their successor in place, but superior in malice: 
l Volumus & jubemus etc. & absoluimus subditos vinculo juramenti, quo Reginae Elizabethae constricti tenebantur. Pius 5. Pontifex in Bulla.  We command all Subjects (saith he) etc. and absolve them from the faith they have plight with Elizabeth their Queen.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer Cap. 5. § And first.  First to Gregory the seventh, who, as this man urgeth, absolved all from obedience to Excommunicates: I answer for all Catholics in general, that this nothing concerned Protestants, neither any heretics; but only such as he had other quarrels and contentions against.   

The Reply.  
True, the histories of those times show, that the Popes were after some 600. years after Christ always quarrelous; and according to that proper name of Gregory the seventh (now mentioned) called Hildebrand, the very firebrands of Christendom. But how do you satisfy for Hildebrand? I grant (say you) that he that dissolveth the obedience of Subjects to their Sovereigns, is justly accounted seditious: Here you cannot deny, but that Pope Gregory the seventh absolved all from obedience to excommunicates. You know what followeth: Ergo, the Pope is condemned as one guilty of high treason: This is commendable modesty, which is void of partiality. To the second example you answer.   

The moderate Answer.  

b Answer Cap. 5. § But he.  But he urgeth the Gloss of Gregory the ninth, and citeth the Decret where there is no such matter, or any thing like unto it.  
I commend your diligence, and wish you were as modest to acknowledge all my other truths, as I am to confess this my only escape: which the importunity of the time, and not the exigence of examples did occasion. For besides other examples, I might have insisted upon that Bull of Paulus the 3. against King Henry the 8. which differeth not from the tenor of the decree alleged 
* Supra.  We command the Nobles of England by force of arms to expel Henry the 8. out of that Kingdom. This than was an error of mistaking my Author, not by ●eigning of false matter, which is proved by so many witnesses. But I thank you for your taxation of this default, trusting that your modesty will condescend to that point of law, He that excepteth in some doth yield to the rest.   

The moderate Answerer.  

c Ibid. § Lastly.  lastly he bringeth in the Bull of Pius Quintus against Queen Elizabeth: but I answer, that many grave and learned men have thought the information of the case of Queen Elizabeth to the See Apostolic, whereupon the censure of Excommunication was awarded against her, to have been untrue: and Pius Quintus, an holy man, himself after bewailed the proceedings upon such suggestion.   

The Reply.  
In this Answer (I confess) you show some art, as namely, to deplore the state past, that you may more easily delude the present. Touching the first. Say, was the information against the Queen untrue? and did Grave men so judge of it? Take heed what you say; This answer will more prejudice the two principal prerogatives of that your Romish See, than you are aware of; as namely, the power of canonizing Saints, and excommunicating of Princely sinners, which both are cases reserved as proper to the Pope, and both proceeding (as you say) from the 
d De Apostolicae autoritatis plenitudine declaramus etc. Tenor Bullarum Papalium.  fullness of Apostolic authority.  
The truth of canonizing Saints; as for example, Thomas Becket, dependeth upon true information: so (by your own confession) the truth of excommunication, (as of Queen Elizabeth,) must rely upon a just suggestion. Now then did your Pope Pius err in excommunicating, and so in condemning 
e Canus locis Theolog. & Bellar. lib de Cultu Sanctorum.  an innocent? and might he not likewise err in canonizing an Offender?  
The second prerogative which that See doth challenge is, Appeals to Rome: but seeing a lying fame (like a rolled snowball) the further it moveth the more increaseth in her falsehood: we must learn wisdom from that ancient Council of Carthage (whereunto Saint Augustine did subscribe) which thought it necessary, for fear of false information, to have all causes judged in their own Countries: and therefore did expressly decree against the See of Rome, that none should make appeal beyond the Sea.  
But because this practice of Pius in excommunicating our late gracious Sovereign, doth lively exemplify all popish positions in our late Discovery, we must desire your patience to be informed in the true circumstances which concern this excommunication, not by the witness of your imagined Grave men, who, if they ever were, yet now happily be dead in their graves: but by those monuments which make the acts of dead men immortal, such as the tenor of the Bull of Pius doth purport.    

Pius etc. Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.  
The Bull of 
f Summa Constitutionum summotum Pontificum à Greg. 9 usque ad Sixtum Quintum: Per Petrum Mathaeum collecta & commentarijs illastrata.  PIUS QVINTUS, with the principal circumstances and interpretation thereof: written by Petrus Mathaeus, and dedicated to Sixtus Quintus then Pope.  

The Bull.  

g Pius etc. cum impij multi alios pessimis doctrinis corrumpentes ad Angliae Reginam, veluti ad Asylum, omnium infestissimi persuger●t: ubi illa supremi Ecclesiae Capitis locum in omni Anglia, ●i●… que praecipuam autoritatem atque jurisdictionem monstrosè usurpans, amplexis haereticotum erroribus, Regnum illud obscuris hominibus haereticis comple●it, Catholicae fide● cultores oppresset, Mi●…ae sacrificium, jejunia, delectum ciborum, coelibatum, ritú que Catholicos abolevit, impia mysteria & instituta ad calvini praescriptum à se suscepta & obseruata, etiam à subditis servari mandavit▪ Catholicos Episcopos & Ecclesiarum Rectores suis Ecclesijs dejicere, in homines haereticos disponere, déque Ecclesiae causis disponere ausa; Clero & populo ne Romanam Ecclesiam agnoscerent, neuè eius sanctionibus Canonicis obtemperarent, interdixit, seque solam in temporalibus & spiritualibus Dominam agnoscere, jure iurando co●git; poenas in ●os, qui non essent audientes, imposuit; Catholicos Antistites in vincula co●…t: quae omnia cum apud omnes nationes perspicua & notoria sunt, gravissimóque quam plunmorum testimonio ita comprobata, ut nullus omnino locus excusationis relinquatur; quo●…am animum eius ita obfirmatum intelligimus, ut ne huius quidem sedis nuncios in Angliam trajicere permiserit: De Apostolicae sedis plenitudine declaramus praedictam Elizabetham Reginam haereticam, & haereticorum ●autricem, eique adhaerentes in praedictam Anathematis sententiam incurrisse, esseque à Christi corpore praecisos: quinetiam ipsam quocunque dominio ac dignitate privatam, & item Proceres, & subditos dicti regni, & caeteros omnes, qui illi quomodocunque iuraverit, à juramento huiusmodi, & omni prorsus dominij, fidelitatis, & obsequij debito perpetuo absolutos. Eulla Pij Quinti.  BEcause the Queen of England hath filled her Country with Heretics, oppressing the Catholics, translating the Byshopricks of Catholic Prelates upon Heretics, not acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome, but making herself head in all causes within her Dominions; We from the fullness of our Apostolical power do pronounce Elizabeth an Heretical Queen, and a favourer of Heretics, and denounce Anathema to all that shall adheere unto her; and also deprive her of all rule and dignity, Absolving all the subjects of the land, of what condition soever, from the oath of their Subjection, and from all manner of obedience. This is the sum of the Bull of Excommunication. Now hear   

The Interpretation thereof.  

h Propter huius Apostolici scripti publicationem unus aut alter maiori zelo praediti mox Londini, ubi ipsius pseudoepiscopi valuis affixum fuit, extremum supplicium laesae maiestatis condemnati constanter subierunt. Hoc scriptum, Pio Quinto mortuo, à Successore suo renovatum ac confirmatum fuit: quòd haeretici palam, ut puerorum terriculamenta, ita se prorsus contemnere simulabant, licet reuer à de rei eventu vehementer dubitantes, dicerentur secretò Romae, per quosdam magnos vi●os de sententiae revocationè plurimum, sed frustra, laborasle. Petrus Matthaeus infra Bullam. Et Elizabetha Regina haeretica etiam fuit & est. Ibid. in margin Bullae.  This Bull after the death of Pius Quintus, was confirmed by his Successor; which the Heretics themselves, doubting the danger of the event, did labour (as it is said) secretly by great men to have this sentence of Excommunication repealed: But all in vain. The Queen was and is an Heretic.  
By this Bull, and interpretation thereof, your whole moderate Answer is convinced of extreme impudency.  
First, 
* Answer supra Cap. 1.  No Protestants are by any Catholics accounted Heretics: yet here, he whom you named the chief Shepherd, hath named our Queen and her Subjects six times 
* Supra.  Heretics. We dispute of Bulls, and Bulls have horns: I must therefore encounter you with a Dilemma, which the Logicians call an Horned argument; thus, If that no Catholics can call Protestants Heretics, than was not Pius Quintus and his Successor (both Bishops of Rome) Catholics; who have numbered Protestants in the catalogue of Heretics: If Protestants be to be judged Heretics, than this your Answer is blasted, Protestants are no Heretics. You are then in these straits, either to recant your Answer, or to renounce your ghostly father.  
Secondly, the horned syllogism doth assault you the second time, thus: If the excommunication of our Queen by your Pius was just, why was it 
* The Answer supra.  Bewailed? If it were unjust, why was it 
i Matthaeus supra.  not repealed? This is a second strait, either to confess your Answer to have been inconsiderate, or else your Pope's Bull to have run mad: and so it did: for 
* Prou. 17. 15.  To condemn the innocent, and justify the ungodly both are abominable to the Lord.  
Thirdly, the horned Argument doth again tume upon you, thus, Either you Priests will take an oath of constant obedience, without the Pope's arbitrary pleasure, or you will not; If so, than the pretended power Papal indirectly over Kings, must be directly renounced: If not, then, for me to affirm, that Every Priest Romish doth deny the oath of obedience, is no Slander. This is an other strait, and doth constrain you to acquit me as no slanderer, or else to confess your Pope an usurper.  
Lastly, your Pope Pius did Bewail the proceedings of that Bull, and so we verily think, but so as your Guido Faux immediately after his apprehension, sorrowed for the proceeding of his stratagem, namely, Because it did not proceed. For (as your Interpreter complaineth) 
k Regina, postquam Bulla publicata est, maioti molestia Catholicos affecit Mat. quo sup.  The Queen after that time did more grievously afflict the Romish. Wherefore we wish the Article verified of your excommunicating Bulls, which is vulgarly common in the like kind, viz. To have always short ●ornes. This of the acts past.    

CHAP. XVII.  
Concerning the State present.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer quo supra in fine.  IF the case was such betwixt the Popes and deceased Princes: yet I cannot conceive how any equal minded Protestant can think that the Pope so strictly commanding obedience of all Catholics to his Majesty, will or can be so contrary to himself, to publish a contrary command against a King, offering in public Parliament to meet with the Romish Church, all novelties taken away, (we wish no more) and in the mean time acknowledge the same Roman Church to be our Mother. Church, and that his mind was to free us from persecution for matters of Conscience. Of such a King Bellarmine himself, cited against us, will be witness, that he thinketh the Pope cannot proceed against him.   

The Reply.  
Conceive but how strictly the Pope hath commanded obedience; and than you will easily understand how largely you may become treacherous.  
First, the Pope's Bull of Excommunication against our late Queen, 
b Supra cap. 1 6. lit. 〈◊〉.  was nailed publicly upon the Bishop of London's gate: but this gentle Bul of obedience doth without any voice range secretly, we know not where, (it may be as the Pope's Breve, in Garnets' pocket) and named to be, by them, who are not, because they do equivocate.  
Secondly, the Pope's Bull of obedience is so strictly commanded, as always limited within the crooked hooks of this Parenthesis (
c Vide infr● Rat. 8.  Rebus sic stantibus) or (
d Vide infra Rat. 〈◊〉. in prect.  Donec vires habeant) that is, (Till there be opportunity,) or (
e Vide supr● cap. 6.  Pro hac vice, for this time.) Whereof our English State hath had too large experience. For to insist only upon the present: when the opportunity of surprising the King, Queen, and Prince, was plotted by the Disciple of Machiavelli; then the Pope hath two Priests (Watson and Clerk) to dissolve that knot of obedience: when after the opportunity of that Sudden blow, against the whole State, had possessed the malignant; then there is presently at hand a Provincial and his Priest subordinates to kindle the minds of their Agents, hellishly to consume and swallow up both obedience, and all the persons to be obeyed.  
That his Majesty so graciously wished there might be some means of compounding dissensions, and an universal marriage betwixt temporal peace and truth of Religion, proceeded from his most Christian heart: teaching rather what you should, than what you will do, who deny to remit any Romish superstition, though it savour of mere novelty. As is apparent in the Oration of Gasper in the Council of Trent: where question was concerning the use of the Sacrament in both kinds, according to the institution of our Saviour Christ, and the use Ecclesiastical for a thousand years in God's Church; did resolve notwithstanding, no: but why? Ne errasse videamur.  
His Majesty saith, All novelties taken away; you say, We wish no more. But if you would have been correspondent to his majesties wish, you should have answered, We wish no less. But your modesty would never yet grant, that there were any novelties in that Church, where notwithstanding there is nothing else but daily brewing new liquor, hopped with Wormwood.  
His Majesty hath expressed his meaning, to call the Romish Church our Mother Church; as that Church Romish may now call Jerusalem: but when both mothers will be parricides, to murder their children which speak against Idolatry their spiritual adultery, they may be called mothers in name, in deed monsters.  
You cite Bellarmine and omit this his sentence: 
f Non licet tolerate Regem haereticum conantem pertrahere subditos ad suam opinionem. At judicare an Rex pertrahat suos subditos ad haeresin nec ne, pertinet ad Pontificem. Bellar. lib. 5 de Rome Pont. cap. 7. § Tertia.  It is not lawful to suffer a King who is an Heretic, when he shall labour to draw his people to heresy. To judge hereof whether he draw his subjects to heresy or no, is the proper office of the Pope. I suppose there is no Infidel in the world, endued with any opinion of God, but he would labour to draw his subjects to his opinion. Now than the cause of our King persisting to be a Protestant is no better than his Predecessor; for it is yielded to the Pope both to judge who is an Heretic, and when he shall so judge, then, according to his Libet to send from Rome, comes a Non licet tolerare Regem. Will your modesty never leave deluding us by pretended allegations of Jesuits? as here to that purpose to give hope of reconciliation, whereas only by the insolency of Jesuits all such hope is debarred. As is plain by this forecited jesuit: for whereas that most grave and learned Cassander, honoured of two Emperors for his singular learning and piety, did teach, that 
g Debent Principes invenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos, Lutheranos, Caluinistas, qui omnes, dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum, vera sunt membra Ecclesiae, licèt a nobis in particularibus dissentiant. Cassander lib. de Officio 〈◊〉 viri.  Emperors should endeavour a reco●…ion betwixt Papists and Protestants: because (saith he) Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, although they descent from us in some particular opinions. The grand jesuit doth answer, that 
h Falsa est haec sententia Cassandris, non possunt●n Catholici reconciliari cum Haereticis. Bellar. lib. 3. de ●aicis cap. 19  This judgement of Cassander is false: for Catholics cannot be reconciled with Heretics, heretically meaning Protestants.    

CHAP. XVIII.  
The Discovery.  
WE have already understood, how they forbid to Kings: now will we also examine how they enforce violence. And in this case we argue thus:  

The fifth Reason.  
Whosoever suggesteth a doctrine of forcible deposing of Princes from their thrones, are therein manifestly rebellious: But all Popish Priests defend violent deposing of Kings and Emperors. Ergo   

Their Positions.  
Costerus. 
a Penes Romanos Pontifices semper fuit potestas ad tollenda incommoda Ecclesiae, & damna animatum, Reges regnis, & Imperatores imperijs privandi. Costerus I. s. Apol. pro part. 1. Enchirid. pag. 64.  This power (saith he) of deposing Kings of their Crowns, and Emperors of their dignities, in behalf of the good of the Church, was always peculiar to the Pope: 
b Non enim minus authoritatis á Christo collatum est Vicario suo ad ovium tutelam & commodum, quam à Villico datur Mercenario, qui pecora pascit. Ih. pag. 64  who hath no less authority, as Christ's Vicar over Christians, than the hireling hath over his beasts. 
c Depositio Imperatoris ex justa causa pertinet ad summum Pontificem: quia Imperator est tanq●am Minister summi Pontificem, gladium jurisdictionis temporalis ad nutum summi Pontificis exercens. Molina Ies. Tract. 2. de justitia disp. ●9. ●d 〈◊〉. pag. 149.  So the Pope hath authority over the Emperor (saith Molina) because the Fmperor is but the Pope's minister, and is to use his temporal sword only at his beck. But what if King's will not enthrall themselves to the Pope's authority? 
d Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum, si co●…t●r pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresin. Bellar. ●es. & Cardinal. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 6. 7. & 4.  It is not lawful for christian's (saith the Cardinal) to tolerate any King, who draweth his Subjects unto heresy. 
e Sed debent Subditi operam dare, ut in eius locum alius quamprimùm surrogetur. Sanderus Theolog. Professor. devis●…. Monarch lib. 2. cap. 4. § ●us autem pag. 70.  But subjects ought (saith Sanders) to endeavour to set up another in his place. 
f Debent illum, tanquam Christi h●…stem, ex hominum Christianorum dominatu ●i▪ cere: quae est virorum doctis●imorum ind●…tata sententia, doctrinae Apostolicae conformis. Creswel. les. in suo Philopater pag. 194.  Yea, they ought (saith Creswell) to expel him out of his kingdom, as the enemy of Christ. An undoubted doctrine among the learned, and agreeable to Apostolical truth. Yea which is more: 
g Etiam●i Pontifex toleraret Regem Apostatam, tamen Resp. Christiana possit illum pellere è regno quoniam Pontifex sine ratione permittit illum impunitum. Dom. Bannes 2. 2. quest. 12. A●●. 2.  Although the Pope (saith Bannes) should tolerate an heretical King, yet may the Commonwealth remove him. And yet behold a greater mystery of this iniquity than all these: for suppose that the King deposed shall be willing to be reconciled to the Church, 
h Nec 〈◊〉 hoc recuperabunt, quamuis poste● reconcilientur Ecclesiae. Simancha Instit. Cathol. ●it. 33. Sect. 11.  Yet notwithstanding (saith Simancha) he may not recover his Crown.   

The moderate Answerer.  

i Answer in his Chap 6.  Let us grant this Proposition, Whosoever, etc.   

The Reply.  
Let us grant? We know not by this whether you grant it by Asseveration, to allow it; or only by way of Concession, for disputation's sake, as not to grant it. This your Art of answering would be discovered for of one Mayor Proposition in your 4. Chapter you say, For this present I grant this Mayor, and yet after in the fifth Chapter of another Mayor, This is the first Proposition I grant unto. Wherefore sophisticating in this manner [Let us grant:] & deluding a Proposition, which discovereth so manifestly a doctrine rebellious, will somewhat impeach your moderation of a guilty disposition. To the matter.   

The moderate Answerer.  

k Ibidem.  Not one of these particular Authors defend violent deposing of Kings.   

The Reply.  
Though I know your devotion can dispense with lying, if with an 
l Insra.  intent to cover the leprosy of your Sect, yet me thinketh, your discretion might have taught you, to use that Art where it should not be so transparent as that any one of small reading might easily convince you. For what? not one of your sect teach violence? First, your Frenchman 
m Vt Ichu lezabelem. Lib. de justa Abdicat. pag. 57 So Lodovic. de Orleans.  The Nobles must depose the King, as jehu did jezabel: there was violence. Your Parsons, 
n Parsons in his Dolman. pag 33.  As David did Goliath: violence. Your Card. Allane. 
o Allane in his Admonition. pag. 33. & 53. in the place forceited  My Lords and dear Countrymen, for Gods love fight against the Queen to depose her, as the Priests did Athalia: violence. Your Reinolds: 
p Reinalds in his Rosaeus in the plowfurniture.  Revenge and root out as judith did Holofernes: violence. Your Costerus: 
q Vt Villicus pecora Costerus locis citatis.  As an herdsman his cattle: violence. Your Bellarmine. 
r Non licet subditis tolerare Regem haereticum, sed expellere eum debit, ut Pastor ●upum. Bellar. lib 5 de Rom. Pont. cap. 7.  It is not lawful to suffer a King heretical, but to expel him, as the shepherd doth a Wolf: violence. Your Creswell. 
s Creswell in Philopater.  subjects ought to expulse such a King out of his dominion: violence. Your Simancha. 
t Vide infra.  As the Scythians, who murdered their King: violence. Your Bannes: 
u Tenentur Anglivi Reginam suam deijcere. Infra.  The English ought to depose their Queen by force, all which is violence. We hanc also alleged examples of many Popes, who used all open violence. To which might be added Azorius, Salmeron, Bristol, Stapleton and others, all crying Adarma. And yet you say, Not one. What impudent modesty is this, to deny before the Reader, that which none who readeth can deny: idly conceiting a power to depose without violence, (in your opinions Heretics obstinate) that is, such as cannot be deposed without violence. Your comparison of the Emperor with our King is but a shadow, which 
* Vide supra.  vanisheth in this Treatise following.    

CHAP. XIX.  
The Discovery.  

Let us now see this family of Corah.  
WE will omit Henry's, frederic, Othoes, and like Emperors and Kings of former times: call but to mind that which hath been visible in our days, the late Henry of France, concerning whom their own Prophet hath published a Treatise, the scope thereof is this: 
a Henricam dig●… regia excid●sse, Gallosue securâ conscient●â in cum, ut publicae sidei violatore bella●le. Lib. de iasta Abdicat. Henr. 3. pag. 370  The French have with good conscience borne arms against K. Henry the third, and deprived him of his Crown. Return home, there we see a Comet. The Rebel Oneale is up in arms against his Queen: the College of Salamane bring pitch to quench this flame, and resolve thus: 
b Eos omnes Catholicos peccare mortaliter, qui Anglorum castra contra Augonem Oneale sequuntur, nec posse ●os aeternam salutem consequi, nec ab ullo Sacerdote àpeccatis absolui, nisi priusquam resipiscant, & Castra Anglorum deserant. Determinatio Vniversitatis Salamancae. Anno 1602.  Whatsoever Catholics shall not for sake the defence of the English, and follow Oneale, doth sin mortally, and cannot obtain life everlasting, except he desist. Shall we think that other Priests can have more loyal spirits? Impossible, as long as they receive their breath from that Master, who commendeth the former Positions against the foresaid King of France. 
c Theologi illi ●ecerunt quod Consultorum, Conse●●ariorū, Doctorum ●uit. X●stus Quintus Papa, ut habetur lib. de just. Abdi●. Henr. 3. pag. 370.  Those Divines (saith Pope Xistus) have done the parts of good Lawyers, Confessors, and Doctors. His Successor (this rancour growing by Succession inveterate) Pope Pius against our late Sovereign: 
d Volumus & jubemus, ut adversus Elizabetham Angliae subditi arma capessant. Bulla Pij Quinti Pen. Max.  We will and command the Subjects of England to take arms against Elizabeth their Queen.   

The moderate Answerer.  

e Answer cap. 6. § Now let.  Now let us hear this the supposed public practice in this point: I answer, he allegeth three authorities only of private men, which do not pronounce the judgement to be public.   

The Reply.  
You contest for all Catholics, and teach us to answer, that this your Answer is but the writing of a private man: but you have public approbation from your Superior, & they from many are publicly authorized. And yet again remember yourself. 
f Answer cap. 2. § Lastly, let.  Not above four or five examples (say you) can be given in the whole Christian world, for the space of 1500. years of Popes of Rome, who have translated titles to depose Princes. Well then you grant five; your Bellarmine doth urge 
g Bellar. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8.  Seven, as from public Records: a notable contradiction. You But four or five, willing to subtract, as one ashamed of the number of your Fathers of Rebellions: but he allegeth Seven or eight, desirous to multiply, to make the pride of Romish Prelacy more glorious. Whether But seven, or But four, what can this avail for answer? As much as a felon accustomed to steal, he careth not how many horses: yet indicted for seven, shall answer, I had but four or five: which commendeth the want of that he would, not his will to want. Pope 
h Paulus tertius Papa Principibus ac Ducibus Angliae caeterisque Nobilibus praecepit, ut vi & armis se Henrico opponant, illumue è Regni sinibus eijceren tantur, ut pate● in hac Bu la Pauli 3. qui sic incipit: Paulus Episcopus servus seruotum, ad futuram rei memoriam, etc. Petrus Matthaeus Comment●n illa Bullam.  Paulus teruus did excommunicate Henry the 8. King of England, commanding his Nobles to bear arms against him. Your Pope Pius Quintus, now alleged, Did excommunicate Queen Elizabeth, dissolving all her subjects from their obedience. And yet he that is The King of Kings, maintained their Sceptres, not to suffer them to be deposed by those Popes, notwithstanding their good wills were manifested by their acts, their acts condemned by the events, which examples none can deny but were public. You further add.   

The moderate Answerer.  

i Quo supra. § I answer.  But his majesties case is different, except this Discoverer will inrolle him in the number of Excommunicate, which is most injurious to his Highness: for who seeth not that the Queen was Excommunicate?   

The Reply.  
Why injurious? what evil can ensue? for you seem by this Answer to portend some mischief, if it should happen his Majesty should be excommunicate: say, what evil? is it spiritual, as only to be excommunicate by the Pope? Why, this is nothing, because your Tolet saith truly, 
k Excommunicatio iniusta est invallida. Tolet. I●s. in instruct. & Azor▪ Je●. Justit. Moral.  An unjust Excommunication (such as we know the Popish is) doth not endanger the soul. Is it bodily? belike his Majesty shall find you a good Subject, howsoever (your spiritual being accompanied with violence in this his different case) you teach his highness to provide a corporal prevention, lest (as in the defect of our law sometime it happened, that a man might have been outlawed, and not have known of it, and so subjecteth to the extremity of that law) your Excommunication of Bulla Coenae upon your maundy Thursday by some 
* Faux did avouch the Maundie Excommunication for bi● warrant.  Guido be closely executed before his Majesty be aware.    

CHAP. XX.  
The Discovery.  
HItherto hath been manifested only their violence against the dignity of Princes: now hear of the violating of their sacred persons in conspiring their deaths.  

The sixth Reason.  
Whosoever doth intend, design, or practise the murder of Princes, must necessarily be holden for desperate Traitors: But all Popish Priests are guilty in some of these kinds. Ergo. The Minor proved by their Positions.  
They profess all, that it is lawful to take arms against their Kings, as we have proved: from whence we may argue against them, as he against a seditious one, 
* Cicero pro Ligario.  Quis sensus armorum? what other meaning can arms have but only blood? But not to dispute from our suppositions, but their Positions, by these degrees. First, the french defence saith, that Any man may lawfully murder 
a Tyrannun occidere honestum est, quod cuivis impunè facere pe●…, q●… consensu di●o. ●…a Abd●cat. H●n. 3. pag. 262. 〈◊〉 270.  Tyrant: which I defend (saith he) by common consent. Now 
b Facilè constat eum, qui quamcumque tuetur haeresin, apud Chustianos non minùs propri● perfecteque Tyrannum effici; quim qui apud Philosophos, spretâ civitatum conservation, omnia in republica stupris, rapinis, & hominum caedibus implet. Reinald. in suo Rosaeus. pag. 157.  It is evident (saith our Reinolds) That every Heretic Prince is most proper lie and perfectly a Tyrant: which is supposed by the Spanish jesuit, speaking of this point, That if (saith he) they may be bereaved of their lives, then much more of their livings and Crowns. And, which is the height of fury, 
d Imo graviori paena digni sunt Principes haeretici, quam privati homines: lure igitur et meritó Scythae Regem suum Scylen occiderunt propter externos ritus, quia in Bacchanalibus sacris initiatus erat. Simancha Inst. Cath. tit. 23. Sect. 12. & 13.  Heretical Kings (saith Simancha) deserve more grievous punishment then private men: therefore the Scythians (as he well deserved) did put to death their King Scylen, for violating their Bacchanals. Scythia a most barbarous Nation is the fittest glass that these Priests can find to look their faces in. Well, show us then your Scythian and heathenish practices: But first, let us hear your answer to these positions. 
c Vita privari possint; tum multó magis ommbus aliis bonis, atque adeó etiam praelatione in alios. Greg. Valent: some. 3. disp. 1 qu. 11. punct. 2.    

The very moderate Answerer.  

e Answer, cap. 7. §. But against.  I answer, that the late Lord Treasurer was thought in his days a man not second to many in political wisdom: And yet he telleth us in the book entitled, [The Execution of English justice,] that many Catholic Priests and Bishops also in this Kingdom, which although they were deprived of their dignities, and also imprisoned by Queen Elizabeth; yet are they dignified by that wise Councillor, with these titles of faithful and quiet subjects, inclined to dutifulness to the Queen's Majesty.   

Reply.  
Nay, that honourable Treasurer was not second to any in his time, so worthy a Counsellor both for policy and sound Religion, that you may be thought unworthy to commend him: whose wisdom as it was most excellent, so even in this question will prove as sufficient to display your felly. For his most commendable Treatise, of the Execution of English justice, did defend the proceedings of the Queen's Majesty; whom for the same justice your Pope did (if our Lord Treasurer in his singular wisdom knew justice) unjustly excommunicate. Yet he then commended many grave and learned Bishops and Clerks on your side for their faithful subjection. What though they then in the Orient of her majesties days were faithful? (peradventure because they then wanted force) yet after, toward the Sunset of her years were otherwise affected. This the Reason of that honourable and sage Counsellor doth show, bringing the examples of the former more moderate Romish Clarks by comparison to condemn the insolency of the later brood. This you modestly conceal: But father Creswell will deal plainly, who speaking to the Lord Burleigh (whom for honour sake I often mention) hath these words: 
f Si seditionem intelligis (nobiliss. D. Thesaurarium alloquitur) de qua Christus, [Non veni pacem in terram mittere, sed gladium] sanè intelligis; fateor, Sacerdotes nostros tibi inobedientes esse & sore semper. 〈…〉 in Philopater pag. 298. & 300.  If you by sedition (saith the jesuit) understand that whereof Christ spoke, saying, (an holy text wickedly perverted) [I came not to send peace into the world, but the sword,] which you (indeed) do so understand; I confess that we Priests both are and always will be seditious. Now than the question will be, whether your moderate, or his impudent answer be more dangerous.   

The moderate Answerer.  

g ●…pra. § 〈…〉.  The sentencer discursseth, as though arms had no other meaning but blood. But against Catholics, who know both offensive and 〈◊〉 fensive war, this man's bloody judgement can give no deadly wound.   

The Reply.  
Neither was your Sentencer ignorant of that distinction, which he learned long since from the very Heathen, who were illuminated with this truth, saying, that 
h Contra Reges sumendum esse scutum, non gladium. jucius.  Against Kings we may use a shield, but not a sword. But it was spoken according to the meaning of your Authors applying it to them, who both by position and practices have given sufficient tokens that their arms were most cruelly and cursedly offensive, which agreeth with your positions, as the discourse following will demonstrate. Yet again you insist.   

The moderate Answerer.  

i Answer quo supra. § Seeing.  The Discoverer bringeth the Author de justa Abdicat. to say of Henry the third, that it is an act honest to kill a Tyrant. Well then, King james by his judgement is a Tyrant: otherwise both he and the Author be judges against himself, for that Writer expressly nameth a Tyrant.   

The Reply.  
And the next Author doth interpret the meaning of the first, That every King, who defendeth heresy, is properly a Tyrant. This said your Reinolds, entreating of Protestant Princes, defining them to be properly Heretics: whereunto your jesuit Gregory de Valentia did assent. Whence I, according to the true and infallible law of Schools, conclude, that Romish Priests would have all Protestant Kings, as Tyrants, censured with death. Where is now your judgement? to make me guilty of that inference, which I noted to be most detestable in your sect? King james or our late Queen Tyrants? No, but they that say so be Traitors, who cannot discern betwixt a most gracious Prince, and a barbarous Tyrant; but by their monstrous mischiefs have turned extreme clemency into just extremity.    

CHAP. XXI.  
Discovery in the Practice.  
LEt us travel (but in our thoughts) into India, 
a Arnoldas in Synodo Parisiensi omné Tyannidem Hispanorum apud Indos solis jesuitis ascribit. Gal●… belgic. tom. 2. lib 10.  where (as your Arnoldus in his public Oration in the University of Paris did contest) the general clamour of the poor people was, that jesuits were the causes of all tyranny which was exercised amongst them. Pass homeward through Germany, there we see 
b Rodolphus Comes contra Henricum 4. (fulmine Greg. Pōt●sicis percussan) bellum gessir, etc. Abbas Vrspurg. Cranzius, & alij in suis Cronicis.  Duke Rodolph persecuting the Emperor his King by force of arms, through instigation of the Pope. From thence we come to France, where Clemens the Monk, as a bloody patricide, did murder Henry his King. Last to arrive at home, where after the Bull of Pius Quintus few years passed without desperate attempts against their Sovereign, that Bull bellowing thus. 
c jubemus ut adversus Reginam Angliae Subditi arma capessant. Bulla Pij Quinti.  We will and command Subjects to take arms against their Queen. Which breath possessed all those late conspirators, Arden, Someruile, Parrie, Cullen, Squire, Lopez with others: all by instigation of Priests sought the death of our and their Sovereign. And now at this present behold, and be astonished: A so●…ace provided to consume at once, not only the King, but also (because an absolute state assembled) the whole kingdom. Dared these Engineers do any such thing without direction from their priests? First they conspire by oath under the seal of the Sacrament, (here is probably a Priest.) Secondly 
* G. Faux.  he that was to put fire to it, runneth once again to the Seminary at Douai, doubtless, to consult with that Priestly Oracle. Thirdly, he will not bewray his complices, except he may be warranted by a Priest. And that this is their Priestly function, will appear in the subsequents.  

The moderate Answerer.  

d A●…. §. For prac●….  For practise in this point, he only allegeth three authorities, besides this unhappy Stratagem.   

The Reply.  
Yourself knows, that I might have brought in threescore of that kind, if I had been bend to have been as tedious in Allegations, as you are in repetitions: yet besides your late Stratagem I gave you examples of divers Conspirators English, for whom your modesty durst not, or your wisdom would not yield any other answer then dumb silence.   

The moderate Answerer.  

e Answer qu● supra.  It is known that Arnoldus was an enemy to the Society, confuted by Montanus: and Gallo-Belgicus is not without his hyperbolical locutions.   

The Reply.  
You know, that Arnold was the choice Orator and mouth of the University of Paris elected to plead against the Jesuits Society, whose judgement the State and Parliament of France did justify by their public act of expulsing the whole Society of Loyalists out of the Kingdom. Gallobelgicus indeed was more than hyperbolical, but it was in magnifying the Romish faction. But what say you generally for Priests?   

The most moderate Answerer.  

f Answer cap. 〈◊〉. § First.  I answer concerning Priests most maligned in this matter, that the Canon law itself is to the contrary: that neither Bishops nor any clerk may take arms either by their own authority or by the authority of the Pope of Rome: and reasons be added there, authorized by 
g De Episcopis verò vel quibuslibet Clericis, quod nec suâ nec authoritate Rom. Pontificis arma suscipere valeant, facilè probatur. Dear. 2. caus. 23 q. 8. de Episcopis.  Gregory the 13. alleged against us in this Treatise. And therefore all of that Order are absolutely freed from that jealousy, and may answer with Saint Ambrose against Auxentius, saying for his defence: My tears are mine armour, for such are the defence of Priests; otherwise I neither ought nor can resist.   

The Reply.  
The force of your Answer is this: There is a Canon contrary to them that shall say, Priests may take arms: Ergo, Priests have no Positions contrary to the Canon; or else is not your Order freed from all jealousy in this point. It will be therefore first material to show the doctrine of your Priests concerning this military discipline of Priests. Was not the jesuit and Author of the Book, De justa Abdicat. a Priest? and yet he admonisheth 
h Sacc●dotes primi ab oppressore religione discedant, & animos in●ictos induant, Elian imitantes, qui quadraginta Psendoprophetas interfecit. De justa Abdicat. 57  Priests to be the first of them that forsake the Oppressor of Religion, imitating Elias zeal, when he killed the false Prophets. Was not your Reinolds a Priest? and yet he would persuade 
i Postunt viri sanctissimi Monachi quoque haeretico Regi vim pro side inferente, viribus quoque resistere, ubi probabilis est defensionis oportunitas: & qui hoc sanctissimo certamine cum Catholicis Episcopis contra Haeren●um Regem moriuntur, ij sunt Marty●…s, & a Deo, non ut perduelles patriae vel Regis, poenam, sed ut. Martyrs Christi praemia coelo aeterna reportabunt. In his Rosaeus pag. 638. 639 & Rursu●.  That holymen, even Priests may resist by force Kings oppressing Religion, whensoever opportunity will serve: and that dying in such a quarrel they are not to be accounted Traitors, but Martyrs, not deserving punishment of God herein: but, as the soldiers of Christ, an eternal reward in heaven. Adding further, 
k Graeci Sacerdotes optimi Imperatoribus suis armata manu resistere nunquam putârunt esse peccatum; aut laesae Maiestatis crimen: sed contra potius scelus piaculare sese non opponere. Pag. 560.  As the Priests of Greece resisting their Emperors, (* A presumption absolutely false) by force of arms, thought it not a sin of treason, but rather judged it an heinous crime not to resist. Your Cardinal Allane was a Priest, and yet he wickedly and falsely defendeth, that 
l Allen in his book entitled, A true and modest Defence of English Catholics, pag. 107.  The ancient Bishops might have excommunicated Arian Emperors, and have defended themselves against them by force, but they did not (saith he) by reason of the greater forces of the Persecutors. This Answer he calleth A true and modest defence of English Cathotholikes: which in his Admonition●e ●e endeavoureth to prove from the example of God's Priest 
m Allen in his Admonition to the nobility. pag. 31.  Against Athalia. And again, in behalf of the Pope, whom you esteem as High Priest, he saith: 
n Allen in his true Defence. pag. 143.  In truth if it be lawful for the Pope to occupy his forces, which God hath given him, against the Heathen; much more may he employ them against those, whom he accounteth Rebels against the Catholic Church, which be properly under his correction. Yet all this is nothing to the resolution of your Sanders a Priest also: 
o Ad Episcopos spectat tum ut Regem ipsum pronuntient haereticum, tum ut Subditos eius declarent ab omni deinceps obedientia illi praestanda liberos esle, ipsosque operam dare debete, ut alius in eius locum quam primum surrogetur. Quod si nec subditi hac in re officio suo consulat, Pastorum est quacunque ratione possint, prou●dere, ut non regnet in Ecclesia. Dei. Saunder. lib. 2. de visib. Monarch. Cap. 4. § Hac igitur.  It belongeth unto Bishops (saith he) both to pronounce the King an Heretic, and the Subjects, freed from their obedience, aught to endeavour to place another instantly in his throne: but if the Subjects shall fail in this their duty, than it is the office of Pastors (Priests) to provide (Kings must look to the Priests mixed Chalices, perfumed gloves, privy sheaths) by what means soever, that such a King reign not in the Church of God.  
Again, who was it that would have killed the now 
p joh. Castille. vide Orat. Arnold.  King of France with a knife? was he not a Novice devoted to be a Priest? And he that killed your last King Henry the third, I mean your Monk Clemens, had he no affinity with a Priest? Such an one was that 
q Monachus quidam johannem Regem Angliae veneno interfecerat. Barck'a●us co●tra Monarchom. lib. 6. cap●…. De hoc fa●●o Clementis.  Monk, who poisoned john King of England. And who (I pray you) did commend and magnify that your Clemens his desperate exploit? You know who, Pope Xistus Quintus your high Priest. A fact also highly commended by your French jesuit, (sure one of your Priesthood) saying, 
r Aeglonem Moabitam alter Ahod, imo etiam sortior, in abdomine trai●cit, vociferatur laesum se Tyrannus: nihil iam est quod Iudithae Holophernem, aut Davidis Goliam obtruncan●…s, aut Samsonem maxillâ Asini mill ●iros interficientis, historias ●…remur; quia maiora his vidimus, qui clamaremerito debemus, Dextra Domini fecit virtutem: dextra Domini exaltavit nos. Author de ius●a Abdicat.  That he is worthy to be esteemed another Ahod, who killed Aeglon the Moabite; yea more forcible than Ahod, for he (the Monk) stabbed the King through the guts: so that we need not now to wonder at former histories, where we read how judith killed Holofernes; David, Goliath; Samson a thousand men with the jaw-bone of an Ass, this act is far more marvelous. These be thy Priests, O Babylon: who boasting falsely of a real unbloody sacrifice of Christ to be offered to God: Now in later times by rebellions have offered sacrifice to their Moloch the man of Rome in blood.  
Secondly, to this your consequent, Therefore all of this Order are absolutely freed from jealousy of Rebellion. As though in war only the fight soldiers were enemies: doth not Reason in the Apologue teach you the contrary? For there 
* AEso'us in Ap●l. qui s●c incipit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  The Trumpeter that gave the Alarm to excite men to war, was taken of his enemies: and to free himself, O good Sirs, (saith he) kill not me, for I would never have slain any of you: alas, you see I have no weapon, the only instrument I possess is this trumpet: to whom they answered: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore thou shalt rather die, because, when thou canst not fight thyself, yet dost thou incite and encourage others to fight. Your Order will make the moral: for in France your Reinolds did sound his trumpet for the battle thus: 
s universa eo pertinent, ut milites, praefecti, daces, & ecclesiastici omnes, qui haec castra sequuntur, persuasissimum habeant haec esle bella Domini. Reinaldus in Rosaeus. pag. 155.  All that we have spoken are to this end, to persuade Generals, Captains, and all Ecclesiastical men, who follow the battle, that these are the wars of the Lord. Hearken another trumpet sounding so loud, that it is heard from Rome into Ireland, the Pope (a Priest) 
t dilect vir salutem, etc. Tibi caeterisque qui sunt hodiè unanimes & pro fidei Catholicae propagatione adhaerent, nostram & Apostolicam benedictionem impertimur. Literae Clementis. 8. ad Tyronem. Anno. 1601.  Promising his blessing to Tyrone and all his adherents, who should fight for the Catholic cause against their Queen. And another in the same Ireland of the College of Priests in 
u Age. etc. Nam ei bello faventes sanctis●imis Pontifex multis gratijs prosequitur. Colleg. Salaman. in Determ. Anno. 1602.  Salamane, resounding Benediction of the same Pope to encourage the O●eale in the same wars. Listen yet again, and you shall hear another terrible sound in England for the joining with the Spanish Armado, in that their expected invasion Anno 1588. Cardinal Allane (a Priest) 
x Allane in his Admonition to the Nobility of England. Anno 1588. pag. 53.  Now therefore Lords, Nobles, and dear Countrymen for the honour of Knighthood fight. And lest we should be too deaf in sense, not to hear, or dull in heart, not to believe, that Priests secular were interested in these affairs: Parsons a Priest doth proclaim against the Seculars, (who would seem herein to be only excusable) saying, 
y Parsons in his book called A Manifestation of folly against the Important Considerations. pag. 24.  Was not Doctor Story, Doctor Lewis secular Doctors, who are known principally to have furthered the action of Sir Thomas Stukesl●y for Ireland? were not Ballard, Gifford, and Gartly secular Priests? And of all Priests in general. 
r Si haunt Seditionem vocas, gladium in terram mittere, & now pac●m; fateor Sacerdotes nostros tibi inobedientes esse, & fore semper, etc. Cresw●l in Philopater. pag. 300.  This holy sedition, (if you call it so) which is to send war into the world, I confess our Priests do and will teach. These are the phrases of Baal's Priests, except it be that those lanced themselves, these let others blood. These are their alarms against Protestants, neither can we read of any one of note among them, who by public writing did ever sound a retreat. A question material: for if Popes were not pleased with all these abovenamed Positions and practices, show us where ever he did condemn seditious Priests. Can you then apply the sentence of holy Ambrose to this order? Is this to pray for us, and not to pray altogether upon us? Wherein also I cannot but marvel at your modesty, who bring in an old Canon, teaching not to fight, to the end you may cloak their shame who openly profess they must fight: which is to cover a bald head with a Crystal glass. There is yet another point you would satisfy.   

The moderate Answerer.  

z Answer Chap●… § Lastly & § For practise.  Lastly, he addeth the late unhappy Stratagem and conspiracy against the house of Parliament: but I trust that all Priests will be innocent in so vile a practice against our present Sovereign.   

The Reply.  
If, as S. Gregory calling the first transgression of mankind 
* Greg. Magn●s.  foelix facinus, an happy mischief: because of the event, Quia talem meruerit habere salvatorem: because it begat so gracious a Saviour; you likewise may call this, unhappy Stratagem, because thereby your mischief was prevented, & malice discovered; then you are no better than a painted sepulchre outwardly presenting us with hieroglyphical shows of fellowship, and inwardly full (through your hateful wishes) of dead men's bones. Yet I think you may presume that not any Priest will be found innocent in so vile an act: meaning till he be found: but many are found and convicted: God, who hunteth out the unjust person, marvelously by the diversity or rather contrariety of their languages, confounding them, as in the dissolution of Babel, each one of them impeaching another, A just presumption, that scarce any Priest is innocent.   

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer ibid.  And it is certain it serveth not to his purpose to prove all Priests to intend such things. For first, the chiefest Priest the Pope had absolutely forbidden all disobedience to his Majesty by these words: Quia Papa jubet, the obedience; and prohibet, the disobedience: which the chief Superior of Priests in England in spiritual things, as the Archpriest, had received and promulged the same command long since in August last. And upon this first notice of this pretended wickedness condemned it by his particular letters, for an intolerable and desperate fact against the order of holy Church, against the prescript of general Council, against the commandment of the Pope. Then if the Priests of England will acknowledge the Archpriest for their Superior at home, or the Pope at Rome, as all both regular and other must do: neither all the Priests of this nation, nor any one, except disobedient to his Superior, was guilty of this Conspiracy.   

