A SERMON PREACHED IN SAINT MARY'S Church in OXFORD.  
Upon the Anniversary of the GUNPOWDER-TREASON.  
By JEREMY TAYLOR, Fellow of Allsoules College in OXFORD.  
Nolite tangere Christos meos.  
OXFORD,  
Printed by LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the University. M. DC. XXXVIII.   

TO THE MOST RIVER END FATHER IN GOD WILLIAM by Divine providence LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY His Grace, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan. CHANCELLOR of the University of OXFORD, and one of his MAJESTY'S most Honourable Privy Council.  
My most Honourable good LORD. May it please your GRACE,  
IT was obedience to my Superior that engaged me upon this last Anniversary commemoration of the great Goodness of God Almighty to our King and Country in the discovery of the most damnable Powder-Treason. It was a blessing which no tongue could express, much less mine, which had scarce learned to speak, at least, was most unfit to speak in the Schools, of the Prophets. Delicata autem est illa obedientia que 〈◊〉 quaerit. It had been no good argument of my obedience to have disputed the inconvenience of my person, and the unaptness of my parts for such an employment I knew God, out of the mouth of Infants, could acquire his praise, and if my heart were actually as Votive as my tongue should have been, it might be one of God's 〈◊〉 to perfect his own praise out of the weakness and imperfection of the Organ. So as I was able, I endeavoured to perform it, having my obedience ever ready for my excuse to men, and my willingness to perform my duty, for the assoylment of myself before God; part of which I hope was accepted, and I have no reason to think, that the other was not pardoned.  
When I first thought of the Barbarism of this Treason, I wondered not so much at the thing itself as by what means it was possible for the Devil to gain so strong a party in men's resolutions, as to move them to undertake a business so abhorring from Christianity, so evidently full of extreme danger to their lives, and so certainly to incur the highest wrath of God Almighty. My thoughts were thus rude at first; but after a strict inquisition I fond it was apprehended as a business (perhaps full of danger to their bodies, but) advantageous to their souls, consonant to the obligation of all Christians, and meritorious of an exceeding weight of Glory, for now it was come to pass which our dear Master foretold, men should kill us, and think they did God good service in it. I could not think this to be a part of any man's religion, nor do I yet believe it. For it is so apparently destructive of our dear Master his Royal laws of Charity & Obedience, that I must not be so uncharitable as to think they speak their own mind truly, when they profess their belief of the lawfulness and necessity in some cases of rebelling against their lawful Prince, and using all means to throw him from his kingdom, though it be by taking of his life. But it is but just that they who break the bonds of duty to their Prince, should likewise forfeit the laws of charity to themselves, and if they say not true, yet to be more uncharitable to their own persons, than I durst be, though I had their own warrant. Briefly (Most R. Father) I found amongst them of the Roman party such prevailing opinions, as could not consist with loyalty to their Prince, in case he were not the Pope's subjects, and these so generally believed, and somewhere obtruded under peril of their souls, that I could not but point at these dangerous rocks, at which I doubt not, but the loyalty of many hath suffered shipwreck, and of thousands more might, if a higher Star had not guided them better, than their own Pilots.  
I could not therefore but think it very likely that this Treason might spring from the same Fountain, and I had concluded so in my first meditations, but that I was willing to consider, whether or no it might not be that these men were rather exasperated then persuaded, and whether it were not that the severity of our laws against them might rather provoke their intemperate zeal, than religion thus move their settled conscience. It was a material consideration, because they ever did and still do fill the world with outcries against our laws for making a rape upon their consciences, have printed Catalogues of their English Martyrs, drawn Schemes of most strange tortures imposed on their Priests, such as were unimaginable, by Nero, or Dioclesian, or any of the worst and cruelest enemies of Christianity, endeavouring thus to make us partly guilty of our own ruin, and so washing their hands in token of their own innocency, even then when they were dipping them in the blood Royal, and would have emptied the best veins in the whole Kingdom to fill their Lavatory. But I found all these to be but Calumnies, strong accusations upon weak presumptions, and that the cause did rest where I had begun, I mean, upon the pretence of the Catholic cause, and that the imagined iniquity of the Laws of England could not be made a veil to cover the deformity of their intentions, for our Laws were just, Honourable, and Religious.  
Concerning these and some other appendices to the business of the day, I expressed some part of my thoughts, which because happily they were but a just truth, and this truth not unseasonable for these last times, in which (as S. Paul prophesied) men would be fierce, Traitors, heady, and high minded, creeping into houses, leading silly women captive, it pleased some who had power to command me, to wish me to a publication of these my short and sudden meditations, that (if it were possible) even this way I might express my duty to God and the King.  