The Reply.  
And yet behold your Superior a jesuitical Priest is found guilty of this Conspiracy, but the frame of your Argument doth enfold in it a Sorites, thus: The inferior Priests are subject to their Superior the Anchpriest; this Archpriest is subject to the (what is there a Chief above Arch-?) chief Priest the Pope. But the Pope hath commanded dutiful subjection to the Archpriest, to command subjection to the inferior Priests. Ergo all inferior Priests (except they will be disobedient to their Superior) will be faithful Subjects. Wherein first I do observe that in this gradation of your obedience to Kings the highest stair is the Pope. But the true Disciples of Saint Peter did soar higher, [Propter Dominum] to God and his word. And in the descent the last degree you make is a Priest: as though you would suffer lay-men in a blind zeal, with an intent to advantage the Catholic cause, to practise any vile act, and you stand to give aim: that in the success you may cry, Well shot; but when they miss, the Actors may perish, and you cry out: O an unhappy fact! Otherwise by this series causarum it must as probably follow, that the Pope and Archpriest, and other inferior Priests are guilty of this vile practice, viz. Every Romish Catholic doth acknowledge a spiritual subjection to their Priests, every Priest to his Superior, the Superior to his General the Pope. But many of the most devout Romish have been found guilty of this graceless attempt, Ergo the Priests, ergo the Superior, ergo the Pope. Or else the Pope failed to give his proh●bet and restraint of disobedience to the Archpriest; or the Archpriest neglected to give command to the inferior Priests; or your other Priests foreslowed to forewarn the lay-men; or (which is the truth) you are but spiritual Politicians, bearing the world in hand, that none of your mischiefs can be proved by us, till, by the upshot, they be proved upon us. And then those Priests and traitors, whom you now call unhappy, Watson and Clerk will be of better esteem. Thus hath your modesty made good gradation for the breakneck of your cause.    

CHAP. XXII.  
The Discovery in the seventh Reason.  
SEeing 
* Nihil interest faueá●ne s●ele●i, a●●llud facias. Seneca.  It is in a manner all one to commit a villainy and to commend it: we may argue, that whosoever shall justify acts of treasons and parricides, are not unguilty of the same crimes: but all Priests do justify such heinous parricides, Ergo.  

The Minor proved by their Positions practical.  
The famous Cardinal and public Reader in Rome saith, 
a Multi Pontifices Principes multos authoritate suà regiâ meritò priuârunt: ut Leonem 3. Fredericum 1. O●honem 5. Childe●icum Regen Francie. Card. B●llar. lib. 5. de Rome▪ Pont. cap. 6. & 7.  Many Popes have justly deposed many Princes. Our Countryman 
b In the Copy of his letter to Sir William Stanley.  Card. Alane, 
c ●eina●…n Rosaeus cap. 〈◊〉.  Reinolds, 
d In his Dolman part. 1. pag. 62.  Parsons, inciting subjects to arms against their Prince, do persuade by examples merely rebellious, as resisting of K. john, of Edward the second, of Richard the second, of Henry the sixth, as precedents to be followed. The Author of the book of 
e Gratias agimus Deo immortali, qui operis huius fructum (nimir●m parricidium Monachi) tam benè anteverterit. Lib. de justa Abdic. He●r. 3.  Deposing Henry King of France, doth sing a Gaudeamus for his death. And again, Allane approveth the perfidious rendering up 
f In his letter to Sir William Stanley Anno. 1587.  Doventore, and encourageth the English Mal-contents to join their forces with the 
g A Book entitled, An admonition to the Nobilive and people of England. The inscription: G●lielmus miserati one d●…i●…. S. R. E. Tit. S. Martini in montibus Cardinalis, cunctis regni Angliae & Hiberniae proceribus.  Spanish invasion. So the College of the Jesuits at Salamane approved the insurrection of 
* See above Rat. 6. lit. i.  Tyrone. And do not the most of that sort canonize in their conceits all such Popish ones, as have been executed for treasons?   

The moderate Answerer.  

h Answer cap. 8.  I grant the Mayor, and deny his Minor, [That all Popish Priests, etc.] And have proved that all such assertions are most false and slanderous.   

The Reply.  
And I have proved from your own Authors, that they are the doctrines, which you (granting the Mayor) must confess to be truly rebellious, and now further confirm it by many examples. Answer them in order, and because in the most you have been extravagant, be entreated in this seventh Reason to be regular.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

i Answer ib. § But he.  He will maintain his sentence, because Bellarmine saith, [Many Popes have worthily deprived many Princes of their regal authority.] The examples be in Leo 3. Fred. 1. in Otho 5. and Childericke King of France: to the which I have answered before; and sincere dealing would have alleged the true causes, which known, prove a flat disparity in the matter.   

The Reply.  
Whatsoever cause there was to wish any wicked Emperor to be deposed, yet was there never cause to authorize the Pope to depose him, which is plentifully 
* Infra part. 3.  proved.  
But Popes (you will say) did formerly depose Emperors: as though from a case de facto, that is, of an act of deposing, you would conclude a case ex iure, that is, infer a right to depose. This would be a welcome plea to malefactors of all kinds, and in this kind not a little prejudice your Popes: because Bellarmine being urged with examples of many 
k Christiani Imperatores iudicarunt & deposuerunt summos Pontifices▪ haec quidem facta ●unt, sed quo iure ipsi vide●int. Bellar. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. ●9. § Argumentum quintum.  Emperors who did judge and depose Popes; doth return this answer: These Emperors indeed, did so, but by what right let them show. So we driving out one nail with another, oppose acts to acts, and say; But by what right Popes have unthronized Emperors let us know? For we shall hereafter show, that they had from God no such authority. Where is now your moderation to require of us acknowledgement of just causes of Pope's acts, who (you know) prove that no cause can justify such proceedings? If you yet insist, and urge to know the causes, why Popes did so insult upon Emperors, moderate your appetite a while, till we come to the confutation: where I doubt not but you will at least satisfy yourself, if not surfeit. For the interim, it will content the Reader to understand that which your Barckley proveth, namely, 
l In veris antiquitatis historijs exemplum nullum legimus cuiusquam Imperato● is, qui, propter haeres●…, per populum exactus abie●tusque fuit. Bar●klaiu● contra M●narchom. lib. 6. cap. 12.  That in true history it cannot be found, that ever heresy was a cause of abrogating the authority of Emperors.   

The moderate Answerer.  

m Answer Cap. 8. § He accuseth  He accuseth Cardinal Allane for approving of the rendering up of Doventore unto the hands of the King of Spain the true owner: by which he condemneth himself to be within the compass of his own conclusion of Rebellion: for all the world can witness, that town truly to belong to that King.   

The Reply.  
Was the King of Spain the true owner? Who are you, I pray you, that can thus define? if you will be a true Divine, then learn from our Saviour, [
* ●uc. 12. 14.  Who made me a judge over you to divide inheritances among you?] If you will be (according to your State-style) a Statesman to justify that the King of Spain was then the true owner of Do●entore, and for confirmation call all the world to witness; we shall not greatly marvel at this in you, being of the Order of them, who would make that King the Monarch of all the world. How the case might stand I may be lawfully ignorant, excepting only, that howsoever Sir William Stanley, being no subject to either parties, but only a substitute to the States, and subject to his Queen, from whose command he had received that charge, he is therein intolerably perfidious: for if the right were doubtful, than it is a conclusion, which your jesuit cannot deny, but that 
n In dubijs Subditus parere debet praefecti sui mandato; possit miles suo Regi, Duci, vel Reip. in bello, obedire, ubi dubitat sitnè Principis bellum, quod adversus alterum gerit, justum: in tali dubietate non est quod dubitet, Principis mandato esse parendum, et hoc modo dubium removendum. Azorius Ies. Just lib. 2. cap. 19 § Nono quaeritur.  When the soldiers shall doubt whether the war (and so the possession he holdeth) which his Prince maketh be lawful: in all such doubts he ought to obey his Prince, for even to obey doth remove the doubt.  
Secondly, if the case were plain, yet many things are lawful to be done, which are not lawful for this man or that man to do: for our Law saith, A man (as he that shall go to his neighbour's house, and take twenty pound he lent his neighbour) may be hanged for taking his own: and is there no justice against him, who will render up that which is not his own? But what his intent was he hath discovered to all the world: who, as he then, in violating his Prince's repose, fled from her subjection, so in the invasion in 88 was bend to return, not as a good subject, but as a mortal enemy against his Sovereign.  
Lastly, for the States in this point, suppose their getting of Deventore were unjust, yet another jesuit (though I should condemn it) would defend their possession, who in like case thus resolveth: 
o Quidam specie forte pietatis grauit●r errant, ●us regium vocantes in dubium, quaerente●interdam quoiure & titulo Hispani dominentur Indis; num haereditario iure ad nos devoluti fiunt, an bello justo nobis subiecti● ego existimo nullam aliam subtiliorem petendam esse causae evictionem, quam quod ut demus maximum peccat●m esse in usurpatione dominatus Indici: tamen neque restitui iam potest; cui enim, & quibus modis? neque si maxim posset, fidei susceptae evidens ini●…ia & periculum id vell● modo pateretur. joseph. Acosta jesuit. Lib. 2. de Indorum salute. Cap. 11.  Admit (saith he) that it was a great sin for the Spaniards to usurp the Kingdoms and possessions of the Indian people: yet can they not (
* For they are due to the posterity of the Nation.  O Confessors!) now be restored; for to whom and how can this be performed? nay though it could, yet will not the danger of decay of (O Religion!) Religion permit restitution. Yet there remaineth another example to be satisfied of you, which is this.    

CHAP. XXIII.  
The Discovery.  

An example of a notable Patron of high Treason.  

h Xisti Quinti Pont. Max. de Henrici tertij morte Oratio habita in Consistorio Patrum. 2. Septembris Anno Domini 1589.  XIstus Quintus maketh a public Oration in his Consistory of Cardinals: the subject matter he showeth is this: 
i Mortuus est Rex Francorum per manus monachi. pag. 3.  The King of France is slain by the hand of a Monk. And what of this? 
k Rarum & memorabile facinus.  This (saith he) is a notable, rare, and memorable act. But why? 
l Occidit Monachus regem non pictum aut fictum in Chartâ aut pariete, sed Regem Francorum in medio exercitus.  Because he slew not (saith he) a King painted in paper, or graven in stone, but the King of France in the midst of his host. Is it a wonder any should wonder that a Monk could murder a mortal King; seeing Popish histories do record, that 
m Hadrianus Pontifex excommunicationem Henrico 2 denuntians, ipse à Deo maledictus, à musca suffocatus est. Nauclerus general. 137.  Pope Hadrian being guilty of the like seditious practice against the Emperor Henry the second, was choked with a Fly? Nay, but if the Monk had killed a painted Image, that had been an act farremore memorable, and less intolerable: notwithstanding no fact is good, because great; but therefore great, because good. Say then what is to be thought of the worthiness of the fact? 
n Facinus non sine Dei Opt. Max. particulari providentia & dispositione, (pag. 5) non sine expressa eius voluntate, (pag. 4.) & succursu perpetratum.  It was a fact done by the admirable providence, will, and succour of Almighty God. How? by God's will counseling and approving it? 
o Nota quam insignis est historia illa sanctae mulieris judith, quae ut obsessam civitatem suam, & populum Dei liberatet, caepit consilium; Deoque sine controversia suggerente, de interimendo Holopherne hostilis exercitus principe, quod & perfecit. etc. pag. 8.  Holy judith is famous (saith he) for the slaying of Holophernes, which she did not without the suggestion of God's Spirit. 
p Hic verò Religiosus aggressus est & rem confecit longè maiorem non sine Dei concursu. pag. 10.  But this religious man hath done a far more marvelous work. O marvelous Relgio●! Yet so it is in this sin of parricide, where A Monk doth murder a King. The best word the Pope affordeth the murdered is, 
q Rex infelix, & in peccato mortuus. pag. 3 & pag 9  An unhappy King, and one perishing in his sin. The worst he doth bestow upon the murderer, is: 
r Vir Religiosus pag. 9 & 10.  Religious man. And thus in not condemning, but rather commending, one Traitor, he hath made up two. Lastly, this Henry (a note very material) was a Papist; only he favoured the Protestants, and especially Prince Navarre (because a Protestant) excommunicate. By this Pope this was his crime, upon which ensued, This fact (to paraphrase truly of the Pope's words) rare for the attempt; not able for the wickedness; memorable for the shame of the Sect.   

The moderate And most modest Answerer. The Reply.  
What nothing? not one word in behalf of Pope Sixtus? Sixtus; who 
a Principum Catholicorum faedera in excidium haereticae pravitatis prohavit: & Rodulpho Impera tori per literas significavit Regem Navarraeum, & Principem Condaeum ●…ede Apostolicâ excommunicatos & proscriptos esse, ut p●…m B●…llis huius Pont. Petrus Matth. cu● Sum. Constit. Rom. Pont in Arg. aunt const. Sixti. Quinti.  First did confirm the league in France for the utter destruction of Protestants? Sixtus; who Did excommunicate (in that name) the King Navarre and Prince of Condie? Neither only them, but expressly 
b Nos excommunicamus at anathematizamus omnes Lutheranos & Caluinistas. Const. Sixti Quinti. Cap. 13.  All Lutherans and Caluinists: proclaiming a 
c jubilaeum omnibus Christi fidelibus, qui in Ecclesijs regni Galliae pro selici contra haereticosvictoria etc. Oraverint cum facultate eligendi confessores, qui á delictis & criminibus etiam in bulla Caenae Domini contentis absoluant. Ibid cap. 16.  jubilee and indulgence for all in France who should pray for the success of the Leaguers against the Protestants? One to whom you ascribe power of absolving you from all your sins, and yet not one syllable to free him from the suspicion of (but one sin) patronizing a most brutish parricide? Could you not answer that his speech was only an admiration and no approbation; or that he did declaim only and not determine; taking upon him the person of an Orator, and not of a Pastor; or that he spoke as a private Doctor, and not as a Pope? Nay, all such answers (you know) had been frivolous, for he useth examples of commendation, arguments of asseveration, and the Oration was not pronounced in his private closet, but in the public Consistory and Convent of his Cardinals. And therefore herein only you have given us a token of your extraordinary modesty, who not finding one rag to cover your Father's shameful nakedness, you shut your eyes, as loath to behold it. God grant you grace truly to detest it. But we find (as in all Societies) in your Synagogue men of divers foreheads. For the 
* Sixtus Quintus supra.  Pope and his 
* Bucherus li. de justa Abdic. supra. vide cap. 21.  Acolythus do extol the Monk for an Excellent instrument of God: whom your Lawyer doth decipher to be a 
d Scelerati Monachi Cl: atrox & perfidiolum, ce● monstri teterrmi, facinus haereticis occasionem dedit calumniandi non hominem, sed ordinem universum Monachorum. Barclaius lib. 6. conta Monarchom. cap. 28. & deinceps.  Wicked, faithless Monk, ●nd a most hateful monster. He depresseth that King as One most impious and sacrilegious; whom your Lawyers upon better intelligence, do commend (if this be a commendation) 
e Fuit mihi cum Patre Mathaeo antiqua olim amicitia, & intima familiaritas qui Regem illum Henricum 3. siquis alius intus, ut aiunt, & in cute noverat, qui de Regis moribus sic mihi satisfecit: vis (inquit) ut dicam tibi quis Rex fuit? vir bonus fuit, sed non perinde Rex, quia nimium religiosus esse studuit, qui devotioni ac precibus deditus Regni curam nonnihil negligere videbatur, Barclaius ibidem.  As one that was too devout and religious. But you (as it becometh a moderate Answerer) answer nothing; and thus in saying nothing bewray what you would, or rather, what you would not say.    

CHAP. XXIIII.  
The discovery in the eight Reason.  
THose Snakes that do naturally sting, as soon as they get warmth, may not be harboured in the bosom of the Commonwealth: but all Popish Priests profess rebellions, as soon as they can presume of their strength, Ergo, etc. The Minor proved by  

Their Positions. The Discovery.  
Bannes maintaineth this as a necessary Parenthesis: 
a Sit haec tertia Conclusio: ubi evidens adest notitia criminis, ante declaratoriam Pontificis sententiam licet (si modo vires ●i suppetunt) Regem deponere. Domin. Bannes in Thom. 2, 2. q. 12. Art. 2.  Subjects before sentence of Excommunication (if they have sufficient force) may then depose their King. This Father Creswell addeth as a war●e caution: 
b Sit haec cautio adhibenda, ut vires habeant ad hoc idoneas subditi: alioqui in Religionis Catholicae praeiudicium cederet. Cr●swel in suo Philopater. pag. 198. & 199.  Let subjects take heed (saith he) that they have competent strength in such a case: otherwise it may prejudice the Catholic cause. And lest any taking an Antidote against their poison, should object the condition of the Church of Christ primitive, and of the glorious Christians of those times, who intended not killing of Kings the enemies of the Gospel; but to be willingly killed for the profession of the holy faith: mark with what untemperate mortar those men daub up the consciences of Christians, 
c Quasi verò eadem instituendae Ecclesiae ratio atque institutae esse, credenda sit; add quòd id tum non licuit, dum impiorum multitudo superior esset: sed neque illi Christum professi erant, ut cogi in verba eius mortis supplicio possent; sed tum demum, silicet, id datum est, cum impletum fuit id Prophetae, (Esa. 49. ●3.) Reges erunt nutri●… tui, & in quae tempora venimus. Lib. deiusta addicat. Regis Henric. 3. p g. ●78.  Then (saith the French Defence) the Christians did only suffer, because the Church was not yet perfect, and because their enemies were more in number. Again, 
d Illud non moveat quemquam; id laudabile est quum resistere nequeas. Lib. de justa ●…ag. 371.  It is commendable to suffer when thou canst not resist. Which is the last miserable refuge of their desperate cause. Whereunto notwithstanding their grand-Cardinall is glad to betake himself. 
e Quòdsi Christiani olim non deposuerunt Diocletianum, lulianum, Valentem ad s●…t, qu●a de●rant vires temporales Christianis. Bell. lib. 5. 〈◊〉 Ro. Pont. cap. 6. & 7. & 4.  I answer (saith he) that Christians in ancient times did not bear arms and seek to depose Emperors and Kings, enemies to the Catholic faith; because they wanted power. Whereby the now Romish faith doth seek to make wicked men excusable. 
f Ex hac secunda conclusione sequitur, excusandos esse Anglos, quia non se eximunt ex superiorum potestate nec belium contra eos gerunt▪ quia non suppetunt illis vires, ob sequentia pe●…la, D. B ●…s in 2. 2. Thom. quaest. 12. Art. 2.  By this second conclusion (saith Bannes) the English Catholics, who now do not take arms against the Protestants, are excused, because they want sufficient power. Hence we may perceive, that as long as Protestants live safe, they must acknowledge themselves beholden to the Popish faction, because they have no power to hurt them: otherwise they may hear of them before they can see them, peradventure in such a manner, as to 
* The letter of Tresham to the L. Monte●gl●.  Receive a terrible blow, and yet not know who did them the hurt. Yea, they must perish, for 
g Populus Christianus obsistere tenetur conscientiae vinculo arctissimo, & extremo ani●…um periculo, si prastate rem possit. Creswell in suo Philopater. pag. 201.  Christian people (saith Creswell) are bound in conscience and hazard of their souls, to resist whensoever they can make resistance.   

The moderate Answerer.  

h Answer cap. 91 § Thus he.  To the first Proposition I say, Concedo.   

The Reply.  
Concedo, that is in English, I grant it: woe then, and thrice woe to all your Priests, who fall violently upon it, thereby to be convinced rebellious. Is it not so?   

The moderate Answerer.  

i Ibidem.  To the second Proposition I answer, that if this be the opinion of Bannes, he speaketh ignorantly in this case.   

The Reply.  
bans an Author easily to be had of all men: I deliver his name, I cite the place, I express his words, apparently signifying that this was Bannes' opinion: and yet your Answer is (to speak moderately) too moderate: If this be (say you) the opinion of Bannes. I allege for the same opinion your English jesuit Creswell, your French jesuit De justa Abdicatione, your Romish jesuit Bellarmine, all of the opinion of Bannes, teaching, Then and not before, to take arms, as soon as they have strength. And you answer to one only saying: If this be the opinion of Bannes. Is this modesty? This opinion (say you) is false: this is honesty: but then are your greatest clerk Blind, and leaders of the blind: as namely, Creswell, Felinus, Caietan, Tolet, Sà, Alane, Bellarmine, Saire, and the present currant of Romish Schools, 
* Supra.  as hath been proved. This doctrine therefore being false, which the supposed lights of your Religion do aver, I may well take up the complaint of our Saviour against your Church: 
* Matth. 6. 23.  If the light that is in thee be darkness, o how great is that darkness! In the last place you name Gregory the 13. for the contrary, but (all you could do) only name him; opposing names to express writings, shadows to things. O moderatorem! These are but Positions. Now followeth    

CHAP. XXV.  
Their Practice.  

The Discovery.  
IN the year 1580. when Campion and Parsons came into England, they procured a dispensation from the Pope, that all Papists in England, notwithstanding the Excommunication of the Queen, might profess a large obedience in all temporal causes: but with this addition, (Rebus sic stantibus) i. the case thus standing: that is, (as the sequel did interpret) till you wax stronger. For in the year 1588. when the Spanish Armado was a sloate, when by doubling their strength they might presume the better, than our Countryman Alane doth write an Admonition to the Nobility of England, making his book the Pope's Nuncio, to expound his former Parenthesis: 
a In his book of Admonition.  Though the Pope (saith he) hath tolerated obedience unto the Queen in temporal conditions: yet now our holy Father Xistus Quintus doth discharge all men of their faith and loyalty unto her. This is the Pope's common guise, when he doubteth his faction shall be overmatched, then to enjoin obedience: but it is only in policy to gain his soldiers a breathing; as Clement the late Pope dispensed with the Irish for their fidelity to the Queen, till that he had some confidence of Tyrones' success. For then in the 20. of januarie the year 1601. he writ a letter for encouragement: 
b Clemens Octaws.  Fili dilect, nobilis vir salutem, etc. My dear son all health, etc. After he calleth the Rebellion Sacrum foedus, an holy league; promising in the way of blessing an happy success: Deus pugnabit provobis, conteret inimicos suos ante faciem vestram. i. God will fight for you, and tread his enemies under your feet. But he (God be thanked) proved a false Prophet.   

The moderate Answerer.  

c Answer quo supra cap. 9 § But where.  I answer, that Cardinal Alane, better acquainted with these affairs than any Protestant Writer, relateth the Pope's declaration for Catholic obedience to Queen Elizabeth, without any restraint or limitation: neither doth this man discover where he findeth any such restricting clause.   

The Reply.  
It seemeth you are not acquainted with Cardinal Alane: shall he be brought to aver a Commission of subjection without restraint of, [Rebus sic stantibus, the case so standing:] who, Rebus sic non stantibus, Anno 1588. raised English Recusants against the Queen, provoking them to 
* Supra.  fight? I did not indeed discover where I find any such restraining clause. Here is one only little clause, Rebus sic stantibus, that wanteth the Author; and I must be suspected for a coiner: you in all your Answers scarce allege the express sentence of any one, and yet challenge credit. Such are the times which are fallen upon us, and the odds which by men's wilful infatuation, you have obtained. But I must produce my Author, for your pleasure: whom though I persuade you, yet (a grievous case) will you not be persuaded. Notwithstanding hearken to your Father Creswel, who telleth you that, 
d Quae quidem moderatio id exposuit, Subditos Anglicanos, non obstante primo Ecclesiae mandato, Subiectionem obedientiamque suam, sicut antea Reginae, exhibere in rebus omnibus civilibus, saluâ conscientiâ, [pro praesenti terum statu:] modó in rebus Ecclesiasticis summam obedientiam summo Pastori deferant. Creswell. ●n his Philopater. pag. 204.  That moderation concerning obedience unto the Queen, was comprised within. these lists, [For the present state and condition of things.] Here your clause and your expectation is satisfied: I pray you satisfy me in the next example.   

The very moderate and modest Answerer.  
The case of the Earl of Tyrone, whatsoever it was, is not now imputed against him, as his liberty and favour in England since then be witnesses: therefore it might be better suppressed, then urged by this Discoverer.   

The Reply.  
That is, The Earl of Tyrone his offence hath been pardoned by the King: Ergo, it might better be suppressed, then that the Pope the patron of his Rebellión, should be discovered. None can find fault with the modesty of this Answer, wherein you seem to be ashamed of the Pope's blessing; and there is hope in the end, you will be ashamed of your own answer. To the next Reason.    

CHAP. XXVI.  
The Discovery in the ninth Reason.  
Whosoever doth perfidiously either deny or violate, with men of divers Religion, an oath, the most sacred bond that 
* jer. 4. 4.  God hath allotted unto men, as the most secure 
* H●b. 6. 16.  Confirmation of all fidelity with men, and * End of all contention, must necessarily be esteemed of them as a person perfidious and treacherous: But Popish Priests are guilty of such perfidy, Ergo, etc. The Minor will appear in these three: 1. in the manner of disallowing: 2. of deluding: 3. of dissolving of a necessary oath.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer. cap. 10.  In his Mayor Proposition the Discoverer must needs make some exceptions: or else, etc.   

The Reply.  
Let us descend to the several Propositions, and after show your instances.   

The Discovery. From the manner of denying a requisite oath, we reason:  
Whatsoever servant being demanded of his master, to say or swear, whether if he saw his master assaulted by his professed enemies he would defend or betray him, would either dislike the article, or defer the answer, he should evidently bewray a treacherous disposition: But all Popish Priests in like articles concerning loy all subjection to Protestant Kings, are in like manner affected. Ergo, all their other kind of 
* Matth. 26.  Hail Master, is but to kiss and betray. The Minor proved by   

Their Positions and Practices.  
When as it is demanded of Priests (a necessary Article in civil States) what if the Pope should autorize the Queen's subjects to rebel, or other foreign Princes to invade her Realm; whether they would take part with the Queen or her enemies? First, they dislike this Interrogatory. Alane calleth it 
a Allen in his book entitled, A true Defence pag. 68 70.  An unlawful, unnatural, & intolerable search of men's consciences. This kind of examination which Princes make for preservation of the lives of themselves and subjects, Creswell termeth 
b Examen iniustissimum, & postulata sanguinaria. Creswell. in s●o Philopater. pag. 350. & 351.  Unjust and bloody demands. And these questions Stapleton nameth 
c Novae & captiosae, in quibus inest inauditum quoddam nequissimae impietatis, & barbarae calliditatis exemplum. Sapl●ton▪ in suo Didymus. pag. 205. 206.  Captious questions, wicked, and full of all impious subtlety. As though Samson were bound to put his head in Dalilahs' 
* Jud. 16.  lap. Nay but their answer showeth that this Interrogatory was as necessarily invented, as it is wickedly impugned: for this being an inbred law of 
* Nata lex, quam non didicimus, sed à natura exhausimus. Cicero pro Milone.  Nature, to study for a selfe-preseruation; these men call unjust and unnatural: but how senselessly let the very heathen judge, 
* Vt iugulent homines surgunt de nocte Latrones: ut teipsum serves non expergisceris? Horatius.  thieves watch to murder, dost thou not awake to save thyself?  
Now secondly, their delaying. When the question is urged, whether, if the Pope or any of his appointment should invade the land; which part they would take: then they shift footing, and some (as our Governors have observed) have answered: I will then take counsel when the case shall happen: others, I will answer then and not before: others, I am not yet resolved: lastly, I shall then do as God shall put in my mind. As though these masks were large enough to shadow their faces: which their Creswell hath already discovered, saying that 
d Si Pontificis jussu de Religione restituenda bello decertaretur, se conscientiâ saluá facere non posse, quin pa●tibus Catholicis adhaereant. Creswel in suo Philopater. pag. 352.  If by the Pope's command the war should be undertaken, to the end of restoring Religion, than (to answer) that he is bound in Conscience to hold with the Romish. This man speaketh without Parables: make then but a pretence of Religion, and farewell subjection.   

The moderate Answerer.  

e Answer quo supra. § Now, etc. in fine Sectioni●.  There is none bound generally to every oath: for as the law of nature, and his Majesty, with Bishops and Nobles, in the last Conference taught: if the Article either touched the party's life, liberty, or scandal, he may refuse to swear.   

The Reply.  
This Answer and my Question differ as much as yesterday and to morrow: for my argument à simili concludeth of an oath concerning a matter to be done, and not of that which is past: yet not so, as to enforce any to the oath de futuris, but from the denying, or delay thereof to evince a political demonstration of a disloyal heart. You have another answer no whit more true, though somewhat more pertinent.   

The very moderate Answerer.  

f Answer quo supra. § As concerning.  As concerning Interrogatories de futuris contingentibus, things which are to come: no creature, man, nor Angel naturally can perceive them: therefore the examen of such things may be left to God.   

The Reply.  
You have reason to refuse the examination of men, lest they (understanding your treachery) might prevent their own danger: I dare say, there is no malefactor in the world bend to any mischief, but he is of your mind. But you are deceived; the question is not absolutely de futuris, that is, of things to come, as if your debtor promiseth to repay you this debt, may he not answer he will pay it? The act of payment hath respect to the time to come, but the will to pay it, it is an internal and present act, and a resolution of the mind, which no perfect man can be ignorant of in himself. Nemo nescit se velle quod vult: No man can be ignorant of his own will. And this is that present will, which by his outward messenger, the tongue, he doth thorough a corporal oath manifest to man, what it doth resolve. Else why are leagues betwixt Princes, contracts between man and man, consent of wedlock, holy vow in Baptism to God: are not all these visible acts, symbols, and signs of inward will? Acts (I say) de futuris of things to come, as namely, of fidelity, loyalty, sanctity hereafter to be performed? Otherwise how is it, that you dare contest 
g Answer cap. 10. § Now.  For all Catholics, not to refuse an oath of allegiance according to the just proceeding of law? promising in yourself, that other shall take an oath of allegiance and obedience to his Majesty, A thing (except you mean they will not take the oath) hereafter to be done. Wherefore when you are about to make an answer, take forth this l●slon of true moderation; It is better to hold your peace, then say nothing.    

CHAP XXVII.  
The Discovery.  
THe second point is their deluding of an oath by a new trick of Equivocation, as they (unproperly) term it. Others call it Reservation: but most fitly we may call it Collusion.  

Their Position in the Mator.  

a cum Iude● non iutidicè peut juramentum, vel contra justitiam, linnet uti aequivocatione secundùm mentem suam, contra mentem judicis; ut puta, quaerenti, fecistiné illud? Respondeat non feci; intelligendo inter se, non hoc tempore, aut, ut narrem tibi; aut aliquid simile. Tollet. Card lib. 4. Instit. Sacerd. cap. 21. & 22.  When any judge (saith one) shall demand an oath unjustly, then may the examinate swear by an equivocation: as for example: being thus demanded; Whether didst thou that fact or no? he (though he did it) may answer, I did it not; understanding secretly in his mind, at this time; or, I did it not, meaning, to tell you: or some such like evasion. If you desire to know the Author, it is Cardinal Tolet; if his authority, 
b De hoc illustri Cardinali Gregorius 13. Pontifex sic scribit: dilect fili. etc. Tanta est tua doctrina, que longo & inumo usu nobis cognita est, ut tua scripta, sicut caeterorum al●orum judicio atque examini subijci aequum non sit V●sques I●s Epist. de dicat. ante Com. in L●ue.  Vasques the jesuit showeth he had a special privilege from Pope Gregory the 13. writing thus unto him; We so approve of your singular learning, that we hold it unmeet that your books should be subjecteth to the censure of others.  
Now their Assumption in this case of our English justice, concerning examination of Priests is: 
c Officiarij Reginae Angliae non iuridicè iuramenta exigunt; quia Regina haeretica non est Regina. Martinus in lib. R●solut. Cas●●m.  The Officers of the Queen of England (saith Martin) cannot challenge Answers and oaths iud●●iously, because an heretical Queen is no Queen. Upon this sand is builded that which they conclude, namely, Alane, Parsons, Gregory Martin, that 
d Si Sacerdos interrogetur in portu, vel alibi, de antiquo suo nomine ab aliquibus, qui cum habent suspectam, possit respondere, illud non es●e suum nomen: atque eodem modo si interrogeturde pat●…a, parentibus, amicis. etc. Resolutio quorundam c●suum Nationis Arglican●.  If a Priest shall upon suspicion chance to be asked either in any haven, or else where concerning his ancient name, his country, kindred, or friends; he may deny all. And again: 
e cum Sacerdos sistitur ad tribunal, ubi adsunt magistratus regni, accepto juramento, possit ille prestare juramentum aequivocando, quia, qui quaerunt non ●…ridice interrogant, cum sint Tyramni, & velint punire bona opera. Ibidem.  When a Priest is convented before a judge, after the oath taken, concerning such questions, he may answer by the foresaid Equivocation: because these that ask this oath, are not to be accounted judges, but Tyrants. Which point of Equivocation (saith 
* Parsons in his brief dpolog. fol. 193.  Parsons) is not only to be allowed by all Divines, but judged necessary also in some cases for avoiding lying and other inconveniences. This man, we see, (as if he would drive out Satan by Satan) teacheth by lying how a man may avoid a lie. This is the general doctrine of their 
* Sèe Aquinas.  School, more than heathenish: for among Pagans this was a Decree of Conscience: 
f Fraus non dissoluit, sed distringit periurium. Cicero.  Craft in an oath doth not lessen but strengthen perjury.   

Now the Practice.  
The practice of this device of Equivocation in Priests hath been found to have been common of late, by experience of Magistrates. It may be thought to have crept out of Saint Francis sleeves. For 
g Sanctus Franciscus rogatus quâ perrexisset quidam homicida, qui juxta cum transierat; manus per manicas immittens respondit, non transi●sse illac: intelligens, non transi●sse per illius manicas. Novar. Tom. 3. cap. 12.  He (as Navarre writeth) being asked which way the murderer did fly; putting his hands into his sleeves, answered, he went not that way, meaning, through his sleeves.   

The moderate Answerer.  

h Answer quo supra. § This.  For Tolet among the Jesuits I cite another jesuit, famous among the Casuists, 
* Quidam dicunt eum, qui non tenetur respondere ad intentionem Rogantis, posse respondere aliquid subintelligendo, ut non e●●e sc●licet, ita ut ei dicere teneatur● vel se non habere, sc. ut ei det. licet alij id non admittunt, & for●… poti●ri ratione. Eman. Sà. in Apboris. 4.  Emanuel Sà, who writeth, that some are of another opinion, and peradventure with better reason.   

The Reply.  
If you oppose the persons of these Authors, there is (in the opinion of a jesuit) no comparison; if their opinions, there is scarce any opposition. For their persons: Tolet was lately a Cardinal, 
i Illustrissimum Cardinalem Baronium, inter jesuitas recensere est, ac si inter infimae magnitudmis stellas Arcturum imperitus numeret Astrologus. Seraries Ies. in Minerual adverse. Scalig lib. 4. cap. 1.  But to reckon a most reverend Cardinal (speaking of Baronius) among the Jesuits, (saith a jesuit) is as if a fond Astronomer should number Arcturus among the lesser Stars. Examine now their opinions, Tolet saith: This kind of Equivocation is lawful; jesuit Sà saith, There is more probable reason to the contrary. These may seem contrary to men of sincerity, but among these speakers, in their practical judgement, there is no contradiction: for they have another winding in this their Labyrinth, that 
k Frequent'r quidem opinio probabilior non est eligenda. Azor. Ies. J●…t. Moral. lib. 2. cap. 16. § Tertiò quaeritut. 〈◊〉 modo Tolletus Jes. Inshuct. Sawed.  Many times the less probable opinion is to be followed. So then as yet we have but an Eel by the tail. Again, to determine against so damnable a doctrine only in these terms, More probable; yea and peradventure more probable: I say, to doubt of such a Protestant and orthodoxal truth, is doubtless to deny it. But of this hereafter. How will you therefore excuse yourselves?   

The moderate Answerer.  

l Answer quo supra. § For our.  For our excuse in this place and question Catholics do generally agree, that to equivocate before a competent judge (such as we allow all Magistrates in England to be in temporal causes in as 
* Infra in the 3. part.  ample manner, as if they were of our Religion, keeping order of law) is a mortal sin: as it is defined by Thomas, Navarre, and others.   

The Reply.  
This excuse will make you more inexcusable, because I shall prove that by your dissembling parenthesis you do but cloak your liars. Are all Magistrates in England reputed of your Equivocators competent judges? So you answer, but falsely, both against your ordinary Thesis and practice: For in your Positions your now-cited Author Navarre (I omit Thomas, as one not acquainted with our English affairs) saith, that, 
m Coram haereticis (loquitur de judicibus Anglicanis) potest Catholicus vel recusare (quod est prudentius) vel sophisticè in ●ans & interrogatis, ni●i quantum interrogatur de fide, sophisticè respondere. Navar. cap, 12. num. 8.  It is lawful for a Catholic (except it be in question concerning his faith) to equivocate (speaking expressly of English Magistrates) before Heretics. Your Reinolds was by birth English, by bane Romish, and telleth us plainly, that 
n Episcopi tenentur fidei suae commissos instruere, ut á commercio Regis Haeretici abstineant▪ & ei nec in bello, nec in pace opitulentur: ut omnes Idiotae ratio cinari discant, Talis vir Haereticus est: Ergo in nos, qui Catholici sumus, authoritatem nullam habet. Reia●ld. Rosaeus. pag. 335.  All people must be instructed thus to reason, (speaking of the King of France when he was a Protestant) This man is an Heretic, therefore hath no authority over us. Your Parsons, English by nature, though now translated into Romish, commending your Southwel, 
o Parsons in his brief Apology. fol. 193.  This point of Equivocation M. Southwell (saith he) defended (before English Protestant judges) at the bar. The book entitled, Resolution of English cases, by Alane and Parsons, resolveth thus: 
p cum Sacerdos sistitur ad tribunal, ubi suut magistratus civiles regni, & for●an aliqui pseudo-Episcopi, non tenetur quis respondere ad interrogata, sed possit uti aequivocatione, quia non iuridice interrogatur, cum sint Tyranni. Rosolutio casuu●. Nationis Anglicanae, p●r Alanum & Parsonum.  When (say they) any is brought before those Magistrates to be examined, they may answer by Equivocation: because they being Tyrants do not examine iuridically. This was then in the days of Queen Elizabeth: but now in the reign of our Sovereign King james, it may be the case is different. Nay now also hath your Arch▪ priest authorised the book in defence of Equivocation in behalf of Catholics (the words of the title) before a Magistrate: speaking professedly of our present English State: and the present practice both of Priests and their Disciples is (alas!) so ordinary, that the daily experience of their equivocating lying is ready for this your answer to give you the lie. I will not trouble my memory with multitude of examples, which divers Magistrates have reported: I will only be contented with two, proved the last day in the Arraignment of Garnet the jesuit your Superior.  
Garnet: He (as before almost all the Honourable of our State was proved) had by manifold protestations and execrations denied before the Lord Chief justice, and his majesties Attorney General, that he had conferred with his fellow Hall since their coming into prison: by and by was witness produced, who heard their conference, and related the very words so directly, that both Garnet and Hall did confess, they indeed had had conference together. What was his excuse now for his first Answer? He did equivocate, (his own words at the Barie) because he was not bound to accuse himself, before he saw witness to convince him. An answer wretched and witless; wretched (I say) because to use equivocation in a religious execration, is execrable wickedness: witless, because to defend a denial of truth, till one be convicted of a lie, is to profess a defence of an untruth, till he be not able to defend it.  
The second example is in your Disciple M. Tresham, who upon his deathbed, moved by a sinister spirit of a woman to retract his former true confessions, wherein Garnet was brought in suspicion of the last treason, (lest the guilt of such a Priest, might be prejudicial to the Catholic cause) did before the formerly named Magistrates at the point of death recall his foresaid confession thrice with protestation: Upon my salvation (saith he) I was not acquainted with Garnet this many years. After his death is Garnet apprehended, and examined of that point of acquaintance with Tresham, who did under his hand writing confess both the times and places of their conversing together: all this Garnet did acknowledge at the Bar. Then the right Honourable the Earl of Salisbury, (whose rare wisdom did in that umuersall audience prove itself often the only rack to that jesuit, in extracting many truths from that Equivocator to his often public confusion) asked him: What judge you, M. Garnet of that false protestation of M, Tresham he made upon his salvation? Garnet smiling, answered. I think he did equivocate. Smiling, a thousand beheld him. A very ridiculous answer indeed, if it had not been horribly impious, which therefore the whole audience, as children of truth, did then by a common murmur openly detest.  
To conclude, I must now (my moderate Answerer) necessarily rack you: but (fear not) only by that Logical instrument, which is therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: thus: you would persuade us that Priests think our Protestant Magistrates competent, before whom you may not use Equivocation: your Superior, by whom (if you be a jesuit) this your book was privileged, did both by practice and position more than allow the use of Equivocation the last day, even in a most honourable presence. Now therefore if your book was not privileged by Garnet, than this inscription of your book, 
* Answer in the front of the book.  [With licence of Superior] is untrue: if you say he did privilege it, than this excuse for all your Priests, saying: [We allow Magistrates in England co● petent, before whom we may not equivocate,] (Garnet gain▪ saying it) is likewise untrue.  
The greatest difficulty now will be, to tell whether of you two be the Superior in lying: you in saying, You do not defend that, which you do so manifestly defend, a flat lie; or he, who defendeth that, which no man can ever defend, Equivocation, the very dam of all damnable lying. Whereof more at large in the Confutation.  
Yet behold a greater mystery of this iniquity, then hath been yet revealed: Tresham taketh it on his salvation, that, to his knowledge, no Priest was acquainted with the plot, Digby and others make the like protestations at their death: Garnet a Priest did deny with main and many protestations, that he had conference with Hall, and defended it lawful, till he was convicted by witness. To what end? lest that Priest's guiltiness might make their priestly function and Religion more odious. Whence I may conclude, that it were more than sottishness for any Protestant to believe the Priests protesting their innocency (as Garnet did) at the Bar, or their disciples protesting (as Tresham and Digby did) the innocency of Priests and their adherents at their death: I say, all their witnesses deserve no credit, who defend thus to equivocate, till they be evidently convicted by witness.    

CHAP. XXVIII.  
The Discovery.  

The third abuse of Oaths is in dissolving them.  
THat though they take an oath of allegiance in cases temporal, yet their common interpretation is still with respect of their more supreme head. 
* See before Reason 4. lit. c.  During the will of the Pope, who (say they) hath power to free both himself and others from the bond of an oath. Which is their old gloss, saying, that 
a Debuit intelligi, nisi Papa remittat ei juramentum: Nam in juramento excipitur authoritas Maioris. Glossa ad Decret. lib. 2. tit. 24. cap. 10.  The case is so to be interpreted, namely, except the Pope shall release him from his oath: because in every oath the authority of a Superior must be excepted.   

The moderate Answerer.  

b Answer cap. 10. § This is.  There must needs be some exception of lawful oaths, else whatsoever wickedness is sworn must be performed: as that of the jews against Saint Paul; and of Herod against the Baptist.   

The Reply.  
There must be some exception of an oath, which is this, In male promissis rescind fidem: that is: A wicked vow is well broken. But your Popish exception for two respects we justly think intolerable; this will be plain by this example: If now the Spanish, in his league upon express conditions with the English, would, for the performance of his oath, depend upon the Pope's arbitrement, which is, [Till you can find opportunity for a mischief,] then silly English are in no better case than a goose tied with a line by the leg to a fox tail, which doth appear in the Discovery following.   

The Discovery. Practice.  
Their practice we have showed in the former Reasons: we may here add a more ancient example. 
c Canonicus qui dan● invehitur in Greg. 12. Pontificem, quòd tempore magni schismatis, antequam Pontifex crearetur, iuraver at publicò & ●olenni ●itu, se se abdicaturum Pontificia dignitate: Postea verò Pontifex electus, noluit Pontificatum deponere. Azor. Ies. Ins●it. Moral. lib. 5. cap. 15.  A Canonist (saith a jesuit) did inveigh against Pope Gregory the 12. who in the time of a great schism did openly and solemnly swear, that if he were made Pope, he would give it over again: but being elected, he performed nothing less. The Canonist, doubtless, wanted not a Canon to condemn this perlurie, though the jesuit upon presumption of justa causa doth defend it. For the cause was indifferent, whether to give over his Popedom, or to keep it: but the oath of indifferent matters doth infer a justice in performance, and condemn the not performance of perjury. Who also in the same Volume holdeth their general position saying, 
d Aliorum quoque iuramenta possunt Pontificis authoritate relaxa●i. Ibidem. lib. 11. cap. 9  Other men's oaths may be dissolved by the Pope. So that when the Pope shall send but his Bull of freeing our English, the bond of their oath will prove as strong as the knot of a Bul rush.   

The moderate Answerer.  

e Answer Ibid.  But to speak unto this Obiector concerning Protestant's proceeding in equivocating.   

The Reply.  
But first, men should be so modest as to cover their own bald pates, 
* Of the Answer for Protestants see the 2. part.  before they note others of like imperfections.   

The moderate Answerer.  
ᶠ I plainly answer, that all Catholics of this Kingdom both Priests and others, do and ought sincerely to acknowledge his Majesty absolute and really a true King of all his kingdoms, etc. And that among other duties to deny to swear, or violate an oath, iuridicè, justly and according to the course of law proposed, and to equivocate therein is a sin damnable.   

The Reply.  
In this your protestation by these words, It is damnable to use Equivocation before them judging, iuridicè, justly and according to law, I doubt much that you yourself use some damnable Equivocation: for what is (I pray you) iuridicè, justly? may you Priests take a corporal oath before a civil Magistrate whomsoever? this is against your own Decrees. 
g Coram judice & Magistratu civili nunquam Sacerdos ●urat, etiam Episcopi consensu: at Episcopus facit ut coram se Sacerdos iuret. Azure. I●●. Ins●it. lib. 11. cap. 11. § Sexto quaeritur.  A Priest (saith your jesuit) may not take an oath before any civil Magistrate, though the Bishop should ●●cence him thereunto.  
Secondly, call to mind the form of our English oath, To acknowledge no foreign power either of any King or Prelate to have any pre-eminence over our Sovereign (to insist only upon this branch) in causes temporal, either directly or indirectly. Say now, will you be sworn to this or no? If you shall say, you will not, take heed, then shall you be a Prevaricator, denying that which you would seem before to defend. If you say, you would, which all yours say, 
* Videsupra. The Pope is indirectly suprem in temporal causes. Bellar●…. Aadagaine The Pope may dissolve oaths. Vide supra Rat. 4. lib. 〈◊〉.  you may not, then are you (whom you would seem not to be) a damnable Equivocator.    

CHAP. XXIX.  
The Discovery in the tenth Reason.  
Whosoever is possessed with these former seditious Positions, that ex Officio, that is, as he is a Romish Priest, he must profess them; such an one is to be judged a most desperate Traitor. But all Romish Priests, as Priests, profess some, and othersome all of these seditious Positions, ●…go, etc.  
The Minor 

1. proved,  
2. confirmed.    
Proved by an argument of Relation: that seeing the Auth●… of this rebellious doctrine are the principal Rabbis of 〈…〉 Sect, and publicly authorized with the ordinary pr●… of that Church; it may not be imagined, but that the 〈…〉 are infected with the leaven of their Professors & D●… bovenamed. To wit, 1. Tolet a late Cardinal, whose 〈…〉 have this special privilege by Pope Gregor●e 1●. ᵃ That (〈…〉 Vasques the jesuit) they may without censure or examination of any be published to the world. Now the book wherein these positions or rather poisons are contained, is entitled, De Instructione Sacerdotum: that is, The Book of instructions for Priests.  
2. Cardinal Bellarmine public Reader in Rome, in his Book entitled, Of the Pope of Rome, dedicated to 
b Be●…o, Sanct●ssimoque Pat● X●…o Quinto P●●t. Maximo Rob. Bellarminus. In princ●…i●i ep●●t. ●…cat. d●… T●m. Roman.  〈◊〉 Quintus Pope of Rome, and authorized by the same Pope of Rome to no other end, but (as he confesseth) 
c Ad eos ●●uene ●…uendos qu●… à Tran●…●egio●●bu, Authorit●s tua revocate. 〈◊〉 d.  To instruct those Scholars, whom his Holiness did send for from beyond the Alps, that is, all Scotish, Polish, Flemish, Danish, and English extravagants.  
3 Cardinal Alane created of the same Pope Xistus Quintus, Anno Dom. 1588. to the like end: for in the same year when the Spanish invasion was intended against England, he published his book entitled, An Admonition to the Nobility of England.  
4 L. Molina Divinity Reader in the University of 
* Ebornensis.  Ebor.  
5 Gregory of Valentia Divinity Reader in the University of 
* Ingolstadiensis.  Ingolstade.  
6 Doctor Stapleton, Divinity Reader in Lo●aine.  
7 Dominicus Bannes Divinity Reader in the University of 
* Salmaticens●s.  Salmat. Another much infected with the same leaven, and yet privileged in Spain with these commendations: 
* Legi & expendi diligenter jussa & imperio Senatus, F. Dom. Bannesijs Cathedratij Sacrosanctae Theologiae in Salmaticensi Academia in 2. 2. Dom. Thomae Commentarios. & nihil reperi lima dignum, sed admiratione ut appareat fore opus Theologis utilissimum, & fructuosissimum. Idque ego ratum mea fide jubeo. Frater Daques Regis Hispani● Consessarius in comment. Francisci Ban●●sij.  A work admirable, and profitable for all Divines. Dignified also of the Friars, called Minors, in these terms: 
e Ne tam glorioso open sanctae obedientiae meritum deesse contingat, hoc ipsum ei praecipimus in virtute Spiritus Sancti sub formali praecepto, In nomire Patris, Pilij, & Spiritus sancti. Amen. non obstantibus in contrarium quibuscunue. Fratrem Minorum de D. Bannesijs Commentarijs Encomium.  Aglorious work, which lest it want his deserved obedience, this we challenge in the power of the holy Ghost, under our formal command (without all exceptions) in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Amen.  
We have also alleged the resolution of the Jesuits College of the University of Salamancha in Spain, Anno Dom. 1602. As likewise Creswell his Philopater, printed at Rome, Licentiâ Superiorum, by the licence of the Superiors; signifying the Jesuits there. What shall I need to mention Reinolds (in his Rostus) a Doctor of Divinity, and chiefest man in the English Seminary at Rheims? Father Parsons (in his Dolman) a principal Rector in the Seminary at Rome? Seeing all these be Seminaries, you may try the young plants by their fruits. If any desire further experience in this kind, he may consult with Carolus Molinaeus, and Pontus Tyardaus, both Parisiens', and but even now, before I can read them, to be read of all men.  

The Confirmation.  
It will not be denied of any Priest, but that in these Popish Seminaries he hath vowed obedience to his general Fathers in those schools: and it is as notorious, that all Generals are absolutely enthralled to their chief General the Pope; all of them as hands and feet to work and walk, as that their head shall devise. Which (as we have heard in Gregory the 7. Gregory the 9 Pius Quint us, and others) have absolved Subjects from all obedience, and charged them to take arms against their Emperors, Kings and Queen's excommunicate, etc. Shall we now imagine, the old Foxes being such, that their cubbes can degenerate? If ever any of that kind gave hope unto us, it was the secular Priests; who for a fit did write many things very truly against jesuitical rebellious Practices: but after, perceiving the Recusants to withdraw their benevolence, as rather devoted to the Jesuits, and that the Pope also took part against them, they, searing their consciences, wholly submitted themselves unto the Archpriest, whose command upon occasion is countermanded by the faction jesuitical. So that now we may aswell expect grapes from thorns, or a white Aethiopian, as loyal subjection from this Religion.   

The moderate Answerer.  

f Answer cap. 11. § The tenth & § And whatsoever.  His tenth Reason is no new Reason, but an Epilogus of the former. But I answer, that the Catholic Students neither of Englandn●r of any other Nation are bound to defend their Masters reading, but in matters of faith and general received doctrine.   

The Reply.  
Nay, it is a different and demonstrative Reason, taken from the formal cause of conspiracy and consent in such practices, because Doctors and Disciples with you, are more than Relatives: for what can most of your Priests say here, but as Schoolboys, Dictata Magistri; and as Infants, who receive no more food, then that which they suck from their nurses. A matter notorious: and how (I pray you) may we better, then by the doctrine of your Generals, know what is your general doctrine?   

The moderate Answerer.  

g Answer ibid.  These Assertions are most falsely objected, for the Scholars do not vow any obedience to their Superiors; and that obedience which they follow, is in observing the Collegiall Rules.   

The Reply.  
Yet they acknowledge obedience, as a due thing, 
h Non sub modo praecepti, sed sub modo perfectionis. Tollet. Tract. de 7. Peccat. mort. cap. 15.  Though not in the bond of precept, yet of perfection. And I think your vows do arrogate perfection.  
Secondly, it is requisite you should show us some reason, why your scholars should in these points descent from their Masters; and whether we should rather believe you herein, living in cryptis, or them who for their excellent learning, dominantur in Cathedris, your doctrine couched under a bushel, or theirs within their public and privileged books, set as it were on the house top.   

The moderate Answerer.  

i Answer Ibidem. in sia●sectionis.  And yet there is not any one sentence alleged from any of them or any other Catholic, which in his true sense will bring any preindice to our most holy innocent cause: as I have demonstrated.   

The Reply.  
In his true sense, say you? Why? by what reason can you challenge my sense of untruth? 
k Answer supra.  Because the authorities be falsely applied. Why so? 
l 〈…〉. 1. ●…g.  Because this particular Reason, whereupon, as 〈◊〉 most certain foundation, his arguments are built, is this, Protestants are by us accounted Heretics and excommunicate; which is most false. O, this then is the only cause you can pretend, but seeing 
* ●…ll ●…s 〈…〉.  it is confirmed by impregnable demonstrations from Popes and all Popish Authors, that Protestants by all Papists (though heretically) are esteemed as Heretics: it will demonstratively follow, that all the authorities I alleged are rightly applied, and all the crudities of your indigested answer sufficiently dissolved. Whether therefore that doctrine, whereby detestable lying, under the shadow of Equivocation, is authorized for truth; where desperate Rebellion is advanced in the pretence of Religion; where most barbarous massacres of Christian people, and monstrous murders of Kings and Princes are magnified as glorious Stratagems, be preindiciall to the holiness of any cause. I dare call heaven, earth, yea and hell also to witness between us. Thus I leave you as persons convicted of high Treason, (God grant you grace of repentance) and now I proceed to plead the cause of Protestants generally impeached by you as persons guilty of the same crime.     

The second Part, containing a justification of Protestants against slanderous imputations, objected unto them by this Answerer in two points, 

Doctrine of Rebellion,  
And sacrilegious equivocation.    

CHAP. I.  
THE second kind of answer in this our moderate Answerer, is by Recrimination, to make Protestants as much, or rather more guilty of crimes Rebellious, and Equivocations, than the Romish sect.  
First is the case of Rebellion, 

1. generally,  
2. more particularly.    
1. In general.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 1. § Lastly.  Let the Discoverer battle himself against his Protestant brethren, which, of all the people in the world that ever were, or will be, are most guilty in these proceedings. 
b Ibid. § Fourthly. ●t cap. 15. in initio. & cap. 7. § We have.  All jumping together in this conclusion, that Kings differing in Religion from them, are not worthy to be accounted either Princes or men, but must be deposed. We have read and seen many conspiracies and rebellions proceeding from the dogmatical men of this profession, and their Rebels s●aine in their actual rebellions, and approved of them, and canonised for holy Martyrs.   

The Reply.  
Loud clamour and lewd! Which your general accusation must have a general satisfaction, to show that it is childish, extravagant, and slanderous.  
As childish as your boy-trick, when, about to be convicted for a truant, you accused some other for fellowship. Admit then this to be a true recrimination; yet, as S. Augustine reasoneth of two kind of thieves, so may I of divers kinds of rebels. 
c Horum duorum non ideo alter bonus, quia peior est unus. August. lib contra mendac. cap. 8. in initio.  This thief (saith he) is not therefore good, because the other is worse. Can the one of these be saved by the other man's halter?  
2. Extravagant: wandering out of the circuit of the question, thus, The question was whether Romish Priests can be true subjects unto our Protestant King: you would satisfy by examples of Protestants disloyalty to Romish Governors. Suppose it be so, although we condemn all such Protestants, yet here is your iniquity: those Protestants in the Romish regiments, you call Rebellious traitors; and yet you Romish, in Protestants kingdoms, will be called dutiful and faithful subjects: contrary to the natural law of all equity, Feras legem, quam fers: To be judged by your own law; and acknowledge your like case with such Protestants (if yet there have been any such) worthy of the like condemnation.  
3. Slanderous: for those, whom you in this place accuse rebellious, in another place by consequent you acquit as innocent 
d Answer cap. 2. § Therefore seeing.  Protestants (you say) allege this Scripture, [
* Rom. 13.  Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit:] Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, etc. to prove Prince's supremacy. By the which also Protestants prove, 
e Primum probant Pont. Romanum nullo iu●e posse imperare Principibus secularibus, nedum eos regnis privare, etiamsi illi privari alioqui mereantur. Hoc docet omnes (intelligit Protestants) hoc tempore, ut calvinus, Martyr, Brentius, Magdeburgenses. Bell 〈…〉. lib. 5. de Ro●… Pont. cap. 1. in initio.  That the Pope of Rome (saith Bellarmine) ought not to overrule Princes, or deprive them of their regiments, although otherwise they deserved to be deprived: of this opinion be all Protestants. Now I would demand of any indifferent Reader, whether they do suffer any to resist, who challenge every one ●o acknowledge obedience. We may divine now, what moderation you will keep in the rest of your accusations, who have thus plainly confuted yourself in this first.    

CHAP. II.  
The particular Recriminations are fetched from divers Kingdoms. First (to begin at home) England.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 7. § I have.  The Discoverer hath made a fond argument against the Protestant ministers in England convinced of sedition, for taking arms against their Sovereign.   

The Reply.  
I would this your objection were such, whereby we might only charge you of fondness, and not of falsehood also, and malice. For of the Church of England your jesuit hath given a contrary verdict; 
b Anglicanis Protestants Principem Christianum etiam in causa Ecclesiastica Superiorem agno●cunt. Salmeron Jesuita come. in Epistol. Pauli in gener. disp. 1●. § Verum. s●●●king of the latter days of K. Henry the eight.  The English Protestants (saith he) do acknowledge their Christian Prince supreme, even in causes Ecclesiastical. Which is true in his lawful sense. But here again we behold the spirits of giddiness: you defame the English Christians, as denying due subjection to their Sovereign: your jesuit accuseth the same English for yielding more than due. But I leave you both to battle together, you to accuse him of impudency, and he you of stupidity. This hath been of English only yet in general. Next you    

CHAP. III.  
Descend unto Individuals in our English nation.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 1. adfinem. § Fourthly.  I must put the Discoverer in mind, that he hath beheld his visage too much in the glass of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Sands, Rogers, and all Protestants of all places. What have these men done? 
b Answer cap. 3. repeating it § Against, etc.  It was the consent of these and the chiefest Protestant Bishops and Divines, that Queen Marie might be deposed; and not only she, but her sister Queen Elizabeth a Protestant, which was put in practice both with wit and weapons, to the uttermost of the Protestants power by the Duke of Northumberland and Suffolk, and many others of great estate: and not this only against the express statutes of the kingdom, but their own oath to the Lady Marie in her father's life. 
c Answer cap.▪ 4. repeating it, in initio.  Thus did these with their Protestant Preachers and forces against the succession of Queen Elizabeth. 
d Answer, repeating this, cap. 9 § For England.  For England I have spoken already more than I desire, had not such wicked accusations against us urged me to the breach of silence. Now I will only say, that the public and dogmatical positions and practices of rebellions by the greatest Protestant subjects of this kingdom, the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, and so many Nobles to be passed with oblinion, with the whole Clergy, against not only God and their Queen, but oaths of fidelity to King Henry the eight, that I am bold to affirm, etc.   

The Reply.  
No marvel though you be bold to affirm thus much concerning the knowledge of these things, seeing you (verifying the vulgar article) are herein blind. Seek therefore into history, the light of verity, and life of antiquity, and you will easily see how much you have been overseen.  
First your boldness, touching history, hath presumed to affirm, that 
e Answer cap. 10. § Secondly.  K. Henry the eight did illegitimate his two daughters M. and E. and after declared the contrary, making them legitimate by statute. I have inquired into the Acts which are extant, and I find three Acts, whereby the aforesaid daughters were disabled, as namely in annis 25. 28. 33. of King Henry his reign. But for establishing of them in the right of succession, I think you cannot show it, except it be in anno nunquam, canon nusquam.  
The case is more manifested by the answer of the whole Council to the letters of Queen Marie, wherein she now after the death of King Edward made challenge to the right of the Crown. The Counsels answer is thus framed. 
f The Counc●l● letters to Lady Ma●ie.  This is a-against the sundry Acts of Parliament remaining yet in force, confirmed by the King of famous memory Henry the eight, against the letters patents of our late Sovereign King Edward the sixth, and his great seal, against the consent of the most part of the noble Universities of Christendom, etc. Wherefore you, that tell us of a statute of Legitimation, as a matter evident, in modesty should not have concealed your evidence. Otherwise you know in a proposition copulative, if but one point be true, the whole is a lie.  
Say then, whereof can you accuse Cranmer, Ridley, and all Protestants, wherein you will not make King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and many Parliaments guilty? I did never hear the whole state of any kingdom termed Traitors but by your boldness: If you had struck at the head of that opposition, you should not have needed to have lopped the branches: for if King Henry might have spoken from the dead in the day of the succession of Queen Mary, he would have pleaded the cause of the opposites, as David did in the behalf of his people, Oues hae, etc. It is I: these other what have they done? Notwithstanding we acknowledge her succession just: and after the proclamation of her title, show us what Protestant ever resisted? what Minister of the Gospel in all that fiery trial did kindle the least spark of sedition among her people? Was it because they wanted hope of succession? Behold there was the handmaid of God, Elizabeth their hopeful successor to the Crown. Was it for want of power? why death is rightly described to be a Giant, having a thousand hands, able to give any living creature his mortal wound. But I abhor to discourse of these rebellious conceits. Lastly, of all Protestants which were burned in Queen Mary's days for Religion, name but one that was accused of treason; I require instance but in one: an apparent demonstration, that their Religion taught them loyal subjection.   

The second Instance for England. The moderate Answerer.  

g Answer cap. 3. § Against. Repeated, cap. 4. § But.  Sir Thomas Wyatt warranted by Protestants Clergy, with divers others in the short regiment of Queen Marie may be given for instance.   

The Reply.  
The History relateth the pretence of Wyatt, thus, 
h H●…shed Chro  A Proclamation against the Queen's marriage, desiring all English men to join for defence of the Realm, in danger to be brought into thraldom to strangers, who be Spaniards. The like was the Proclamation of the Duke of Suffolk, Against the marriage with the Prince of Spain. Where avouching his loyalty to the person of the Queen, laid his hand on his sword, saying, He that would her any hurt, I would this sword were at his heart. Again, there is recorded the Oration of Queen Marie against Wyatt; where there is not to be found any scruple concerning the (subject of our question) cause of Religion: neither was there (to make it more apparent) any Minister of the Gospel brought in question, as a commotioner in that cause. Though therefore it is requisite that that which is lawful, be performed by lawful proceedings; yet if intent (the subject of this dispute) might answer for Protestants accused in that name, then is it plain, that it was not Religion: if for Wyatt and his fellows, it is as plain it was not against the Queen or State, but for both, that the whole land might continue in their former subjection, and that by Spanish insolency, her highness pre-eminence and sovereignty might not be impaired. Let us hear   

The third Instance for England. The moderate Answerer.  

i Answer cap. 4.  Goodman published a book, concluding it lawful to kill Kings transgressing Gods laws themselves, and commanding others to do the like.   

The Reply.  
If I should justify this Goodman, though your examples might excuse him, yet my heart shall condemn myself. But what do you profess to prove? All protestants teach Positions rebellious. Prove it. Here is one Goodman, who in his public book doth maintain them. I have no other means to avoid these straits, which you object, by the example of one, to conclude All Protestants in England rebellious, then by the example of * All the rest, to answer there is but one. And now let me be beholden to your moderation, to remember multitudes of your Priests, Jesuits, Cardinals, and Popes in their public authorized books, Bulls, Decrees; and now you requite me with one. But shall one dram of dross prove the whole mass no gold? Let us therefore leave this Goodman, as a man, who by his unauthorised, wicked and false positions hath falsified his name. You proceed   

The fifth Instance against English Protestants. The moderate Answerer.  

k Answer cap. 2. § And whence▪  The English Protestants notes upon the Bible (as his Majesty is witness) do not disallow the kill of Princes in such case: as is showed by the book of Conference, pag. 47.   

The Reply.  
It will be requisite, without prejudice to the most learned and religious judgement of his Majesty, to satisfy for two places related from that conference. The first place touching the act of the midwives of Egypt, who mercifully spared the lives of the infants of the Hebrews, notwithstanding the commandment of the King. The note: [Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling was evil:] And was not this disobedience lawful? Let us consult with the holy Ghost, Heb. 11. 23. where it is written [Bianca faith Moses when he was borne was hid three months of his parents, neither feared they the King's commandment.] The same is the case of the [midwives disobeying the commandment of the King.] Now that which is noted by the Spirit of God, as commendable in the parents of Moses, may it be condemnable in these merciful midwives of the Egyptians? Nay, for it is also written, [
* Exod. 1. 15. & 20.  The midwives of Egypt feared God, and did not as the King commanded them, but preserved alive the male children, and therefore God prospered them.] But we must discern in this act two colours, white and black, which S. Augustine distinguisheth: 
l In vi●…andis pueris, opus mi●ericordiae fuit; mendacio vero illo pro se utebantur ne noceret illis Pharaoh: non ad laudem, sed ad venia pertinebat. August. Quaest. super Exod. 1.  They did a work of mercy in preserving the lives of the young babes; but they did lie unto the King for safeguard of their own lives: The first deserved praise, the other needed a Pardon. Therefore this their lawful and merciful disobedience for preventing the bloody Massacre of Infants, can be no precedent for your practices intended in malice, to end in the blood of Protestants of all sorts. The other point of the note against Dissimulation, doth indeed cross your equivocating profession: but you are not to be offended with us, if we condemn that as sinful, which (as S. Augustine saith) 
* ●…m su●a.  needed a pardon.  
The second place, 2. Chron. 15. 16. the Text, [King Asa deposed Maachah his mother from her estate, because she had made an Idol in a grove.] The note, Mother, or Grandmother, yet herein the King showed that he lacked zeal: for she ought to have been burnt by the Covenant, as vers. 13. And by the law of God, Deut. 13. but he gave place to foolish pity, and would also se●me after a sort to satisfy the law. The truth then of this exposition (as all Orthodoxal Commentaries show) is grounded upon the direct Scripture, the Oracle of truth: for in the law, Deut. 13. 6. & 9 If thy brother, etc. the sum whereof is repeated in the Text in question, vers. 13.] Whosoever will not seek the Lord God of Israel, shall be slain, whether he were small or great, man or woman.] What shall we say then; is the Sovereignty of Kings disabled? God forbid, but it is rather established hereby: for the King is made the Deposer, yea even of whosoever. Now that Commentary doth not defend deposing a King, neither possibly can it be defended by any ordinary command of God in all Scripture: which is 
* Infra.  proved. Wherefore supposing that the Relation of the Conference be direct, yet may you not think that his Majesty (whose judgement is so divinely illuminated by the light of the word of God, that he never refused Conference with the greatest jesuit or Doctor Romish) could take exception to the note, as from an offence thereby given, but only in suspicion, an offence taken by weak ones prepossessed with your Romish malady, whereof you have given us experience in your many controversies. For wheresoever in all Scripture almost you feel but any sent of fire, O behold, this doth 
* Vide Apolog. Cathol. Part 2. lib. 5. cap. 40 & d●…. cep●.  Prove Purgatory fire after death. Whereas indeed the context is plain, there is only signified * Afflictions of this life. Where you read promised Reward for good-works, there you presently conclude, Amerit of Condignity; when as all is the only justice of God's promise, and the consequent of the only grace and mercy of God, who giveth to will, to work, to perfect, and crowneth his gift of grace, with the grace of the gift of glory. I may not digress. Here doubtless his Majesty doubted lest some impotent Reader, not ignorant of your suggestions, understanding a Prince deposed by the King, might justify your proceedings, where so many popishly inspired, have assumed the office of Kings, to depose a Prince. But know you, there is not in any part of our Commentary upon the Bible any one spark, whereat any Guido may light his match, to give fire to his powder.   

The last instance for England. The moderate Answerer.  

m Answer in his Epistle to his Majesty. § Which as.  If I had traveled no further into that doctrine, then to the late printed book, by your majesties Printer of the late intended Conspiracy, I might easily perform a just defence: for the Protestant Author giveth it out as a general rule, and undoubted Maxim to all Professors of worship to take arms, if their Religion be in hazard: and that no private man should think his life more happy then to fight pro Aris. Which is greater liberty than our Adversary can find in Catholic Writers, so of him attached of Treason and Rebellion.   

The Reply.  
This shoot is but twelve score wide of the mark you aim at: your bent is to defend them, who profess it lawful for Catholics in the maintenance of Religion to murder Kings, and harrow Kingdoms (in their opinion) heretical. This Author teacheth us to Fight (his own words) pro Aris, pro focis, pro Patre patriae: his Reason, Because the endangering of one of these would at once stir the whole body of a Commonwealth, not any more as divided members, but as a solid and individual lump. What is then the difference? he in the whole Treatise, teacheth every private man to arm himself by all possible means, but first armed with authority of the King and State. You teach to fight for Religion (violating the obedience of God) against your King and kingdom, to destroy them. The difference may be illustrated by the like: A private man, if without authority temporal he kill a murderer, he is a murderer; but authorized by the public law, he is now no more private, but an Officer, but the lawless homicide doth best pattern your lawless parricide. So that there is no more odds between our and your Author's opinion, then cum Rege, & contra Regem: to fight with, and against the King. You can find no more exception in England, whither will you now? it is but a step to Scotland, what see you there?    

CHAP. FOUR  
The Objection of the moderate Answerer against the Church of Scotland.  

a Answer cap. 3. repeating it cap. 7. & cap. 9  KNox, and Buchanan defended the power of people over their King.  

The Reply.  
You might have added, that there was in Scotland an 
* Anno. 1584.  Act of Parliament, to call in that Chronicle of Buchanan, censuring all such contempts and innovations: but it stood your modesty in hand to conceal this, lest we might reply upon your moderation thus: That is not to be called the doctrine of Scotland, which the general currant of that Church and State in public Parliament doth condemn: such is this seditious doctrine of resisting and deposing Kings, a learning substantially popish, your 
* Proved by the Pope's Bulls supr.  Pope's being Authors thereof, your other Priests of Rome suggestors publicly authorized herein, and your traitorous Actors canonised for Saints in the conceit of all Romish. And now you may bid great Britain adieu: you may make a short cut into France.    

CHAP V.  
The Objections of the moderate Answerer against the Protestants in France, both in their Positions and Practices.  

a Answer cap. 9 § Let us.  LEt us come into France.  

The Reply.  
But upon condition, that you will not return. Yet what of France?   

The moderate Answerer.  

b Answer Ibid.  Calvin and Beza, and the rest of that holy Synod say, that the Kings and Queens, their children, posterity, and all Magistrates must be put to death: and so every Protestant must be more than a Pope.   

The Reply.  
Nay, God forbid; that any should be so great a man in Rebellion, as your Popes, who have been the heads of the greatest tumults in Christendom. Calvin and Beza, whom you traduce (if your moderation will suffer that which justice doth exact) must answer for themselves.   

Calvin's judgement in this case.  
In his book of Institutions, which he framed for instruction of all the Church of Christ, touching the case now controverted, he beginneth to consult with God, saying: 
c calvinus Instit. li. 4. c. 20. § 22. Verbum Dei docet, Principum omnium, qui quoquo modo rerum potiuntur, etiamsi nihil minus praestent, quam quod ex Officio erat Principum, imperio es●e parendum. Paulò post Vt homines intelligant, in homine deterrimo honoreque omni indignissimo, penes quem modo sit publica potestas, praeclaran illam & divinam potestatem residere, quam Dominus lustitiae & judicij sui Ministris verbo suo detulit: I●roi●dè a subditis eadem reverentiâ ac dignatione habendum, quantum ad publicam obedientiam attinet, quâ Regem optimum, si daretur, habitur● estent. Nabuchadnezar strenuous erat aliorum invasor, ac populator, & Dominus ta●…en per Prophetam d●cit, se illi terram illam dedisle. Ezech. 29. & Dan. 2. Vt ●os nequissimum Tyrannum eo loco habeamus, quo Deus eum posuit. C●… Samuel describit Regem iniquum. 1, Samuel. 8. 11. Hoc ius (inquit) erit Regis, filios vest●os tollet, etc. Cert●… non quòd iure ita facturierant Reges, quos lex Domini ad omnem continentiam instituebat▪ sed ●us ●n populum vocatur, cui patere ipsi necesle erat, nec obsistere liceret & ●er. 27. S8ruiet Regi Babel. Videmus quant●●…e ●ti● tetrum illum ferocèmque Tyrannum Deus coli volverit, non al●â ratione ni●i quia regnum▪ ●…bat, quod exemplum vobis assid●è ob animos obuetletur: ita nunquam in anim●…●dit●… cogitationes venient; Tracta●dum esse pro me●itis Regem; nec aequum esse ut subd●…s ●…s praestemus, qui v●cissim Regem nobis se non praestat. & de hoc extant general●a Sc●ip●… testimonia. Hunc reu●rentiae atque ade● p●●tatis affectum▪ debemus ad extremum ●llis, qu lescunquetandem sint; Quod saepiùs ideò repeto, ut satis hab●amus, quòd eam Domini voluntate personam s●stine●t, cui inviolabilem maiestatem impressit ip●e & insculpsit.  The word of God teacheth us to obey all Princes, who are established in their thrones, be it by what means soever: yea and though they shall do nothing less than the Offices of Kings, yet must they be obeyed; though the King be never so wicked, and indeed unworthy of the name of a King, yet must subjects acknowledge the image of divine power in his public authority, and therefore must in all temporal duties reverence and obey him, as well as if he were the godliest King in the world. To contract his other sentences into a brief. We are instructed (saith Calvin) by many documents of holy writ never to suffer these seditious conceits to possess our minds; as to think an evil King must be so dealt withal, as he deserveth: but we are directly charged to obey the King, though he be a savage Tyrant, and never so wicked: which I therefore often urge, that in such a case it may content us to know, that even such Ki●gs bear in their office the image of God, in whom God hath stamped andingraven an inviolable Majesty, not to be contemned. Thus far Master Calvin: neither doth he ever restrain the outward power of any King, except in those States where there is customably ordained for that purpose, the Magistracy of those who are called Ephori, and Tribuni plebis. But when? when they shall command any thing against the law of God? then Calvin embraceth the doctrine of Saint Peter, Act. 15. 29. [We rather obey God then man:] but how? not to obey man? as actively to resist, that is, to rebel against him? God forbid! but only passively, which is not to do that which shall be wickedly commanded; Perpeti potius, quam à veritate discedere, au● à pietate deslectere. Rather suffer (saith he) then to betray the truth of God, or to accord to iniquity. But read and examine all the lines which ever Calvin penned, and you shall not find one syllable that can prejudice his loyalty. Whereof more hereafter.   

The moderate Answerer.  

d Answer quo iam supra.  Beza also and the rest of that holy Synod, defend the same.   

The Reply.  
Belike than this rebellious doctrine will be proved a Synodical Decree among Protestants: but if you should vow faithfully not to eat, till you prove this, I could easily prognosticate what death you should die. But Beza, as he succeeded Caluine a Doctor, so in doctrine likewise. Hear Bezas own confession, and it will prove him innocent, you a slanderer, and your Popes the capital delinquents in this kind.  
1 His innocency. 
e Quod attinet ad p●iuatos homines, à qui● us etiam aut ●ihil aut no●●…ltū absunt ●…o●es m●gistratus, t●ne●e ●llos opott●t ●l●●imū inter le de●●r●e, in●…am ●…erre, & ●…m pati: Iniuriam enim pati nostrum est, sic praecipiente Domino & exemplo suo nobis praeeu●te, cum nobis illum vi arcere non licet à nostrae vocationis praescipto, ext●a quam ne●as ●…vel pedem ponere. Nequè aliud remedium proponitur privatis hominibus ●…yranno sub●…ter vitae emendationem, preces, & lach●ymas, quas Dominus pro tempore non a●p●…r▪ Impien auten facere nec volentes nec ius●os fas erit; quoties enim ho●inum imperijs patére n●n possumus, qui● Regis Regum authoritatem violemus, Deo parendum est potius quam hominibus; ita tamen ut memine●im●s, aliud esse non parére, quam resistere & ad arma ●e co●patare, quae à Domino non acceperis. B●za confess. fid. cap. 5. § 45.  Private men, among whom I account inferior Magistrates (in respect of their King) have no other remedy against Tyrants, to whom they be subject, than amendment of their lives, prayers, and tears, which God in his good time will not despise. They always provided not to do, but only to suffer evil, as Christ by his own example hath taught us. And if it shall so happen that we cannot obey the command of the King, but that we must offend God, the King of Kings: then must we rather obey God then man. But how? so, as likewise to remember, that it is one thing not to obey, another thing to resist and betake ourselves to arms. This kind of violent disobedience we may not use. Can any moderate spirit call this doctrine rebellious?  
Secondly: Your slander. 
f Quid de Subiectorum erga suos magistratus officio sentiamus, ex his cognosci potest certiùs ac veriùs, quam ex corum calumnijs, quibus nullus est pudor nos involuere cum vertiginosis Anabaptistis, qui magistatuum authoritatem tollunt, iurisiurandi religionem evertunt, indicia & B●lla adversus se illata illicita esse contendunt, à quibus sceleribus quantum absumus, nemo potest ignor are nisi qui lucem recusat intueri. Beza quo supra.  What our opinion is concerning subjection unto Magistrates, (saith Beza) a man may better be instructed by our writings, then by the slanders of such as number us among the company of intoxicate Anabaptists, who renounce the authority of Magistrates: which doctrine how much we abhor, none can be ignorant, which doth not obstinately refuse to see the light. Of which kind you must needs be, seeing you had rather believe any libels against Beza, then see his own writings.  
Thirdly, your Pope's capital Offenders, 
g Auget etiam illud adversariorum nostrorum impudentia, quòd cum ipsi palam contra Dei Verbum Reges & Regna sibi subiecerint, nec ullum sit hominum genus adversus magistratus magis rebel, audent tamen illi nobis illud ipsum scelus impingere, quod sibi licere non obscutè iactant. Beza ibidem.  The impudency of our Accusers (saith Beza) herein is most notorious; that they, who contrary to the word of God have openly subjecteth Kings and Kingdoms to their authority, being themselves the most rebellious Sect under heaven in contemning Magistrates; dare notwithstanding object the guilt of that crime unto us, which they think to be a virtue in themselves, and wherein they glory and vaunt. Which is most true, as we have proved out of your Bellarmine and others, glorying in the acts of such Popes, who have deposed Emperors.    

CHAP. VI  
The Practices of Calvin and other Protestants of France objected by this Accuser in divers particular instances.  

The first instance. The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer qu● supra.  THese were instruments of all Rebellions and oppressions in the Monarchy of France, wherein they took all authority from the King and Magistrate, against King Francis, whom they rebelliously persecuted.   

The Reply.  
For your proofs against Protestants in this your Answer you produce Genebrard, Claudius de Sanct. Petrus Frar. Coclaeus and such like, all professed Adversaries to the Religion of Protestants. How moderate dealing this may be accounted will appear, when I shall oppose your own Historians to condemn you, and acquit the Protestants. Two witnesses shall suffice, who how far they were from favouring the Protestants you may judge by their complexions: for the 
b The Historical collection of the memorable acts in France from Henry the 2, till Henry the 4 Before his Treatise of the reign of Henry the 3. he hath inserted. A brief Discourse (for so ●e ●●th i●… title it) of the grace and wonderful effects that have ensued the King's conversion, collected. Wherein are these words following: His Majesty by revelation of the holy Ghost and for his own salvation turned to the bosom of the Church, leaving the ●…ors of the new opinion, abjuring his former impostures▪ etc.  first greedily relateth a Discourse, wherein he calleth our Religion new and a plain imposture. The 
c L'histoire de France, ●…es plus notables occurrences, etc. Au Roy.  second is dedicated to Charles the than French King; and to 
d L'histoire de Franc. etc. A la R●in●.  the Queen mother: in which History he calleth the doctrine of M. Luther, 
e La multitude des absurdes Heresies, etc. Lib. 1. fol. 9  A multitude of absurd heresies. Therefore you may not think these men partial in our behalf.  
Both proving 

1. The proneness of Papists to slander the Religion of Protestants.  
2. That this accusation is a slander, which is now objected.    
For the 1. I will allege of many but one story, published by them both. 
f The first Hist. pag. 5●…. A●●o D●…. 1559. and the second History lib. 15. A●●o 1559. § Or come.  False witnesses were brought against (Protestants) them of the Religion, affirming that in a place at Maubert, at a councillors house, great numbers of them had eaten a pig instead of a paschal Lamb before Easter; and after, the candles being put out, every man took his woman, and had his pleasure of her. The Cardinal upon these informations moved the Court, the Queen mother took occasion hereby to revile some of her Gentlewomen, who were of the Religion: but they desired and obtained means that the principal witnesses might be examined: it was done, two young boys come forth, and affirm that then and many other times they had had the use of your councillors daughters: but in the end the witnesses began to stagger, and covertly to deny it. The Councillor (sought after for his Religion) understanding this shameful slander, went with his wife and his two daughters, yielding himself prisoner for his Religion, desiring that the cause of his daughters might be examined. They were diligently searched by Physicians and women, and found to be virgins: and the young men did thus justify themselves that they did it in devotion, being persuaded that such an accusation against such Heretics was good, whether it were true or false. But the virgins were cleared, and yet their father remained in prison, and the witnesses were not punished.  
The second. Concerning the present Accusation thus it standeth. 
g The first Hist. pag. 86.  The Guizes (who were no natural Frenchmen) not able to accuse the Prince of Condie of Treason, (daniel's case) called him in question to be condemned of heresy for his Religion. But what was the right cause of tumults? 
h Pag. 62. & 67.  There was delivered an exact declaration to prove, that those of the Guizes had decreed to put all the Princes of the blood Royal to death, as soon as they had cut off them of the Religion; and they were evidently proved to be guilty of his treason. 
i Pag. 83.  And the King could not otherwise judge, but that great wrong was offered to his blood. Than not the Protestants, but the Spanish faction of the Guizes were guilty of those broils in the days of King Francis. Notwithstanding 
k Pag. 85. 86. 87.  Though the Prince of Condie did acquit himself of Treason, and boldly stood to his Religion, yet not long after they pronounced judgement of death upon him: But King Francis fell extremely sick, and in his sickness made a solemn vow to all Saints in Pieardie, that if it pleased them to help him, he would wholly purge his Realm of (meaning Protestant's) all those heretics. And thus all Protestants were freed then from this design: the Saints of Piccardie belike were of your mind, Protestants are no heretics.   

The second Instance, of The moderate Answerer.  

g Answer cap. 9 § After the.  They raised such rebellions and civil wars against Charles the ninth, wherein the King of Navarre, and Duke Nyvers with others were slain.   

The Reply.  
I read the story in our foresaid 
h The first History. Pag. 114. & deinc●p●.  Historical collection of memorable accidents in France, and others, and I can find only this thing memorable concerning this point, that The King was then in his minority, and the Queen Mother was regent, who yielded too much unto the Guizes faction, who persecuted the Prince of Condie, and sought the destruction of all the blood royal: at length Duke Nyvers with King Navarre in the war against his brother, at the siege of Roan are wounded and slain. See the cause of the Prince of Condie his defence. 
i Pag. 111.  In lan. 1●. anno 1562 was made an Edict, whereby permission was granted to them of the Religion to assemble without the towns, and order was taken, that either part, Protestants and Catholics, might live in quietness and peace with each other: But a while after the Constable did deface all places of their assemblies, and those of the Religion were cruelly handled. This was the first beginning of the horrible troubles in France. But were Protestants after this rebellious? 
k Pag. 152.  In those of Languidoch the King did pardon whatsoever they had done in their just defence, holding them for good subjects. What was then the cause why the Prince of Condie and the Admiral did bear arms? 
l Pag. 184.  They understanding that 6000. Swissers were now entered into France, with intent to execute violence upon them of the Religion, they betake themselves unto the King, from whom they received no favourable answer, therefore they did fly for defence against those Swissers, not suffering their throats to be cut by thieves. 
m Pag. 194.  After this was there concluded a peace, the Prince of Condie doth lay down his arms, his adversaries were contented only to promise to do the like, alleging that there is no faith to be held with heretics. Showing themselves herein false, and not only faithless; for you know Protestants are no heretics.   

The third Instance of The moderate Answerer.  

n Answer ibidem  The Duke of Guise was treacherously murdered by Pultrotus, for that fact suborned by Beza and the Protestant Admiral.   

The Reply.  
The story is, that 
o The first h●storia pag. 118.  The Duke of Guise had appointed a day to take Orleans, wherein he would not spare any man, woman, or child whomsoever; and after he had kept his Shrovetide there, he would spoil and destroy the town: Pultrot riding upon a Spanish Ginnet shot the Duke with a Pistol and slew him; after was taken and tormented with hot tongues to make him confess, and then torn in pieces by force of horses. Let us leave him (if you will) justly executed by them; come to the other unjustly slandered by you: for 
p Ibidem.  It was evidently known at his execution, that Pultrot did it of his own motion and particular intent, thereby to free France and especially Orleans from the violence of the Duke of Guise. To this first Historian agreeth the second. 
q L histoire de France, depuis l'an 1550 iusques à ce temps Tom. 2. Lib. 26. anno 1581.  The King after he had examined the Admiral, to ●ether with his Council, did acquit him of suspicion, and imposed perpetual silence to all, not to speak of it. You therefore (though no subject) might have been taught silence, especially seeing that 
r Ibid. lib. 19 anno 1563. § Nous pag. 360.  the confederates of the Religion, among whom was Theodore Beza, did condemn this fact of Pulirot as rash, and directly contrary to the commandment of God, who will (herein condemning all such desperate examples, inspired only with a devilish motion) that every crime and offence shall receive punishment according to the institution politic and form of government established in every state, at the discretion of the Magistrate.   

The moderate Answerer.  

s Answer quo supra.  Such were the miserable murders and calamities which they brought to that distressed kingdom, that in the two first ci●… wars and rebellions above an hundred thousand were slain, as Gaspar Collen witnesseth.   

The Reply.  
It is not unlikely but an hundred thousand were slain; but it is as probable that a thousand for an hundred of them were Protestants persecuted for their Religion, who always lay open to Popish treacheries, as is plain by the barbarous massacre, wherein (as testifieth your own 
* L'histoire quo supra. lib. 29. fol. 70.  author) there was slain twenty thousand Protestants in less than one month by the fury of the Catholics. What could there be in the Protestant? was it rebellion? No, but only constancy in Religion, then persecuted by the malignant. But what kind of motion might this be in those Catholics which egged them on to this butchery? whether was it zeal or fury; Christian justice, or Antichristian malice? 
t Quo supra fol. 65.  The Catholics not content (saith your Author) to live always assured, having the authority of the State for them, aspired with a burning desire to bring to pass that which they had a long time plotted against their enemies. But let us leave this G●lgotha (for so you made France by your monstrous massacres) as then a place of dead men's skulls. Whither shall your next voyage be?    

CHAP. VII.  
The Instances of the moderate Answerer in Helvetia.  

The first. The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 9 § Let us come.  LEt us come to Helvetia, and especially Geneva, the Mother-Church of the Reformed; M. Caluine the supreme head of thereformed there, hath told us before, that Princes not agreeing with us in Religion, are to be spitted upon rather then obeyed: they are not to be numbered among men, they are to be bereaved of all authority.   

The Reply.  
What? absolutely deprived of all authority? Prove this, and I will as absolutely deny all his doctrinal authority: whom, by reading of your most learned Jesuits, as Maldonate, Ribera, Pererius, Salmeron, Tollet, and such others, and conferring their expositions with Caluins, I dare boldly affirm him, to be of that excellent judgement, that these your greatest Rabbis (for their best expositions) light their candles at Caluins to arch. But to the point. Calvin doth consider in the person of a wicked King two situations, one as he sitteth under God, the other when he exalteth himself to sit above God: when he commandeth as a substitute and subordinate, God hath commanded us to obey man: but when he commandeth contra Deum, against God (saith saith Caluine) he usurpeth God's throne, and herein he looseth his royalty, which is to be obeyed. A matter so reasonable, that in the behalf of God, the Apostles in like case are content to appeal herein to the judgement of his adversary, man, [
* Act. 4. 19  Whether it be better to obey God or man, judge you.] To explain this by example: If a justice of peace shall command me to kill a felon, I deny his authority, this is against the commission of his and my King, and in this case of too peremptory a command I acknowledge him no justice, yet not absolutely no justice: for if presently he shall command me to apprehend the same felon, I willingly obey him. He therefore in his former command was as it were disjusticed only by that act of disobedience; wherein obedience to him had been disobedience against the Crown: but yet he remained justice in office, and therefore commanding justly, I dutifully obeyed him. Thus is it in Calvin's judgement, in the comparison between man and God: If the King exalt himself to God's throne, then pull him down, that is, do not obey, yet so, that we dispossess him not of his own throne, which is God's footstool. Therefore, said Caluine, 
* 〈◊〉 supra c. 5.  In the most wicked King, that is enemy to God; there is by God's ordinance an impression of majesty, which is inviolable, and his authority is not to be contemned. This is clear in daniel's case, wherein Calvin doth insist: for Daniel commanded by the King to worship the Idol, refused; & cast among Lions, was miraculously preserved, & in the end delivered: then he thus answered the King, 
* Dan. 6. ●2.  Against thee, O King, have I done none iniquity. Wherein Caluine observeth, that 
b Respondet Daniel, se nullam pravitatem co●…sisle ad. ●e 〈◊〉 Regem: ut hoc pateat tenenda 〈◊〉 ●entet●a Petn▪ De●m ●…ete, ●eg●m honorate, 〈◊〉 haec ●●ter ●e co●ex●… possit unum ab ●…o ●…lli: pr●…dat oportet timor Dei▪ ut Reges obtineant suam autoritatem, sic ●●men ut Deus emineat. ●ure ●rgo Daniel se defendit, quod ●…llam pravitatem commisit adversus Reg●… q●a, sc●●icet, coactus D●…perio Reg●s mandatum neglexerat Abd●●ant enam se potestate terreni Principes, dum insurgunt contra Deum, imò indigni sunt qui 〈◊〉 in hominum numero, po●…s ergo con●p●ere opo●tet in ip●o●um capita, quam 〈◊〉 parere, ●bi i● proteruiunt, ut vel●nt etiam Deum iurespohate, & quasi occupare sohum eius, acsi postent eum è coelo detra●ere. Calvin. come. in Dan. 6. 22.  No King ought to think it iniquity to be disobeyed in that which he shall command contrary to God, because the order of obedience to Kings beginneth at God: as S. Peter saith, [Fear God, honour the King.] This is the sum. And is there any King which feareth God, that can call this exposition rebellious? For to * give to God that which is Gods, doth not deprive a King (though most wicked) of his due: for it followeth. 
* Matth. 22 21.  Give unto Caesar that which belongeth unto Caesar: but you do not only take away duties belonging unto Caesar, but also take out of the way Caesar himself, if opposite unto your superstitious doctrines. Thus have I satisfied according to the truth of Calvin's opinion. Now for his phrase.   

The Phrase of Calvin injuriously urged. The moderate Answerer.  

c The answer, quo 〈◊〉.  But Caluine saith, that such a King is to be bereft of all authority, and not to be numbered among men, but rather to be spit upon then obeyed.   