Being thus far encouraged, I resolved to go something further, even to the boldness of a dedication to your Grace, that since I had no merit of my own to move me to the confidence of a public view, yet I might dare to venture under the protection of your Grace's favour. But since my boldness doth as much need a defence, as my Sermon a Patronage, I humbly crave leave to say, that though it be boldness, even to presumption, yet my address to your Grace is not altogether unreasonable.  
For since all know that your Grace thinks not your life your own, but when it spends itself in the service of your King, opposing your great endeavours against the zealots of both sides who labour the disturbance of the Church and State, I could not think it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to present to your Grace this short discovery of the King's enemies, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and proper to your Grace who is so true, so zealous a lover of your Prince and Country. It was likewise appointed to be the public voice of thanksgiving for your Vniverfity (though she never spoke weaker than by so mean an instrument) and therefore is accountable to your Grace to whom under God and the King we owe the Blessing and Prosperity of all our Studies. Nor yet can I choose but hope, that my Great Obligations to your Grace's Favour may plead my pardon, (since it is better that my Gratitude should be bold, than my diffidence ingrateful) but that this is so far from expressing the least part of them, that it lays a greater bond upon me, either for a debt of delinquency in presenting it, or of thankfulness, if your Grace may please to pardon it.  
I humbly crave your Grace's Benediction, pardon, and acceptance of the humblest duty and observance of  
Your GRACES: most observant and obliged CHAPLAIN IER. TAYLOR.   

A SERMON PREACHED UPON THE Anniversary of the GUNPOWDER-TREASON.  LUK. 9 Cap. vers. 54. But when james and john saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come from Heaven and consume them even as Elias did? 
I Shall not need to strain much to bring my Text and the day together, Here is fire in the text, consuming fire, like that whose Antevorta we do this day commemorate. This fire called for by the Disciples of Christ: so was ours too; by Christ's Disciples at least, and some of them entitled to our Great Master by the compellation of his holy name of JESUS.  
I would say the parallel holds thus far, but that the persons of my Text, however Boanerges, sons of thunder and of a reprovable spirit, yet are no way considerable in the proportion of malice with the persons of the day. For if I consider the cause that moved james and john to so inconsiderate a wrath, it bears a fair excuse: The men of Samaria 
Verse 53.  turned their Lord and Master out of doors, denying to give a night's lodging to the Lord of Heaven and Earth. It would have disturbed an excellent patience to see him, whom but just before they beheld transfigured, and in a glorious Epiphany upon the Mount, to be so neglected by a company of hated Samaritans, as to be forced to keep his vigils where nothing but the welkin should have been his roof, not any thing to shelter his precious head from the descending dew of heaven.— Quis talia fando Temperet? It had been the greater wonder if they had not been angry. But now if we should level our progress by the same line and guess that in the present affair there was an equal cause, because a greater fire was intended, we shall too much betray the ingenuity of apparent truth, and the blessing of this Anniversary. They had not half such a case for an excuse to a far greater malice; it will prove they had none at all, and therefore their malice was somuch the more malicious because causeless and totally inexcusable.  
However, I shall endeavour to join their consideration in as 〈◊〉 a parallel as I can; which if it be not exact (as certainly it cannot, where we have already discovered so much difference in degrees of malice,) yet by laying them together we may better take their estimate, though it be only by seeing their disproportion.  
The words as they lay in their own order, point out, 1. The persons that asked the question. 2. The cause that moved them. 3. The person to whom they propounded it; 4. The Question itself. 5. And the precedent they urged to move a grant, drawn from a very fallible Topick, a singular Example, in a special and different case. The persons here were Christ's Disciples; and so they are in our case, designed to us by that glorious Surname of Christianity: they will be called Catholics, but if our discovery perhaps rise higher, and that the See Apostolic prove sometimes guilty of so reprovable a spirit, than we are very near to a parallel of the persons, for they were Disciples of Christ, & Apostles. 2. The cause was the denying of toleration of abode upon the grudge of an old schism, Religion was made the instrument. That which should have taught the Apostles to be charitable, and the Samaritans hospitable, was made a pretence to justify the unhospitablenesse of the one and the uncharitableness of the other. Thus far we are right, for the malice of this present Treason, stood upon the same base. 3. Although neither Side much doubted of the lawfulness of their proceedings; yet S. james and S. john were so discreet as not to think themselves infallible, therefore they asked their Lord: so did the persons of the day, ask the question too, but not of Christ, for he was not in all their thoughts; but yet they asked of Christ's Delegates, who therefore should have given their answer eodem tripod, from the same spirit. They were the Father's Confessors who were asked. 4. The question is of both sides concerning a consumptive sacrifice, the destruction of a Town there, of a whole Kingdom here, but differing in the circumstance of place whence they would fetch their fire. The Apostles would have had it from Heaven, but these men's conversation was not there. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, things from beneath, from an artificial hell, but breathed from the natural and proper, were in all their thoughts. 5. The example, which is the last particular, I fear I must leave quite out, and when you have considered all, perhaps you will look for no example.  