The Reply.  
You have weighed the words of Caluine in false balances I would I could say ignorance only, and not also malicious deceit: but first of ignorance. For when we consider man created with a reasonable soul, and after rebelling against his maker; shall we not think him unworthy of the name of reasonable man? What is this else then that which we read, 
* Psa. 49. v●. 20.  Man in honour hath no understanding, and is become like the beast that perisheth? Showing (as ancient Fathers do comment) that man by disobedience to God, is degenerate from his kind: and therefore as God said for the presumption of his transgression by an Irony, 
* Gen. 3. 22.  Behold man is become as one of us, etc. So the beasts may say in man's confusion, thus: Behold man is become like one of us, because he is degenerated from the first sanctified reason: for which cause our Saviour called Herod a 
* Luk. 13. 32.  Fox, and his own Disciple 
* M●rk. 8. 33.  Satan. And yet in regard of their offices, neither did the Apostle cease to be an Apostle, nor Herod to be acknowledged King. Nay Nabuchadnezzar by a savage distraction metamorphosed into the disposition of a brute beast, to live in deserts with beasts; yet lost not, in the interim, the right of his empire. The next word of [rather spitting in their faces,] spoken comparatively, doth not rebelliously teach irreverence to the majesty of a King, but only emphatically, enforce a more zealous obedience unto God: as when I say, I had rather burn my hand, then write any thing against my conscience; I do not danger my hand, but I avouch the sincerity of my conscience. Notwithstanding if the word had been used simply, yet could it not have been understood literally, but figuratively. As when it is written of God, that 
* Apoc. 3. 16.  God will spew the lukewarm professor out of his mouth: signifying he doth loath such. Therefore you must not deal with men's speeches, as Solomon teacheth men not to deal with their own noses: 
* Prou. 30. 33.  He that wringeth his nose too much, doth fetch blood.  
2. Deceit. Calvin saith (say you) that such a King is to be bereaved of all authority. It is noted of Satan's temptation, that in alleging a text of Scripture [
* Math. 4. 6.  He hath given his Argels charge o●er thee, to keep thee in all thy ways, etc.] the subtle Tempter left out the words of greatest importance, In all thy ways. I will not charge you with imitation of that spirit of lying by substracting; for you do but add only one word [All:] bereaved of [All] authority. But Caluine [Abdicant se potestate] bereaved of authority, meaning only in that case of contradiction against God. But this kind of dealing is but ordinary in your moderation. Thus is Calvin justified concerning his doctrine, & in him also Beza: because Beza (say you) his successor in place, succeeded him also both in opinion and practice. We have heard of their opinion. Have you any thing to except against their practice?   

The practice of Calvin and Beza, objected by The moderate Answerer.  

d Answer ●…os● 〈◊〉.  Both Beza and Ca●…n armed subjects against their Prince at Geneva, and (as Calu●… himself, Doctor Su●cli●●e, and the Archbishop of Canterbury be witnesses) deposed their Sovereign from his temporal right, and ever since continue in that state of Rebellion.   

The Reply.  
I am sure if Calvin hath written to that effect, your modesty would not have concealed it: but as the Comedian Poet maketh his parasite to speak, Aequè quidquam nunc quidem▪ ●…uen any thing so I m●y seem to say something. The book of Doctor 
Th● b●oke which you cite in your m●r●●nt, Be●al. de●… Magis 〈◊〉 no ●or● to ●e call●d Bezoar's, th● th● Vindic●ae contra ty●annos▪ 〈…〉 hereof your 〈◊〉 author writ t● thus: Vindicia●um contra Tyrannos Autorem expiscari non possumu●. B●…claius ●ib. 3 contra Mo●…. 〈…〉. 1.  Sutcli●fes I could not find, and I needed not seek it, for I have conferred herein with the master, who answered me, that the book De jure Magistratus, he never thought to be Beza his work: and concerning the State of Geneva, the Bishop thereof, whom you call Prince and Governor of Geneva, was never there Prince, but the state of the town was a free state of itself. To make a question, whether I should rather believe him or you, is to doubt whether he that hath been at Geneva, or he that never saw it can better report the state thereof. The words of Caluine his confession, which should have be●e produced, are these: 
c lus gl●dij▪ & alias civilis jurisdictionis parts, quas sua immu●…tatis specie personati ●lli ●piscopi & Sacerdotes fraudulentèr Magist●a●… e●eptas sibi vendic●●unt, anon Magis●●atui restit●…? C●l●in in lib. Tract. Theolog▪ R●sp. ●d Sad●let. pag. 142.  We have restored to the Magistrate of Geneva all the civil power which those false Bishops had, under colour of liberty and privilege, taken from the Magistrate, and by collusion did challenge to themselves. Add that which may be observed, the continual contentions partly between the Bishops and the Dukes of Savoy about that sovereignty, partly also of the citizens against them both. An argument of no constant consent. The conclusion will be, that you may rather prove those Bishops to have been injuriously ambitious, than the city rebellious.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Instance in Burgundy.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 9 § In Burgundy  IN Burgundy a like assembly and conventicle was kept at Cabillion, therein was decreed that three wor●… to be taken out of the world; first the Church of Rome, secondly ●…le ●…es of ancient houses, and thirdly all civil policy and government.   

The Reply.  
Were ever any Protestants so fantastical? who were the authors of that decree? nay who was your author witnessing that there was any such decree? You express neither. We may not marvel if through the weariness of your so long travel into many countries you fell at length a sleep, and dreamt this idle dream of three worms; so I had rather think, then that you dreamt it waking, for than should you find a fourth worm worse than all those three, even the 
* Mark. 9 44. 46. 48.  worm of conscience which gnaweth every lying soul. The like may I answer for your imagined rebellions 
b Answer quo ●u●… I● Denmark.  In Denmark, but that you have for your witness your own Peter Frarer, you might say Frater; for who so shall read his idle pamphlet, shall easily perceive that his ink wherewith he writ was of that co●…ound which the jews offered our Saviour, vinegar and gall. There is an established Church of Protestants in Sueveland; do you see no beakons of ●i●e there which might portend rebellions?    

CHAP. IX.  
Sweveland objected by  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer quo supra. § ●o● Sueveland.  FOr Sueveland the Protestants themselves gi●e also testimony, that the Catholic King thereof was enforced by his rebellious Gospelers to make himself a subject unto their designments, and condescend, that no Catholic should bear office in that Kingdom: as is witnessed by Cytraeus Chron. Anno 1593. 1594.   

The Reply.  
The Story is long▪ but the sum is short: that the whole State of Sueveland required that according to the former Parliament of their Kingdom, the King should swear to defend them in their former liberties, and especially the fruition of the Religion then professed. Doth your Protestant witness call them Rebellious Gospelers? It was the demand of an whole State for defence of their country privilege; can any Papist call this rebellious? You will be as loath to confess this, as you are prone to forge the other. Let us travel homeward again, and end there where you began.    

CHAP. X.  
In the Imperial State of Germany: particularly objecting 

Luther.  
Muntzer.    

The moderate Answerer his first instance against Luther.  

a Answer cap. 9 § First Martin.  MArtin Luther the prime Protestant of that time said, he cared not for Kings, & so careless he is in this case, that he telleth, that it is the nature of the Gospel to raise wars & seditions: that among Christians there is no Magistrate, no Superior, that it is a thing to be obtained by prayers, that countrymen obey not their Princes; No law, or syllable of law can be imposed upon Christians neither by men or Angels; there is no hope of remedy, except all human laws be taken away.   

The Reply.  
Here is your common Linsi-woolsie, mixture of truth and falsehood: but as you would have us to confess a truth, so be you willing to acknowledge your Error.  
The truth. Luther professed that he did not care for Kings: true, but in that comparative sense, which he had learned of our Lord Christ. 
* Luk. 21. 12.  You shall be called before Kings and Rulers for my name sake: but fear not man, who can kill the body, but fear God, who is able, after the body is dead, to take the soul, and cast it into hell fire, I say, fear him. Secondly, Luther telleth that it is the nature of the Gospel to raise wars and seditions. And doth not the Gospel itself tell us the same likewise? 
* Matth. 10. 34.  Behold, I came not to send peace into the world, for I will set the father against the son, and the daughter against the mother, etc. You cannot be ignorant of the difference of a cause and an occasion, a thing considered properly in his own nature, and unproperly by external accident. 
b An nos frangimusianuam, cum effractoribas suribus, quia, si non can clauderemus, illi non frangerant? August. lib. de m●ndacio. cap. 9  Do I (shutting the door) break it, because the thief would not have broken it except it had been shut, saith Saint Augustine. So Luther: Because the Gospel is preached, the professors thereof are persecuted with the sword; is therefore the innocent professor cause of the persecution? no, but only an occasion. Christ, who is in his own nature * Petra salutis, a rock of salvation to the elect; to the reprobate is called a 
* 1. Pet. 2. 8.  Stone of offence: because the godly are by faith edified to life, and the wicked by the malice of their heart do spurn against Christ, stumble, and perish through unbelief. The Gospel likewise hath a double savour, vital and mortal; being 
* 2. Cor. 2. 16.  The savour of life unto life to the sanctified by God's spirit, and the savour of death unto death to the irrepentant and unregenerate. So then the Gospel is no otherwise seditious than the sweet flower is venomous; from this the Spider sucketh sweetness, but through the fiery malignity changeth it to peyson: so that obstinate hearing of grace, peace, and salvation, by his natural malice resisteth grace with contempt, peace with war, and eternal salvation, by working bodily destruction.  
The falsehood: to affirm, that Luther did abandon all Magistracy, and abhor all human laws, is first false: for than I should marvel in what commonwealth the doctrine of Luther could●… long breath. Secondly false, for Luther defendeth Magistracy in his public books. Thirdly, thrice false, for Luther also condemneth the Romish for their contempt of Magistrates.  
His doctrine. 
c Obijci solet vide● Impenun tyrannidem, cum sit Caesar aliis homimbus si●…, qu●d imperium in h●…nes ulurpet. Vetum nos, q●● verbum Dei habemus. debemus mandatum Dei op ponere, quia nostrum est divinae ordin●uom patere. Luther. tom. 1. in Gen. cap. 9 Prohibitum est gladium accipere, dicente Christo, Qui accipit glad●um gladio peribit, quia iniussus & propria suâ libidine a●●ipit, sed mandatum est gerere gladium, & est ministerium Dei  Though some think government of man over man to be a tyrannous usurpation, because all men are naturally of like condition: yet we that have the word of God must oppose to this delusion the commandment and ordinance of God, who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate, whom therefore the Apostle calleth 
* Rome 13. Minister Dei est. ●…r. Tom. 3 A●…ot. in D●…. cap. 〈◊〉. fol. 40. Anarchia Satanae consilium est. Ibid fol. 552.  God's Minister.  
His taxation of the Romish. 
d I am vehementet piget p●detque imò miseret me, quoties cogito quae & quanta ludibtia sibi ab Imperatenb is, Principibus, vniuer●… Natione German●ae Papa fec●rit: Deus bone, quanta ●bi●ine & fiducia in eislusit, non secùs eos ducens, & tractans, quam irrationabilia bruta, q●ibus tantum ad●…des, dolos rapinas, & quicqaid Satan suggerete potuit Papisticatum artium abuteretur ●ut●er. Tom. 2. Resp. ad A●… Catherinum. fol. 15●. Sanctus Petrus Pap●tum gra▪ hice depinxit. 2. Pet. 2. [Dominationes spernant] Quis hoc nisi Pa●… ecta fa●… Quid, Don in●t●●nes. Apostolus nisi Principes & magistratus vocat? Nun hoc est Do●…●●S spernete, serp●os propria authoritate 〈◊〉 a tubutis subiectiombus, & v●…etsis 〈◊〉 Reipublicae contra doctrinam Petri & Paul●… tantum abest ut dominationem agno●●at P●pa, ut luminos Principes aeque ad oscula pedum admittat; dein Monachum & Sacrisiculum stipite rudiorem, & ●enone sceleratiorem super v●…os mundi Proceres ●…t propter characterem illum indelebilem; i● 〈◊〉 coguntur Dominationes contemptae honotare idol●, a quibus hono●ari debuerant, igna●…um hoc Papalium hominum genus vix poreis alendis idoneum Luth quo 〈◊〉. fol. 152.  I grieve, and blush, and groan, roses how scornfully our Emperors and Princes of Germany are abused: whom the Pope leadeth and handleth like brute beasts, both for spottle and slaughter at his pleasure. This Popery is lively described by Saint Peter, saying, that in the latter times [Some should despise Rulers:] by Rulers, signifying secular Princes. Now the Popish Clergy by their own authority have exempted themselves from performance of tributes to Princes. And the Pope is so far from acknowledging the Sovereignty of Princes over him, that he will scarce admit them (saving your presence) to kiss his shroe. How like you this doctrine of Luther? If well, then must you free him from rebellious conceit, for he defendeth subjection to Princes; if ill, than you condemn yourself, for he renounceth Popish Hierarchy, as a rebellious tyranny.   

The moderate Answerer His second instance against Luther.  

e Answer quo supra. § First, etc.  He censured King Henry the eight of England, the Princes of the Imperial Orders, the Princes of Germany to be unworthy either of obedience from Subjects, or life in themselves; and giving the same doom of his natural Sovereign George of Saxony, nameth him the Calamity of his country, and Tyrant: so he scorned the Emperor and wrote directly against his Edicts. He taught, that Protestants hands must be imbrued with blood, teaching that he had warrant from God to battle against Princes.   

The Reply.  
His literal censure of words will be partly confessed, but the other of swords which draweth blood, never can any prove. But to him that looketh through red spectacles, whatsoever he be holdeth seemeth red. No marvel therefore though your fantasy preoccupated with the reflection of your last bloody stratagem, cannot see your adversary but with suspicion of blood. It may be you will allege Wicelius: as though your own Romish might suffice in this case, or professed malice could ever speak a truth. A man whom Luther thought so unworthy the naming, that 
f Miror quo consilio velis, Erasme, Wicelio respondere, cum per hunc librum satis sit responsum. Summa doctrinae eius haec est, Lutheri doctrina est haeresis, quia a Papa & Caesare damnata est; sua verò est Orthodoxa, quia Episcopi, Cardinals, Principes & Reges mittunt & donant ei aurea pocula. Si aliud est in suis libris, moriar. Agnosco Dei opus & eius mirabilia video, sidem esse donum suum, quia exci●auit Christam a mortuis. Luther. Tom. 2. Epist. ad Eras. fol. 487.  He doth marvel that any will answer the book of Wicell, which doth sufficiently answer itself.  
The former censure of sharp speech let us see how Luther can excuse. He writing to the Duke of Saxony, doth thus reconcile himself: 
g illust●●ssime Princeps Domine clemen●… 〈◊〉 constat, qu●d 〈…〉 me●… tribuit Deo, 〈…〉 principio 〈◊〉 & asper castigat homines, ut p●st leniter eos, am●nter & patern● comple●…. Reg. 2. Dominus n●…at & vinisicat, etc. ●●go itaque nec instituto plan● dissimuli, nec om●●ò diverlâ ratione cum plures altos, tum vestram celsitud nem tractavi alicubi asperius, & immituis calamo perstrinxi, sed à Deo precatus sum, ut aliquando me reconciliaret, & restitueret in gratiam celsitudinis vestrae: ac interim Conciones consolationis plenissimas edidi, in quibus non opinion, non oculis, sed, ut ita dicam, manibus deprehendi potest, me nullá malevolentiá adversus quenquam labora●e: ut intelligat Celsitudo vestra, obiurgationem acerbissimam animi benevoli & candidi pectoris notam fuisse, quam omnium qui nunc gratulatiombus & blanditijs inflant in aures Celsitudinis vestrae, laudes & fucata dicta, etc. Luther▪ Tom. 2. Epist. ad D. Georg Duc. Sax. fol. 487.  As God doth severely chasten those, whom he purposeth afterward lovingly and fatherly to embrace, killing that he may revive: I likewise (most excellent and gracious Sovereign) had no other intent in my bitter speech, wherein I might happily offend your Highness or any other. Wherefore my humble prayer to God hath been, that I might recover your highness favour, especially seeing that a tart reprehension for good, is a 〈…〉 simple and sincere heart, more precious than all ●…ses of painted flattery. He writeth almost the like Apology unto King Henry the eight, wholly to the same end: granting, that 
h Quanquam vereri meritò deberem (serenil. Rex illust●●s. Princeps) 〈◊〉 Matestatem tuam tentare, & qui mihi conscius maximè sum, gravissime offensam esse Maiestatem tuam libello meo▪ quem non ingenio meo, sed incitantibus his, qui Maiestati tuae parùm fancbant, stultus & praeceps edidi: tamen spem mihi fecit Regia tua clementia, ut cum n●ortalem seize novent, immortales inimicitias ser●aturam esse non credam. Tom. 2. Epist ad Regem A●…gh●. c. 493.  He had offended his Majesty with his writings, yet not with intent to offend him, but by instigation of such as did not so greatly favour his dignity: and did not therefore doubt but his Princely clemency, knowing himself mortal, would not harbour any immortal displeasure against him. He craved pardon only for words: O that your case would suffer such an Apology! Concerning his allegiance to the Emperor, the Emperor himself did acquithim, who never charged him with seditious doctrine against his State, but only religious profession against the sacrilegious superstitions of that time. Which his doctrine he justified in the presence of the Emperor at Auspurge: whereof Luther writeth thus: 
i Audita est nostra causa Augustae coram Caesare & toto mundo, inventaue est i●reprehensi●…s, & sacram doctrinam referens. Deinde nostra Apologia vulgata est, in qua respondemus infinitis Papisticis mendacij●… cal●…j●… quibus hanc facultatem m●…mè invidemus, cum nullis aliis virtunbus po●…ta●t v●…nt esle n●b●les. Luther. 〈◊〉. fol. 187.  Our cause was heard at Auspurge before the Emperor, and before the whole world manifested to be improvable. I have published our Apology, answering therein to all Popish lying slanders, which are infinite: but I may not envy in those men that faculty, because they have no other excellent virtue, wherly to ennoble themselves. A certain argument of your ruinous house, whose best supporter is the privilege of lying: by virtue whereof to your other more than a good many evil slanders, you add these two next following.   

The third instance in Luther by The moderate Answerer.  

k Answer quosupra. § Munster.  By Luther's doctrine, that Christians must not fight against the Turk, in short time Belgrade and Rhodes were taken, Hungary was entered, King Lodowick slain, Buda conquered, etc. Witnesses Munster in Chron. & Pantaleon Chron. 121.   

The Reply.  
I have perused the follies you quote, and perceive that your wisdom in deluding your Reader is excellent: for Munster and Pantaleon both writing of Belgrade, Hungary, Rhodes, etc. never attribute the least scruple or suspicion of occasion thereof unto Luther. Can you be contented to understand the true causes of those mischiefs? Hearken then unto your own Historian. 
l L'histoire de France, enrichie etc. lib. 1. Anno. 1521. pag. 13. See also the History of Turkey lately set forth by M●ster Know●●s in English, collect▪ rout of the true stories, etc. and concerning Rhodes, ●e saith,  Because it was publicly known that Leo the Pope had not employed the great sums of money, which he raised from Pardons, against the Turk: there followed the ruins of Hungary, Bohemia was assaulted, Rhodes surprised, and a thousand other evils fell upon Christendom. This is certain from the truth of all Story concerning the Turks, that Popes and Popish Clergy by their insatiable riot and covetousness have been the bane to all 
m If Adrian the Pope had been as careful to send aid against the Turk, as he was to de●end the Emperor Charles against the King of France, the Isle of Rhodes had been safe at this day: Belgrade also was lost by the want of experience of their King, and through the insatiable conciousnes of the Clergy, who in the minority of the King got possession of the wealth of the Kingdom, and performed no strength to resist the Turk. So was Belgrade lost, and a gap made open into Hungary. And you● Gaicciardine shows that The not rescuing of Rhodes was imputed to the Pope's fault. lib. 15. Of the which sum of money he gave that w●ich 〈◊〉 gathered out of the most quarters of Germany to his ●…ler Magdalene; and 50000. crowns to his n●phew Laurence. Hist. quosupra. & Guicciardin. quosupra.  Christendom, & always since their temporal Hierarchy by kindling firebrands of seditions among Christians, have given the greatest advantage to the Turk.    

CHAP. XI.  
The last instance against Munster and other Anapabtists.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answeribid.  MVnster was of the same opinion and practice, and called Rebellion for his Religion the war of God: affirming that he had received some special commandment from God to war against Kings, and had promise of victory from heaven: and hereupon such Rebellions ensued, that of his own adherents and Traitors were slain within the space of three months one hundred and thirty thousand.   

The Reply.  
You being in yourself Magnus opinator, told us of the opinion of Luther, and now descended to Munster, say, Munster was of the same opinion, (viz. with Luther) and called, etc. But your Peter Frarer, whom you brought to accuse Calvin, is herein ready to justify Luther, saying, that 
b P●t Frarer. supra.  Luther wrote against these rebellious ones, proving that it belonged to all Christians to persecute them to death. Calvin also wrote a book, entitled, * Aduersus Libertinos: against fantastical and anabaptistical Libertines: and Beza, as we have heard, saith, 
* Supra.  That it is impious wickedness for any to object unto Protestants the opinion of those rebellious Anabaptists, and spirits of giddiness. But what think you? were Anabaptists Protestants? or were Protestant's whom you have named, of this opinion of Anabaptists? Thus would you persuade your English Reader; but your Cardinal, & Reader at Rome doth confute you, 
c Potestatem politicam esse apud Christianos illicitam, est opinio Anabaptistarum: quam non solùm Catholici omnes execrantur, sed etiam Philippus Melancthon, Calvinus, Lutherus in visitatione Saxonica instiss●… & acertimè oppugnant. Bellar. lib. 3. de Laic●s. cap. 2, ad●in●m.  For this opinion of the heretical Anabaptists (saith he) not only we Catholics, but Melancthon also, Caluine, and Luther, do abhor. Recount now your words: Munster was of opinion that it was the commandment of God he should war: True: and that he sa●… he had a special revelation from heaven, promising him victory: True: And that thereupon ensued rebellions to the death of many thousands. All these yet true: but now there is wanting this one word [same:] Munster (say you) was of the same (meaning Luther's opinion). It is written, 
* Eccles. 10. 1.  One dead ●…e in the ointment of the Apothecary, doth poison the whole box: And so in one little word [same] your great lie hath disabled your whole accusation. For as well may you call the Bandites, namely those grand thieves and outlaws in Italy of the same incorporation with the citizens of Rome, as name Anabaptists who depend upon extraordinary and fantastical revelations of the same opinion with Protestants, who are wholly directed by the express written law and Gospel of Christ.  
I perceive you are now grown weary with long travel, I could have wished you would have visited Polonia, and after that Bohemia in some particular observations: for in both those kingdoms there hath been long time manifold vexations executed upon Protestants, and yet never any of them or others can be named, who deposed Princes, invaded Crowns, or by any treason did practise the deaths of their Sovereigns. Now therefore let your moderation be admonished to return home into England: and seeing you cannot find Protestants for your fellowship in your kind of rebellion, now let Protestant's (I pray you) have your fellowship in faithful subjection. But lingua, quo vadis?    

CHAP. XII.  
The second kind of Recriminations against protestants, is in the second wickedness of equivocation.  
YOu return the guilt of this cursed doctrine upon Protestants after two fashions,  

Reasoning,  
Railing.   
1. Reasoning, (if it may be called Reason, which is mixed with most slanderous untruths) but you would be heard speak with good will.  

The moderate Answerer.  

a Answer cap. 10 § But to.  But to speak unto this Obiector concerning Protestant's proceedings in aquivocating: Luther used it at his pleasure, now appealing to the Pope, and after renouncing his authority. Cranmer did often recant his errors by oaths, and again often defend them; counterfeited the hands of fifty Convocation men (Fox himself being judge) to give allying credit to his false cause, but excused his false oaths by equivocation. Protestants of England in the days of K. Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, did equivocate. Such was the proceeding of P. Martyr and Bucer, two great Professors of Divinity in Oxford and Cambridge. Such was the Protestant adherents the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffalke, and now the ordinary use of Puritans.   

The Reply.  
Luther, Cranmer and others, as they were persuaded that the Bishop of Rome was a faithful Bishop, did swear obedience unto him; but afterwards being better illuminated, did renounce him, as Antichristian. But if all recantation shall be thus censured, then might you teach S. Augustine to retract his retractations. But we will not deny their infirmities, for it hath pleased God to note the like in his chosen Saints in holy writ, to the amplifying of the glory of his grace in their repentance and his pardon. Yet was not there in these acts any equivocation, no more then in the acts of Peter, who, at the cockcrow, went out 
* Math. 26. 75.  of the high Priests hall and wept bitterly. Thus Cranmerawaked by the call of the spirit of God, executed vengeance upon that hand which subscribed unto your idolatrous service, 
b Fox Act. Mon.  Burned it in the fire. Then whatsoever his dissimulation was, he thought it worthy of repentance, not as you do think your equivocation worthy of defence: whereas in the truth of Christianity, there is the same punishment due to your equivocating tongues which he executed upon his dissembling hand. O but Fox is witness that he defended himself by saying he did equivocate. I am sure you would not have been indebted unto us for the words if they had been extant: I found the place of M. 
* Acts & Monuments, anno 1596 pag. 1309.  Fox, but no mention of equivocation. A monster not hatched in those times. That which was objected by Doctor Weston, is there satisfied by M. Cranmer: but you are more rigorous than ancient Adversaries.  
Yet further would I demand, why Protestants, turning from Papacy in the days of King Edward, must be condemned for such as have equivocated: and Papists revolting from Protestants in the reign of Queen Mary, must be thought to have been innocents?   

The moderate Answerer.  

c Answ. quo supra.  Aequiuocating was practised by Caluine, as the Lord of Canterbury, and Beza, and others record.   

The Reply.  
I reported this your accusation to my Lord of Canterbury, and his Grace answered, that you had wronged his testimony: for I am sure (said his Grace) that this mystery in those times was not set abroach. We also examined the book you allege, and find not one syllable for your purpose. But what can we expect from you, Patrons of lying equivocation, but in your accusations against Protestants equivocating lies?   

The most moderate Answerer in his railing.  

d Answer ca 10 § But to.  Luther was so vile in this kind of equivocating, that never pillory mate behaved himself so as he did. Cogging, lying, equivocating, dissembling was practised by Caluine, who was banished for a dissembling seducer. Cranmer perjured himself, and excused it by equivocation.   

The Reply.  
In these your lying slanders, you give us good hope that you will leave your equivocating lies, because, as though you detested the impiety thereof, you vilify it with these terms, vile equivocating, adjudging it worthy the pillory, matching it with cogging, lying, seducing, perjury. This is yet very well. But we find that true which the Orator saith, Natura suilena: Every man naturally is a band unto himself. Now you examining your Glycerie equivocation in your adversaries, Luther, Cranmer, Caluine, O then it is vile, cogging, lying, seducing, etc. But beholding her in your own embracements, so 
e Answer ibid., § Secondly.  In equivocating there is nolie nor sin. Adulterous judah judging of Thamar, whom he had unknowingly known, hearing that she was brought in for an adulteress, gave presently sentence, 
* Gen. 38. 24.  Let her be burned: but when by certain evidences and pledges she made it known unto him, that if she were the woman, he was the man; then he confesseth, She is more righteous than I. There was some modesty in this, but what moderation do you use to adjudge equivocation (which you fastly feign to be in Protestants) to the pillory: and for yourselves, in whom the Leprosy reigneth, to use an Apology?  
Thus have I justified the innocent, whose names your equivocating spirit hath wickedly traduced: for whom this might have been a sufficient answer, that (because you bring only accusations without proof) 
f Si accusâ●●e sufficiet, qui● innocens 〈◊〉 Seneca.  If it be sufficient to have accused, who can be innocent? For our Lord jesus, even innocency itself, was accused: who of his grace turn you to repentance, that these your slanders be not laid unto your charge.     

THE THIRD PART,  
Which is a Confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine, in two points: 

1. The supreme head of Rebellion.  
2. The impious conceit of equivocation.    
Concerning the first, this shall be our Conclusion:  
The Pope hath no authority from God to depose Kings or dispose of their Kingdoms.  

CHAP. I.  
Romish Objections answered.  
THIS pretended predominance of the Pope in temporal causes, whether 
a Directè, queadmodú super Episcopos, in quos ipse autoritatem exercet vel ordinandi vel removendi▪ Carerius Tract. de Potest. Rom. Pont. & 〈◊〉 Tract de M●…arch Eccles.  Directly, or 
b Habet Papa potestatem temporalem indirectè in ordine ad Deum in disponendis rebus temporalibus omnium Christianorum; quemadmodu●… Spiritus dicitur praeesse carni, non quidem ipse exercendo corporales actiones, sed per intellectualem facultatem, viz. voluntatem, carni imperando ut se castiget, & alia exercitia & afflictiones, etiam martyria subeat, Bellar, lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. & 6, & Sauderus Tract. de visib. Monarch.  indirectly considered, (in the which division of governing, the Romish school is at this day extremely divided) if it be from God, it will sure plead, Scriptum est, and be warranted by God's word either in the Old or New Testament.  
This point is discussed by the state of God's church in the Old Testament.  

Object. 1. In the general view. The Romish Pretence.  

c Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Regemaiorem. C●●eriu● lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 5. & 9 E●dom modo Sauderu● in visib. Monarch.  The high Priests in the Old Testament were supreme in civil causes. Ergo: Ought to be in the New.   

The Answer.  
This is so contrary to the Story in holy writ, that by the examples of Kings in ordering (though never in ordaining) of Priests, the jesuits are enforced to allow that the King was supreme over the Priest. Their reasons: 
d Dicunt, Protestants, Reges in veteri Testamento praescripsisse Sacerdotibus quae in rebus sacris gerere debebant, & etiam negligentes Sacerdotes à ministerio abdicasse: respondotur, mirum esse hoc non debere, quia synagoga Iud●eorum, etiam si aliquos justos contineret, tamen dicebatur terrenum potius quam coeleste regnum. Itaque cum populus constet ex corpore & anima, carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat. Salmeron jesuita in Epist. Pauli in giner. disp. 12. §. Sed contra.  Because (saith one) in the Synagogne of the jews was a state rather earthly than heavenly; so that in that people (which was, as in the body of a man, consisting of body and soul) the carnal part was more eminent. Meaning, the temporal to have been supreme. Or, as another saith more conceitedly; 
e In veteri lege Regnum erat Substantiwm, & Sac●rdotium Adiectiwm, etc. Carerius quo supra lib. 2. cap. 1.  The Temporal state exceeded the Spiritual in the old Law, as much as the Substantive is more excellent than the adjective. In both these we dislike their comparison, and accept their conclusion, which is this: In the Old Testament the King's authority was above the Priests. And therefore they can not prove the▪ sovereignty of the Pope over Kings by the state of the Old Testament. Albeit this is infallible, yet are not the Romish ashamed to argue from thence both by typical Analogy, and by examples.    

Their Analogy.  
CHAP. II.  
The second Objection.  

The Romish Pretence.  

a Et hoc regnum terrenu umbra tamen fuit spiritualis regiminis in ecclesia Christiana. Salineron Ies. quo supra. Bellarm. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. quo supra.  THe Old Testament was a figure of the New in Christ. And 
b Regnum in Lege veteri Substantiwm fuit, Sacerdotium vero Adiectiwm: In lege verò evangelica sacerdotium Substantiwm, & regnum Adiectiwm. Car●rius quo supra.  Therefore in the New, the Spiritual (as Popedom) is the Substantive, & the Kingdom is but the adjective.   

The Answer.  
In this Objection there is more childhood than manhood, babish Grammar than sound Divinity. The Old Testament indeed in his earthly elements was a figure of the spiritual and heavenly, but of the truly heavenly, the day of that eternal 
* Heb. 4.  Sabbath and the celestial Jerusalem the mother city of the Saints of God. And the Argument may be retorted.   

The Argument returned upon the Romish.  
Christ being 
c Christus no fuit rex temporalis Iudaeae sed spiritualis Ecclesiae; cuius regni eius figura fuit regnum temporale Davidis & Salomonis hac enim ratione de dit Christo Pater sedem Dau●d Patris. Salmeron Ies. quo supra.  King and Priest was shadowed by the types of the Old Testament: but in Christ, his kingdom had the pre-eminence of Priesthood, because he is Priest only for us, but he is King over us: secondly, as Priest he is suppliant to the Father; as King he is predominant over all powers and principalities equally with the Father. Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to hold as convenient among Christians. An argument Demonstrative.    

CHAP. III.  
object 3. from 14. examples.  

The Romish Pretence.  

a Deus  IN the old Testament we find 
1 Saulem per Samuelis,  Saul deposed by the Prophet Samuel; 
2 Rehoboam per Achiae,  Rehoboam by the Prophet Achia; 
3 Athaliam per Iehoidae Sacerdotis vocem regnis suis privauit. Saunder. de clave David. lib. 2. cap. 6.  Athalia by jehoiada the Priest; 
4 Mattathias gladium politicum sibi sumpsit, & postea silijs reliquit, quo Regem Antiochum (qui judaeis imperabat) iure eius imperij privabant. Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 42. Scriptura exemplum  Mattathias lift up his sword against Antiochus, and did remove him; 
5 Elias, &  Elias also and Elizeus both Prophets did kill the false Prophets, and other Ministers of the King.  

7 judith, Aeglon ab  judith did kill Holophernes, 
8 Ahod, Sisera a  Ahod Aeglon, 
9 jabel occ●sus est, ita cum haereticis agendum est in vindictam populi. Ibidem 271. Quemadmodum  jabel Sisera: Saul was dispossessed of his kingdom by 
10 David, Ahab by  David, Ahab by 
11 Elizaeus; de quorum altero dicitur [Deiecisti Reges ad perniciem:] de altero, [In diebus suis non pertimuit Principem] hoc est officium Christianum. Reinaldu● in R●saeus pag. 619. & 697. Vt Holophernes 〈◊〉  jehu, 
12 Amon by the people. Parsons in his Do●man. We must follow herein  Amon by the people: and the 
13 Macchabaei, & ipsi de genere Sacerdotum exemplum praebent Sacerdotibus nostris contra Principes religioni Catholicae infestos pugnandi. Lib. de ●●sta Abdicat. pag. 57 In 2. Paralip. 26.  Maccabees sought against Kings for defence of God● worship: L●stly king 
14 Ozias Rex cum Sacerdotis officium exercere vellet, à Pontifice de templo eiectus est, & separ●tus extra regnum, & consequentèr regnandi autoritate privatus. B●llar. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 8.  Ozias for exercising the Priest's office was by the high Priest deprived of his kingdom. 
Mattathiae imitandum proponit: sic fecerunt Prophetae, nominatim,  
Elias quadraginta Prophetas, invito Rege, occidit; &  
〈◊〉 Ahod Aeglon●m Mo●bitam; ita adversus Regem & populum haereticum animati esse debemus, Lib. de justa A●dicat. Hen. 3. pag. 57 & 273. We must follow  
〈◊〉 Eliah, &  
〈◊〉 Elizaeus, who etc. Saul was deposed by  
jehu, and  
〈◊〉 Elias, and  
〈◊〉 Elizaeus. A●●e● in his Admonit. pag. 30. & 31.    

The Answer to six kinds of these examples.  
here we hear of nothing but fight, dispossessing, killing of Kings, and those chiefly by Priests and Prophets of God in the old Testament: propounded to the Prelates of the new, to teach them to erect their mitres above crowns. But first our question is of the obedience of Subjects to their lawful Kings, not of foreign inuadors o● false usurpers. But 
b Legimus quidem filion Israel tempore judicum frequentèr eorum, qui imperabant, jugum excussisse, & clarissimam viduam  Many examples of the old Testament (saith your Doctor) we read of such, as have borne arms and used hostility against Kings, who being not their natural Princes, either did, or would invade their kingdoms, to bring them into thraldom: Such both by the law of nature and ordinance of God may be resisted. 
c Quemadmodum  And this was the case of 
8 Ahod, qui Aeglonem regem Moab, dolo & arte con●ecit: ac  Ahod against Aeglon, 
9 jabel, quae Siseram Principem Regis Canaan sustulit: Gedeon qui tyrannidem Madianitarum amolitus est, jephthe Ammonitarum, Samson ●hilistaeorum, & heroi●a  jabel against Siser●…▪ 
7 judith, &  judith against Holophernes, the 
13 Macchabaeos Regibus fortitèr restitisse, & bellis ac armis repugnasse. Sed haec exempla non quid contra legitimum suum Principem ac naturalem Dominum populos facere debeat ostendunt; sed quid adversus eos, qui veri Regis autoritatem, sedes regi●s, bona & thaesauros per vim occupant: Neque enim illi, contra▪ quos à sanctis bels● illa fortitèr gerenda suscepta sunt, legitimi filiorum israel Principes fuerunt, sed tyrannice vi sibi populum Dei subiugarunt, vel subiugare volebant. C●nerus de ●s●ic. Princ. Christ. cap. 7.  Macchabees against Antioch●…. Therefore our adversaries have roaved at a wrong mark: for by this your Cunerus confession, your 3. example of behold 
d Huiusmodi exempla non sunt ad rem, quia non agunt de rege legitimo, sed deinuaso●e, etc. Barcla●…s lib. 3. contra Monarch●…. cap. 24.  your 4. of Mattathias, your 7. of judith, your 8. of Ahod, your 9 of jabell, and your 13. of Macchabees; Who only resisted unjust inuadors, and not natural kings, pertain nothing to the purpose. 
7 judith caput sustulit Holophernis, &  
13 Macchabaei fortissimè Antiocho & Deme●…o Tyrannis restiterunt, & per vim ingressos, viribus suis auctis, simili vi expulerunt. Quod lex & Dei ordinatio exigit. Cunerus ibid. cap. 8.    

The Answer to two other examples.  
Secondly we dispute of lawful examples of deposing kings: but behold your 1 
* 2. Sam. 1. ver. 8 & 15.  Saul was killed of an Amalachite, whom therefore David commanded to be slain. Your 12 
* 2. Reg. 21.  Ammon also was slain of his own servants, who were therefore pursued and slain of the people, because of th●ir conspiracy against the king. Thus your 1. and 12. examples which you propound for your imitation rather show what you would, than what you should be, yet so it is, that wicked acts are the best examples you can allege to proportionate your godless conclusions.   

The Answer to five other examples.  
Thirdly, extraordinary acts can be no precedents for ordinary or general axioms: 
e Sed quae haec (bone Deus!) consequentia est? Propheta pronunciavit contra jeroboam judicium divinum. Ergo Ecclesia habet ius in Reges. Nihil inscitius: nihil enim ad Prophetam, nam Prophetae multi nulla potestate Sacerdotali praediti fuerunt. Deinde Prophetarum munus in denunciatione iudiciorum Dei extraordinaria fuit: quae ad probandam ordinationem nullà consecutionis necessitate valeat. Barclaius ibid.  But (your selves cannot deny) many of your examples were specially privileged functions by Prophets and others extraordinarily and immediately from God appointed to those offices: and therefore cannot infer any ordinary power of altering States and kingdoms. Of this kind was 1. Samuel the Prophet, who dissolved the succession of Saul. 2. Achia the Prophet who divided jeroboam from Rehoboam: 5. Elias the Prophet, who slew these Baalites, and destroyed the messengers of the King: 6. Elizeus the Prophet who raised up jehu against Ahab and his family: and 
* 2. Chron. 26.  Nathan and David Prophets who preferred Solomon in succession. Therefore your 
f Christus cum ciecit Mercatores è templo, non quasi Regia aut Pontificia autoritate, sed, more Prophetarum, zelo quodam: quemadmodum Phinees occidit scortatores, &  2. 5. 6. examples be satisfied. For in them, that will hold which Bellarmine acknowledgeth in one 
5 Elias Prophetas Baal. Bellarus. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 4. §. Respondeo Christum.  Elias; To have been done by zeal, and not by Pontisicall authority, like that act of Phin●es in destroying those fornicators of Israel.   

The last two examples objected.  

g In 2. Paralip. 26.  In the 2. Chron. 26. The high Priest deposed 
14 Ozias Rex cum sacerdotis officium exercere vellet, à Pontifice de templo eiectus est, & separatus extra regnum, & consequenter regnandi autoritate privatus. Et 2. Paralip. 23. ubi  Oziah, or Vziah, from his kingdom: And in the 2. Chron. 23. jehoida the Priest put down 
3 Athalia tyrannicè occupasset regnum, & foveret cultum Baal, jehoida, & Pontifex vocavit centuriones & milites, & jussit eos ut Athaliam interficerent. Bellar. lib. 5. de Rom. Pont. cap. 8.  Athalia, and commanded her to be slain.   

The answer to the former example.  
King Ozias was struck by the hand of God with leprosy, and therefore by the law of God might not come into the common society of men, for fear of contagion. He was not therefore deposed from his sovereignty, but only as a sick King disabled and debarred the ordinary execution. A thing so manifest, that your own Doctor calleth this your assertion 
h Hoc (quod obijcit Bellar. supra chap. 3.) ipsa imprimis Biblia, historici etiam atque interpretes falsitatis arguunt: nunquam enim de regno eiectus fuit Ozias, sed tamdiù regnavit, quamdiù virit, nempè, totos quinquaginta duos annos ex quo regnum anno aetatis decimo sexto inierat, ut patet 4. Reg. 15. & 2. Paralip. 26. Mortuus autem Ozias, inquit josephus lib. 9 Antiq. cap. 11. aetatis suae anno 68 regni vero anno sui 52. Si ergo annum 16. agebat cum regnare coepit, & annos quinquaginta duos (scripturâ teste) regnabat, obijtque annum agens 68 ostend, si potes, quo & quanto tempore de regno deiectus fuerit. Magna sanè impudem a est ea scriptis mandare, quae manifestis Scripturae testimonijs redarguuntur. Aegrotante Patre, filius Rectorem & Curatorem dicitur domus Patris, non Regem egisse: testante ibidem Scripturâ, [Dormivit Ozias sepultus in agro sepulchrorum regalium, eò quod esset leprosus, regnavitque Ionathan pro eo.] Falsissimum igitur est, quod scribis, Oziam ab Azaria Sacerdote de regno fuisse de●●ctum. Barclaius lib. 5. contra Monarchom. cap. 11.  Most false, and contrary to the direct history of the Bible, and ancient Interpreters, because it is manifest (saith he) that he died a King, and his Son during his leprosy was only Rector, etc. It falleth out oftentimes that some Nobleman is ordained Regent to moderate matters during the minority of the King; is therefore the right and real King bereaved of his crown?   

The Answer to the example of 3 Athalia.  
This example is satisfied 
* Supra in the first Answer.  already: only now I will add a confirmation of that which hath been said. Athalia (2. King. 11.) put to death all the King's seed, excepting only joash, who by good means was hid from her; after he was come to age, produced, and, according to his right of succession, proclaimed lawful King, commanding Athalia, as an usurper, to be slain. So plain, that the forecited Doctor doth yield unto it: 
i Expulsit Iehoida Athaliam quae immani tyrant. ●●ide per caedem regiae Sobolis regnum occupabat. Barclaius quo supra. lib. 5. cap. 11.  She was deposed (saith he) for destroying the Princes of the blood royal, and usurping the kingdom. Now what manner of disputation call you this, when to the defenders of the sovereignty of lawful Kings, you oppose only the examples of intolerable usurpers?   

The last Answer to all the former examples in general.  
Fourthly, example without law is as a body without a soul: for though God be a law to himself, yet his revealed commandment is a law to man. As Gen. 4. vers. 7. His desire shallbe subject unto thee: this is the canon law, the eldest is to be preferred in succession, but yet dispensable only with God, Genes. 25. 23. The eldest shall serve the youngest. And thus was jehu a servant sent of God to resist Ahab his King; and thus was tolerated that defection of Israel from 
* 2. Chron. 10. & 11. forged to allow that that defection of the people from their lawful King, was malum poenae; the evil of punishment, and just: but for the people to deflect and re●●lt to idolatry, that was malum culpae, their own sin.  Rehoboam their lawful King, unto jeroboam the idolatrous. These be all your own examples.  
Now I would argue thus: If God's dispensation in particulars could infer a general application, then might we conclude from this example of jeroboam, that it shall be lawful for subjects to forsake their lawful Kings religious, and to adhere to another King idolatrous: A conclusion (I am sure) in your own doctrine most impious; and yet your argument doth enforce this conclusion.    

CHAP. FOUR  
The Argument from examples of the old Testament returned upon the Romish.  

1. In general.  
IN general observe: there be recorded in the old Testament the examples of nineteen wicked Kings of Israel; such as were either Idolaters, or Tyrants, or Apostates: with fourteen others as wicked in the Kingdom of juda, and yet not one of all them were by a Priest or people deposed from their Kingdoms.   

2. In particular. The first example of Saul and David.  
King Saul, 
a Nam Saul primus rex populi Israel, pessimus, ut notum est, postea Tyrannus extitit, qui innocentissimum Davidem, optimè de ipso ac regno meritum, crudelissimè ac obstinatissimè persecut' est. Cuner. de off●…. Princ. cap. 7. 1. Sam. 28.  For he was the first King of Israel, proving himself in the end (you know) a most wicked man, and a very tyrant. yea such an one as was in a sort excommunicate: 
* David, cum in spelunca à militibus suis incitaretur; ne quaquam manus suas extendere voluit, sed quod amplius est, cum silentèr partem chlamydis abscidisset, quasi alicuius peccati propter id conscius, percussit cor suum David, & dixit ad viros suos: [Propitius sit mihi Dominus, ne faciam hanc rem Domino meo Christo Domini, ut mittam manum meam in eum, quia Christus Domini est, vivit Dominus, quia nisi Dominus percusserit eum, aut dies eius venerit ut moriatur, aut descendens in praelium perierit, propitius sit mihi Dominus, ut non m●ttam manum meam in Christum Domini. Et iterum cum Saulum dormientem, & sopore sepultum repe●iret, dixit david ad Abisay, ne interfi●…s eum, quis enim extendet manum suam in Christum Domini, & innocens erit? Apertè ostendens se non propter amorem erga hominem, sed propter conscientiam erga Deum à caede abstinuisse. Cunerus quo supra.  God refusing to speak unto him either in dreams or visions, etc. This example your Cardinal objecteth against Protestants: 
b Allen in his Admonition pag 30. & 31.  This man (saith he) was by God's appointment deposed from his Kingdom by Samuel: so that after the sentence known, David might lawfully have killed him. A Carnals, (I should have said) a Cardinal's conceit, utterly condemned by David himself. For 
c Sane  David persecuted by Saul (as the 
* 1. Sam. 24.  story showeth, and your Bishop acknowledgeth) when he was now in a cave where he had Saul in his power, excited by his soldiers to kill him, would not lay violent hands upon his person; but which is more, closely cutting off a lap of his cloak: (as though even in that he had offended) struck his own breast, saying thus to the soldiers, [God be merciful unto me, that I do not this wickedness against him; as the Lord liveth, except the Lord strike him, or his day shall come to die, or that he perish in wars, God be merciful unto me that I ●ay not mine hands upon the Lords anointed. 
* 1. Sam. 26.  Yea after David found Saul asleep, he said to his own servant Abisay; Let us not kill him, for who shall lay his hands upon the anointed of God, and be innocent?] Showing evidently that he did refrain to kill Saul, not so much for the love to his person, as for conscience towards God. And yet your purpurate Cardinal would from this same example of David die his gown afresh in the blood of his Sovereign: concluding (contrary to David) It was lawful for David to kill Saul.   

The Application of this former example in the position confuteth the Romish.  
This example of Saul and David, (if there were no other in the whole book of God) might suffice for full determination of this cause: for there is nothing which you can pretend for the just deposing of any person, which is not correspondent in this example.  
First you require in the person to be deposed that he be either a Tyrant, or Excommunicate, or an Apostate from God: but 1. Saul by persecuting David an innocent, (which he did not by order of law, but by mortal enmity) is by your Bishop defined a 
d Cunerus supra in hoc cap. lit. 〈◊〉.  Tyrant: 2. by being 
* 1. Sam. 28.  forsaken of God, an excommunicate: 3. by 
* 1. Chro. 13. 3.  ask counsel of a witch of Endor, an Apostate.  
Secondly, the end of deposing you pretend is the Catholic cause, propagation of true religion. This end might David have proclaimed, because (after Saul's death hec saith, 
* The moderate Answerer supra.  [But we will bring again the ark of God, for we sought it not in the dates of Saul. Signifying equal necessity of the restitution of religion.  
Thirdly, you in deposing of the possessor must foresee a probability of 
* 1. Sam. 16.  an hopeful Successor: behold here is godly 
* Supra.  David anointed of Samuel the Prophet, ordained of God to succeed Saul after his decease.  
Lastly, you profess to attempt this deposing and murdering of such a King, 
* 1. Sam. 24.  As soon as there is an opportunity to effect it. Mark here, * David hath the tyrant in a ca●●, as able to stab him to the heart, as to cut off the lap of his garment: another time finding him and all his guard asleep, and able now to cast him into a dead sleep: Notwithstanding all this, David, who was afterwards to perform the office of a gracious King in ruling, doth now practise the duty of a faithful Subject in obeying. And now from the application of the position we descend unto   

The Application of his practice.  
1. David flieth into a Cave or vault of the earth, yet not to plot, but to avoid parricide. 2. David having Saul in his power, he cutteth off only the lap of the garment of the King, so far was he from cutting off the head and shoulders of a kingdom. 3. David prayeth not God speed the proceeding of the complot of treason, but God forbid; and, God be merciful unto me, that I do not this wickedness. 4. David sweareth also, but what? a sacramental oath of secrecy, and confederacy, To do it as soon as possibly he can● No, but As the Lord liveth I will not lay my hands upon the Lords anointed. To conclude, when Saul is slain by an Amalakite, David entertaineth the murderer, but how? rejoicing and approving the act? or as thus dignifying the malefactor, 
e So said Pope Sixtus Quintus of the like.  o memorable act! o religious man! No, but he 
* 2. Sam. 1. 11.  Rend his own clothes, fasted and wept and commanded the murderer to be slain, saying, Thy sin be upon thine own head. etc. This one example of this incomparable servant of God David is therefore recorded in the volume of God's book, that in one man all men might have a double example to imitate; Kings to behold him as he was a gracious King, and no Tyrant: Subjects to behold him, as a faithful subject even to a Tyrant.    

CHAP. V.  
The second example, which must be returned upon the Romish, is that which hath been of them objected of Elias.  

* 2. King. 1.  ELias did call for fire from heaven, and destroyed the Captains and Messengers from the King. Ergo (say your men) Protestant's officers may be so dealt with by us Priests. Now, we argue contrarily, Ergo this may not be attempted of God's Ministers. 1. because Elias was no Priest, but a Prophet, that is, his call was not ordinary, but extraordinary, as appeareth by his act, [Fire from heaven] a work miraculous. 2. Our Saviour Christ, who did assoil this question long ago, hath taught us how to conclude; for 
* Luc. 9 52.  When his Disciples asked him saying, Master shall we command fire from heaven to destroy them, as Elias did? 
* vers. 55.  jesus rebuked them, saying, you know not what spirit you are of: for the son of man came not to destroy but to save the world. Concluding from the same example negatively, namely, that the Ministers of the Gospel must not herein imitate Elias.  

The Application of this example and Answer.  
Whom do you seek to destroy? Protestants, whom you call Heretics: but mark, 1. these disciples desired to destroy Those 
* vers. 51.  Samaritânes, namely the false worshippers, which had long before forsaken the true religion of God; and therefore now disliked Christ, 
* vers. 53.  Because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem: that is, because of his religion, for that he gave some signification that he meant to go to the feast at Jerusalem to solemnize the true worship of God according to the law. Secondly what have Protestants done? 
* jesuits supra.  They will not admit of our Priests, and our high Priest and Vicar of Christ the Pope they do reject.  
And these Samaritans in this place, 
* vers. 53.  Would not receive Christ. 3. What therefore? A general destruction at 
* The stratagem.  one terrible blow: and these desire to 
* Luc. 9 54.  Call for fire to consume these Samaritans. 4. Now who are you? Men zealous of God's glory: and these for their zeal are 
* Marc. 3. 17.  Surnamed the Sons of thunder. 5. To what end do you breathe fire, and why are your mouths so hot? In ordine ad Deum: even for the glory of God, advancement of the church of Christ: So these wished 
* vers. 54.  fire from heaven, namely, that it coming by the prayer of Christ immediately from heaven, God might be glorified in his Son. 6. What ground have you for such an attempt? The example of Elias: the same example did these Bonarges allege saying, 
* vers. 54.  As Elias did.  
Notwithstanding all which, Christ answereth you in them, saying, 
* vers. 55.  You know not what spirit you are of, adding, I am not come to destroy, but to save: showing that there is as much difference between a mind so resolved, and a true regenerate spirit, as is between Christ and Elias, Law and Gospel, destruction and salvation. Thus the Sons of thunder and our Sons of powder being rightly compared, there is only this difference: They would not have fire except from Gods own hand, from heaven, an argument of their patience; these, as men desperate, will work it in many barrels in the earth, as if it had been from hell. they consult with Christ, 
* vers. 54.  Master wilt thou that we command? you without all command, yea against Gods forbid, seek the ruin of a Kingdom.   

The Conclusion from the old Testament.  
Seeing that 1. there was No sovereignty either of 
* Supra.  Priests or 
a Nullum extat in sacris literis exemplum pro potestate populi in Reges. Barclaius lib. 3. contra Monarchom cap. 6.  People over Kings; we are taught from the example of the people of God (as saith your Cunerus) 
b Magna patientia populus israel plurima ab hu●●smodi Tyrannis mala sustinuit, qua tamen facilè poterat resistendo repellere, usque ade● cordibus hominum lege naturae inscriptum est, potestati non resist●…, Scriptura ubique nobis attestante, Regibus, licet reccent, vim nullan esse inferendam, quoniam causa nostra est ●unc Deo committenda. Cuner. i. de●…. Princ. cap. 7.  With great patience to endure the tyranny of mortal Kings, yea when we have power to resist. And because they be next under God in earth, in all their injuries To commend the revenge unto God. Nay he teacheth Kings an other excellent rule of policy, fitting for the preservation of all States, which is, 
c Paralip. 24. De quo sic Cunerus. Qui fuit verus Rex judae, & cum ad Idola impunè relicto D●o declinaret, & Zachariam Prophetam, ●ilium Ieho●dae, interfecisset, servi quidam Zelo commoti, insidiat●…nt Regi, & occiderunt illum in lectulo suo: sed justè ab Ama●ia regem sequent regulati sunt. Cunerus lib. de O●●i● Prin●. cap. 7.  He who succeed a King violently murdered of any, though of a godly zeal, yet ought he to revenge his Predecessors death by the death of the male factors.  
Thus much of the old Testament concerning the law of Subjection; wherein we have many laws to obey Kings, but none to resist: We ascend to the new Testament sealed by Christ his death, whose speech is true concerning the Civil law of the prerogative of Kings which he spoke of the Moral law of God, 
* Matth. 5. 17.  I come not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil the Law.    

CHAP. VI  
The former Question disputed according to the state of the new Testament.  

The Romish showing the state of the question.  

a Carerius, & Bozius. Vide supra.  THe Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporal over all Kings & Kingdoms of the world. Which we prove by consent of Divines, and Canonists: And the defenders of the contrary to be but mere Politicians. Take heed, there was a spirit that showed a synopsis of All the nations of the world to our Saviour, and said, 
* Matth 4. 9  All these will I give thee: he was no lawful Donor, but a lying Tempter. From whom it may seem this your doctrine had his stamp, 
b Francise. de Victoria Relect. 1. Sect. 6.  For (to believe your own Doctor) to say that the Pope hath all temporal domimon over all the world, is nothing else but a flattering of the Pope: And 
c Bellarminus, vide supra.  False (saith your jesuit) as I shall prove. You will not then contend for all the world; what say you to all Kings in Christendom? 
d Bellar. vide supra. Victor. Relect. 1. Sect. 6 Saunder. de visib. Monarch. pertotum & alij supra.  He hath over these indirectly, that is, as it may be behoveful for the Spiritual good, power temporal over all these. By what law? 
e Non iure politico sed divino. Sanderus lib. 2. de Clavib. David. cap. 10.  Not by Civil but Divine law. Well then, this would be proved, either by Scripture or by tradition, or at least some probable reason.   

Objections from Scriptures.  

1. Objection. The Romish pretence.  

f Petrus quo tempore accepit ●laues regni coelorum, accepit ius quoque destruendi & aedificandi regna in Ecclesia Christi, quandò id expediret. Itaq: gladium politicum habuit Petrus concessum sibi, non quidem ad finem politicum, sed ad spiritualem, viz. salutem animarum: in quem finem ●o gladio Pontifex uti debet. Sanderus lib. 2. de Clavibus. cap. 10. pag. 41.  Saint Peter when he received of Christ the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, he also received the temporal and civil sword, and a right of erecting and destroying kingdoms; as far forth as he might think it behoveful for the good of souls, and to this end ought the Popeto use the civil sword. This cannot be, for 
g In Ecclesia sunt claves regni coelo●um. Matth. 16. & 18. Sed haec potestas est alia à civili potestate, quae certe non habet huiusmodi claves: confirmatur, quia usus ostenditur, Remittendi & r●…endi peccati, joh. 20. quae potestas non est in Rege civili. Victoria Relect. 1. Sect. 2. §. Teruò probatur.  By the knies of the kingdom of heaven (as your Victoria determineth) is signified a spiritual authority different from the civil jurisdiction, as is proved by the use, which is remitting and detaining of sins: which no way can belong to civil authority. Neither can any show me any one Doctor of but reasonable antiquity, (Peto vel ex millibus unum) who by keys, understand a civil power. It were au excellent Art if you could make a sword of a pair of keys; and as profound Divinity were it to turn spiritual regiment into politic.   

2. Objection. The Romish pretence.  

h cum dicitur Petro, [Pasce oves] joh. 20. intelligitur ea potestas, quae est ad gregem regendum necessa●…a, id●irco ad Lupos, id est, Principes haereticos arcendos, & pabulum ovibus ministrandum. Bell. lib. 5. de Pont. ca 7.  Where it is said to Peter, Ioh● 21. [Feed my sheep] is understood the power whereby the Pastor may drive away a wolf (such an one is an heretical Prince) from his flock. Again: 
i Nam Princeps ours & silius est sacerdotis spiritualis, at Sacerdos Ouis aut silius Principis nullo modo dici possit: quoniam omnes Clerici suum habent Principem spiritualem, à quo non in spiritualibus solùm, sed etiam in temporalibus reguntur: neque sieri possit ut duas agnoscant Principes in rebus temporalibus, cum, juxta evangelium, nemo possit duobus Dominis servire. Bellar. disp. de Exempt. Cleric. cap. 3. in calce. Quod opus unà cum libris de Indulgentijs compingitur.  A Prince is the spiritual sheep of a Priest, but a Priest cannot be called the son of a Prince: for Priests have their spiritual Governor, to whom they are subject both in spiritual and temporal matters, and to no other.    

The Answer.  
It was never read, heard, nor dreamt, that [Feed my sheep] should signify any temporal feeding, as though Princes must be dieted corporally at the Pope's discretion; this will follow upon your assertion, because the metaphor, Feed, hath more significant relation to diet then to dominion. Again, 
k Aliae Scripturae Principibus Pastorun & Patrum officia tribuunt, quemadmodum david pro subditis suis interpellans; Ego, inquit, peccavi, iste grex quid commetuit? ubi 70 Interpretes habent, Ego sum Pastor, istae Oues etc. 1. Paralip. 21. Cunerus de Offic. Princ. cap. 1. Rex saepe Pastor dicitur. Mich. 5. Ribera Ies. Comm. in hunc locum. Num. 31.  Scriptures do often call Princes Pastors, as your own Doctors demonstrate, and as plain it is, Kings are called nourcing fathers; Es. 29. And we will make no question but that Father is a relative to a Son, and therefore a Priest may be a son unto a Prince.  
Lastly your device of exemption of Priests is too crude to be easily digested of any reasonable Divine, for (as your Victoria saith) 
l Personae Clericorum non exemptae sunt omninò, & quo ad à potestate civili, nec iure humano nec divino: qui praeter quod sunt Eclesiae, sunt etiam cives Reip. & Rex est Rex non solùm Laicorum, sed etiam Clericorum; Ergo aliquo modo Clerici subijciuntur ei, qui in quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica, sed in istis Principi obedire tenentur. Fr. Victoria Relect. 1. Sect. 7.  Priests, besides that they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise members of the commonwealth; and a King is as well a King of the Clergy, as of the Laity: therefore the Clergy is subject unto the civil authority in temporal things; for such matter is not ruled by any power spiritual. a plain demonstration.   

The third Objection from the prophecy of the old Testament, and the events of the new. The Romish pretence.  
This is the tenor of the late yongue Bulls of Popes, as of 
m Paulus ●…piscopus, servus servorum Dei, etc. Nos in justitiae sede constitu●i, juxta Prophetae vaticinium dicentis, [Ecce te constitui super Gentes, & regna, ut ●u●llas & de●●ruas, plants & aedifices. Bulla Pauli 3. adversus Henric. 8. Regem Angliae.  Paulus 3. 
n Pius, etc. Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in coelo & in terra potestas, quem super omnes Gentes & super omnia regna Principem constituit, Qui evellat, destruat, dissipet, disperdat, plantet, aedificet, etc. Bulla Pij Quinti cap. 39 & aliae aliorum Pontificum Bullae.  Pius 5. and all their followers. I the servant of the servants of God, placed in the seat of justice, according to the Prophecy of jeremy, where it is written (jerem. 1.) [Behold I have appointed thee over Nations to root them up and destroy them, to plant and establish them] do excommunicate these Kings and their favourites, absolving subjects from their obedience, and commanding them to take up arms to root them out. Is this the true sense of that Prophecy? 
o Hoc Propheta in persona Christi ad Romanum Pontificem loquitor. Carerius de potest. Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 3. Rursus. ●er. Prophetae autoritas haec temporalis con●irmatur, sc. per correctionem & punitionem, si Reges mali fierent. Carer. ibid.  It was spoken to the Bishops of Rome in the person of Christ.   

The Answer.  
O arrogant glossers, yea impudent glosers and perverters of the sacred Oracles of God Did ever jeremy put down Kings to root them out? Hearken to your Lyranus: 
p Tantùm denunciando esse destruendas. Lyranus in cum locum.  No, he did only denounce God's judgements against wicked Kings. Hearken to that godly Pope Gregory, who showeth that jeremy's act was only 
q Frustra Hieremias, nisi perversa destrueret, praedicando recta edificaret. Greg. Mag. Past. cura Admonit. 35.  By preaching, and not by fight. If you demand in whom this prophecy was fulfilled, listen to your Doctor Capella: 
r His verbis totum Hieremiae ministerium comprehend●tur, haec in Christo completa sunt, qui Idolatria & erroribus destructis, & Principe huius mundi foras eiecto, Ecclesiam suam aedificavit atque plantavit. ff. Andr. Capella Theol. Doctor in hunc locum.  It was fulfilled in Christ, at whose coming Idols and false Oracles ceased, and the Prince of the World was cast out. Which Scripture lest the Pope might unadvisedly apply to himself, holy Bernard doth forewarn him to 
* Propheta, cum art, [Vt evellas, etc.] Quid horum fastum sonat? schemate quod á magis rust●cam ●udor●s labor spiritualis expressus est. Vt nos etiam sentiamus impositum esse nobis minist●…um, non dominium datum. Esto Propheta, sed nunquid plusquam Propheta? si sapis, er is contentus mensurâ quam ubi mensus est Deus: nam quod amplius est, à malo est. Bernard. lib. 2. Consid. ad Eugen.  Beware of insolent pride: for these words being applied unto the Pastors of the church, betoken only an industrious ministry, but no predominant authority.    

CHAP. VII.  
The antiquity of this pretended Papal power is examined from the Apostles times.  

The Romish pretence.  

a Allen in his Admonition pag. 34.  THe Priest of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ have more authority than that of the law over Kings to depose them.   

The Answer.  
This is not probable, except you can show some footings either of Christ, or his blessed Apostles, or their holy successors in the purer periods of times. But  

1. Christ used not this civil jurisdiction.  
For 
b Regia autoritas non erat Christo necessaria, neque utilis, sed planè inutilis & supers●ua: nam finis adventus eius in mundum erat redemptio humani generis, ad quem potestas regia necessaria non fuit, sed solùm spiritualis. Bell. lib. 5. de Pont. cap. 4.  Princely authority (as your chief jesuit confesseth) had been supers●uou● in Christ, whose end was to work the work of Redemption of man, whereunto the only spiritual power was sufficient.   

2. Peter and the other Apostles never challenged temporal authority.  
This also is confessed: 
c Carerius, Bellarmunus, Acosta, & alij.  Apostles (saith Carerius) were subject unto the heathen Kings in all temporal respects: because Pontifical government is only over Christians, within the church, but the Heathens are said by the Apostle to be without. 1. Cor. 6. Hereupon your Saunders doth conclude, that 
d Quo tempore Principes erant Ethnici, Petius illorú judex non erat, sed è contra in omnibus causis civilibus, non minus quam caeteri homines, illis subijciebatur: quia Pontifex non est judex nisi Christianorum. 1. Cor. 6.  Peter received of Christ no power over Heathen Kings. He conceiteth a reason. 
e Duplex fortitudinis potestas est, altera in faciendo res arduas animosè, altera in patiendo res adversas constantèr: cum igitur illa, quae in patiendo consistit, sit praestantior, hanc patiendi potestatem sibi ac suis Christus elegit, ut mundum in admirationem potentiae suae cohuerteret. Idcirco Apostoli & primi Apostolorum successores hoc mysterium non ignorantes, ab armis pro fide sumendis abstinuerunt. Sunderus quo supra. cap. 13.  There is a double power, of fortitude, and Christian valour, (saith he) The one in suffering adversity constantly, the other in attempting and effecting hard matters courageously: that power of suffering, as more excellent, Christ chose as fittest for himself, and his Apostles, and their successors for the gaining of the world to the faith, and therefore they did abstain from arms and prescribe obedience. 
Quid ad me de his qui foras sunt judicare? Careriu, de potest. Pont. lib. 2. cap. 23. Idei● co Petrus in Neronem & Tyrannos Gentium nullam potestatem accepit. Sanderus de Clavib. David. lib. 2. cap. 13.     

The Romish insist.  

f Non johannes Baptista, inquiunt Aduersarij, non Christus, non Apostoli in Regem impium surgere, aut eum è medio tollere docuerunt: hoc levissimum est, quali vero eadem mstituendae Ecclesiae ratio atque institutae credenda sit; ac non potius prius plantari atque irrigari vineam, quam incidi convenit. Lib. de Abdicat. justa Henric. Regis. pag. 278.  As though there were not a difference of the condition of the church; as of a vine, there is one time to plant and water it, an other to lop and prune it.   

The Answer.  
As though the Church, which before time was planted & watered with the blood and deaths of holy Martyrs, ought now (for that is this man's scope) to be lopped in the cutting off of the heads of wicked Kings. Nay but if the patient suffering of the tyranny of Kings, be (as your Sanders truly said) the more excellent Christian power, than acting and working the death of Kings: and that therefore that power was practised of our Lord Christ, and bestowed on the Apostles for the confirmation of the glorious faith: pardon us if we fall at jesus feet, to choose the better part: especially knowing that 
* 2. Tim. 4.  To all those who suffer unjustly for justice, there remaineth a crown of justice, which the just judge will give in that day of Revelation.    

CHAP. VIII.  
The primitive Successors of the Apostles for the space of two hundred years and long after, did acknowledge all Obedience temporal to all Emperors and Kings, whether heathen or baptised; although Tyrants or Heretics or Apostatates, yea even then, when they wanted no force to resist.  

The Romish pretence.  

a Bellar. supra.  IN former ages Christians (said your Bellarmine) did not depose wicked Emperors, as Diocletian, julian, and such, because they wanted force. Which maketh some Catholics (said your Bannes) now not resisting their Kings, excusable, because they want force: For it is commendable (said your Frenchman) to suffer when thou canst not resist. Otherwise Catholics (said your Creswell) are bound to hazard their lives in this cause, assoove as they can make resistance. Whereunto might have beeneadded your Cardinal Allen, 
b Allen in his true and modest Defence of English catholics.  Ancient Bishops (saith he) might have excommunicated the Arian Emperors, and havedefended themselves from them by force of arms; but they did not, by reason of greater forces of their Persecutors.   

The Answer.  
This is the very Arch of all your rebellious building, which all your Jesuits have erected, and whereupon our bastard English Cardinal doth insist in his book entitled, A True and modest Defence for English Catholics: which how false and shameless it is, I am now ready to show unto all true catholics for their confirmation, and to the others for their conversion.   

First in general.  
For. 
c A Christo passo per interuallum ducentorum annorum, nusquam legimus Chr●stianos contra Imperatores iam saevientes in eos & plu●imos necantes, contra tempublicam quiequam esse molitos, etiam cum Christiani pares viribus & nu●…o fuerunt; imò religionem suam anteferri aliis omnibus, seque ab eo Christianos dixerunt appellari, cuius sit hoc pijssimum dogma, ut Magistratibus pareant. Tolossanu● lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 7. § 10.  For the space of two hundred years we cannot read (saith your learned Tolossanus) of any christians resisting Emperors of other times, or in their most bloody persecutions to have raised any tumult in the Commonwealth; no not then, when they were able both by equal number and power to match them: But herein they thought their religion advanced before all others, and gloried in this behalf to be called Christians, who professed this as a most holy doctrine, namely, obedience to Magistrates.  
True, the patient Christian did advance Christian religion by suffering under Kings; but the now pragmatical Christian (God grant I may be a false Prophet) by acting and plotting Strategemes, in resisting Kings, will ruinate the holy faith.  
To Tolossanus agreeth your Cunerus, saying, 
d Cum Martyrs no●… Testaments, propter multitudinem, facilè contra tyrannidem Persecutorum suorum conspirare potuissent, pro obedientia tamen & honore, quem iussi sunt Christiani regibus & sublimiori potestati defer, maluerunt pati quám resistere, si quandò ●●gerevel evadere non poterant. De quibus perpulchre Augustinus lib. 2. contra Faustum, Vbi venit plenitudo tempo●is, iam demonstrandum erat esse aliam vitam pro qua debet hae● vita contemni; promdè per quorum confessiones & mortes hoc Deo placuit attestari Martyres appellantur, quorum numerus tantus essloruit, ut si eos Christus vellet armare, atque adiware propugnantes, sicut Hebraeos Patres ad. unit, quae Gentes restiterent, quae regna non caederent? C●nerus de O●●ic. Prin●. cap. 7.  The Martyrs of those times, when they by reason of their multitude, might easily have conspired against their persecuting Tyrants; (Hearken you conspirators and be ashamed) yet for the honour of Christ by performing obedience to the higher power chose rather to suffer then resist. For, as saith S. Augustine, they would demonstrate their hope of the life to come, and, by their confessions and deaths, whereby they gave witness to the truth of God, were called Martyrs, witnesses: whose number was so great, that if it had pleased Christ to arm them, and aid them, as he did the Hebrews of old, what nation could have resisted thew force? Although these glorious Martyrs of the mother Church in their death, whereby they have anouched that good and glorious profession of Christian faith, have thereby also sealed the infallible truth of Christian obedience due to earthly Potentates: yet will we not be content with these two hundred years, but challenge the currant and successive practice of 4000 more. We therefore come to    

CHAP. IX.  
The same duty of Subjection proved in the next 400. years.  
FIrst Tertullian in his Apology in defence of Christian loyalty. 
a Absit ut virtute humana vindicetur Christiana secta, aut doleat pati in quo probatur: si enim hostes extraneos, non tantùm occultos, vindices agere vel. lemus, deesset vis numerorum aut copiarum? externi sumus, & vestra omnia implemus urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, Senatum, forum; sola vobis templa reliquimus: cui bello non idonei, non prompti suissemus, etiam impares copijs trucidamur, si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret quam occidere? Tertull. lib. Apolog. cap. 37.  God forbid (saith he) that Christian professors should revenge themselves with human power, or fear that touch of persecution whereby they are tried: for if we would either seek secret revenge, or use open hostility, can you imagine we could want sufficient force? we are visibly known unto you, and are interested in all your affairs, your Cities, Isles, Forts, Borrows, Tents, Tribes, Decuries, Senate, Ma●kets are all full of Christians, except only your temples. Now what war are not we ready and sit for, who being in power more, yet do willingly suffer death, if by this profession it were not more lawful to be killed, than to kill? Herein you who boast often of yours as great multitudes in England, as there were locusts in Egypt, able to do mischief if you would, and professing also to be willing as soon as you are able: Compare but your God speed, with Tertullian his God forbid, and then you shall see that God cannot be said to be otherwise in your Pope's Bulls to kings, than he was in Aaron's calf, for in both there is a sin of rebellion against God's ordinance.  
The second is Cyprian; he likewise penneth an Apology, and directeth it to Demetrianus the Officer of the persecuting Emperor, answering in behalf of all the Christians of his time. 
b Laedere servos Dei & Christi persecutionibus tuis desine, quos laesos divina ultio defendit: indè enim est quod nemo nostrum, quandò apprehenditur, reluctatur; nec se adversus iniustam violentiam, quamuis nimius & copiosus sit noster populus, ulciscitur, etc. Cyprian. ad Demetr. §. 14. ut refert Pammel. pag. 328. col. 2.  None of v●when he is apprehended doth resist, or revenge himself of your unjust violence, although the number of our people be marvelous great: for our certain confidence we have in him that will take vengeance of all transgressors, doth confirm our patience. Whereby you are taught not to glory of patience, who (if you had force) would banish obedience.  
The third is Athanasius, writing an Apology for himself to Constantius an Arian Emperor, and therefore heretical; to free himself of a slanderous imputation, which was that he had suggested some matter to the Emperor Constance a Catholic, thereby to kindle coals of dissension betwixt Brethren; therefore he saith. 
c Deum teste muoco in animam meam, & testis est frater tuus, me nunquam tui mentionem in malam partem esse locutum; non adeò insanus fui, neque oblitus sum mādau Domini, Non maledices Regivel in cord ●…o: sed obsecutus sum mandatis tuis, quae praeceperent ut ab Alexandria discederem. Athanas. in Apolog ad Constantium.  I call God to record upon my soul, and your Brother Constance could witness, that I never spoke word of you in evil part; I was not so mad as to forget the commandment of God, who saith; Thou shall not speak evil of thy King, no not in thy heart: but did obey your command, when I had charge to depart from Alexandria. The sum is this. When he had power to stir the Emperor Constance a true professor, against his brother Constantius an heretic; yet he made conscience, not to raise rebellion, but rather submitted himself to the violence of persecution. If your Pope had been truly catechised in this Creed of Athanasius belonging to the truth of faithful allegiance, he would not so oft have raised King against King, as yourselves confessed: And why then may not he be that man prophesied of, 
* Apoc. 6. 4.  Sitting on a red horse, and having power (permissively) given unto him, to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another?  
The fourth is Gregory Nazianzen, in his Oration against the Emperor julian, who (the very hinge of this cause) had been a Christian, and did after Apostate and prove an Infidel, saith: 
d In quos vestiûm populum, exaest●antem contra vos, insurgere sollicitavimus? quibus vitae periculum attulimus? etc. Nazianz. Orat. 2. in julianum.  Against whom of you did we ever raise any insurrection, or sedition among your people, though otherwise of themselves prone to rebellion: or whose death did we ever conspire? But, you, lately whose deaths have you not conspired?  
The fifth is Ambrose. When the Emperor infected with the heresy of Arius, had sent magistrates to remove Ambrose from his Bishopric, and the people thronged to rescue him, 
e Auxentius haeret. de Imperatore vult invidiam commoucre, etc. quasi verò superiori anno, quando ad palatium suum petitus, cum praesentibus Primatibus, ante consistotium tractaretur, cum Imperator Basilicam vellet atripere, ego tunc aulae regalis contemplatione fractus sim, nun noverunt, quod ubi me cognovit populus palatium petisse, ita irruit ut vim eius ferre non possent? nonnè tunc rogatus sum ut populum muto sermone mulcerem? revocavi populum, & tamen invidiam non evasi, quam quidem invidiam ego temperandam arbitror, non timendam. Ambros. Tom. 3. lib. 5. post Epist. 32. Oratio ad Auxent. Et Lachrymae meae arma mea sunt, alitèr nec debeo, nec possum resistere. Ibid.  In such power (saith Ambrose) that the Officers could not resist their force; I quieted the people, and yet could not avoid their malice. Then sure he did abhor by raising sedition among the people, to provoke magistrates to malice. The same Father upon that penitential dump of holy David, [
* Psal. 51. 6.  to thee only have I sinned▪ proveth that some 
f Qui tenentur legibus audent suum negare peccatum, dedignantur rogare indulgentiam, quam petebat David, qui nullis tenebatur legibus humanis, neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus tuti imperij potestate. Homini ergo non peccavit cui non tenebatur obnoxius. Ambros. Apolog David. cap. 4. & cap. 10.  Kings are not subject to any penal law of man. And for S. Ambrose his active profession in this kind, it is confessed by your own Doctor, saying that 
g Potuit Ambrosius armis Ecclesiam suam tucri, & vim virepellere, nec ideò armis abstinuit, quod armis esset inferior, ab eo namque populus stabat, & ab eo pars maxima militum, ab eo (quod caput est) Christus jesus omnesque coelites, ut Augustinus Epist. 166. Barelaius lib. 3. contra Monarchom. cap 〈◊〉.  Saint Ambrose when he was sufficiently armed both by power of people and soldiers, strengthened with the might of Christ, yet would not defend his Church with violence against the fury of the heretical Emperor.  
The sixth is Basill, 
h Basilius Magnus, ut est in eius vita, juliano Caesarian Cappadociae ven●enti obuiam processit, & pandi ●i Civitatis portas, om●…que subditorum officia exhibere suasit, & ut odium conceptum in Christianos mitiga●et, supplex deprecatus, quanquam poterat se vallo ac muris sinè ullo periculo continere, etc. Barclaius qu● supra lib. 5. cap. 5.  Who by reason of the strength of the forts, wherein he was, needed not to fear any danger; yet suppliantly offered himself to julian, the Apostate: and caused the gates of the city to be opened unto him, thereby to appease his wrath against Christians.  
The seventh is S. Augustine: who in his expositions of some proposition, doth, concerning this point, give this instruction. 
i Rom. 13 [Necessitate subditi estote.] Ad hoc valet ut intelligamus, quia necesse est propter hanc vitam subd●…os nos esse, non resistentes, Principilius, siquid auserre illi volverint, in quo illis potestas data est in temporalibus rebus, tamen quoniam dixit, [Necessitate subditi estote] nè quis non integro animo & pura dilectione subditus non fieret, huiusmodi potestatibus addidit, dicens, [Non solùm propter itam, sed etiam propter conscientiam:] id est, non solùm ad iram eundendam, quod possit simultate fieri, sed ut tua conscientiâ certus sis, illius dilectione ●d facere, cui subditus ●…ussu Domini tui: Hoc est quod alio loco serus suadet, Obedite Dominis vestris etiam dyscolis, non ad oculum seruientes, tanquam homi●… placentes. August. lib. exposit. quorundam proposit. ad num. 74.  Whereas the Apostle (saith he) exhorteth that we should not resist governors in temporal matters, he saith, [It is necessary that we be subject:] and lest any might not perform this in love, but as from constraint and necessity, he addeth; [Not for fear of wrath, but for conscience sake:] that is, not dissemblingly, but dutifully in good conscience, and love to him (God) who commandeth subjection: and, as in another place he exhorteth, Servants 
* Ephes. 6. & ●…ss. 3.  Obey your hard and injurious masters; but not with ey-seruice, as only pleasing men, but God. Therefore you must not plead Your most humble subject above ground, and from the concave and vaults of the earth seek how to humble your sovereign. Forey service and hart-seruice do distinguish a Christian from a Pagan, according to that of Arnobius, 
k Vos Eth●…ios ●…entes, nos ●…ro consci●…um. Ar●…b. contra Gentes. lib. 8.  You Pagans do fear only the outward sight of men; we only the inward conscience of our mind.  
The eight is Pope Leo, writing to a true Catholic Emperor. 
l Debes Imperator ●…èr advertere Regiam potestatem tibi non sol●m ad mundi regimen, sed, maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. Epist. 75. ad I●on. August.  You may not be ignorant (saith he) that your Princely power is given unto you not only in worldly regiment, but also (Spiritual) for the preservation of the Church. As if he had said, Not only in causes temporal, but also inspirituall, so far as it belongeth to outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them: And this is the substance of our English oath; and further neither do our Kings of England challenge, nor subjects condescend unto. We are not yet passed the lists of 500 years.  
The last is Pope Gregory in his Epistle to Mauritius, a right Christian Emperor. 
m Ad hoc, potestas super omnes homines dominorum meorum pietati ●…elitùs data est, ut qui boni sunt, adiwentur, & coelorum via largius pateat, ut terrestre regnum coelesti regno famuletur ad haec ecceper me servum ultimum & vestrum. Lib. 2. Epist. cap. 100 Rursus.  To this end (saith he) is power over all persons given from heaven unto my Lord, that good men may be helped in the way to the kingdom of heaven. And again, 
n In serenissimis iussionibus suis Dominorum pietas, dùm me in quibusdam redarguere studuit, parcendo mihi minimè pepercit: nam in eyes urbanae simplicitatis vocabulo me fatuum appellat; Sacerdotibus autem non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citiùs indignetur, sed excellenti consideratione propter cum cuius servi sunt, eye ita dominetur, ut debitam reverentiam impendat. Idem. Epist. 75.  In those gracious commands of your Highness, your grace in sparing me did not spare me one whit, but was pleased to call me (whereby is signified a civil simplicity) fool. But let not my Lord from his earthly pre-eminence too hastily disdain the Priests of God; but in his princely wisdom, for his cause whose servants they be, so rule over them, that he deny them not due reverence. Herein we find another clause of the form of our English oath, Power over all persons, even the Pope himself yielding that, which is not due but only to a Superior rule: and requiring that which may be yielded to an inferior, 
* 1. Pet. 3. 4. Giving honour to the woman, as to the weaker vessel.  Reverence, or courteous respect. 
o Hoc Gregorius Magnus ingenuè agnoscebat, Imperatoribus (inquit) concessum est domiminari Sacerdotibus. Espencaeus Comm. in Tit. 3. Digress. 10.  For it is without doubt (saith your Bishop Espencaeus) that Gregory did acknowledge a sovereignty in Emperors over Priests. We have not yet passed the period of 600. years: now therefore   

CHAP. X.  
We descend unto the ages following of four centuries more: which may make up a complete thousand years.  

The Romish Pretence.  

p Tunc Con●… genera●… fichant n● sine Imperatorum sumptibus; & ●o tempore Pontifex subijci● bat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus; & ideò non poterant invito Imperatore aliquid agere: id●ircò Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori, ut iuberet convocari Synodum. At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt, quia Pontifex, qui est caput in spiritualibus, non est subiectus in temporalibus. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 13. §. Habemus ergo.  ANcient general Counsels were gathered not without the cost of (good and Christian ones) Emperors, and were made by their consents: for in those d●ues the Pope did make supplication to the Emperor, that by his authority he would gather Synods. But after those times all causes were changed, because the Pope, who is head in spiritual matters, cannot be subject in temporal.  
Who would think this man could be a Papist, much less a jesuit, how much less a Cardinal, who thus disableth the title of the Pope, granting to us in these words, [After these times (that is, after 600. years) the truth of purer Antiquity challenging Popes to be subject unto Christian Emperors? And yet, who but a Papist would (as it were in despite of Antiquity) defend the degenerate State, saying, After those times Popes might not be subject in temporal matters? As if he should have said; Thou gracious favour of ancient Christian Emperors, thou sound judgement of ancient reverend Fathers, thou devout subjection of ancient holy Popes; in sum, thou ancient purity, and pure Antiquity adieu. But we may not so bastardly reject the depositum and doctrine of humble subjection, which we have received from our Fathers of the first 600. years: and not so only, but which (as your Bercklay witnesseth) the universal Christian world embraced 
q Sed id gravissimo argumento esse debet, quòd nemo sanctorum Patrum, vel Scriptor alioqui Orthodoxus per totos mill annos & amplius, licet Ecclesia tunc omnibus flo●eret copijs, & impiorum Principum & Tyrannorum magnus esset numerus, tale quid unquam vel verbo vel scripto doc●…sse legitur. Nec tamen ab autoritate negativa tantùm argumentamur, sed proponimus Ambrosijs, Hieronymi, Augustini, Gregorij, & aliorum eius aevi tempora, in quibus satis plantatam & rigatam Ecclesiam esse novimus. Barrel. lib. 6. adverse Monarch. cap. 26.  With common consent for a full thousand years. Which is further confessed by others in the Chapters following.    

CHAP. XI.  
We further challenge the consent of successive Antiquity in the currant of more than 1000 years after Christ, wherein the Papallpretended jurisdiction over Kings, hath been evidently controwled.  

The Romish Pretence.  

a Bellar. supra. Carerius lib. 2. de potest. Rom. Pont. cap. 21. The Apology of the English catholics cap. 5  WE have many examples of Emperors deposed by Popes, as Leo, Frederick, Henry 1. Freder. 2. Otho 1. Lewis 3. Lewis 4. Henry 4. who was deposed by Gregory the 7.   

The Answer.  
This argument, The Popes did depose them from their temporal authority, Ergo, He had authority to depose them, will justify all Pirates, and thieves in their spoils; all Tyrants in their usurpations; and will impeach this authority of the Pope, which you would hereby defend. For (as your Cardinal doth confess) 
b Bellarm quo supra.  Many Emperors have deposed many Popes. Therefore from the act done to conclude a right of doing is no good argument. Let us therefore examine the work by the square, and not the square by the work; and by the law of doing, try the lawfulness of the thing done. And first, beyond the antiquity of a thousand years granted, we find that the first who ever violently deposed an Emperor, is the last of them whom you cite for authority of deposing them. For 
c Lego & relego Regum & Imperatorun res gestas, & nusquam invenio quemquam illorum antè hunc Henricum Imperatorem, quem Gregorius 7. aliás Hildebrandus deposuit, à Summo Pontifice privatum. Otto frisingen's. lib. 6. Chron. cap. 35. ut refert Tolossanus lib. 26. de R●pub. cap. 5.  I read and read (saith your Otto Frisingensis) and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. called Hildebrand, (in the year 1060.) was the first Pope that ever deprived an Emperor of his regiment. 
d Hildebrandus ●uit, qui novello schismate regnum & sacerdotium scindens, primus sacerdotalem lancem contra diadema elevans; se, s●o●; exemplo Pontifices alios contra Principes & excommunicatos gladio accinxit. Claud. Espen●. Epise. C●mm. in Tim. lib. 2. digress. pag. 275.  He was the first Pope (saith your bishop Espencaeus) who by making a new rent betwixt Kingdom and Popedom did raise force against the Imperial diadem, arming himself & by his example excited other Popes against Princes excommunicate. An act new, you see; and that it is also nought will appear by the Actor. 
e Gregorius septimus, qu● ipsum omnes Italiae Episcopi iampridem excommunicassent, quia sedem Apostolicam per Simoniacam haeresin occupasset, & aliis capitalibus c●iminibus polluisset; Regem autem secus ac decuit egisse, quòd homini haeretico & probris omnibus infamato maiestatem regiam submiserit. Scaffneburg. In Anno 1077.  Pope Greg. the 7. (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic See by Simony and other Capital crimes.   

There is an Instance given in the Donation of Constantine, which proveth the Popes to have been notable forgerers. The Romish Pretence.  

f Bonifacius Papa ad Philippum Franciae Regem ita scripsit: Noveris te in spiritualibus & temporalibus nobis subesse; & oppositum sentientes haereticos esse reputamus, & declaramus. Carer. lib. 1. de Pont. potest. cap. 3.  Boniface Bishop of Rome, (so saith Carerius) writ to Philip King of France: to let him understand that Philip ought to acknowledge unto him both spiritual and temporal subjection, and whosoever shall think otherwise (saith Boniface) we judge and declare him an Heretic.   

The Answer.  
May it be lawful for us to ask you by what law this temporal is assumed? 
g Constantini donatio saus contra haereticos à nostris defensa & probata est. Sanderus lib. 4. de Clavib. David. cap. 4.  There is extant the Donation of Constantine (saith Sanders) sufficiently defended against all Heretics. Then belike this jurisdiction was from man and not from God. 
h Quam Catholici veram esse fatentur: quae quidem potius redditio dici debet, quia Constantinus reddidit Christi Vicario, quod tyrannicam autoritate diu det●●uerat, ut dicamus cum Tu●… ceremata, De Eccle. lib. 2. cap. 41. Pontificem Romanum habere dominium temporale immediatè à Deo, declaratiuè à Concilijs, à Constantino promulgaticè. Carerius lib. 2. de Pont. cap. 21.  Not so (saith Carerius) for it was rather a restitution than a Donation, because he did but return it, being a Christian, which he had received by Tyrannical usurpation, being an Heathen: therefore according to the judgement of Turrecremata, did not now so much give it as publish it to be due to the Pope. What was contained in this schedule? 
i In ipsa Donationis pagina contulit in Pontisicem Regnum S. ciliae, Neopolitanum, Italiae, Galliae, Hispaniae, Germaniae, ●ritannae, totum deniquè occidentem. Valla Declam. de Donat. Constant. And this is expressly challenged in the form of the pretended donation.  There was herein specified (saith your Valla, and so is the tenor of the Donation) a conveyance of the kingdom of Sicily, Naples, all Italy, France, Spain, the Countries of the Germans, and Britan's, and all the Western part of the world. This is a goodly gift, if it be good: but I hear Luther say, 
k Ingens est hoc mendacium, quod tamen reperitur Dist. 96. etc. Luther. Tract. adverse. Pa●….  It is a large lie. But you had rather hear your Doctors speak, although they may seem partial, because yours. 
l Antiqui probatae fidei Autores, qui omnia gesta Constantini scripserunt diligentissimè, eius Donationis mentionem nullam faciunt. Canus loc. theol. lib. 1. cap. 5.  The most ancient Historians, authors of best credit (saith your Canus) and such as purposely, and most diligently recorded the acts of Constantine, and yet make no mention of any such Donation: 
m Quam Pius secundus Pontifex, ut adulterinam & subdititiam refellit; invehiture; contra miseros (ut eius verbo utar) Legistas, qui tantùm sudant disputando a●…d valuerit, quod nullo unquam tempore fuit. Balbus de coronat. ad Carol. 5. Imperatorem.  Which Pius the second Pope of Rome, did (as saith your bishop Balbus) 
* Infra cap. 12. in Ballus test. & cap. 13. by Popish Lawyers.  prove to be a slatte counterfeit. So that now your Pope's temporal hold should be forfeited, because it doth appear that your Pastor, in this challenge, is a mere impostor. The Donation is called palea, and therefore as light chaff I pass this over. What is your next claim?    

CHAP. XII.  
Popish Arguments from Reason. The first, wherein they (failing to prove the temporal dominion of the Pope by succession) endeavour to prove it from success.  

The Romish Pretence.  

a Romanos Pontifices urbis Romae non solùm possessionem, verùm etiam dominium iamdiù adeptos esse nemo est qui nesciat: stupenda quidem res, & supra quam dici possit admiranda; ut cum potentissimi quique Imperatores per aliquot secula omnem suam vim in ex●erminandis ex v●be Roma Pontificibus Romanis srustrà explicàssent, nunc è contrario Pontifices Romani absque ulla vi Romano: Imperatores ex arce imperi● semoverunt, palatijs Caesarum atque adeò totâ urbe in suam proprietatem conversa. Digitus Dei est hic. Saunder. lib. 4. de Clau●b. Daui●. cap. 4.  THe Popes of Rome have long since got not only possession but also dominion of the city of Rome: a matter to be wondered at, to see how after that the Emperors had many times sought to root out the Popes of Rome by force, the Popes have 
b Id quod divina providentia factum est. Bellar. lib. 1. de Conc. cap. 13. §. Quarta. etc.  contrarily removed the Emperors out of Rome, the chief town of their Empire; and the property of Caesar's palaces and the city of Rome is without force come unto the Pope. This (saith Sanders) is the singer of God: This (saith Bellarmine) is God's providence.   

The Answer.  
As though that which is without force might not be by 
* Proved. Vide infra.  craft; or that they who pretend a 
* Vide supra. cap. 11.  forged donation, of the Emperor Constantine, (as your own Pope called it before he was Pope) would want art to delude his Successors. It it not impossible for Pirates to build a ship, for spoil, and call it God's providence. Which will so much rather appear in this, by how much more you labour to obscure it: for 
c Ex Pontificibus primus Bonifacius nonus Anno Domini 1400 urbis Romae sibi dominatum vindicare tentavit. Balbus Episc. detoronat. §. Post mortem.  Boniface the 9 (as your own Balbus noteth) was the first who did assay to challenge there giment of Rome to himself, which was in the year of Christ 1400. And this was but a forged challenge too, as is evident, because 
d Carolus Quintus ex Imperatoribus Christianis primus urbem Romam unà cum oppidis undique circum sedi Apostolicae habendam sumendamque donavit. Ibid. §. Munificentia.  Emperor Charles the fifth, (about the year 1550.) was the first that bestowed the city of Rome and the Territories adjoining upon the Pope.    