First of the persons; they were Disciples of Christ and Apostles. [But when james and john saw this,] When first I considered they were Apostles, I wondered they should be so intemperately angry; but when I perceived they were so angry, I wondered not that they sinned. Not the privilege of an Apostolical spirit, not the nature of Angels, not the condition of immortality can guard from the danger of sin, but if we be overruled by passion, we almost subject ourselves to its necessity. It was not therefore without reason altogether, that the Stoics affirmed wisemen to be void of passions, for sure I am, the inordination of any passion is the first step to folly. And although of them, as of waters of a muddy residence we may make good use, and quench our thirst, if we do not trouble them, yet upon any ungentle disturbance we drink down mud in stead of a clear stream, and the issues of sin and sorrow, certain consequents of temerarious or inordinate anger. And therefore when the Apostle had given us leave to be angry, as knowing the condition of human nature, he quickly enters a Caveat that we sin not; he knew sin was very likely to be handmaid where Anger did domineer, and this was the reason why S. james and S. john are the men here pointed at, for the Scripture notes them for Boanerges, sons of thunder, men of an angry temper, & quid mirum est filios tonitrui fulgurâsse voluisse? said S. Ambrose. But there was more in it then thus. Their spirits of themselves hot enough, yet met with their education under the Law, (whose first tradition was in fire and thunder, whose precepts were just but not so merciful;) and this inflamed their distemper to the height of a revenge. It is the Doctrine of S. 
a Epist. ad Algis.  Hierome and 
b 〈◊〉 Lucam.  Titus Bostrensis; The Law had been their Schoolmaster, and taught them the rules of justice both Punitive and Vindictive: But Christ was the first that taught it to be a sin to retaliate evil with evil, it was a Doctrine they could not read in the kill letter of the Law. There they might meet with precedents of revenge and anger of a high severity, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and let him be cut off from his people: But forgiving injuries, praying for our persecutors, loving our enemies, and relieving them, were Doctrines of such high and absolute integrity, as were to be reserved for the best and most perfect Lawgiver, the bringer of the best promises, to which the most perfect actions have the best proportion; and this was to be when Shiloh came. Now than the spirit of Elias is out of date, — jam ferrea primum Desinit, ac toto surgit Gens Aurea Mundo. And therefore our blessed Master reproveth them of ignorance, not of the Law, but of his spirit, which had they but known or could but have guessed at the end of his coming, they had not been such Abecedarij in the School of Mercy.  
And now we shall not need to look far for persons, Disciples professing at least in Christ's school, yet as great strangers to the merciful spirit of our Saviour, as if they had been sons of the Law, or foster-brothers to Romulus and sucked a wolse, and they are Romanists too; this day's solemnity presents them to us, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & yet were that washed off, underneath they write Christian and jesuit.  
One would have expected that such men, set forth to the world's acceptance with so mercifulla cognomentum, should have put a hand to support the ruinous fabric of the world's charity, and not have pulled the frame of heaven & earth about our ears. But yet— Necredite Teucri! Give me leave first to make an Inquisition after this Antichristian pravity, and try who is of our side, and who loves the King, by pointing at those whose Sermons do blast Loyalty, breathing forth Treason, flaughters and cruelty, the greatest imaginable contrariety to the spirit and Doctrine of our Dear Master. So we shall quickly find out more than a pareil for S. james and S. john the Boanerges of my Text.  
It is an act of faith, by faith to conquer the enemies 
〈◊〉 de Clavae David Lib. 2. 6. 15.  of God and Holy Church, saith Sanders our Countryman. Hitherto nothing but well; If james and john had offered to do no more than what they could have done with the sword of the spirit and the shield of Faith, they might have been inculpable, and so had he if he had said no more; but the blood boyles higher, the manner spoils all. For it is not well done unless a warlike Captain be appointed by Christ's Vicar to bear a Crusade in a field of blood. And if the other Apostles did not proceed such an angry way as james & john, it was only discretion that detained 
Ibid. cap. 14.  them, not religion. For so they might, and it were no way unlawful for them to bear arms to propagate Religion, had they not wanted an opportunity; if you believe the same author: for fight is proper for S. Peter and his Successors, therefore because Christ gave him Commission to feed his Lambs. A strange reason!  