CHAP. XIII.  
Their second Reason from a pretended right of Confirmation of Emperors, to conclude a power of abrogation and deposing.  

a Imperator in electione sua à Papa approbatur & confirmatur, & tanquam minister summi Pontificis gladium ad Pontificis nutum exercens: Ergo est quod ex nutu Pontificis reprobatur & deponitur. Molina. Ies. Tract. 2. de Iust●…. disp. 29. ad 2.  THe Emperor in his election is confirmed by the Pope, and as the Pope's minister is to use the sword at his command, and at his command be is deposed. Prove this. 
b Hoc in eoru●… coronatione & consecratione fidelitatisque praestito juramento apparet. Carerius lib. 2. de Potest. Pont. cap. 17.  This is apparent by the oath that he taketh at his coronation. Prove this. 
c Propterea in D. Cap. Venerabilem, de elect. Papa loquens in persona sua, inquit; Ius & autoritas examinandi personam electam in Regem, & promovere ad imperium ad nos spectat, qui eum ungimus & consecramus. Carerius ibid. cap. 18.  The Pope himself saith of himself, that the right and authority of examining the person elected (saith he) to be a King or Emperor belongeth to us, who do anoint and consecrate him. What will you prove by this? 
d Et cum vacat potestas temporalis, in Administratione Papa succedit: sic enim va. cante imperio concludit Innoc. Abb. & Felin. & est casus Clem. Past. in sin. de re Ind.  In every vacancy of temporal States the Pope is Successor in the government. What yet more? 
e Quinimò de causa vel dubio aliquo inter Imperatorem & Pontificem, Papa erit judex competens; imò de causa vel dubio inter Papam & Imperatorem cognoscat Papa. Clement. Rom. §. Caeterùm de iur●iurand. Carer. lib. 2. de Potest Rom. cap. 16.  That when there ariseth any doubt betwixt the Emperor and a Prince, the Pope is a competent judge; yea, when there is a cause or doubt betwixt the Pope and Emperor, the Pope himself is judge.  

The Answer.  
You know the fable: If the wolf may judge the sheep in the cause of troubling the water, the wolf will be the guilty, but the sheep shall be the condemned. But that you say [The Emperor is not without the approbation of the Pope,] is false: And your Consequents, [Ergo the Pope doth succeed in vacancy; Ergo he may depose] are both frivolous and preiudicious to your own cause. To the Antecedent: your Bishop Lupoldus hath satisfied long sithence, saying: 
f Electus in Regem aut Imperatorem post electionem Principum concordem, vel ex maiore part ipsorum de se factam, à Papa vel ab Ecclesia Romana nominationem vel personae approbationem petere & recipere non tenetur. Lupoldus Epise. Bubenburg. lib. de jure Regni & Imperij Rom. cap. 8. in initio.  That he that is chosen Emperor by the consent of the greater part of electors, needeth not either seek or receive any approbation of the Pope. This doth your other learned bishop 
g Rationes, quibus evincitur ex sola electione aliquem verum & legitimum Imperatorem nec confirmatione Pontificis indigere, probatur ex constitutione Ludovici Baivari Imperato: is de Imperij iuribus & excellentia: qui legem sancivit, promulgavitque, in qua haec ad verbum habentur [Quia nonnulli avaritiae & ambitionis coecitate ducti, divertentes à tramite recti sensus in quaedam prava commenta, & assertiones detestabiles prorumpant, FALLACITER asserentes Imperialem potestatem esse à Papa, electumque in Imperatorem non esse verum Imperatorem, nec Regem, nisi prius per Papam confirmetur, approbetur, coronetur: per huiusmodi prava dogmata Serpens antiquus SEDITIONES procurat. Ideò ad tantum malum evi. tandum de consilio & CONSENSV ELECTORUM & aliorum P●…ncipum Impe●… declaramus, IMPERIALE●… dignitatem & potestatem à SOLO DEO pendere; nec postquam electio si● Pontificis consensu indigere qui●unque contra hoc decretum aliquod ASS●●ERE aut asserentibus consentire praesumpserint, eos omnibus fe●…dis & priuilegi●s, quae ab imperio detin●t, PRIVAMUS & ipso ●ure & facto decernimus esse p●…tos. jusuper eos CRIMEN LA●SAE MAIESTATIS incurrisse, & poe●…s omnibus impositis cumen laesae maiestaus committentibus subracere. H●c omnia 〈◊〉 us Ep●sc. G●…ce●s lib. de Coronat. ad C●…r●…m 5. Imperat § Rationes etc. & Constitutio. etc.  Balbus by many arguments determine, and to this end produceth A public decree of the Emperor Lodovic, by the consent of all the electors: Ad ●…ging All such as deny the imperiali dignity to depend only of God, as not needing the Pope's confirmation, to be seditious, and presently they that deny it, and whosoever consenteth unto th●…, to be reputed as guilty of high Treason, and to incur all the p●…s due to so great a guilt We proceed now to your consequent: and first show the novelty of your claim. 
h Veruntamen qu●cunque ratione ad Pontificatum pateret ingress●s, nemo Apostoli●ae cymbae gubernacula capescebat nisi prius Imperatoris autoritas intercessisser, ut cap. Adrianus in Syn. 30. Dist. Mos e●…m apud veteres inu●l●erat longo annorum decursu obseruatus, ut Cleritus populusque Romanus Pontificem eligeret; quo designato in▪ Imperatoris manu erat eius electionem ratam initamque habere. Cap. Agatho. Dist. 63. 〈◊〉 ut collubitum fuerat, aut eum admittere approbareque, aut 〈◊〉 reiecto atque exploso alium subrogare: Duravitque is mos usque ad Adrianum, anno salutis 815; qui tanti a●…mi fuit, ut initio Pontificatus su●, ad senatum populumque Romanum retulerit, ne●… creando Pontifice Imperatoris autoritas expectaretur, utque libera essent cleri populin; Romara suffragia. Sed huic edicto minimè fuit obtemperatum, permansitque VETVS illa consu●tudo Pontificis 〈…〉 Imperatore confirmand●, use ne ad Gregor. 9 qu● praefuit Pontificatui anno Christi 1072. quem Gregor. (ut a●… Pla●…) in Pontificem Romanum confirmavit, ut tunc tempo is mos erat. NUNC AUTEM NOVA RERUM FACIES fortuna immurata est 〈◊〉 contra●… eflante: C●… legum interpretes hanc (ut puttest) Imperij calamitatem deplora●e non desinunt, & causantur ASIV potius DOLOQVE, quam ex aequo bonoque tam certa diuturna●ue 〈◊〉 Caesares amisisle ex longa Impe●●j vacation; non enim potentià prudentia●u. Summorum Pontificum tantum decoris esle ademptum. Haec ille, qui mutationem non 〈◊〉, ●…usa● tripl●… asserit. Vel Imperatores privile▪ ●…te à se abdi●…sse, vel ex abusu perdidisse, vel ad extremum cessant causà p●…g●…, è v●…o p●… evanuisle. Haec, inquam, Balbus Episc. lib. de Coronat. ad C●r●…nt 5. Imperatorem. §. Quomodò olim.  For (as the same your author witnesseth) It was an ancient custom and of long continuance, and till Adrian the Pope in the year of Christ 815. without contradiction, that the Emperor did confirm the election of the Pope, that none could be Pope without the approbation of the Emperor: which custom after the death of Adrian was enforce, till Pope Gregory the 9 which was in the year 1072. But now we see a new and contrary countenance of the state of Christendom, which the Lawyers deplore as miserable, and complain that the Emperor lost his privilege by cozenage and deceit. etc. How it was we leave the case to be disputed among your Romists: that here is a change of Antiquity it is not denied, either by your Balbus, or 
i Aliquando saecularis Principis, ut Imperatores & alij, Pontificem eligebant, ut patet Cap. Adrianus. & cap. Agatho. Quae privilegia durabant usque ad tempora Adriani Secundi. Carerius lib. 1. de potest. Pont. cap. 17.  Carerius, or any other. Hence we argue.  
That if power of approbation of the election of the Emperor do confer a temporal authority Imperial upon the Pope, then when the Pope was confirmed by Emperors there was in the Emperor a spiritual authority over the Pope: if you will deny our latter consequent, than you teach us to deny your former.    

CHAP. XIIII.  
Their third Argument from a presumed danger.  

The Romish Pretence.  

a The Apology and Defence of the English Catholics. cap. 5.  EXcept there were a way of deposing Apostate Princes, God had not provided sufficiently for his Church.   

The Answer.  
This objection is in your 
b Non videretur Dominus satis discretus fuisse, ut cum reverentia eius dicam, Extravag. Come de Maior. & Obedient. §. unam sanctam.  Extravagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth Extra without the bonds of God's ordinance, beside the presidence of primitive example, beyond the compass of your own allowance.  
First from God's ordinance. 
c An igitur, inquiunt, nunquam Principibus resistere liceat? huic quaestioni non corrupto & temerario carnis nostrae judicio, cui frequentèr recta sunt, quae coram Deo stultissima & impia reputantur; sed ea diu nis literis, quae nemini blandiuntur, respondendum esse puto. Nam utcunque verisimilitèr nobis humanitùs ratiocinari videmur, naturali iure nobis licitum esse nos nostraque defendere: Divina tamen Lexid contra sublimiorem potestatem armis fierivetat: quemadmodum Christus Dominus Petro volenti Dominum defendere, dixit [Convert gladium tuum in vaginam tuam, omnes enim qui gladium acceperint gladio peribunt] Non enim subditi contra Potestatem, sed potestas contra subditos gladium divinitùs accepit. Cunerus lib. de Offic. Princ. cap. 7.  For by the word of God (as your Cunerus divinely reasoneth) which is not partial, and not by the self-pleasing fancy of sensual affection must this question be determined. Though therefore it may seem to us a decree of nature for every one to defend himself and the things he doth enjoy; yet the law of God doth forbid to do this by taking arms against the higher powers: as our L. Christ taught his Disciple now about to defend his Master, [Put up thy sword, for he that smiteth with the sword, shall perish with the sword.] Because the sword is not put into the hands of Subjects against their Kings, but into the hands of Kings against Subjects. Accordingly S. Augustine doth conclude. 
d Omnes gladio divim judicij pe●ituti sunt, qui contra Principis voluntatem glad●… assumunt: ideoque simplicitèr & generatim ab Apostolo dictu est, [Qiu potestan resistit, Dei ordinatio●… resistit; qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi damnavonem acquirunt.] ●t alibi.  Those who bear the sword (saith he) against rulers, must perish: therefore the Apostle speak 
* Non defendentes vosmet, charissimi, sed date locum irae, scriptum est enim, Mihi vindicta & ego retribuam, dicit Dominus: Noli vinci à malo, sed vince bono malum. Aug. lib. 2. cont. Fausium. cap. 73.  th' generally, [
* Rom. 13.  He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.] And again [
* Rom. 11.  not defending yourselves, (my Dearest) but give place to wrath (of the Governor) for it is written, vengeance is mine, (therefore no revenging power over Kings) and I will revenge, saith the Lord: be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.]  
The second is the consideration of examples of the primitive Church, when for the space of 300. years, it was in grievous persecution: where (as S. Paul speaketh) the faithful 
* Rom. 12. 19  fought with beasts after the manner of men: namely, (as some do allegorize) with men as savage as beasts; and there was found no power on earth to restrain that earthly power. Was therefore God awanting to his Church? God forbid. Nay rather he was not wanting, for it is written, 
* 1. Cor. 15. 32.  Virtue is perfected in infirmity. And again, 
* 2. Cor. 12. 9  As gold is purgedin the fire, So by affliction etc. Because, 
* 2. Cor. 22.  When the outward man suffereth the inward man is renewed: And 
* 2. Cor. 12.  When I am weak, then am I strong. As therefore the wisdom of the Artist is then present with the gold, when he is refining it; the Physician with his Patient when he woundeth to cure him: So whensoever the three faithful be in the fiery furnace 
* Dan. 3. 25.  Behold a fourth, that is, a divine succourer either by the inward miracle of comfort in patience, or the outward of deliverance.  
The third is the view of your own Popish Principles, which is this: 
e Pontisex non potest ullo modo ●udicari in terris ab ullo Principe saeculari, siuè Ecclesiastico, neque ab omnibus simul in Concilio congregatis. Bellar lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. cap. 26.  That the Pope (saith Bellarmine) may not be judged of any person upon earth, whether secular or Ecclesiastical, no not of a general council: 
f Etsi Papa contra universalem Ecclesiae statum aliquid ageret, non possit tamen à Concilio depo●i. Carerius lib. 1. de potest. Pont cap. 23. num. 12.  Nether may be (saith your Carerius) be deposed, though he should do something contrary to the universal state of the Church, 
g Quaeres quid si●… se Pontifex Canon's legesque ●…ura negligat, delicta im●… relinquat, innocentes opprimat, res Ecclesiae dissi e●▪ Regu●. iura pe●…tat? Respondeo Rom. Pontificem nulli Princi●um in terris ●…e, à nullo nisi à Deo iud●…: pro eo orandum etc. A●…. Ies. Instit. lib. 5. cap. 14. E●… Autores sibi Suffragantes plurimos adducit.  As for example (saith your Azorius) though he should neglect the Canons of the Church, spare offenders, oppress Innocents', make a pray of the goods of the Church, and violate the laws of Kings: yet is he not to be judged of any but God. 
h Dist. 40. Si Papa offecit tibi. & alus omnibus nihilo ●…us innumerabiles populos cat●…m secu●…n du●… man●…●o Gehennae, huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium. ●…ritur in Calend. Martyrum.  Not though (saith your Pope himself, one placed in the Calends of your Martyrs) he should carry many people with himself to hell: yet no mortal creature may presume to say, why do you so? here is a desperate disease, wherein you will not suffer so much as practise of Phlebotomy, much less an incision or exustion. And yet in like case against the secular state object God's providence: said I like? O no, far different!   

The difference of Kings and Popes in this point.  
The Papal power will be thought spiritual; and thus being evil, may be the bane of souls, the power of Princes is but corporal, 
* Matth. 20. 28  [Therefore ●●are them not] because they can go no further than the body. Now the bodily tyranny worketh in the godly, patience, patience supports martyrdom, martyrdom gaineth a crown of life: Therefore this evil with patience may happily be endured; but the spiritual tyranny doth captivate the inward soul, the sou●…c commands the senses, these practice sin, and the stipend of sin is death, even the everliving death of hell. Therefore here is need (according to God's providence) of power to depose so desperate a spiritual evil, whereof it is written: 
* Matth. 5. 13.  If the salt want his salinesse, it is good for nothing, but to to be cast upon the Dunghill. Mark then concerning the spiritual that God hath ordained, Eijciatur foras, cast out: concerning the temporal, 
* Rom. 1●.  Resist not the powers.    

CHAP. XV.  
The Arguments of Protestants against the pretended Papal power over Kings from 

1. Scripture,  
2. Fathers,  
3. Reasons.    

1. Scriptures. In the Old Testament.  
IT is granted us for the old Testament that 
* Supra cap. 1. & 3. & 5.  Priests were subject to their Kings; and the necessity of due subjection to wicked Kings, we have exemplified in 
* Supra cap. 4.  David the mirror of all perfect loyalty: which case is made more lively by the Answer to the example of 
* Supra cap. 5.  Eliah.   

Scriptures. In the New Testament. Of many one shall suffice.  
Rom. 13. 
* Rom. 13. 1.  [Let every soul be subject to the higher powers:] If you doubt what power this is to whom subjection is due; look what he hath in his hand, 
* vers. 4.  He beareth not the sword for nought: It is a sword therefore power temporal, if from whom this is due, it appeareth, 
* vers. 1.  Every soul be subject, all other conditions of reasonable men: If why? this is expressed, 
* vers. 1.  For the power is ordained of God. The point in question is concerning the Subject: The Romish seek two enasions to free their Pope from subjection.   

The Romish pretence.  

a Obijciunt Protestantes ex hoc loco, concludunt etiam Pontifices Regibus subiectos esse debere. Respondeo negando consequ●…, quia alia est ratio Principum infidelium, alia Christianorum, etc. Costerus Ies. Euchirid. Tract. de summo Pont. Object. 11.  From this place the Protestants conclude, that therefore the Pope ought to be subject: But I deny their consequent, for the Apòstle writeth of subjection to Heathen Emperors, to whom every Christian was to submit themselves: But now that Emperors be Christians, they ought to acknowledge a superior power in the spiritual Pastor the Pope.   

The Reply.  
This your solution doth destroy a general maxim, confessed of all divines, to wit, that (as your Acosta confesseth) 
b Omnes fatentur, & est persecertu, etiamsi Barbari convertantur ad Christum, non tamen re●um suarum iure excide●e. Acosta les. lib. 3. de Inforum salate. cap. 7.  Insidels converted to Christian faith, do not therefore lose their former temporal right. Which we have already proved by your own confessions, and more than ten circles of Antiquity. We argue further now from this known principle; Princes by conversion to the Gospel lose no temporal right, which they had before their conversion: But in the state of Infidelity we never read that they could be deposed by their Pagan Priests. Ergo, this their prerogative may not be impaired by their obedience unto the Gospel: nay, it is rather confirmed thereby, even in this text, especially in three degrees.  
First, it teacheth greater Christian reverence, because in the Prince a Christian man doth not behold only man, but the hand of God, 
* Rom. 13. 4.  He is the Minister of God. Secondly, from Christian fear: For Pagans, as hirelings, only performed obedience propteriram, for fear of the temporal Sword; which man (because it is in the hand of man) might avoid by many means: But Christians, [
* Rom. 13. 2  He that resisteth purchaseth damnation,] are dutiful for fear of the eternal wrath of the just omnipotent God. Thirdly, from Christian confidence, For Pagans, assoon as the King doth tyrannize, do rebel, as though freedom corporal were their special good: but Christians 
* Rom. 13. 3.  [Wil't thou not fear the power? do good and thou shalt have praise of God in suffering outward evil for well doing are confirmed in the hope of an everlasting good. Fourthly, from the bond of Christian love, for Pagans by their Prince's commands are naturally inclined to discontent and hate: but Christians [
* vers. 8.  Love is the fulfilling of the law] are by the law of Love made perfect to obey the just laws of men. If therefore Christians would, as they ought, be subject to the law of Christ, I suppose there is no Pagan Prince (if persuaded of this doctrine of Christ) but would more easily be a Christian.   

Their second Evasion. The Romish Pretence.  

c Apostolus hoc in loco non restring● personam ad Principem saeculare, sed d●omn. potestate loquitur tàm spirituali quam seculari: ita ut ex hac sententia deduci Papam subditum esse Regi, aut Regem Papae etc. Bellarm. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. §. Argumentum tertium.  The Apostle doth not restrain his speech to any kind of superior power, but speaketh generally of [pours that be:] signifying aswell the spiritual power, as the temporal. Therefore Protestant's may not conclude hereupon, that the Pope ought to be subject unto temporal Kings.   

The Answer.  
If we suffer the spirit of God to be our judge the cause is plain, [He beareth not the sword in vain,] he meaneth the temporal Governor: If we require witness of this truth from all antiquity, behold 
d Apostolus docet omnes credentes mundi potestaubus esse subiectos: [Omnis anima,] Id est (Chrysostomus ait) siuè Propheta, fiuè Apostolus, fiuè Episcopus, subditus sit: sequitur Chrysostomum Euthymius, Theod. The●● hylact. Oecumen. & qui non Graeci? Idem Gregorius Magnus agnoseebat. & Bernardus ad Episcopum Senonensem idem colligit, [Omnis anima] tum vestra, inquit, quis vos excipit? si quis tentat excipere, tentat decipere. Espentans Epis. Comm. in 1. Tim. D●gress. lib. 2.  S. Chrysostome (saith your own Bishop, and that truly) doth understand by (every soul) that every Apostle, every Prophet, and every Bishop ought to be subject: To whom do other ancient Fathers, as Euthym. Theod. Theoph. Oecumen. and all the Greek Doctors agree. Yea Gregory surnamed the Great, Bishop of Rome, doth so likewise expound it: and S. Bernard in his Epistle to a Bishop said th●… (Every soul) saith the Apostle: then must you also (speaking the bishop of Senona) be subject, he that shall offer to exempt you, shall but offer to tempt and delude you.    

CHAP. XVI.  
Arguments of Protestants from Antiquity.  
HE that is Alpha and Omega, first for Antiquity, and last for Eternity, Christ our Saviour (by the confession of your grand 
a Bellarm. vide supra. cap. 7.  jesuit) as he was man and the Messias, had no power temporal on this earth.  
Secondly, S. Peter and the other Apostles (as is also confessed by your most vehement 
b Carerius & Sanderus vide cap. 7.  Advocates in their plea for Papal hierarchy) were all subject to the temporal States.  
Thirdly, all ancient holy Popes, Martyrs, Fathers, (as is 
c Vide supra cap 9 & deinceps.  commonly granted) yea when they had force to resist the violence of Tyrants, Heretics, and Apostates; did perform subjection to temporal government, as the ordinance of God, 
d Vide supra cap. 9  Tertullian saying, If we would be revenged we could not want force: 
e Ibidem. cap. 9  S. Cyprian, We do not resist, although our number be great: S. 
f Ibidem. cap. 9  Nazianzen, Not though the people be prone to resist you: S. 
g Ibidem. cap. 9  Ambrose, Not when the people are present and offer a defence: S. 
h Ibidem. cap. 9  Augustine yielding the cause, Because Christian subjection is to be performed in love, and not in fear or by constraint. A doctrine for those times, namely, the first 600. years in general use, saith your 
i Vide supra cap. 10.  Bellarmine: And continued after Christ the space of 1000 years saith your 
k Ibidem.  Be●●la●●s: never changed till the year 1060. saith your 
* Supra ca 11.  Tolossanus, Friburgens. Espencaeus and others. And shall we dare to remove 
* Deut. 27. 17.  The ancient Landmarks of our forefathers?   

CHAP. XVII.  
Other Proofs of Protestants from Antiquity in two most Christian and potent Nations: England, and France.  
THat this sovereignty of his Majesty (whereunto, notwithstanding all Papal jurisdiction, we do willingly subscribe) may be known to be as anciently as earnestly challenged, I will only point at some few heads of examples of our ancient Christian Kings, which Sir Edward Cook, his majesties Attorney general, in his always reportable and memorable Reports hath lately published.  

a Reports. part. 1. fol. 12.  In the reign of K. Edward the first, a Subject brought in a 
1  Bull of excommunication against another Subject of this realm, and published it: But it was answered that this was then, according to the ancient laws of England, Treason against the King; the Offender had been drawn and hanged, but that by the mercy of the Prince he was only abjured the Realm. Compare this Bull, which did only push at a Subject against his benefice, with that Bull which more mankeen goareth Kings, to give them their mortal wound. At the same time The Pope by his Bull had by way of provision bestowed a benefice upon one within the province of York; the King presented another: the Archbishop refuseth the King's presentation, and yielded to the Pope's provision. This Archbishop then by the common law of the land was deprived of the lands of his whole Bishopric during life.  

b Reports. fol. 15.  In the reign of King Edward the third, the King presented 
2  to a Benefice, and his Presentee was disturbed by one, who had obtained Bulls from Rome, for the which cause he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Compare this Bull of disturbing only the Present of Kings with that which doth ordinarily violate the King's person.  

c Fol. 21.  In the reign of Richard the second it was declared in the 
3  Parliament [R. 2. cap. 2.] that England had always been f●ce, and in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to God and to none other: and that the same ought not in any thing, touching the regality of the crown, to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome, nor the laws of their Realm by him frustrated at his pleasure. Compare this English King immediately not subject to the Pope, and the above mentioned jesuitical principle, 
* Supra.  All Kings are indirectly subject to Popes.  

d Fol. 23.  In the reign of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed 
4  that Excommunication made by the Pope is of no force in England. Compare this Of no force in England, with those excommunications which in these later times have been made 
* Supra.  against England.  

e Fol. 26.  In the reign of King Edward the fourth, the opinion of the 
5  King's bench was, that whatsoever spiritual man should sue another spiritual man in the Court of Rome for a matter spiritual, where he might have remedy before his Ordinary within the Realm, did incur the danger of praemunire, being an heinous offence against the honour of the King his crown and dignity. Compare this with their Acts, who have made no other suit at Rome, but means to dispossess English Kings of their crown and dignity. Many other examples of like nature I pretermit, and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied to the book of Reports, Habet enim ille quod det, & dat nemo largius. The conclusion is, that that challenge of Sovereignty which was in opposition to the Pope's Bulls, ancient right and justice in Kings which were predecessors, be not traduced now as an irreligious impiety, in the successors. The like might be spoken of France, but I hasten to the last Argument, presuming that my studious Reader perusing the French stories will ease me of that travel.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
The last Argument of Protestants from Reason.  
IT will be sufficient only summarily to recapitulate the Arguments dispersed in this former Treatise.  
The first Reason was long since Christened: for The Apostles (saith your 
a Supra cap. 7.  Sanders) did choose rather to suffer evil, than to revenge: wherein they were seconded by other heroical Martyrs of Christ, Who thought (saith your 
b Supra cap. 8.  Tolossanus) their faith glorified in this, that being persecuted, yet they performed obedience. Questionless they had some reason hereof: One is specified by S. Cyprian, 
c Ibidem.  Christians must be Preachers of the supernatural virtue patience, and not of vengeance.  
Another by S. Augustine, that 
d Ibidem.  Enduring the misery of this life, they may avouch their hope of a life eternal. And lastly by Arnobius, Hereby to make distinction of Christian obedience, from that other of Pagans: that whereas these yield only obedience proceeding from fear of man, ours should appear to be from Conscience towards God.  
The second Reason is politic, which is that of your 
* Supra cap. 6.  Victoria, that the Clergy be members of the commonwealth: Ergo, they ought to be subject unto the state temporal. I will add another of this kind which we borrowed from your Acosta, showing that licence of deposing Kings, is an 
Supr. cap. 10.  occasion of much spoils and bloodshed.  
The third Reason is violent enforcing you by your own confessions to grant our conclusion; your confessions be of two kinds; first, 
f Bellarmine and all jesuits. vide supra.  The Pope hath not temporal Sovereignty over Kings directly, but only indirectly, in ordine ad bonum spirituale, that is, as the temporal doth necessarily help or advance the spiritual good of the Church. But 
g Quia sequeretur hinc, quòd nec Rex directè Dominus esset in temporalibus, quia cuilibet Regi competit dominium in ordine ad spiritualia, ut ad justitiam administrandam. Carerius lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 7. n. 13.  So you may as well say (saith your Carerius) that a King hath not jurisdiction temporal, but only indirectly; because his authority doth intend a spiritual good, a● namely preservation of justice in a commonwealth. And he saith truly as may be confirmed by Saint Augustine. 
h Alitèr serviunt Reges, quia homines sunt, aliter quia Reges; quia homines sunt, Deo serviunt rectè vivendo; ut Reges sunt in regno suo bona iubendo mal áque prohibendo, non solùm quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam quae ad Divinam religionem conseruandam conducunt leges sanciendo. Augustinus supra.  A king as a man (saith he) doth serve God by his own good life; as a King, by governing other men's lives, to see that they do that which is good: It is his office not only to ordain laws for the preservation of the politic peace, but also to establish true religion. From hence I conclude: that if this your distinction be good The Pope hath temporal jurisdiction over Kings to depose them, indirectly: that is, as far forth as may be behooveful for Religion: then must you grant that Kings have jurisdiction temporal only indirectly, because their Office also is ordained of God [in ordine ad Deum] as a minister of God for defence of his Church. If your position be false, then hath not your Pope that power over Princes, no not indirectly.  
The second Confession I take from Carerius, your most importunate, and most impudent magnifier of Papal authority, that (excepting your Bozius) we can read of. This Carerius reasoneth thus: 
i Donatio Constantini vel vera ●uit vel falsa; si vera, ut veri Catholici consitentur, ●…m constat quo iure (quasi dixerit Papali) Principes Ital●am caeterasque partes occidentales possideant: si verò est falsa, quânam autoritate Zacharias primus Pipino petenti Regnum Franciae confirmavit? Cur Leo tertius Carolum Magnum Imperatorem constituit? cur Alexand. 6. orbem terrarum partitus, insulasque novi orbis Arragonum Regi einsque haeredibus donavit, ut ex eius diplomate patet? Carerius lib. 2. de Donat. Constant. cap. 21. num. 14.  The Donation of Constantine to the Pope (whereby the possession of all the kingdoms in Europe were bestowed upon the Pope) was either true or false; if true, than the Princes of the West parts hold their thrones by the Pope's authority: if false, then had Pope Zachary no authority to confirm K. Pepin of France, nor Leo the third to constitute Emperor Charles the great etc. This your Doctor giveth us this antecedent proposition. If the pretended Donation of Constantine to the Pope be counterfeit, then hath not the Pope authority to dispose of these Kingdoms. But, 
* Canus vide supra.  That pretended donation (by your own confession) is fabulous: so false is it, as this is certain, 
k Balbus supra. cap. 12.  That no Pope was possessed of the dominion of the city of Rome, till the year of our Lord 1400. Insomuch, that 
l Anno 755. donavit Pipinus Romanis Pontificibus Exarchatum Ravennae, cum magna part Italiae, ut Historici testantur. Bellar. lib. 3. de Pont. cap. 3.  Bellarmine can find no title of the Pope till the year 755. To the Dukedom of Ravenna.  
The fourth from a necessary consequent, strengthened by the authority of S. Bernard, who writeth unto Eugenius the Pope concerning this very point. His argument is; The successor of S. Peter cannot challenge any authority as descending from Peter, which Peter had not in himself: 
m Apostolis interdicitur dominatus; ergo aut tu usurpare audi aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolus dominatum? Et paulò post: Non iure Apostolico haec tibi vendicares, neque enim ille, quod non habuit, tibi dare potuit. Bernard. lib. 2. de Consider. ad Eugen.  But Peter had not this temporal. Ergo, (for Eugenius did not challenge it directy essential to the Popedom) the Pope, by S. Bernard's judgement, may not assume any such authority either directly or indirectly.  
We may conclude, that both direct scripture, torrent of Fathers, and evidence of reasons do all confute this Papal Usurpation over Kings as a challenge merely ambitious, fraudulent, and rebellious. Come you therefore out of Babylon in this point with holy Bernard, and put upon you his Christian resolution: for writing to king Lewis, who was 
n Erat ei negotium cum Ludouico Crasso Rege improbo multa in Deum & homines flagitia perpetrante. Barclaius lib. 5. contra Monarchom. cap. 5. & 6.  A wicked man (saith your Barclay) multiplying most heinous crimes both against God and man: yet against the suggestions of the rebellious spirits of those times thus doth S. Bernard determine for himself: 
o Si totus mundus adversus me coniuraret, ut aliquid molirer adversus Regum maiestatem, ego tamen timerem Deum, & ordinatum ab eo Regem offendere temerè non auderen: Nec enim ignoro ubi legerim [Si quis potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, & qui resistit etc.] Bernard. Epist. 221. ad Lodo●icum regem.  Though all the world (saith he) should conspire against me, to move me to practise any conspiracy against the Majesty of the King, I would fear God, and not willingly offend the King ordained of God: for I cannot be ignorant of that which is written, [If any resisteth the power, he resisteth the ordinance of God, and purchaseth to himself damnation. etc. Mark, S. Bernard maketh this necessity of subjection an article of Christian morality necessarily to be defended upon danger of damnation: relying upon a canon: what, Papal? of Si quis nostris mandatis? etc. no, but 
* Rom. 13.  Apostolical, Si quis; If any resist regal powers, he resisteth the ordinance of God, & purchaseth damnation. Whereby you are taught never to delude your souls in any such mischiefs by presumption of your good intent, as for the Catholic cause, or, in ordine ad Deum, for that can never carry an order to God, which is against the ordinance of God. Who graciously sanctify you with that 
* 1. Pet. 2. 17.  Fear of God, which worketh Honour to your King, and glory, through patience, to our Christian faith.    

The second Member of this Third part, Which is a Confutation of the wicked doctrine of equivocation.  

CHAP. I.  
I Am now to encounter this new-bred Hydra, and ugly Monster, which lurked a while in the invisible practice of the Aequi●ocating sect; but, at length being discovered, is now by the Archpriest drawn into public by a solemn Approbation, as it were a golden chain, that it might hereby appear less monstrous.  

The Privilege of this Treatise of equivocation by their Archpriest.  

a Tractatus iste valdè doctus, verè pius, & Catholicus, certè sanctarum Scripturarun, Patrum, Doctorum, Scholasticorum, & optimarum rationum praesidijs plenissimè ●irmat aequitatem Aequivocationis: ideóque dignissimus est, qui typis propagetur ad consolationem afflictorum, & piorum instructionem. Ita censeo, Georgius Blackwellus Archi-Presbyter Angliae, & Protonotarius Apostolicus.  THis Treatise is very learned, godly, and Catholic: wherein doubtless the Author doth confirm the equity of equivocation by evidence of Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, School-divines, Canonists, and soundest reasons. A work● worthy to be published in print for the comfort of all afflicted catholics, and instruction of the godly.  
Thus do I judge, 
 George Blackwell Archpriest of England, 
 and the Apostolical Protonotary.   
All this is very semblable, for who could be more fit to commend this equivocation, a piece of black art, than Blackewell? Who can be more willing to autorize this equivocation, the Arch-piller of security for Romish Priests, than their Archpriest? And from whence rather shall a man expect a privilege of lying, then from that place (falsely called Apostolical) 
b Paulus 4. Pont. Max. cum de me in consacerdotum suorum collegium cooptando se cogitare seriò dixerat (nihil hic singo) Immortali Deo gratias immortales egi, quòd mihi tantum mali non permis●t Christus: Quid fa●erem Romae, mentiri nescio? Espenc●us Episc. epist. ante sex Tract. ad Cardinal. Castilion●um.  where (as their own learned Bishop saith) there is nothing but lying? Of which kind (by the assistance of the spirit of truth) I shall prove this equivocation to be, and also the approbation thereof: showing that not one iota in all Scripture, not one example in all Catholic antiquity, not one shadow of reason in all the wit of natural man can be brought for the just proof or colour of this Mystery of iniquity.  
First we must understand that our Aequivocatours teach a double kind of equivocation.  
The first is a mental reservation in the mind, differing from that which I outwardly express, whether it be by voice or writing. Their example: 
c The Preface in the front of the book of equivocation, and the Argument of the book.  If a Catholic or any other person before a Magistrate shall be demanded upon his oath, whether a Priest be in such a place, may (notwithstanding his perfect knowledge to the contrary) without perjury securely in conscience answer no, with a secret meaning reserved in his mind, namely that he is not there so, ut (loquar enim Latinè, ne hinc Idiotae ansam sibi arripiant nequitèr mentiendi) quis teneatur illud detegere.  
The second is a verbal equivocation, whether it be vocal, that is, uttered in the voice, or literal, that is, expressed in writing: when one word shall import two or more different significations: as thus, To go to fast: the word fast, whether vocal or literal, doth equally signify to abstain from meat, and also, to make haste. By liberty of this equivocation one merrily did play upon his friend going at dinner time to a churls house, O sir (saith he) you go to fast. But to use the example of our Aequivocatours; 
d The same popish Treatise, ●hap. 5.  If one shall ask whether such a stranger (this is for security of a Priest) lieth (meaning whether he lodge) in my house, I may answer he lieth not i● my house: meaning, non mentitur, and herein I say truth.  
Concerning these two kinds of Equivocations I make two conclusions to be manifested in this dispute.  
Our first conclusion is this; Every equivocation by a mental Reservation is not an hidden truth, but a gross ●…e.  
The second conclusion is this; Every equivocation, (whether it be mental or verbal) if it be used in an oath, though it be no lie, yet is it an abominable profanation of that sacred Institution of God; by whomsoever or to whomsoever this oath be performed.  
To prove that Aequiuocating by a mental Reservation is a lying falsehood, we must first distinguish of falsehood, lest the doubtfulness of this word falsehood, dull the understanding of my religious Reader, not to perceive the State of the Question.  
There is a double kind of falsehood in speech; The first hath respect to the thing spoken, the other to the mind of the speaker. The example of the former: If thinking it to be ten of the clock (when it is but nine) I shall say it is ten, this is false, but not a lie: Because 
e Nemo mentiens iudicandus est, qui dicit fal●um qu●d ●utat ●sse verum; quia, quantum in ipso est, non fallit ipse, sed fallitu●: lingu●m enim ream non fac●, nisi mens ●ea, Aug●st. ●n●hirid. cap. 18.  None must be judged a liar (saith Saint Augustine) who speaketh false, thinking it to be true which he speaketh: because herein his purpose is not to deceive the hearer, but he is only deceived in himself. The other, when thinking that to be false which I speak, I affirm it to be true, (and so on the contrary) as thinking it to be ten of the clock, shall say it is nine: thus whether it be ten, or no, I do lie: and thus sometimes a man doth lie in speaking a truth. As the Client, who having in his pocket both counterfeit and current gold, intending to cozen his Counsellor with the worse metal, by chance gave him the better, saying; Sir, I cannot be unthankful to any that shall deserve well, here is an Angel, and so he departed a falsely true, a deceived deceiver, and an unthankfully thankful man. The first kind of false speech is against truth, as it is defined Logically, A congruity or consent of the speech with the thing: the second falsehood is defined morally, as it is opposite to truth, which is a consonancy of the speech with the understanding of the speaker, and this falsity we call properly a lie. 
f Ille falsum loquitur contra scientiam, iste contra conscientiam, & verè mentitur. August. contr. me●d. cap. 5.  The former kind (saith S. Augustine) speaketh falsely for want of knowledge: the latter speaketh falsely against his knowledge and conscience, properly a liar. And only of this liar now we frame our dispute.   

CHAP. II.  
NOw we must come into the lists of this conflict, and enter upon our Aequivocator, to convince him a gross liar by manifest arguments, and to answer all his Objections in their due order.  

The first Argument from the definition of a lie.  
Maior.) Whosoever useth any signification of speech against his conscience, is properly a liar: (Minor) But our Aequivocator doth use a signification of speech directly against his conscience. Ergo, he is directly a liar. The Minor is not only the confession, but also the profession of our Aequivocator, as hath been showed. 
* Vide supra cap. 1.  If a Catholic (saith he) shall answer, [The Priest is not in my house] contrary to his perfect knowledge. etc. And can any man of conscience deny the conclusion? Yet because we have to deal against consciences 
* Ezech. 13. 11  Daubed up with mortar untempered; we add   

A confirmation of the former Argument.  
Let us consult with the principal Doctor of your more ancient school, as the first of all, with him, who for his excellency obtained the name of Master, as it were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his time.  

a Mentiri est contra id quod animo sentit quis dicere, fiuè verum sit, siuè falsura. Lombardus l●b. 3. dist. 38.  This is properly lying (saith he) when a manspeaketh any thing contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind.  
This Doctor is seconded herein by Aquinas, who in your opinion was not second to any in, or since his time: 
b Veritau opponitur qu●d aliquis per verba ext●…ora aliud vult significate, quam quod hab●t apud se, quod ad mendacium pertinet. Aquinas 2. 2. q. III. Art. I. Mentitur quis cum verbis aliquid significat quod non est, non autem quandò tac●t quod est. Ibid. ad 4.  This is proper to a lie (saith he) when a man will signify in outward words another thing then that which he thinketh in his mind. In which consideration S. Hierome about to free S. Paul from suspicion of lying, who promised to the Corinthians, to come unto them, but did not: 
c cum Paulus (1. Cor. ult.) promi●it se venturum ad Corinthios, nec tamen veniebat, culpam mendacij non contraxit, qui● sic animo sentiebat, & quantum in ipso fuit, verum dixit: ita nemo mendax, nisi qui alite● sentit quam dicit. Hieron. Comm. in cap. 4 in princ. Tom. 5. de 1 Cor. ult.  S. Paul (saith he) did not lie, because he purposed with his heart to do that which he had promised with his pen: but he only is a liar, who thinketh contrary to that which he speaketh. For, 
d Omne mendacium falsum testimorium est dicendum, unde est quòd Dominus monet, [Sit in ore vestro, Est est, Non non.] August. lib. de Men●ac. cap. 5.  Every lie (saith Saint Augustine) is that false witness (which is forbid in the commandemnet) therefore it is that our Lord Christ doth admonish every one; [Let there not be in your speech yea & nay, but let your yea be yea, and your nay nay.] This being his judgement against, as I may so say, Sarai, a free speech: what think you he determineth concerning Hagar the bondwoman, that is, such a speech as is obliged by an oath? 
e Formale in per●…io est, putare falsum esse quod i●● as: interest igitur quemadmodàm verbum procedat ex animo, quia ream linguam non ●acit nisirea mens. August. serm. 28. de verl i● Apost. Tom. 10. & recensetur hoc testimon. ab Aquinate 2▪ 2. q. 98. art. 1. ad 3.  This is a formal property of perjury (saith S. Augustine) to swear that which I think is false: for nothing can make a guilty tongue, but only a guilty mind. To endeavour to prove this point by testimonies of all men, who maintain it, were a labour infinite; and it may seem also unnecessary to confirm unto men that which no man can deny. Now must we examine whether that we have not by this proof so entrapped the fox Aequinocatour, that he cannot find any hole whereby to escape.   

The Aequivocatour.  

f Treatise in initio & a●ibi.  Though the Catholic think the Priest to be in his house, yet may he answer, No, with a secret Reservation in his mind, as this, Vt narremtibi. Or demanded whether I be a Priest, notwithstanding, contrary to my knowledge, I may answer, No, with a secret reservation, Vt me detegam.   

The Reply.  
Suffer me Socratically to debate this point with you, and answer me friendly to these demands: Q. When being asked, whether you are a Priest, you answer No, what signification hath this word No? R. It doth signify directly, I am no Priest. Q. And yet you think you are a Priest. R. Yea I know it: Q. Wherewith do you know it? R. By my inward mind and understanding, my conscience testifying this unto me. Q. Can conscience bear witness? then can it also speak. R. It speaketh as verily to my inward soul, as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your ears. Q. When therefore I ask you whether you be a Priest, your conscience saying to yourself, I am; would it not say the same to me likewise if I could hear it? R. Certainly it would. Q. Yet it may be your mind may demur or vary in that which it thinketh, as namely, thinking thus, [I am a Priest] yet to be able to persuade your soul, and say, [I am no Priest.] R. Unpossible, for this is an infallible position, Mens non potest non intelligere quod intelligit: The mind cannot possibly but think that which it thinketh. Q. And it is as unpossible but, [I am] the direct voice of your conscience, and [I am not] the express voice of your tongue, must be as contrary as yea and nay. R. True. Q. Then will this be as true, that when your conscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth, that your tongue speaketh, against your Conscience. 
* Proved in the beginning of this chapter by common consent.  And this is that which we have proved to be flat lying, a conclusion which no art of equivocation can possibly avoid.  
Our Aequivocator conceiteth a double intention of the mind, the one directly respecting the signification of the words; and thus they grant that the Nay of their tongue was contrary to the yea of their understanding: the second is an indirect intention, which is a clause of Reservation, [Vt dicam tibi.] Whereby they would reconcile their tongue to their mind. Whereas our Witnesses have thus determined, that truth and falsity doth consist only in the conformity or contrariety of the signification of the words, and direct intention of the mind, plainly calling it a lie, When one shall speak words (saith Aquinas) which do not signify that which he intendeth: When he speaketh otherwise then he thinketh, saith S. Hierome: When he speaketh that which he thinketh is false, saith S. Augustine. But the indirect intention of the speaker [Vtrevelem tibi] cannot alter the signification of his outward words, [I am no Priest] which his direct intention of conscience doth contradict, saying, [But I am a Priest.] Ergo our Aequiuocating Priest cannot possibly reconcile such a contradiction of his heart and his tongue. Wherefore we will desire S. Augustine to conclude against our Aequivocatours; 
g Da mihi aliquem qui jurat verum esse, quòd scit esse falsum, videtis ista quam detestanda sit bellua. Aug. lib. de verbis Apost. Serm. 28. paulo post medium. Tom. 10.  Whosoever shall swear that which he knoweth is false, is but a detestable beast.    

CHAP. III.  
The second Argument from the Definition of equivocation.  

The Aequivocator must speak.  

a The Treatise of equivocation, chap. 2.  WE will speak with Aristotle and the Logicians speaking of four propositions: first mental, only conceived in the mind; secondly vocal, uttered with my mouth; thirdly written (which I have called literal;) and the fourth mixed, when we mingle some of these propositions together, when one part is expressed outwardly, as to say [I know him not:] the other part reserved in my mind, as to say, [Vt tibi significem] both joined together make up one true proposition.   

The Reply.  
Dare you appeal unto Logic? This is the Art of all Arts, and the high Tribunal of reason and truth itself, which no man in any matter, whether it be case of humanity or divinity can justly refuse.  
Consult therefore with the ancient Logicians, and prove (mark what scope I yield unto you) that from the beginning of the world in the whole currant of so many thousand generations of mankind, till within the compass of these last four hundred years, and less, that ever any Logician, whether Infidel or Believer, did allow your mixed proposition (which is partly mental, and partly verbal) or think it a Proposition: and I will be (which my soul utterly detesteth) an Aequivocator.  
Yet I must not now expect impossibilities, to try what you would prove, but show herein what I can disprove.   

The Argument.  
Your proposition [I am no Priest,] mixed with your mental reservation, [Vt tibirevelem;] if it be true, it is so either in his simple signification, or by virtue of equivocation: but it is not true in his simple signification; this you grant: neither can it be true by virtue of equivocation; this I prove.  

b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. Elench. lib. 1. cap. 4.  equivocation in word or speech (saith the Oracle of all Logicians) is when one word or one speech doth equally signify divers things. As when one shall say, I am afraid of a Dog: this word Dog hath a triple signification; for it signifieth aswell a fish in the sea, called a Dogge-fish, & a sign in the heavenly sphere, wherein when the Sun hath his course, we call the days Dog-days; or as thirdly, it doth signify man's faithful servant, a barking dog. Therefore when he saith, I fear a Dog, whether he meaneth he is afraid of the household dog to be bit with his teeth, or to be drowned, and so devoured of the Sea dog, or to go mad by the poisonful influences of the Planeticall dog: If, I say, he understand any of these kinds, this his speech is true, [I am afraid of a dog.] But your mixed and patched proposition is not one word or speech signifying equally divers things; but contrarily (as you pretend) divers parts of speech (one in the mind, and another in the mouth) signifying one thing: for, I am no Priest, and To tell it to the, what words can be more different? which whosoever shall call Aequivocall, may be justly suspected to be bit with the highest dog; the position is so absurd and unreasonable.   

The Aequivocator doth insist. His Objection.  

c The Aequivocator chap. 3.  Voices and writings are ordained for instruments and signs to express a Proposition which is in the mind; therefore may I express all in word or all in writing, and the proposition in the mind remaineth the same. So may I by another mixed proposition express some part, and reserve some part in my mind. For example, If when I say [God is not] should lose presently my speech, before I could utter the word following [unjust,] which having my pen in my hand, I exhibit by writing; who doubteth, but all that is but one proposition, the truth whereof consisteth of the mixture of both parts together? So is it where one part is delivered with the mouth, and the other reserved in the mind.   

The Reply.  
It were better that both you & I should become speechless and handless, than either in word or writing to minister such a bainfull Conclusion unto the world. But to the matter: Voices and writings (say you) are outward signs of the inward propositions of the mind. This is true: What then? And the part wanting in voice is supplied by the other word in writing. This is also true: But why? Because words and writings be mutual signs and interpretations of the mind. This is again most true: What can you infer from all this? So the signification of the part outwardly expressed [I am no Priest] may be supplied with the other part of the proposition reserved in my mind [Vt tibinarrem.] I tell you this comparison is utterly false. For the foresaid Oracle in his book entitled, The interpretation of speech, saith, that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Arist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Every proposition enunciative (that is, every outward speech, whether by word or writing, whether affirming or denying) is ordained for signification: that is, (as you have well said) to express some thing. But no mental, or inward conceit of the mind is ordained of God as a sign to express or signify (as words and writings do) but as a thing signified hath need to be expressed and expounded. Such is your mental clause reserved [Vt narrem tibi.] Can you make this a sign or instrument to express & signify your true meaning, which you have purposely devised for a den to lurk in, lest your false meaning might be signified and revealed? Thus have you by your comparison of voices and writings made a strong loop whereby to strangle yourself.   

This is confirmed by S. Augustine.  

d Omnis Enunciatio ad id quod enunciat est referenda. August. lib. de Menda●. cap. 5. At omnis Enunciatio est vel affirmatio vel negatio alicuius de aliquo. Arist. 1. de Interpret.  Every speech (saith he) whether it affirm or deny any thing, is to be referred unto that which it doth affirm or deny. But your Negative, I am no Priest, can not be referred to your supposed true clause [Vt narrem tibi;] for it doth not signify any such thing: but only to your Priesthood. In which simple signification it is (by your own opinion) most false. A delusion notably confuted by your own Seraphical Doctor, who affirmeth, that 
e Dicitur Oratio vera quatenus est signum intellectus. Aquinas part. 1. q. 16. art. 1. cum voces natural tèr signa sunt intellectuum, innaturale est & indicium ut aliquis significet id quod mente non habet. undè Philosophus dicit Ethic. 4. quod mendacium est per se fugiendum. Aquinas ibidem.  A speech is so far forth true, as it is a sign of a true understanding. But your voice (you know) is contrary to your understanding. And as concerning Voice, which is the sign, he addeth from Aristotle, That it is against nature to signify any thing by words which we have not in our mind. If then this equivocation be unnatural, we have not without reason called it a Monster. And now we will show your unnatural countenance in a like example.   

An example of like Sophistry.  
A presumptuous Gorgias and Sophister in Cambridge undertook the defence of this Problem, Virtus est vitium, virtue is a vice: but being plunged in his answer, he fled to a reserved clause, fugere. And was not this his fugere, plainly your subterfugere? Therefore as any Philosopher only hearing these words, Virtus est vitium, must necessarily call it after that name of one of the marks of Sophistry 
f Arist. Elench. lib. 1. cap. 2.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, A singular absurdity: so might any hearing a Priest say simply, I am no Priest, call this after the name of the second scope of Sophistry, which is 
g Ibidem.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a lie.    

CHAP. FOUR  
The third Argument from the description of lying.  
MAior.) 
a Nemo dubitat mentiri eum, qui falsum dicit causâ fallendi. August. lib. de Menda●. cap. 4. & in ●ine ca 5. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 38. Canus loc, theol. Mendacium est verbum cum intention fallend●. Tract. de 7 peccatis. cap. 5. 4.  No man can doubt (saith S. Augustine, and your whole school) but he lieth, which speaketh any thing which is false, with an intent to deceive another: (The Minor) But our Aequivocatours profess by a false speech to 
b Creswell, Allen, Southwell, Tollet, and others. Vide supra.  delude (their own words) Protestant-examiners, Magistrates, Purswants, and other Officers, and whosoever may be instruments to call their persons in question, Ergo, by their art of Aequiuocating have they obtained a perfection of lying. What can you answer?  

The Aequivocatour.  

c Treatise of Aequivoc. quo supra.  This speech [I am no Priest] is not false, being mixed with that clause which is understood [Vt tibi significem.]   

The Answer.  
I have already proved from the judgement of S. Hierome and S. Augustine, two of the most judicious Fathers; out of Lombard and Aquinas, the two eyes of your Romish school, that wheresoever the speech is contrary to the knowledge (such you have granted your Aequiuocating to be) there the speech is false and a flat lie. Which is now further proved from the end of lying, which is, To deceive the hearer: except you profess an intention to deceive men by true speaking, and so make truth a Seducer.   

The Aequivocatour doth insist.  

d The Treatise of Aequivocat.  Our Aequiuocating doth not always deceive the hearer, for if a man of Coventry, a place generally infected with the plague, dwelling himself in a part of that city, which is free from infection, and coming to London, shall be asked if he came from Coventry (they intending to ask him concerning a place infected) may answer, No: for herein he deceiveth not the mind of the Questioner, but answereth directly to his intention.   

The Reply.  
If this one instance were true, yet could it not justify your other Equivocations, as that [I am no Priest:] whereby your whole purpose is to delude the intention of the examiner. 
e Sic proferre sententiam ut diversam opinionem in alterius animo generes: haec est intentio fallendi alium. Tol. Ies. Instr. Sacerd. lib. ult. de Septempercatas cap. 54.  For this is an intention to deceive, (saith your jesuit) to seek to beget a signification of your speech in the mind of your hearer, divers to that which you conceive yourself.  
Secondly, this your instance is false; for every one that asketh a Question, doth intend to receive a direct answer: and therefore his answer, [I came not from Coventry] who came from Coventrie, cannot satisfy the intention of the Examiner.  
Thirdly, though it shall satisfy the remote intention of the Examiner, yet is it a lewd lie in the speaker, because he that speaketh truth hath alway a conformity between the intention of his mind and his speech: but to deny, He came not from that place from whence he knoweth he came, is no conformity, but infinite contrariety between his speech and his own intention. An answer so grossly false, that a jesuit of high esteem in your church, writing against this spiritual juggling of his subtle lying brethren, doth confess, 
f Quidam putant eum, qui venit ex loco aliquo pest minime infecto, qui falsò habetur pro infecto, posse tuta conscientia & citra mendacuum dicere, se non venisse ex eo loco, dummodò intelligat se non venisse ex loco pestilenti: quod si verum est, nihil tàm falsum esse possit, quod non queat ab omni mendacio liberary; quia mentitur qui verba aliter accipit, quam ipsa significant. Azor. Ies. Inst. moral. lib. 1●. cap. 4. §. Primò quidem.  That if this kind of answer (concerning a place infected with the plague etc.) be not false, then there is no speech so false, but it may be freed from falsehood: because willingly to use words in a contrary sense to that they signify, is plain lying. By whom you Aequivocators may learn, that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence, yet this your aequiuocating proceedeth from minds spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying. O but you are more subtle than your Adversaries; and so was the 
* Gen. 3. 1.  Serpent (the devils instrument) more subtle than all the beasts of the field. Yet behold one Doctor amongst you so subtle, that for that faculty he hath (by figure of excellency) been called the subtle Doctor: who doth conclude all you Aequivocatours liars, saying, 
g Dicere [non feci] quod tamen seci, licet cum hac mentis limitatione, [ut tibi significem] non est aequivocatio, sed mendacium. S●●us lib. 5. de just. q. 6. art. 2.  To say that [I did not] that which I know I have done, although I speak it with this limitation (or reservation of mind) [Vt tibi significem it is not equivocation, but a lie. And not he alone, but even the subtlest of all your Jesuits must be called a liar, if this your aequiuocating subtlety be not rank lying: 
h Quisquis fingendo alium fallere conatur, etiamsi aliquid praetereà significare velit, haud dubiè mentitur; alioqui nullum esset mendacium, quod non istà ratione possit defendi. Maldonat. Ies. Com. in Luc. ult. verse. 28.  Whosoever (saith he) doth endeavour by feigning to deceive another, although he intent to signify something else, yet doubtless he lieth. Which kind of aequiuocating when your divine of Cullen doth examine, he maketh his Theophilus, that is, the lover of God, to answer Philetus, that is, a lover of himself; to wonder at your 
i Quis te docuit tàm bellè nugari? quis tibi periurium tam latam latebram indicavit? quâ mendacij excusatione si uti vellera, quis me ferret gravium prudentiumque virorum? siquid veri habet vulgaris isthaec interpretation, [Mentiri quasi contra mentem i●e] menoni est aliud animo sentire, aliud fallendi gratia significare. Genesius Theol. Doct. in lib. qui in●eribitur Theophilus de causis occultis. cap. 6. Vbi ex professo in hoc Aequivocationis dogma vehementér inue●itur.  Trifling foolery thus contrary to the judgement of grave and wise men, to invent such a lurking hole and refuge for perjury. Concluding that It is certainly a lie, when any doth think one thing in his mind, and signify the contrary in words, with intent to deceive another. Therefore are you to be exhorted as his good Theophilus, for the love of God, who is the truth, to recant this your doctrine of aequiuocating, the metropolis of lies.    

CHAP. V.  
The fourth Argument a Specie, or from a particular kind of lying, which is Perjury.  
MAior.) 
a Periurium est mendacium in juramento factum. Tollet. Ies. Tract. de septem peccatis. cap. 54.  Perjury (as both your now Jesuits, and also your ancient School saith) is a lie made in an oath. 
b juramentum, cui deest veritas, est Periurium. Malden. Ies. Sum. q. 1. Art. 11.  For an oath void of truth must needs be a lie. 
c Iu●are quod falsum esse putas, est formale periurium. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 98. A●t. 1. ad 3.  Because in an oath to use such a speech as thou thinkest is false, is formally perjury. Anancient doctrine, for the Prophet requireth in every jurist truth; 
* jere. 4.  Thou shalt swear the Lord liveth in truth etc. But mental aequiuocating is in an oath per●urie. Ergo simply in itself without an oath it is a lie.  

The Minor proved.  
This is a certain maxim in Divinity, grounded upon the eternal commandment of God, [
* Exod. 20.  Thou shalt not bear false witness;] and expounded by his Prophet, Thou shalt swear in truth; and confessed by your Azorius, 
d Illud jerem. 4. jurabis in veritate: ad est, ad veritatem confirmandam, & ex veritate, ut is qui iutat non levi sed probabili ratione, ita esse arbitretur. Azor. Ies. lib. 11. Moral. cap. 2. §. Quanti quaeritur.  That is to swear both for the confirmation of a truth, and so also in truth as to think probably that true whereunto thou art sworn. (Minor.) But our Acquivocatours do neither swear from truth, nor for confirmation of truth. Ergo their oath is plain perjury. A conclusion thought so just, that your own great Moralist doth condemn all Aequivocators herein as perjured liars; 
e Quidam putavit fas esse cuiquam, ut vitam suam conseruet, hosti jurare, tantummodò eo sensu, quem mente intùs concipit: possemus enim hac ratione quiduis negare, & nihil non, absque mendacio, dicere. Azor. ibid. cap. 4. §. Primò quidem.  or otherwise (saith he) there is nothing which may not be affirmed and denied without a lie. Yet against your conceived reservation we will object a conceived supposition for further confirmation of this point,   

This last Minor confirmed.  
Suppose that your Guido hath wrongfully impeached some man of honour, as to have been an Engineer and worker in the Powder-vault together with Piercie and Catesby brethren in that evil: and thus is the noble person made guilty of high treason; but after by more exact trial of circumstances, it is found that the man of honour was never incorporate in that conspiracy, what can you answer for your G●…? What else, but as your Garnet answered for your Tresham, I think he did aequiuocate? saying [The honourable man was present in that vault] reserving in his thought this clause [Quatenus vir longissimè absens, praesens esse potuit. But answer, (for we will draw you out of that fox hole) He swearing according to these words, [This man was one of us pioneers,] did his words accord with his direct meaning? No: then was not his oath a veritate, from truth; But did his oath (the second property of a true oath) confirm a truth? No: for it did betray an innocent; then was it not pro veritate, for truth. Therefore call you such an oath, equivocation, or, Reservation, or secret limitation, or what you will: our great grandfathers (I am sure) would have termed it perjury, and adjudged it to the pillory, a shame too little for so shameless a collusion. For seeing that 
f Periurium gravius est homicidio ex part peccati, e●si secus sit ex part damni. Sa. Ies. Aphoris. tit. juramentum. ●…t. 26.  Perjury (though not in the injury to man, yet in it own iniquity) is a more grievous sin than murder; it may be wished that mental equivocation might have a corporal suspension; and where any of whatsoever profession he be, shall be found guilty of both murder and the aequiuocating clause of Reservation; the sin of Reservation, may have a reservation of punishment: that if, for the one, he hang by the neck, for the other, he may hang jointly by the tongue, as it is written, juxta peccatum ita erit & poenae modus.    

CHAP. VI  
Our fifth Argument from the principal subjects of Truth, God: and Lying, the Devil.  

1. God.  
HEb. 6. 17. God willing to show more abundantly unto the heirs of promise the stableness of his Counsel, bound himself by an oath, that by two immutable things, wherein it is impossible that God should lie, we might have strong consolation etc. here we see the nature of a lie, 
g Mendacium est malum tam intrinsecè, ut bonum reddi nullam ratione possit. Vasques Ies. in Thom. disp. 53. num. 22.  To be so absolutely evil in it own nature, as (which all Divines hold) that nothing can make it good. Therefore so it is said, that to say it is unpossible, that our good God, father of truth, should lie: is as much as to say, it is impossible for goodness to be evil, or for truth to be a ●ie; because this is as contradictory, as God not to be God.   

Hence we argue.  
Maior.) That, which God can not do by reason of lying iniquity, hath in it the iniquity of a lie. (Minor.) But your aequinocating conceit is that which for the lying iniquity thereof God can not possibly do. Therefore it is a godless and lying wickedness.   

The Minor proved.  
If God by an oath of promising salvation in Christ could use your equivocation, then should the Elect of God not have any strong consolation, when God by word or oath he promiseth life, and though 
h Rom. 8. 16.  his spirit witnesseth to the spirits of his Elect, that they are the sons of God, and that they shall not▪ perish: yet might they suspect (which blasphemy far be it from the hearts of his Regenerate) that it is spoken with some secret reserved clause of delusion. 
i Rom. 3. 4.  But let God be true, and every (especially aequiuocating) man a liar, as it is written: for he who is Truth will be justified, when this sect continuing in this sin must necessarily be condemned.   

The principal subject of lying is the Devil.  
Because when the voice of the Almighty had denounced death to the Transgressors, saying, 
k Gen. 2.  Eating of this fruit ye shall die: the Devil in his instrument contradicting that truth, said, 
l Gen. 3.  You shall not die at all: he is therefore truly called 
m joh. 8. 44.  A liar from the beginning. From whence we may argue thus.  
Maior.) That can not be a doctrine of truth, which stoppeth a man's mouth, that he can not give the Devil the lie. (Minor.) But admitting your equivocation, all mankind is silenced, as not able to give the Devil his due title of a Liar. Ergo aequiuocating is no doctrine of truth.   

The Minor proved.  
For Eve, who was catechised in this truth, God said that if we eat we shall die, and hearing the devils contrary suggestion, Though you eat you shall not die: might she not say to the serpent, Spirit thou liest? If she might not, then is that no lying spirit, which is father of all lies: if she might, then is your close aequiuocating a lie. Otherwise, the Devil might have freed himself as you do, saying, I said truly, for I did aequiuocate.   

The Minor confirmed.  
Though the Devil have plunged himself in Abyssum, the bottomless gulf of wickedness, as to do wickedly for love of wickedness: 
n Nemo tam i●…probus, qu●… malit honestis rationibus quam nequitiâ pervenire ad ad quod cupit. Cuero in Offic.  Yet is there not the most desperate sinner amongst men, but if he could, he had rather by honest than by wicked means achieve whatsoever his wicked heart lusteth after. We will borrow of you an example: 
o The moderate Answerer in his Epistle to his Majesty.  The late intended conspiracy, which (as you confess) was so heinous an impiety, that God and heaven condemn it, men and earth detest it: Now then, what wickedness under heaven would not these Conspirators have attempted, which have been found guilty of so damnable a mischief? Yet am I persuaded that for advancement of their Religion they would never have practised by powder, if they could have prevailed with paper. All which I produce to this end, to let you understand, that if mental equivocation were lawful, and did qualify a false speech to free it from a lie, no man instructed in that Art would or could lie; and so we should seem to live in an Outopia, where men shall be convicted of most manifest aequiuocating falsehood; only he shall be the liar, that giveth the convicted the lie.    

CHAP. VII.  
The sixth Argument, from examples of dissimulation condemned by 

1. Scriptures,  
2. Fathers,  
3. Pagans.    

1. Scripture.  
ACts 5. 1. Ananias with Saphira his wife sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife being of counsel with him; and the other part he brought and laid it down at the Apostles feet. Then said Peter, Why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldst lie? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and gave up the ghost. After this came in his wife, ignorant of that which was done; and Peter said unto her, Tell me, Sold you the land for so much? and she said, Yea, for so much: and Peter said, Why have you agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? and she fell down, and yielded up the ghost.  
These pretended to bring all their substance, and to tender it to the Apostles for the common good of the Saints, an act proper to the infancy of the Church: but they reserved one half for supply of their peculiar uses, if happily they might come to want. The woman is asked, Sold you the land but for so much? her answer is, Yea, but for so much: and yet this dissimulation is called a lie. When she answered, For so much, meaning but one half, concealing the other half, it was not possible but in that dissimulation your reserved clause must have come into her mind, to think, But for so much: ut in common bonum conferamus: or, ut aliis largiamur: or your own crotchet, [Vt vobis significemus.] Let any but enter into the meditation of such a dissimulation, and he shall find it unpossible but some such conceit will be flittering like a butterfly in his mind, and like one of the 
* 1. Reg. 22.  false spirits of Satan, delude his soul, as not to discern of a lie: but S. Peter calleth it a Satanical lie. This is the first example of lying we read of in Christianity, wherein the actors by the visible vengeance of God were struck dead suddenly and perished in their sin, and should therefore teach you, that though you may delude man, who only judgeth the mouth, (therefore S. Peter said of it, Thou hast not lied unto men▪) yet for fear of the allseeing just God, not any more thus, 
* Act. 5. 9  To tempt the spirit of the Lord.    

CHAP. VIII.  
Examples out of ancient Fathers.  
SAint Augustine useth many, especially two: The first; 
a Ecce gravi morbo periclitatur aegrotus; cuius vires ferre non possunt, si ei mors unici & charissimi filii sui nunciaretur: quid respondebis? quicquid dixeris, nisi unum de tribus responderis, proindè erit ac si filium mortuum esse dixeris; aut enim respondebis mortuus est, a●t viu●t, a●t nescio; haec duo, [Vivit, &, nescio] falsa sunt, illud autem unum verum, mortuum esse dicere. Ex quo dicetur, homicida veritas: nùm si stuprum petens impudica f●…mina, &, te non consentiente, saeva amore perturbata moriatur, homicida erit ca●titas? August. lib. contr. Mendacium ad Consentium. cap. 18.  Suppose there is a man so dangerously sick (saith this holy Father) that if he should but hear of the death of his dear and only son, his strength cannot bear the grief of it, but he must presently die: thou knowing his child is dead, and being asked of him whether he be dead or alive; what wouldst thou answer? Thou must either say he is dead, or he liveth, or I know not: but these two, [he liveth, and, I know not] are both false; the only true is, He is dead. But thou wilt say, than truth shall be a murderer: why? if an impudent woman shall soliicite thy chastity, and thou deny, she in the rage of her passion shall shortly die: wilt thou say that chastity is a murderer? Me think I hear our Aequivocators say, what, no true answer but only he is dead? simple S. Augustine! for both of the other might have been made good, as either to say, I know not, inwardly understanding, [Vt narrem tibi, or, nescio calcibus, or, nescio cras] and such like: the second visit, he is alive, might have stood for currant, intending in the mind, [Vivit in Purgatorio, or, in coelo, or, vitam spiritualem, or, sibi, or, Deo,] and an hundred such qualifications & reseruatives, both to free the answerer from lying, and the man from dying. Well S. Augustine his simplicity made him a Saint; what your double-harted subtlety may make you, I had rather you should duly consider, than I utter.  
His second example: 
b Erat quidam Episcopus, nomine Firmus, ●irmior voluntate, qui cum esset interrogatus, ubi esset quidam, quem ab ipsis persecutoribus occultaverat, Apparatoribus Imperatorijs respondit, se neque mentiri posse, nec homine prodere: & nè alterum è duobus faceret, tormenta multa perpessus est: quid hoc dici possit fortius aut honestius? August. lib. de Mendac. cap 1●.  There was a certain Bishop, by name Firm, but firmer by the constancy of his will: who being asked where the man was, whom he had hid from the hands of the persecutor; answered the servants and officers of the Emperor thus: I (quoth he) may neither ●…e, nor yet betray my brother: and lest he should do either, he suffered many torments of these persecutors. What answer could have been given more resolute and honest than this? Thus resolveth S. Augustine even upon the case in question: only differing herein, that the example which the Father propoundeth, is of a Bishop for the safety of a Christian; the answer which our Aequivocator teacheth is especially directed to laymen for preservation of Priests, viz. themselves. S. Augustine resolved that the Bishop's answer was most honest: what will our Aequivocators judge? surely their subtlety teacheth that it was most sottish, by ignorance of another mean of evasion, through this backdoor of Reservation, [Vt tibi revelem.] Therefore the Catholic Bishop might seem foolhardy to expose himself to torments when by equivocation he might have kept his knowledge as invisible for that time, as Christ did his person by his almighty divine power amongst the persecuting jews. But S. Augustine could not find that passage, because it was not heard of in those days; therefore doth resolve thus, that the answer of the godly Bishop was honest: 
c Scriptum est, os quod mentitur, occidit animam. Eccles. 1. Peruersissimè igitur dicitur, ut alter corporalitèr vivat, alterum spiritualitèr mori, homo enim non potest ni●i corpus occidere, Deus autem corpus & animam in Gehennam detrudere possit. August. lib. de Mendac. cap. 6.  Because it is written, he that lieth slayeth his own soul: therefore it were perverseness to say, that one should choose to die spiritually, that another may be saved bodily: for man it is who may kill the body, but God can take body and soul and cast them both headlong into hell. 
d Dicit aliquis, ergonè Rahab melius fecisset, si nullam misericordiam hospitibus prestitisset nolendo mentiri? Nonnè potuit dicere, scio ubi sint, sed Deum timeo, eos prodere? posset hoc quidem dicere, si vera esset Israëlita, in qua dolus non esset. Verùm illi hoc audito (inquies) illam perimerent, domum scrutarentur: Sed numquid consequens erat ut illos etiam, quos diligentèr occultaverat, invenirent? perspexerat enim cautissima foemina, & ibi eos posuerat, ubi inuen●ri minimè potuissent: Si tamen à suis civibus esset occisa, vitam istam finiendam pretiosa in conspectu Domini morte sinivisset, & erga illos eius beneficium inane non ●u●sset. Sed (inquies) quidsi eos occultatos perscrutando invenissent? isto●…odo dici possit, quidsi turpissi●…ae mulieri mentienti credere noluissent? at ubi ponimus voluntatem & potestatem Dei? A quo enim post mulieris mendacium custoditi sunt, ab eo potuerunt, etsi illa mentita non esset, utique custodiri: nisi fortè obliti sumus quid Sodomitis contigit, qui Lothi hospites quaerentes, domum in quo erant invenire non poterant. August. lib. contra Mendac. 17.  But the example of Rahab (saith he) will be objected, whether she had not done well if she had not showed mercy unto her guests the servants of God, when inquisition was made by their enemies to know whether they were there; She might have said, I know where they be, but I fear God, and therefore will not tell you to betray them: thus should she have answered if she had been then a true Israelite in whom there is no guile. But you will say that then they would have slain her and have sought out the strangers: doth it therefore follow that they should find them? But suppose she had lost her life, a life which must be lost, yet had her death been right dear and precious in the eyes of God, and the benefit to her guests had not been in vain. You will furthermore object that they by this means might make more diligent search for her guests, and have found them out; and what I pray you, if they would not have believed that lewd woman? Howsoever, who are we that we should censure or limit the power of God? For he that preserved them after by this woman's lie, might have preserved them without her lie: except we can forget his power against the Sodomites; they sought the guests of Lot, but were struck blind, and not able to find the door. This S. Augustine his Scio our Aequivocators turn into Nescio: they can spy out a bench-hole to hide the persecuted by her answer, [Vt tibi revelem] which was never revealed to S. Augustine, nor yet to the holy Popes of ancient time: for S. 
e Hoc mendacij genus perfecti viri magnoperè fugiunt, ut nè vita quidem cuiussibet per ●orum fallaciam defendatur. Greg. lib. 18. Moral. in job. cap. 2.  Gregory, and 
f Scriptura sacra prohibet etiam pro alterius vita menti●i. Innocentius. tit. de Usury cap. 4.  Innocentius in the same cause of preserving the life of a brother was of the same mind. Neither is there one in all antiquity who ever knew the Nescio of your mixed proposition, no not for any cause of danger to be free from them there is no greater Tyrant than 
* Sap. 1.  a lie, which slayeth the soul.  
There remaineth the third example derived from Paganism; and also other two arguments, the one deduced from comparisons, the otherfrom effects, which will follow in their convenient order. In a conflict we know it is required that the Soldier be provided as well defensively, to ward; as offensively, to impugn his Enemy. Let us a while try the forces of our adversaries in   

CHAP. IX.  
The Objections, which our Aequivocators urge for their mental Reservation from 

Reasons,  
Scriptures,  
Fathers.    

1. Reason.  

a The Treatise in the Preface. Ibid. cap. 3. §. Two others.  WE will prove our mental equivocation by natural reason. Thus, If I were alone and should talk with myself, and say one thing, understanding a thing different from that, this is not a lie. Ergo mental equivocation is just and true.   

The Answer.  
Of these two most divine properties, whereby man is discerned from beasts, Ratio & oratio, Reason and speech: the use of speech was not ordained for a looking glass, whereby a man might see himself, but as the 
* Vide supra.  Interpreter of the mind, whereby he might be known of others: as the learned Philosopher looking earnestly upon a Scholar professed in all arts, Loquere, inquit, ut t● videam: Speak, (quoth he) my friend that I may see thee. Now because there is no man of sound brains, but he knoweth before he speak, what his tongue uttereth, there can be no need that by speech he should interpret his own meaning to himself, no more than a man may be properly said to steal his own goods, or commit adultery with his own wife: because both these are actions ad extra, that is, without a man, and have relation to others then to ourselves. Which is yet more apparent herein, seeing that he cannot be said properly to speak unto himself, who cannot properly be said to lie to himself: but whosoever can lie to himself may also by speech properly deceive himself; because a lie is described to be a false speech, to this end, 
* Supra.  To deceive. And can any by any wilful lie deceive his ownself, as thereby be made ignorant of his own meaning? This were to distract a man from himself. Therefore this natural reason taken from the speech of man with himself, might best befit a pure natural, or some person distracted; namely, such a one as being beside himself can best talk with himself.   

The second Objection from Reason. The Aequivocator.  

b Vide supra.  When there is a mixed proposition the two different parts make one etc.   

The Answer.  
This is already answered, and proved that this patch of mixture is no better than a new piece of cloth in an old garment, 
* Luc. 5. 36.  which maketh the rent greater.    

CHAP. X.  
The Objections from examples of Scriptures in the Old and New Testament.  

1. From the old. The Aequivocator.  

a Aequivoc. chap. 10.  THe Scripture telleth us how 
* Gen. 27.  jaacob told his Father Isaac that he was his eldest son Esau: which was not so in the sense of the Patriarch Isaac etc.   

The Answer.  
First, 
b Si dixisset jaacob [Ego sum primogenitus tuus] & non addidisset [Esau] excusari potuit: nunc autem non possit, quia Pater repetens, dixit, [Tues filius meus Esau?] de industria restringens interrogationem ad personam Esau; respondit jaacob, [Sum,] inexcusabilis à mendacio. Caietan. Cardin. in Gen. 27.  Esau (as your Cardinal Caietan saith: 
c Haec est opinio nec paucorum nec ignobilium Doctorum. Pererius Ies. Comm. in Gen. 27.  Which is also the opinion of many learned Doctors) being a proper name, which Isaac did purposely restrain to that particular person, saying, [Art thou my eldest son Esau?] jaacob herein is inexcusable from alley.  
Secondly, your Aequivocators do prescribe the use of this your art to be put in practice only before a judge, or hearer incompetent: and shall wethinke that Isaac the blessed Patriarch and father of the promised seed could be an unfit and incompetent hearer of his son now only craving his blessing? This Disputer therefore (to speak mildly) is incompetent; although, I must confess, this example is very semblable to your persons, in whom we hear jaacobs' dissembling voice, but feel the rough hands of Esau, who intended the murder of his brother.   

The second example. The Aequivocator.  

d The moderate Answerer. cap. 10.  Such equivocation did the Prophet jeremy use (jer. 38. 26.) when he took advice of the King.   

The Answer.  
You discern nothing in the outward speech of this Prophet but a lie, falsely imagining an inward equivocation of thought, which no man can discern. But your ancient expositor telleth us, that 
e In hoc verum dixit Hieremias, alias non obedivisset mentiendo; & hoc patet, quia hoc quod super dictum est, quòd Rex iuravit ei, quod non interficereteun, nec traderet eum in manus Principum, qui miserant eum in lacum; nec est verisimile quòd Rex iurasset de aliquo, quod Hieremias non petivisset. Lyra●… in jer.  The very outward speech of jeremy was true, as may appear, (saith he) in that the King swore unto him, that he would not kill him, nor deliver him over into the hands of those Princes. Neither is it probable that the King did grant any thing to jeremy which he did not require. Which is plain by the 15. verse.  
Again, if we judge the outward speech of jeremy was false, yet is it not written for our imitation, but for direction, that (as S. Augustine doth observe in the like examples) Casus maiorum sit cautio minorum: the faults and slidings of the stronger might be warnings to the weaker. According to the wisdom of the holy Ghost in S. Paul, saying, 
* 1. Cor. 10. 12.  Let him that standeth t●ke heed lest he fall. Howsoever, for your gloss of mental resernation; show us but one Father whether Greek or Latin; one Pope, whether Catholic or Antichristian; one Author, whether learned or unlearned, who did ever so fancy. But now you shall receive   

A general Answer to all examples of the old Testament, wherein there may be any scars of infirmities: from Saint Augustine.  

f Haec quidem in Scriptures sanctis legimus, non ideò tamen, quia facta credimus, facienda credamus, ne violemus praecepta, dùm passim sectamur exempla. An verò quia iuravit david se occisur 'em esse Nabal, & clementi consideratione non fecit, proptereà illum imitandum esse dicemus: ut temerè iuremus nos esse facturos, quod non faciendum esse posteà videamus? Imò sicut Lothum, cum volu●… filias suas prostituere, ita Davidem cum temerè turabat, ira turbabat. Aug lib. cont. Mendac. cap. 9  We read of such kind of examples in holy writ, not that, because we believe they were done, we should therefore believe they may lawfully be done; lest when we would imitate examples of men, we transgress the precepts of God. This Answer doth S. Augustine use against the Heretics of his time, called Pris●●lli●…ists, who defended lying by the same examples whereby you would defend Aequiuocating, yet not so modestly, (I confess) as you do: for they maintained openly lying in his proper name; you covertly under an adopted name of equivocation, an evident argument that those Heretics, whose best refuge was lying, either by ignorance knew not your aequiuocating crotchet, or according to the common language of Divinity in those times, called it by his proper name, lying. And yet your book for aequiuocating must be entitled, A Treatise forsooth against lying.    

CHAP. XI.  
Examples out of the new Testament objected.  

The principal be four. The first Example. The Aequivocator.  

a The Treatise cap. 4.  THe infallible Verity saith to his Disciples, (joh. 11.) [All things which I have heard of my Father have I manifested unto you:] Yet in the chapter following affirmeth, that he had many things to say unto them, but they were not able to bear them away then. Therefore must the first proposition be understood according to his meaning reserved. 
b Ibid. paulò post.  equivocation therefore is evidently convinced out of thi● speech of our Saviour, who is infallible truth.   

The Answer.  
I answer (with S. Augustine) that 
c Agit suas partes infirmitas: sed ut esse sibi adulterandum nemo discat à castitate; cuiquam nocendum esse nemo discat à benignitate; & esse mentiendum discamus a veritate? August. cont. Mend. cap. 1●.  Now man's infirmity plays her part: but know that no man learneth of christity to be adulterous, or of godliness to be impious, or of bounty to be injurious; and shall we learn of truth to be liars, and perjurious? God forbid! Touching the text, your own Bishop jansenius answering this objection, saith, that 
d Obseruandum est tales propositiones esse limitandas ad status, loci, temporis, conditionis circumstantias; alioqui falsae essent: ut illa, Quodcunque petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, dabit vobis, id est, quaecunque pro conditione vestra expediunt, etc. jansen. Concord. in joh. 15. & 16  These kinds of speeches, and all such are to be expounded according to the circumstances either of state, place, time, or condition of the persons speaking, or to whom they were spoken: as namely that, Whatsoever you ask my Father in my name he will give you; what any thing absolutely? nay, but upon condition it be expedient for you. So here, Christ saying, I have manifested all things, it is expounded by the circumstance of the present state; signifying, All that appertain unto you to be known. So then here is no concealed sense to deceive the hearer, but it is evident by circumstance of speech. Whereby you may perceive, that not that infallible Verity, but your own infirmity and vanity hath deceived you: in so perverting the truth to patronize your lie.   

The second place objected. The Aequivocator.  

e Aequivoc. Treatise. chap. 4.  Our Saviour said to his Disciples, that he himself knew not the day of judgement, but his father only: which by consent of holy Fathers is to be understood, that he knew it not [ut significaret eyes.] Thus Ambrose, Chrysostome, Theophilus, and Basil expound it. And Garnet at his arraingment objected S. Augustine, and wholly depended upon his judgement in the same exposition.   

The Answer.  
It will not be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of 
●…Multi veteres Patres Athanas. Greg. Nazian. Theod. Cyrillus, Author operis imperfect. in Matth. docuerunt Christum quatenus hominem diem judicij ignorâsse. Maldon●●. Ies. Comm.  Fathers, Who were many (saith your Maldonate) expounding this text thus; that Christ, as he was man knew not the day and hour etc. but the question is, whether the former exposition of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mental equivocation. And because Garnet did select only S. Augustine of all the Fathers, we will appeal to S. Augustine for answer to them all. By whose testimony it doth appear, that when our Saviour said, I know not the day, signifying, [ut dicam vobis;] this clause whereby he meant to conceal the time, was not concealed from them; who though they were by the sense of the speech held in ignorance not to know the day, yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speech, which was, I may not let you know it. For he maketh the sense of the word Nescio, I know it not, to be a figurative speech, and by the emphasis of pronunciation to signify so much to his Disciples, as you shall not know. His examples. 
g Qemadmodum dicitur de Deo Deut. 13. [Tentat vos Deus vester ut sciat si diligatis eum.] non ut ipse sc●●t, quem nihil latet, sed ut scire vos faciat quantum in eius dilectione profecerimus, tentari nos permittit. Secundam ipsam locutionem dicit Dominus noster nescire se diem & hor Turrian de sine seculi: quid enim potest esse, quod ipse nesciat? sed quia hoc utilitèr occultabat Discipulis, nescientem se esse dixit, quia illos nescientes occultando faciebat. Secundum hanc figuram etiam Patrem solum dixit scire diem ipsum, quia eundem filium scire facer●t. Talibus locutionibus etiam abundat nostra consuetudo, cum dicinuis laetum diem, quia nos laetos facit; & pigrum frigus, qui pigros nos facit, etc. August. de Genes. 1. contra Manich. lib. 1. cap. 22.  When it is written Deut. 13. The Lord your God trieth you, that he may know whether ye love him. These words, [That he may know] do not signify that God may receive knowledge, who knoweth all things before they be; but the sense is this, That he may make you to know how much you have profited in his love. So Christ speaking to his Disciples, saying, The Son of man knoweth not the day of judgement, had this meaning, to make his Disciples that they should not know it. Now therefore as the people of God understood the figure of the phrase, Vt sciat Deus, in his id est, ut scire vos faciat: so did his Disciples by circumstance, or emphasis of Christ; speech understand his Nescio, in his id est, ut vobis dicam, which is yet more perspicuous by that which S. Augustine doth add; Such kind of speeches (saith this holy Father) are ordinary in the common speech of men, as when we say, It is a pleasant, or a drowsy day: signifying that the day maketh us pleasant, or drowsy. I would desire the Reader to compare this Nescio of Christ with S. Augustine's Nescio, in his 
* Supra chap. 8. lit. 〈◊〉.  former example, and he shall easily interpret S. Augustine by S. August, to understand that Nescio cannot admit a concealed sense. Now what man of common sense doth not know the sense of such speeches? plainly showing that the Apostles did then know the sense of that Nescio, the day of judgement, only that they might not know it. Can then your unknown Reservation have approbation by S. Augustine? fie no: his Christian ha●t was ●o divinely precise in this point, that the did not admit of dissimulation for preservation of the glory of womanhood, woman's chastity; no not for the preservation of another man's life, no not of our own life, no not for gaining a man's soul. And will you make him guilty of more than Heathenish equivocation?  
Secondly, consider but the use of your imagined Reservation, which you prescribe to be then only requisite, when the hearer is incompetent and unfit to understand the clause reserved: but shall any imagine, that the Apostles were not fit to understand (the only reason of your imagined Reservation) that they were unfit to know the day of judgement? senseless, for our Saviour elsewhere saith, 
* Act. 1. 7.  It is not for you to know the times and seasons. And why was not that [ut vobis significem] at this time also seasonable for them to understand? Yes doubtless, if that were the meaning of his words, they understood it, and then it was no concealed reservation; if it were not his meaning, there was no equivocation.  
Thirdly, the purpose of the Aequivocator is by his secret reservation To delude his hearer. And will you say now therefore that Christ did aequiuocate, that is, delude and deceive his Disciples? This were blasphemy.  
Fourthly, this exposition [Vt vobis significem] is either derived from the circumstances of Christ his speech, whether of time, or place, or persons etc. Or else it is idly imagined, to say that the Fathers doted dreaming upon a sense without light of some circumstance would be injurious to reverend Antiquity, and prove the subversion of your own cause: but if the Fathers collected this by circumstances and consequents of Christ's speech, than was it not the sense concealed, except you will say S. Augustine and S. Ambrose did understand better the meaning of our Saviour then his prime, chosen, and (concerning the tenor of Christ's speeches) his familiar Disciples. Lastly we will conclude this point by the testimony of your Genesius, who will tell you that this sense which you conceit, is not only contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense: 
h Non sustineamus hâc interpretatione nitentes. quidquam non modò contra veterum & gravissimorum Doctorum consensum, verum-evam contra communem sensum, quasilegem in vitam communem inducere. Genesius in lib. qui inscribitur Theophilus, Tract. de cansis occultis.  We may not suffer (saith he) those who rely upon this interpretation to bring in (speaking of purpose against your equivocation) any doctrine amongst men, which is not only contrary to the common consent of ancient Fathers, but also common sense.   

The Aequivocator.  

i The moderate Answerer chap. 10.  Our Saviour Christ in going to 
* Luc. 24. 28.  Emmaus, did fain as though he would go further. Ergo, it is lawful to aequiuocate.   

The Answer.  

k Graecè est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; quòd honestius converti possit, & convenientius [prae se ferebat:] ut quidam exponit. jansenius Concord, in hunc locum.  The Greek word (saith your Doctor) might have been more securely and conveniently translated, as one doth it, [He made as though he would go forward:] But Aequivocatours delight in feigning: will you therefore behold your own visage? 
l Priscillianistae haeretici ex hoc loco, (ut docet August. lib. ad Consentium cap. 13.) probare contendunt licere nobis aliquandò mentiri. Maldon. Ies. in hunc locum.  The Heretics, called Priscillianists, as appeareth in S. Augustine (saith your jesuit) from this text did labour to prove a lie lawful. And in reading S. Augustine you shall find, that never either Catholics or Heretics could discern in your mixed proposition any thing but a lie. But to the text; the Fathers shall be our judges, and your Authors our witnesses.  
First, 
m Mendacium non est, inquit Augustinus, verba ambigua proferre occultandi veritatem causà, modò non fiat animo fallendi alium: ita fictio illa in factis vitiosa non suit, sed salutaris, qualis fuit illa Pauli cum circum cidebat Timotheum, ubi non circumcisionem tanti fecit, sed ut judaeus judaeis factus Iudaeum lucrifaceret. haec Augustinus. Nec hic Christi gestus ad fall●ndos eos, sed ut hac ratione excitaret discipulorum animos ad hospitalitatis vi cut●…. jansen. Concord. in hunc locum. Christus figuratè sinxit se longris ●re: qui● cum lo●…s esset recessurus ascendendo in coelum, per hospitalitatem quodammodo reti●ebatur in terra, inquit Augustinus. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 111. art. 1.  Saint Augustine (as your Bishop relateth) saith that Christ did seem to go further, but not with any purpose to deceive those Disciples. How then? your Aquinas will tell you. S. Augustine saith, that Christ made as though he would go further; to signify figuratively, that he was ready to go into heaven, but that for a while he was in a sort retained by earthly hospitality. 
n Christus, ut Greg. & Beda exponunt, noluit discipulos istos fallere, sed postùs docere eos falli, ●ocue eos errore liberare, qu●… utabant illum non resurrexisse, nec Christum esse posse: ergo fingebat se tanquam, eorum opinion, peregrinum longiùs ●…e. Quemadmodum Propheta Michaiah 1. Reg. 22. 15. respondet regi quaerenti an esset praeliandum in Ramoth [Ascend, inquit, & vade properè, quia tradet eos Deus in man Regis] cum tamen ●atis intelligeret. Regi ibi esse moriendum, haec loquens non sua, sed Regis & falsorum propheta●… opinion, à quibus rex erat deceptus: non ut homine falleret, sed ut ●…si●… doceret. Solemus enim aegro dicere, qui aquam rubio colours tinct●m, quam ●●s, vinum este putat: Accipe vinum; ubi 〈…〉 on sall●mus, sed aegrum 〈◊〉 signis●…s. Maldonat. 〈◊〉. s. 〈◊〉. in 〈…〉  Pope Gregory likewise and Bede (saith your jesuit) hold that Christ did it not to deceive them, but rather to show how they were deceived. He cannot be said to he (saith Gregory) who useth words, which are not intended to deceive another, but to show that he is deceived, as the Prophet Michaiah dealt with Ahab. 1. Reg. 22. The story is plain: when King Ahab was bend to go to fight against Ramoth Gilead, all the false Prophets promised him a prosperous warfare: the King calleth for Micheas, and asketh, [Shall we go up against Ramoth Gilead, or no? the Prophet answered, Go up and pros●er.] When notwithstanding he knew that the King should perish: but this was an irony, and in a sense known to the King himself, who therefore charged him to speak seriously. Therefore the Prophet spoke these words now according to the meaning of the false prophets in scorn: as When a sick man shall take water died with a red colour, which he is persuaded to be wine, we would say in jesting manner, well drink your wine; thereby to tell him his error, and not to cause him to err: so here these disciples not persuaded that Christ was risen from death, but held him as a stranger and passenger feigned himself a passenger to go forward. Come to the literal and historical sense. [He made as though he would go further: and they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, did compel, or, constrain him, saying, Abide with us, and he abode with them.] And now it appeareth, he meant as he seemed, to go further, but after was overcome by their courteous importunity to yield unto them: as the 
* Gen. 19  Angel of God was by the urgent request of holy Loath: hereby teaching us a double instruction: in respect of man not to be perverse, but when our occasions may suffer us to yield to the sweet violence of courteous humanity; in respect of God [Who loveth an importunate beggar] to be instant in prayer, knowing that God, who in our remissness will, by withdrawing his graces, seem to go from us, yet condescendeth in mercy to our importunity, and will abide with us. If therefore we consider the figurative sense, then in this fiction there could not be your equivocation, for it was done to instruct them, and not to deceive them: If we embrace the literal, than it was no fiction, but a plain and familiar human practice, as any one who departeth from his friends is truly said to depart. What reason or religion than shall we call this, which thus from an action of sensible instruction, would prove an aequiuocating dissimulation, a reservation insensible, that is to say, a deceitful delusion: turning by this means the Oracle of the son of God Christ jesus, author of the truth, into the Oracle of Delphos, the professed devilish school of Sophistical equivocations?   

The fourth place. The Aequivocatour.  

o Treatise of Aequivocat. chap. 4.  jesus said to his Disciples, 
* joh. 7.  I will not go up to the feast at Jerusalem, and yet afterward went, meaning (as Bellarmine in his Dictates doth expound) not as the Messias, but in secret, or (as S. Cyrill doth interpret) not to solemnize it publicly; or (as S. Augustine will have it) not to manifest my glory; or else not the first or second day, but in the midst of the week. Thus have we from Scriptures and Fathers sufficiently proved our mixed proposition.   