I had thought Christ would have his Lambs fed with the sincere milk of his word, not like to Cannibals, solitisque 〈◊〉 Lac potare Getis, & poculatingere venis, To mingle blood intheir sacrifices (as Herod to the Galilaeans) and quaff it off for an auspicium to the propagation of the Christian faith. Me thinks here is already too much clashing of armour and effusion of blood for a Christian cause; but this were not altogether so unchristian like, if the sheep, though with blood, yet were not to be fed with the blood of their shepherd 〈◊〉, I mean their Princes. But I find many such Nutritij in the Nurseries of Rome, driving their Lambs from their folds unless they will be taught to wory the Lion. 
Tyrannicè gubernans iustè 〈◊〉 dominium non potest spoliari fine publico iudicio: Latâ 〈◊〉 sententiâ 〈◊〉 potest fieri executor. Potest autem à populo etian qui iuravit ei obedientian, 〈◊〉 monitus non vult corrigi. Verb. Tyrannus.   
Emanuel Sà, in his Aphorisms, affirms it lawful to kill a King, indeed not every King, but such a one as rules with Tyranny, and not then, unless the Pope hath senteneed him to death, but then he may; though he be his lawful Prince. Not the necessitude which the Law of nations hath put between Prince and people, not the obligation of the oath of Allegiance, not the Sanctions of God Almighty himself, must reverse the sentence against the King when once past, but any one of his subjects, of his own sworn subjects, may kill him.  
This perfidious treasonable position of Sà, is not a single Testimony. For 1. it slipped not from his pen 
Praesertim cum in hoc opus per annos ferè quadraginta diligentissime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  by inadvertency; it was not made public, until after forty years' deliberation, as himself testifies in his Preface. 2. After such an avisament it is now the ordinary received manual for the Father's Confessors of the jesuits Order.  
This Doctrine, although— Titulo res digna sepulchri— yet is nothing if compared with Mariana. For 1. he affirms the same Doctrine in substance. 2. Then 
De Rege & R. instituit. lib. 1. c. 6.  he descends to the very manner of it, ordering how it may be done with the best convenience: He thinks poison to be the best way, but yet that for the more secrecy, it be cast upon the chairs, saddles, and garments of his Prince. It was the old laudable custom of the Moors of Spain. 3. He adds examples of 
Qui est l'artifice dont ie trouue que le Roys Mores ont sowent usè. Cap. 7.  the business, telling us that this was the device, to wit, by poisoned boots, that old Henry of Castille was cured of his sickness. 4. Lastly, this may be done, not only if the Pope judge the King a Tyrant (which was the utmost Emanuel Sà affirmed) but it is sufficient proof of his being a Tyrant if learned men, though but few, and those seditious too do but murmur it, or begin to call him so. I 
Postquam à paucis seditiofis, sed doctis caeperit Tyrannus appellari.  hope this Doctrine was long since disclaimed by the whole Society, and condemned ad umbras Acherunticas. Perhaps so, but yet these men who use to object to us an infinity of divisions among ourselves, who boast so much of their own Union and consonancy in judgement, with whom nothing is more ordinary then to maintain some opinions quite throughout their Order (as if they were informed by some common Intellectus agens) should not be divided in a matter of so great moment, so much concerning the Monarchy of the See Apostolic, to which they are vowed liegemen. But I have greater reason to believe them United in this Doctrine, then is the greatness of this probability. For 1. There was an Apology printed in Italy, permissu superiorum, in the year 1610. that says, They were all enemies of that holy Name of jesus that condemned Mariana for any such Doctrine. I understand not why, but sure I am that the jesuits do or did think his Doctrine innocent: for in their Apology put forth in the name of the whole Society against the accusations of Anticoton, they deny that the Assasine of Henry 4. I mean Ravaillac, was moved to kill the King by reading 
Quodamodo optandum esse ut ille Alastor Marianam legisset.  of Mariana, and are not ashamed to wish that he had read him. Perhaps they mean it might have wrought the same effect upon him which the sight of a drunkard did upon the youth of Lacedaemon, else I am sure it is not very likely he should have been dissuaded from his purpose by reading in Mariana that it was lawful to do what he intended. 3. I add 
Gap. 6.  they not only thought it innocent, and without positive 