The Answer.  
You have bestowed many leaves in Commenting upon this text, to evince from hence your reserved conceit: let me borrow a little leave to plead aswell for truth, as you do for a lie, and show you, how expounding this place, you, blinded with the love of your Thais, had rather snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant: for those words [I will not go up▪ in the Greek are, [I will not go up yet:] and then (as your jesuit Maldonate well observeth) 
p Qui dicit se, nondum, ascendere, non dicit se non a scensurum, nec aliquid contrarium dictis postea fecerat, atque it omnis questio tolleretur. Maldon. Ies. Comm. in joh. 7.  He who saith he will not go up yet, doth not deny that he will not go up at all, and therefore going ap afterwards, that act doth not contradict his former speech, and so all doubt and question is easily assoiled.  
But your Helena, the Latin vulgar text must be embraced, for 
q Treatise quo supra.  Albeit, (saith our Aequivocator) in all the Greek co●ies it be [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nondum, not yet,] yet all Catholics are bound to admit [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, non, not,] because it is so in the vulgar edition. How far they err from Catholics herein, I have 
* Apoleg. Cathol. part. 2.  elsewhere showed; how we are to esteem of the Greek translation in this present text may appear by the testimony of your forenamed jesuit, saying: 
r Innumeri penè codices Graeci sunt, in quibus legitur [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nondum ascendo] maximè verò antiquissimus Vaticanus, toto terrarum orb celeberrimus, deindè Autores graves, Nonnus, Chrysostomus, Euthymius. Maldon. Ies. quo supra.  Almost innumerable Greek copies have [I will not yet ascend] and in that most ancient Vatican copy universally commended throughout the world, it is sore●d, which reading many grave and learned Fathers do fellow.  
Yet we will not so strictly challenge our right in this equity approved by all antiquity, which is, that as in discerning pure water, rather to examine it by the fountain, than the river: so we judge of the truth of texts by the Original, rather than by the translation. For your Latin text doth sufficiently betoken the same sense of the Greek, [Not yet]: so do two of the principal Doctors of your Church paraphrase: the first is your sometime jesuit, and late Cardinal, Tollet: 
s [Non ascendam] id est, Nondum; quia [Tempus meum] quandò me i●e oportet, [nondum est impletum:] quo tamen impleto ascendam, nè scandalizentur, quod ipse nollet ire ad festum, nondàm enim legis obseruantia cessârat. Non absolutè nega●…, significans se posteà venturum; nam vox [Non] est dictio limitata, quae est in Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae vox eadem in sequentibus, [Nondum tempus meum impletum est.] Tollet. I●s. & Cardin.  [I will not go up,] that is, (saith he) not yet, because [my time] when I must go up [is not yet fulfilled:] which being fulfilled, than I will go up; lest that his Disciples should have been offended at his absence from the solemn feast at 〈…〉 rusalem (because the observation of jewish rites was not yet abolished) Christ did not absolutely deny to go, but did signify that after a while he would go up. For the word [Not] in the Latin is the same with [not yet] in the Greek, as appeareth in the words following, [For my time is not yet fulfilled. Our next witness is your bishop Ia●senius, who from the sound light of the text concludeth that [
t Verba quae sequuntur, [Tempus au●em vestrum paratum est] significant Christum non opera sua facere aliorum hominummore, prout occurrit, sed certis temporibus praescribere sibi, & prout novit ●a maximè facere ad Dei gloriam, idcircò tempus sibi nondum opportunum ascendendi, vobis autem, ou● ex praescripto Dei vivitis, tempus paratum est adeundi festum. [Non ascendam] id est, non adhuc ascendam: qui sensus satis indicatur, cum sequitur, [Quia tempus meum,] quo scz. mihi ascendendum est, nondum est impletum. Et Erasmus testatur antiqua quaedam Latinorum exemplaria habere [Nondum:] & hae est Germana expositio. jansenius Concord. in hunc locum.  Not] signifieth plainly, not yet▪ and that this is the proper exposition of the place. Adding ou● of Erasmus, That many ancient Latin translations follow the Greek, having, [not yet.] Therefore this text admitteth no reservation.  
What shall we then say to the other expositions objected? only this, that whatsoever exposition they understand, did think that the same was aswell understood of the Apostles, as of themselves. For if the Apostles ha● not t●… that Christ would have gone at all to the feast, they should have been scandalised: saith your jansenius. But your coined Reservation is always supposed of you to be a clause concealed, and not understood. Therefore in all these expositions alleged, there appeareth not the least hair of your foxtaile, you call equivocation. Scriptures forsake you, or rather you them: now you will have recourse unto Fathers.    

CHAP. XII.  
Objections from Fathers.  

The Aequivocator.  

a Treatise for Aequivocat. chap. 8.  SAint Gregory (
* Humanae aures talia verba nostra judicant, qualia foris sonant: divina verò judicia talia ●a audiunt, qualia ex intimis proferuntur; certè noue●…t ille, qu● intentionem alterius varijs explicat verbis: quia non debet alioqui verba considerare sed voluntatem & intentionem, quia non debet intentio verbis deseruire, sed verba intentioni.  lib. 26. moral. cap. 7.) teacheth that we ought not to respect w●rds, but the intent of the speaker. Ergo the intent maketh the Proposition true.   

The Answer.  
You rove from the mark, your learned Doctor will direct you to understand the meaning of S. Gregory, as thus: 
b Gregorius eorum calumniam taxat, qui contra loquentis indubitatam mentem verba malitiôsè interpretantur. Sic enim hunc locum viri doctissimi interpretantur, qui docent cum calliditas adhibetur ab alterutro dic ente, vel accipiente, tùm demùm orationem accipere ad mentem eius, qui simplicitèr intelligi●▪ Genesius in suo Theophilo. cap. 6.  Gregory doth in that place (saith he) reprove a quarreler, who knowing the simple meaning of him, with whom he doth contend, yet maliciously doth wrest his words: And thus do the most learned expound S. Gregory. This kind of example we read of in our Stories: An Innkeeper in London at the sign of the Crown, to encourage his son to learning, would usually say, Learn fast, child, and I will make thee heir of the crown. One perversely taking advantage of the ambiguity and double sense of the phrase, heir of the crown, brought him in question of high Treason, & the poor Innkeeper (as I take it) lost both his artificial and natural Inn. Here was place for S. Augustine his moderation not captiously to catch at men's doubtful words, where we are not ignorant of their simple meaning. The like I have heard of a Minister called in question of perjury, because he had sworn that N. was possessed of a lease, as it might be the 13. day of May. It appeared, indeed, that upon the same day the said lease was delivered to the forenamed N. according to this form of law, To hold from the day of the date hereof. O sir, (saith a Lawyer) you are now convicted for a notorious perjurer; for these words From the day etc. are understood exclusively, signifying after that day, and that the lease was not in force till the next day. Seeing then (saith the Minister) both law and Lawyers fail, I must beseech your honours to give me leave to show the simplicity of my meaning in a case of like tenor; leave was granted him to plead his own cause: thus then (quoth he) when any in this honourable assembly was married after this form, To have and to hold from this day forward; whether were they man and wife before the next day, or no? If they had said no, they should have stained their first-born; and, affirming it, they were forced to acknowledge the simplicity of his meaning, and remit the rigour and extremity of the law. Have you no Father to father your aequiuocating lie upon, but only Saint Gregory? (For this is the only direct testimony which you allege out of the Fathers, to this purpose.) You thought, belike, that if you must have an author for a lie, it was most likely he should be a Pope. But you must then make choice of some other, than S. Gregory, who I am sure) as Popedom is now defined) was nothing less than a Pope. We will conclude concerning Fathers with your own authors: 
c Hanc sententiam aliqui tueri mo●…tur contra 〈…〉 & summorum Theologorum auto▪ itatem. ●ullu●autem ante G●brielem hanc aequatiocationem commentus est. Genesius quo supra.  That this manner of aequiuocating is against the authority of most ancient and chief divines, & that none before Gabriel (not that Gabriel, Angel of light, but Gabriel Biel a Sophister) taught it. Whosoever was the author, I dare boldly conclude, that though S. Gregory, or a thousand of Saints, yea though celestial Gabriel, or any Angel from heaven should teach and authorize such a doctrine as this, we may from the word of God pronounce him 
* Galat. 1. 8.  Anathema. Now that we have wrested your weapons out of your hands, it will be easy to pierce you even with similitudes, the bluntest kind of Argument.    

CHAP. XIII.  
Our seventh Argument from comparison of a 

1. Sign,  
2. Interpreter,  
3. Coin,  
4. Gygesring.    

a Aequivocat. supra.  VOices and writings are as signs (say you) and instruments ordained to express a proposition. Very good, now every sign which a man shall use contrary to the signification thereof, is a lying sign: thus to hang an ●uie bush at a Baker's door would be a lying sign; thus idols in visible forms made to express the essential form of the invisible and incomprehensible God are called 
* Is. & jer.  lying vanities: the mirabilia, that is, wonderful works which exceed not the principles of nature, and yet challenge unto themselves the name of Miracula, as though they proceeding from an omnipotent power above nature are called 
* 2. Thess. 2.  lying wonders: the action of the stage-player, who lifted up his hand to heaven crying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 earth, cast them down again to the earth, crying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 god in heaven; was counted a solecism and lying gesture. And shall not your voice, I am no Priest, which cannot possibly express (that which you are) a Priest, be a lying voice? Yes verily, and your pen also defending and approving this doctrine of lying, is made of the same wing, whereof others were, whom God condemned by his Prophets, saying, 
* jer. 8. 8.  Stylus Scribarum est styl●s mendax; the pen of the Scribes is a lying pen. But whereunto shall I compare this generation? they are like unto Cacus in the fable, who is said to have stolen oxen, and lest he should be traced by their right footings, he dragged them backward by the tails into his den: so the right answer of our Aequivocator should have been, I am a Priest, but he saith contrary, I am no Priest. Even by this devise wresting a meaning by a clause of reservation (this is the tail) and so like Cacus lurketh safe in the closet of his hollow heart.  
The second similitude is an Interpreter: for Aristotle defineth every proposition to be an interpretation of the mind, You must now imagine that your Pope should send his Nuncio to congratulate (together with Amba sladours, from other Princes) our Kings last miraculous deliverance, with all complemental pretences of joy; for his Interpreter he shall make cho●●e of you (Aequivocator) who profess yourself his majesties loyal subject, whom he shall acquaint with his secret meanings and clauses reserved in his message: Notwithstanding our Aequivocator shall report it thus. His holiness doth greatly rejoice (most renon med King) at your happy deliverance▪ Reserving that which was the meaning of the Nuncio; Ab omni spe obtinendi Romanum imperium:] and wisheth unto your Majesty with all his heart [reserving another clause, which was intended by the Nuncio from his holiness, Admodùm exiguam] contiavance of God's protection. Will any judge otherwise of such an Aequivocator than of a notorious liar?  
The third Similitude, vulgar and country speech by Plutarch is resembled to the country coin: now yourselves cannot deny but that in all states 
b Falsare monetam est crimen laesae maiestaus'. Sà jes Aphoris. lit. Falsarius.  Stamping of a false coin is high treason; and so is also clipping and impairing the King's stamp: But Aequivocators by their clause of reservation clip off that part of speech, which is the image of God, the truth of the speech. Ergo guilty of higher than high treason.  
The fourth similitude: Mental equivocation is not unlike Gyges his ring, which Plato and others mention, being of that virtue, that 
* Cic. Offic. l. 3.  Whilst the pale of the ring was kept on the backe-siae of his hand he was visible; but being turned into the palm of his hand he was invisible, seeing any, & seen of none. By means whereof he shortly after practised adultery with the Queen of Lydia, and murdered the King. So our Aequivocator, when happily he shall turn his aequiuocating clause outward to manifest it in speech, he lieth open and is easily known for a disloyal subject: but when he keepeth it close in his mind, he is emboldened to practise against his King. But the Heathen Orator entreating of the property of an honest man, he would have him tried by the opportunity of Gyges' ring: No good man (saith he) would abuse it, because honest men do not seek means how they may be secretly evil, but always resolve to be absolutely good. Surely this Pagan must rise up in judgement against this Aequiuocating generation to condemn it.  
I might add another Similitude taken from chastity; the Father's calling always veritatem 〈◊〉 virginitatem; and S. Augustine castitatem mentis: Verity is the ch●…y of the Soul. It may be they have taken this from S. john in the description of his 
* Apoc. 14. 4.  V●gines, in who●e mouth there is found no guile: as though a chaste soul should abhor as much the use of a lie in the mouth, as a devout Virgin would loathe to stain herself with a known adulterer: such is the a●tinit between these devices, that S. Paul doth range 
* 1. Tim. 1. 10.  w●…gers and liars in one sentence. From hence it is that the craft of Vintners in the mixing and colouring of their wines is called Adulterare, adulterating of the wine. Compare this craft of mixture of wine with your equivocation, which you call Amixt proposition, and what shall you perceive else but an artificial adultery? Our last argument which is belonging to this conclusion, taken from the effects of Aequiuocating, I reserve for the last in the next conclusion, because there it will be more effectual for confirmation of both.   

CHAP. XIIII.  
Our second conclusion, that no manner of equivocation, whether mental or ver●all, can be used in an oath without sacrilegious profanation.  
WE deny not but ambiguous words may sometime be used in common speech: for so we read of Athanasius, who, flying by ship the malice of the persecutor, and at last overtaken the pursuer asked, 
a Socrates, Sozem. & alij.  Did not Athanasius pass this way? Athanasius himself made answer, Yes, he is a little before you, if you make hast you shall soon overtake him. The Persecutor imagining, A little before, must signify some other ship then that which was immediately before him, passed by Athanasius, and pursued a butterfly.  

The state of this Question from the opinion of the Aequivocator.  

b Treatise chap. 4.  This equivocation of ambiguous words, is to use one word which hath divers significations: as being asked whether a Priest be in my 〈…〉, 
c Treatise chap 7.  may answer non est: understanding by est, the signification of edere, and not of esse. May this kind of aequiuocating be used man oath? No, not before a competent judge lawfully examining▪ this were a mortal sin. We suspect you will prove an honest man: therefore tell us, Whom do you hold competent judges? Do you esteem any competent and fit, who are Adversaries to your Romish profession? 
d Treatise quo supra. And this is the opinion of them all, to judge Protestant-magistrates not fit judges. Vide supra.  When a Magistrate shall swear me to bring a (Papist) Recusant to the Assies, which is unlawful, yet seeing there is no other way for the Recusant to escape, then will I swear by equivocation. Now you return to your former wallow, but we must take you as we find you.    

CHAP. XV.  
Our first Argument from the form of an oath.  
WE are not now to prove that wrought to take an oath of all them that exact it, but only that whensoever, or to whomsoever we sweat, we are bound in conscience to answer directly. To show therefore what an oath is, we will be come●ed with your jesuits definitions. One defineth it 
a juramentú est religiosa invocatio di●… testimony, in dict●a●…us confirmatione ●…iet, Ies Instruct. Sacerd. lib 4. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 addit, siuè explicitè siuè imp●…è.  A religious invocation (whether it be expressly, or implicatively) of God, as witness of our speech. Another, 
b Est religionis officium & opus quo credimus Deum totius ve●…atis autorem esle, quinee decipiunquam possit, nec alios 〈◊〉 e●e: sicut ad Heb. 4. Hac agitur religio●…n. ●…homines, Deum ve●●atis tes●e●ad habent. & ●j●●…an●… fide habere impium & nefarium sit.  It is a dutiful act of religion, whereby we profess God to be the author of all truth; who can neither deceive, nor be deceived. Hence may we reason thus: The competency of God, by whom we swear, maketh every one competent judges and hearers, to whom we swear: but by swearing by God, whom we can not deceive, we religiously protest that we in swearing intent not to deceive. Ergo our deceitful aequiuocating is a profanation of the religious worship of God.  
The Mayor is true, for that our Saviour in avouching truth, held Pilate a competent judge, although he did not juridicè, but falsely proceed. S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesar's tribunal seat, who was a Pagan. jacob did covenant with Laban an Idolater: and the maid, to whom S. Peter swore, was competent enough to hear a true oath, if he had been as ready to swear truly: and yet neither the maid, not that judge did proceed turidice; for she was no lawful Examiner, and he was a partial judge.  

A Confirmation of the former argument from the authority of the Fathers.  
To know in what sense of words we must take any oath, the doctrine of Isidore is infallible: 
c Quacunque arte verboru quis iuret, Deus tamen, qui conscientiae testis est, ita accipit sicut is, cui iuratur, intelligit. Isidor. lib. 2. de su●…. 13.  Though man use never so great art and cunning in swearing, yet God doth value the oath according to the sense of him, to whom the oath is made. Hereby your art of Aequiuocating is quite excluded, which teacheth to use that signification and sense which is most contrary to his understanding to whom we swearè. To know what is the necessity of performance of a lawful oath, the rule of S. Hierome is most divine; which is this: 
d In juramento sides seruahda est, nec cōside●a●dū est cui, sed per quem iu●●●eris. Hieror. ●n Ezeth 17.  Faith must be kept in an oath, because we must not regard to whom; (man); but (God) by whom we have sworn. And thus also your cozenage of falsifying your oath is likewise excluded. In both these testimonies we see the Iurer is taught always in swearing to man to fix his eyes upon God; and his omnipotent justice, by whom I swear, maketh every man, to whom I swear, a competent hea●er; therefore chargeth me to swear directly, evidently condemning our Aequivocatours, who make a Protestant-magistrate competent to take their oath, but hold him incompetent to take their sincere and direct oath: as though man only, and not also God, did take our oath. Impious; for so sacred a thing is an oath, that 
e Mu●i falluntur (inquit Augussinus) ut putent, quia nihil est per quod iurant, ideo se non ●…ine periurij ener●: proteus' per●● us es, quit per id, quod since 'em non putas, fal●um iuras as, si tu●●hum sanctum non putas, sanctum tamen illum putat cui jurat. Genesius in suo Theoph. cap. 6.  Though a man should swear by a thing, in his own opinion unholy, which is holy in the opinion of him to● hom he sweareth; this man swearing falsley is perjured. Still we see, that though an oath appear outwardly, 
* Exod. 3.  but as a flame in the hush, yet God is in this flame, therefore we must put off the shoes of our feet, that is our carnal affections; for God's name, the foundation & ground of an oath, is holy ground.   

A Confirmation of the former argument from their ancient School.  
These our Aequivocators do by their new subtleties foolifie the honest simplicity of their ancient School: the two eyes whereof Lombard and Aquinas law clearly in this kind of swearing an homble profanation of the sacred name of almighty God. 
f Qui calliditate utitur in juramento, duplicitèr est reus, ●u●a & nomen Dei in vanum sumit, & proximum dolo capit. Lombard. lib. 3. dist. 39 lit. 〈◊〉.  Whosoever (saith Lombard) doth use craft o● sub●… in an oath, doth defile his conscience with a double guilt; he both deceiveth his neighbour, and also taketh the name of God in vain. Therefore Aquinas doth expressly conclude: 
g Si judex hoc exquirat, quod non potest secundùm ordinem i●ris, non tenetur accusatus respondere, sed potest vel per appellationem, vel aliter licet subterfugere; mendacium autem dicere non licet. Et paulò post. Falsitatem autem proponere nullo casu alicui licet, neque etiam aliquem dolum vel fraudem adhibere, quia fraus & dolus vim mendacij habet, & hoc est se calumniosè defendere. Aquinas 2. 2. q. 69. art. 1. & arg. 2.  If a judge (saith he) shall require any thing, which he cannot (the point in question) by order of law, the party accused is not bound to answer, but either by appeal, or some other manner of m●anes may deliver himself: but in no case may he tell a lie, or use falsehood, no nor any kind of craft or deceit, for this is to answer, etc. I may from Thomas insult upon our Aequivocatours in the words of their own Genesius; 
h Potuitnè Thomas apertius damnare istorum sententiam, qui docent fas esse Reo crimen verum sibi intentum arte verborum inficiari? Genesius in Theoph. cap. 18.  Could Thomas more plainly deny their opinion, who teach the guilty person to avoid a true accusation by words of guile and deceit?    

CHAP. XVI.  
The second Argument taken from the end of an oath, as it is affirmed in Scripture.  
HEb. 4. An oath is for confirmation, to make an end of all contention. This Mayor is Scripture. (Minor.) But in an aequiuocating oath there is neither beginning of confirmation, nor end of contention. Ergo it is a vain and sacrilegious oath.  

The Minor proved out of that mouth of the Aequivocatour.  

a Treatise of Aequivocas. chap. 10.  For further direction of the party examined, let him admit the oath with a secret intention of equivocation, & if he be more urged to swear without aequiuocating, let him swear that also (namely that he doth not aequiuocate) but with the foresaid intention of equivocation. What should the Disciple of Christ say to this Doctor, though he sat in Peter's chair? What, but as our Lord Christ taught by his example, who in the favourable temptation to do evil for security of his life, answered, 
* Math. 16. 23  Get thee behind me Satan: for this is the mouth of Satan, to swear by an equivocation. We do not aequiuocate; and urged again to swear this without equivocation, to swear aequiuocatingly we do not aequiuocate. etc. here is contention without end, by this equivocation which is as bottomless as the pit of hell.   

A confirmation of this former Argument from the jesuit Azorius.  

b Azorius jesuita qu● supra.  Whosoever (saith your Azorius) is rightly catechised in this point of religion concerning an oath, calleth God to witness of the truth, and therefore it is an heathenish impiety not to believe Christians thus swearing. Say now, you Aequivocators, who swear Sophistically, turning 
* Supra.  esse into edere, thereby to deceive your hearer; Is he to whom you swear bound to believe you? this were hard, for so a Christian should be bound to be deceived: may he lawfully suspect you? then this your doctrine, which taketh away the consecrated use of an oath, which is, for Confirmation of speech, is plainly Antichristian.    

CHAP. XVII.  
The third Argument, à minori, as the Logicians term it, from the less to the more.  
MAior.) That doctrine which is less honest than the doctrine of Pagans, is intolerable among Christians: (Minor) but jesuitical aequiuocating is less honest than the doctrine of Infidels and Pagans. Ergo, aught to be esteemed abominable among Christians. The Mayor is taught by our Saviour: 
* Matth. 5. 20.  Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and pharisees, you shall not enter, etc. showing where there is more knowledge of Christ, there the profession must be more honest. And more expressly S. Paul: 
* 1. Cor. 5. 1.  There is such fornication among you, as is not among the Heathen. Concluding that it is blasphemy against God for a Christian to be more vile in life than a Pagan. The Minor proved: for your jesuit Sà doth tell us, that there be but 
a jurans redire in carcerem tenetur (nisi esset ini●; detentus) etiam cum periculo vitae; quidam etiam ad iniustum carcerem redeundum ●iunt, nisi juramentum relaxetur per Episcopum. Eman. Sa. Ies. Aphor. T●t. juramentum.  Some of you, who think that a Prisoner unjustly detained upon his oath is bound to return, except he be absolved from his oath by a Bishop. This in an oath without equivocation: but our Aequivocators think their equivocation in making an oath better, and of more power than any Bishop to free them from perjury in an oath; esteeming it as good as no oath wherein they use their Reservation: when as yet the very Infidels in respect of their natural knowledge of God, kept better fidelity among men.  

An Example of the Pagans fidelity out of Tully.  

b unus ex decem illis captivis, etc. Cicero Offic. lib. 3. §. Regulus.  There was a man, who together with nine other prisoners being dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, upon his oath, that he within a prefixed time should return again: assoon as he was out of prison, he returned as though he had forgot some thing, by and by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, answering that he was freed from his oath. See now the opinion of his own countryman concerning this equivocation of Return; 
c Non re & è, fraus enim distringit, non dissoluit periurium: Itaque decrevit Senatus ut ille veteranus & callidus vinctus ad Anni balem duceretur. Cicero quo supra.  Non rectè (saith Tully) this was not well done: for craft in an oath doth not lessen but make the perjury more heinous: wherefore the grave Senators of Rome sent this cozening mate bound, with cords, again to the prison of Annibal their enemy, from whom he had escaped. 
d Qui verò dcunt nullam esse sidem, quae Infideli data sit, videant ne quaeratur latebra periurio; quiduis enim potius argutè excusari possit quam iusiurandu: quantum enim mali excidit ex ipsa fraud? Cic. ibid.  But some object, That we are not bound to keep faith with them that are 
* These Poeni, or Carthaginians, whom Tully calleth Infidels, were of all men in the world most perfidious, so that they came into a proverb, [Punica fides] The Carthaginians faith, which was as if one should have said Falsehood: and if any, than this people was incompetent to challenge truth in an oath.  faithless: o let them take heed, this (such is our Aequivocators objection of a judge incompetent) is but to seek a lurking hole for perjury: whereas we may excuse subtlety in any thing rather than in an oath, wherein even the least deceit is a great mischief. This was the honesty of the ancient Heathenish Rome, which must rise up in judgement against this present Rome to condemn it, which hath changed that faithful Romanam in Punicam fidem.    

CHAP. XVIII.  
The fourth Argument, à paribus.  
Socrates' reporteth this story of Arius, the arch-heretic, 
d Imperator Arium ad iu●iurandum adegit, ille id quoque simulatè & fallacitèr praest●tit: ●ucata verò ratio, quâ ad fraudem in subscribendo usus est, sicut audivi, huiusmodi fuit; Arius suam ipsius opinionem in charta habebat, eamque sub ala gestat, jurat se verè & ex animo sentire, quemadmodum scripserat. Socrates lib. 〈◊〉. hist. cap. 38.  who being compelled by the holy Emperor Constantine to deliver his subscription to the Council of Nice, and to avouch his integrity by an oath, he used this art and sleight: his own (heretical) opinion he closely kept under his left arm, and then swore (laying his hand upon his left side) that he so believed as he had written. What can be the difference betwixt the oath of our Aequivocators, and of this blasphemous Arius? He kept secret his equivocation under the hollow of his arm, but these conceal theirs in the hollow of their hearts.  

An Objection removed.  
You peradventure will insist and say, that Arius did aequiuocate in the cause of faith, which all Christians hold a thing most abominable: but first know, that although the matter of deceitful swearing may make the deceit to be more wicked, yet it can not make the wickedness to be more deceitful; for every thing is defined by his form, and not by his matter, Vero nihil verius, and so on the contrary: for example, to say the mouse worried a cat, and to say adultery is no sin, this latter is not the greater lie; yet by reason of the matter is the greater sin, because besides the wickedness of lying, it doth justify (another wickedness) adultery. Now to the matter.  
You will aequiuocate in the question concerning your Priesthood, saying and swearing against your knowledge that you are no Priest, by some secret reservation of mind; as according to the example of one of your fellows, I am no Priest; meaning, No Priest [Apollonis]: as though an aequiuocating Priest can consort with any better than with those Satanical Priests of the Pagan god Apollo. For all their answers (as every scholar knoweth) from their Oracles was by Amphibologies and Equivocations. Of many, be you contented with this one. Pyrrhus' his question to that Oracle was; Whether he should give an overthrow to the Romans, or no: the answer of the Oracle was this: 
Aio te Aetacidi Romanos vincere posse;  That is to say, 
I say that Pyrrhus the Romans may overcome.  So whether the Romans (which after was true) should overcome Pyrrhus, or Pyrrhus (which was false) should conquer the Romans, the aequiuocating Oracle might be found to have said truth. It is recorded by 
* Euseb. Prapar. evang.  Eusebius, that at the birth of Christ all those devilish aequiuocating Oracles were put to silence: when the last which spoke, being asked Why they now ceased to give answers; returned this last answer; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Because the Hebrew babe (meaning Christ) is borne. So doubtless, in what heart soever there is the regenerating spirit of Christ, there the aequiuocating spirit of Delphos doth wax dumb.  
Now you hold, that your Priesthood is conferred upon you by a Sacrament of Ordination; and that 
b Bellar. lib. 2. de effect. Sacram. in genere.  Ex opere operato it doth impress in your souls Charactêrem indelebilem, that is, a mark never to be blotted out. 
c Ordo praestat caeteris omnib' quoad hoc, quia constituit homines in gradu sublimiori, quam sunt caeteri Christiani. Bellar. quo supra cap. 28. §. Ordo.  By the power of that Sacrament of Order, which herein (say you) excelleth all other Sacraments, that it advanceth Priests a degree above all other Christians. The end thereof you believe is Tooffer sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead. Yet do you aequiuocatingly deny your Priesthood sealed unto you by a Sacrament belonging to faith. And what matter can there be wherein such a Priest will not aequiuocate, who doth aequiuocate concerning his Priesthood? But we have not so learned Christ, but defend that it is essential to a Christian, whensoever or to whomsoever he sweareth, to use simplicity, and not to sophisticate: for there is a double faith in the Iurer to be tendered; the first is faith to the man, to whom he sweareth, which we call fideline: the other is our faith in God, by whom he sweareth, to believe that he is omnipotently wise, to discern whether my words be true according to their signification, and omnipotently just to take vengeance upon me, if I do dissemble. The first faith is violated by aequiuocating; for it is therefore interpreted to be called 
d Cic. in Offic. lib. 1. & S. August. lib. de Mendacio. cap. 20.  Fides, quia fit quod dicitur, that is, The thing is, as it is said to be. And the dissemble● in this kind, Tully (as the golden mouth of all reasonable men) calleth 
e Speaking of the Poeni, who used to falsify their faith with men.  Infidelem, An Infidel. So, likewise, your faith in God is impeached, for how shall I call God to acknowledge those words to be true in that sense which I ought to speak them in, wherein I know them to be false?    

CHAP. XIX.  
This doctrine concerning Aequiuocating must in the last place be discussed both pro, and contra in the effects.  

The Aequivocator objecteth.  

a Treatise supra.  WHen a Protestant Magistrate shall swear me to bring in a Papist Recusant to the Assizes, when there is no way for the Recusant to escape, I will swear by aequiuccation.   

The Answer.  
Thinkest thou it unlawful to bring a Recusant to the Assizes? then is it also unlawful to swear that thou wilt bring him; for this is one essential property which God challengeth by his Prophet, that where there is jusiurandum, Ius should go before iurandum: and therefore the Prophet saith, 
b jurabis vivit Dominus in veritate, in judicio, & justitia. ler. 4.  jurabis in justitia; Thou shalt swear in justice: 
c judicio caret ●…ramentum incautum, veritate mendax, justitia iniquum & illicitum. Aquinas.  That is (to admit your own Aquinas for expositor) not to swear any thing that is unjust. But notwithstanding this direct command [Thou shalt swear] wilt thou swear? Then mayst thou not swear by equivocation, for that doth wound the very soul of an oath, which is simple Truth: but verbal equivocation taketh away the necessary simplicity of an oath, because therein is dissimulation. If therefore the thing be unlawful thou must not swear, no not truth, though thou be urged; if thou wilt swear, yet know thou art not urged to swear an untruth.   

The second Objection is popular, (supposing equivocation to be a lie) thus:  

d Est mendacium triplex; perniciosum, officiosum, iocosum● per●…ciosum est in damnum alicuius; officiosum quod est in al●… vulitatem; iocosum quod nec in dettimentum nec utilitatem al●cu●us est. Dicimus omne mendacium esse quidem peccatum, & cum sit in turamento, omne mendacium esse peccatum mortale; sine juramento, officiôsum autem & iocosum esse veniale peccatum. Tollet. les. Instruct. Sacerd lib. de septem peccat. cap. 54.  There are three kinds of lies (that one jesuit may speak for all his fellows) one is a pernicious and hurtful lie, which turneth to the hurt of another; the second is an officious and charitable lie, which is for the good of another; the third is but a jesting 〈◊〉, whereby no man is either helped or hurt. Of these we define thus, that every one of these used in an oath is a mortal sin; considered without an oath, the pernicious is only a mortal sin; the officious and ●esting are but venial.   

The Answer.  
I am not ignorant that the use of this distinction of mortal and venial, in the comparison of sins, is frequent in the Fathers, but as different from you in sense, as they be consonant in terms: for they never valued any sin so venial in his own nature, as not to deserve of itself an infinite eternal torment: for they always taught that every sin being a transgression of an eternal law of the infinitely just God, doth challenge an infinite punishment, & so to be accounted mortal: and yet not therefore equal, except you will say that theft and murder and blasphemy against God be therefore equal, because they be equally mortal: which I think you will not. But when they consider man in the state of Grace, they taught that the sins of human infirmity in a man regenerate are not rigorously exacted: and in this sense are called venial. Notwithstanding I dare affirm, that of these kinds of sins which you call venial, there is not one but being done upon presumption, it is damnable & equal with your mortal: As thus; suppose your officious lie be unto the examined venial, because he was instantly surprised (as it were) with a sudden passion, and not able to know how to resolve, which I call infirmity: yet if he had ●●ed presumptuously, that is, been of this resolution, that whensoever such a case should happen, his purpose was to lie, this unto that man had been a sin grievously mortal: yet this manner of resolution in like case is your general doctrine, and practise. Therefore we must show that   

Every Officious lie, for what good intent soever it be, resolutely done, whether in, or without an oath, is damnable in itself, and aught to be avoided of all Christians.  
Your practice in the popular opinion is justified in these respects; We do it for a good end, as to secure ourselves, or a Priest; and for the Catholic cause, lest holy Priesthood might be defamed, and our Catholic faith blasphemed. Have you said? Then see, I pray you, how much Christian simplicity doth abhor this infatuation? For holy Fathers will not allow any lie (the adultery of the soul) no not for 
e Non ad tuendam pudicitiam, mult● enim mag●s custodienda est a●… castitas, quae m●o mendacio, quam ea, quae aliena libidine violatur. August. de M●…ac. cap 20.  the defence of Chastity; nay not for 
f Non ad seruandam alterius vitam corporalem. August. ibid. cap. 17. & 18. & Greg. Pent. supra.  preservation of a man's bodily life; nay not for the 
g Non ad lucrandam salutem hominis aeternam. August. quo supra, cap. 20.  winning of a man's soul; nay, no evil may be done, (as your Acosta saith well) 
h Non ad malum faciendum, ut omnes Barbari Christi fidem amplectantur. Accost. Ies. desalut. Ind. lib. 2. cap. 2.  not for the gaining of many thousand Infidels to the faith. So precious a thing is Truth, unto truly Christian souls.  
Now because by experience in reading your best authors I have observed that the Romish Church hath been bold often to publish to the world lying Revelations, lying Miracles, lying Privileges, lying Legends, and Stories, Slanders, and other lying Reports: All which I am as able particularly to show as to name, and would also if it were not impertinent in this Treatise; and it may be some moderate answerer, will by someidle Rejoinder hereafter extort them: Seeing also that your Superiors both secular and jesuitical have authorised this art of lying, and that all such conceits are esteemed with them but as piae frauds, godly deceits: as though the evil of them [Deceit] were venial, and not so only, but because it is mixed with [Godly] that is, [with a good intent] it becometh also meritorious:  
I must entreat patience of the gentle Reader, to peruse a Christian reason, able to overthrow a thousand such Antichristian and heathenish profanations. For it is written Rom. 13. 7. If the verity of God have more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why do we not evil that good may come thereof? as some affirm we do say, whose damnation is just. The argument of the Apostle is this: though it be most true in the verity of God, that man's unrighteousness, (as for example a lie) doth redound to the glory of God's grace in pardoning of the same unrighteousness of man by jesus Christ, according to that verity of the Gospel of remission of sin: yet God forbid that any man should therefore multiply unrighteousness in sinning (as for example lying) that God's glory may be magnified in forgiving! Showing that it were blasphemy to teach that it is lawful for any to lie, although it would establish and advance the glory of God in that wherein 
* God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. joh. 3. 16.  God is most glorified, even the glory of his grace in pardoning of sin by Christ jesus. And therefore the Romish godless deceits, must be bundled up with those condemned 
i Coloss. 2. 23.  Wilworshippes, 
k jud. 8. 27.  Gedeons' Ephod, 
l 1. Sam. 15. 21.  Saul's sacrifice, 
m 2. Sam. 6. 6.  Vza his supporting of the ark, 
n 1. Reg. 12. 32.  jeroboams altars, 
o 1. Tim. 1. 13. & 2. Tim. 1. 3.  Paul's persecuting of God's Saints, yea the crucifying of 
p Act. 3. 17.  Christ the son of God (all which notwithstanding their pretended good intents) are subject to the same just condemnation. And why? holy job hath debated this matter long ago, 
q job. 13. vers. 7. 8. 9 10.  Will ye talk deceitfully (saith he) for God's cause, or will you accept his person? Will you make a lie for him, as one lieth for a man? he will surely reprove you. Doubtless; because God is truth: but no man will defend any thing, no not a lie, but he will defend it in the name of truth: for who will say I lie; therefore it is true? Can then any without blasphemy defend the cause of the God of all justice and truth with a lie?    

CHAP. XX.  
The Protestants last Argument against A●quiuocation, from the effects.  

The Confirmation of both our former Conclusions.  
The effects be of four kinds: It 

1. Dissolveth the natural policy of all kingdoms.  
2. Challengeth all Romish Priests and their adherents in this kingdom to the rack.  
3. Gaineth the infamy of deceit and lying upon the professed Aequivocators.  
4. Begetteth scandal to souls, blasphemies against Christ in the profession of the holy faith.     

The first.  
THe last anchor that man can cast for any security in this tumultuous and tempestuous world, in any Commonwealth, is an oath: for man's name, goods, lands, and life, whensoever they be formally called in question, do all in the end depend upon the presumption of the testimony of witnesses in the truth of their oath; and in one word, for the 
a Heb. 4.  end of all contentions, the last link of confirmation, is ordained an oath. For preservation therefore of the integrity of an oath, all Nations have provided punishments for all such as wilfully transgress therein; some country's adjudging the perjured to be whipped; others to be hanged; others to be slit in the nose; others to be branded in the forehead: and the judicial law of God doth command 
b Deut. 19  legem talionis; that every false witness should suffer that evil or loss, which by his false swearing he would have brought upon another; eye for eye, hand for hand, life for life. And in all the kingdoms of the world, from all generations, the offence in an oath is called Perjury; 
* jesuits supra.  which is a lie in an oath. But if the secret intention might excuse from lying, then could never any have been justly condemned for perjury or false witness. Thus the false witnesses suborned against 
c 1. King. 21.  Naboth, the false witnesses against chaste 
d Hist. of Susanna.  Susanna, the witnesses against 
e Matt. 26. 60.  Christ the just one, even the only just, might each one have justified themselves, saying, We spoke truth, for we did aequiuocate. And thus all human laws against perjury must have been abolished.   

The second effect which must move the Aequivocators to give over this art, is extremity against their own bodies.  
Because they, who by their aequiuocating do profess to conceal most desperate treasons, till they come to be tortured, do necessarily challenge the rack: but all Romish Priests and their disciples are instructed not to reveal any of their sect to be guilty of such practices, till they be enforced by the torture: for thus your Cardinal in his instructions of Priests, hath determined, 
f Quandò aliquis in tortura positus revelat alterius peccatum verè, quandò non interrogatur iuridicè, non peccat: ratio, quia nullus tenetur cum tanto suo detrimento conseruare famam alterius, occultando crimen commissum illius. Tol●et. les. & Cardin. lib. 5. Instruct. Sac. cap. 66.  When any (saith he) is put upon the rack, and doth truly reveal the crime of another, although he be not examined iuridicè, justly, and according to the order of law; yet therein he doth not sin, because none is bound, upon so great bodily harm to himself, to preserve the good name of another, by concealing his offence. Therefore when you make all Protestant-magistrates incompetent, with whom you may use equivocation till you come to be tortured, what do you else but teach them, that your only competent judge and Examiner must be a Rack?   

The third is infamy against the Aequivocators good name and faith among men.  
Your doctrine is, that 
g The Treatise. Vide supra.  answering your incompetent magistrate by equivocation; if he shall further ask whether you do not aequiuocate, to answer, No; but with another equivocation: If again, in his jealousy, he urge whether this third time you do not aequiuocate; then the third time also to say, No, but with another secret equivocation; and so as often as he shall ask the like: likewise by aequiuocating to say you do not aequiuocate. This is that monster which I called Hydra, which, as Poets feign, Hercules did impugn; in the which as often as one head was struck off, immediately there sprung up another; signifying an endless business. It will now be requisite that we hear what our Moderate Answerer would say in the behalf of his dissolute Treatise: 
h The Moderate Answerer in the conclusion of his book. §. And if etc.  We have (most merciful Sovereign) in the sincerity of our souls, without all equivocation or doubtful sense, purged ourselves of those opinions or practices of rebellion objected unto us. Say you so? without all equivocation? How shall his Majesty be persuaded that these words without all equivocation are not spoken in some doubtful sense and equivocation? How can you free yourself from this jealousy, seeing your doctrine is in protestation of not aequiuocating to aequiuocate? You may now ges●e what will be the effect of this your Art; even that, which is the due reward of a liar: namely, that seeing in his protestations and oaths, when he should say truth, he will dissemble, he may not be believed, when sometime he saith truth.   

The last effect is scandal against men's souls, and blasphemy against God.  
Seeing that all Christians be exhorted, 
i Coloss. 4. 5.  To walk warily towards them that are without, (meaning Infidels) to the end 
k 1. Pet. 2. 12.  That they which speak evil of you, 〈…〉 of evil doers, may by their good works which they shall see, glorify God in the day (that is, when God shall have mercy to call Infidels to the faith) of visitation. Showing that a wicked life in the professor of faith doth hinder unbelievers from the faith.  
Secondly, every Christian is admonished 
l 1. Thess. 5. 22.  To abstain from all [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] show or appearance of evil: the reason is expressed in the Apostles exhortation to Christian servants, challenging of them subjection to their Heathen-masters, 
m Tit. 2. 5.  That the doctrine of God be not blasphemed, or evil spoken of: and to the same end he chargeth all Christian wives to be chaste and obedient to their Infidel husbands: 
n 1. Tim. 1. 6.  That the word of God be not blasphemed: showing that the wickedness of a wicked professor (by man's blindness) edoundeth unto the blasphemy of the godly profe●…on. But in your Aequiuocating by a clause reserved and concealed in your thought, (which God only, 
o Psal. 7. 10.  The only searcher of the heart seeth) no man can discern in your speech any thing but appearance of damnable lying. Therefore not only Pagans by this scandal shall continue in infidelity, but the glorious name of Christ and his true religion, shall suffer blasphemy: and if this do follow upon the examples of wicked servants, wicked wives, wicked children; how much more by the principal professors, wicked Priests?  
Neither this only, but by this doctrine the Gospel of Christ, in the opinion of all Pagans, will be more justly condemned, when the Pagan shall not only examine the most godly Christian religion by a wicked Professor, as it were a right rule by a crooked example, or Christ by judas (which is wicked) but as the rule in itself, that is, the Religion in his moral truth, & find that this your doctrine of equivocation is non solum doctrina mendax, verumetiam mendacij; not only a lying doctrine, but a doctrine of lying. What can this work in the Turks & all Pagans at this day, but obstinacy in their infidelity, and blasphemy of that faith, which is the only life of souls? Especially seeing I may as justly say concerning the equivocation of your contagious Romists, as the blessed Apostle writ of the incestuous among the Corinthians: 
p 1. Cor. 5. 1.  I hear that there is such fornication among you, as is not once named among the Heathen.   

This our Apostolical Defence of Protestants I will conclude from Protestations of the Apostle.  
The blessed Apostle of the Genules, and elect vessel of grace, S. Paul, when he would avouch his inward zeal for the salvation of souls, he protesteth thus; 
q Rom. 9 1.  I say the truth and lie not, my conscience bearing me witness that I have continual sorrow of heart for you. And again, 
r 2. Cor. 11. 31.  God the father of our Lord jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not. Secondly, to persuade to others the authority of his Apostleship, he protesteth thus; 
s 1. Tim. 2. 7.  Whereunto I am ordained an Apostle; I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not, even a Teacher of the Gentiles. And again, 
t Galat. 1. 20.  This that I write unto you, behold I witness before God and lie not. He would then confirm unto the minds of the Romans, Corinthians, Galathians the sincerity both of his affection and function by the force of an oath; calling God to witness to his words, as directly proceeding from his conscience; otherwise these Converts might have replied upon the Apostle thus; We hear of a doctrine of Aequiuocating, which teacheth that you, by a secret clause in your mind, may alter the sense of words in your understanding; differing from the sense which outwardly they signify, and which only we can possibly understand. How can you then persuade us in this sense, that, you are an Apostle, seeing you profess a reservation of a contrary sense, which may signify you are no Apostle? Would you persuade us to believe that by that your protestation, which you teach we need not believe by your reservation? therefore it will be to no end to persuade us to believe you in that wherein we may be deceived. Otherwise, if by the outward sense you may confirm us that you do not lie, the contrary aequiuocating sense, doubtless, must be accounted a plain lie. And yet our Aequivocators have made as strong protestations to deny their Priesthood, as ever S. Paul did to confirm his Apostleship; these being as certainly no true Priests, as he was truly an Apostle.  
To seal this truth by a memorable example of antiquity, reported by S. Hierome as a mirror of Christian simplicity, 
u De muliere septies ●cta, Ad Innocentium: E●mulieri maritus crimen adulterij impegerat, & cum eculeus corpus extenderat, oculis in coelum erectis, Tu Domine jesu testis es, qui serutator es renum, non ideo me negare velle nè peream, sed ideò men●… nolle nè peccem. Hieron. Tom. 1.  Of a wife accused of her husband, an● tortured to draw out a confession of guilt: but she lifting up her eyes to heaven, said, Thou Lord jesus, who searchest the heart and reins, art witness that I do not deny truth for fear of death, but therefore refuse to lie for fear of sin. Me think I see Tollet with other jesuits standing by beholding this spectacle, and saying (
* Tollet. Ies. Instruct. Sacerd. lib. 4 cap. 21. & 22.  for he did instruct their Catholic adulterous wife to equivocate) Alas good woman! it pitieth me to see you abide such torment only for want of wit; and then whispering her in the ●are, giveth her this ghostly counsel: Thou mayest use a secret abstracted reservation in thy mind, and so both escape torture and avoid a lie. These be jesuits, the new Theological Alchemists of our time, able to abstract Aurum ex carbone, Truth out of a lie: who must be admired of the world as the Monopolists of all Arts, whereas no Art is singular in them but this equivocation. In respect whereof I may say of them, as Tully spoke of the Soothsayers of his time: Miror si non riserit Haruspex, cum Haruspicem viderit; I marvel how our Aequivocatours do not laugh, when they behold one another. But here is the difference of the spirit of wit, and the spirit of grace: this with that woman may look up to heaven and call jesus to witness, when he that is in heaven, shall look upon them and have them in derision.  
Thus have I discussed of these Antichristian doctrines of lying and treason; the last trial of both which we refer to the judgement of God, not as wood or straw, subject to their fancied Purgatory fire of trial; but as pitch and tar, sulphur, and powder reserved for the unquenchable fire of hell; From whence our Lord jesus preserve us and them, to the glory of his saving grace.    
Gloria Deo.   

ERRATUM: In the third part, Pag. 40. lin. 25. for 100 read 1000