Cum cagnito à 〈◊〉 quos erat sciscitatus, 〈◊〉 jure interimi posse.  hurt, but good and commendable; so that it is apparent that it was not the opinion of Mariana alone, but that the Moors of Spain had more disciples than Mariana. 1. He says it himself, for commending the young Monk that killed Henry 3. he says, he did it having been informed by several Divines that a Tyrant might lawfully be killed. 2. The thing itself speaks it, for his book was highly commended by 
a Chawe sauris polit.  Gretser & 
b Amphith. honoris lib. 1. cap. 12.  Bonarscius both for style & matter, higher yet by Petrus de Onna, provincial of Toledo who was so highly pleased with it, he was sorry he wanted 
c Iterum & tertio facturus siper otium & tempus licuisset.  leisure to read it the second and third time over, and with this censure prefixed was licenced to the Press. Further yet, for Steven Hoyeda Visitor of the jesuits for the same Province approved 
Vt approbatos prius a viris Doctis & gravihus ex eodem 〈◊〉 Ordine.  it not only from his own judgement, but as being before approved by grave and learned men of the jesuits Order, and so with a special commission from Claudius Aquaviva their general, with these approbations and other solemn Privileges it was Printed at 
a By Petrus Rhodriques. 1599  Toledo and 
b By Balth. Lippius 1605  Montz; and lastly inserted into the Catalogues of the Books of their Order by Petrus Ribadineira.  
What negligence is sufficient that such a Doctrine as this should pass so great supravisors, if in their hearts they disavow it? The children of this world are not such fools in their generations. The Fathers of the Society cannot but know how apt these things of themselves are to public mischief, how invidious to the Christian world, how scandalous to their Order; and yet they rather excuse then condemn Mariana: speaking of him at the hardest but very gently, as if his only fault had been his speaking a truth intempore non opportuno, something out of season, or as if they were forced to yield to the current of the times, and durst not profess openly of what in their hearts they were persuaded. I speak of some of them, for others you see are of the same opinion. But I would fain learn why they are so sedulous and careful to procure the decrees of the Rector & Deputies of Paris, Rescripts of the Bishop, Revocation of Arrest of the Parliament which had been against them, and all to acquit the Fathers of the Society from these scandalous opinions; as if these laborious devices could make what they have said and done, to be unspoken and undone, or could change their opinions from what indeed they are, whereas they never went ex animo to refute these Theorems, never spoke against them in the real and serious dialect of an adversary, never condemned them as heretical, but what they have done they have been shamed to, or forced upon, as Pere Coton by the King of France, and Servin to a confutation of Mariana, (from which he desired to be excused, and after the King's death, writ his declaratory letter to no purpose;) the Apologists of Paris by the outcries of Christendom against them; and when it is done, done so coldly in their reprehensions with a greater readiness to excuse all, then condemn any, I say these things to a considering man do increase the suspicion if at least that may be called suspicion for which we have had so plain testimonies of their own.  
I add this more, to put the business past all question, that when some things of this nature were objected to them by Arnald the French Kings Advocate, they were so far from denying them or excusing them, that they maintained them in spite of opposition, putting forth a Book entitled Veritas defensa contra actionem Antonii Arnaldi. What the things were for which they stood up patrons, hear themselves speaking, Tum enim id non solum potest 
Pag. 7. 1. edit.  Papa, 〈◊〉 etiam debet 〈◊〉 ostendere superiorem illis [Principibus.] 〈◊〉 stomacham tibi commovet, facit ut 〈◊〉, sed oportet 〈◊〉, & de 〈◊〉 fatiaris tibi nec rationem esse, nec 〈◊〉. Hard words these! The Advocate is affirmed to be void both of reason and honesty for denying the Pope's dominion over Kings. The reason follows, The Pope could not keep them to their duties, unless he kept them in 〈◊〉 with threatening them the loss of their Kingdoms. But this is but the least part of it. 
Pag. 67. 1. edit.  They add, If the subjects had been but disposed as they should have been, there was no time but it might have been profitable to have exercised the sword upon the persons of Kings. Let them construe their meaning, those are their words. But see farther.  
The damned act of 〈◊〉 Clement the Monk upon the life of Henry the third of France, of jean Chastel and Ravaillac upon Henry the fourth, are notorious in the Christian world, and yet the first of these was commended by 
* Voyez. le proces de Parliam. de Paris country le perc Guignard prestre jesuit.  F. Guignard in a discourse of purpose, & by Mariana as I before cited him. The second had two Apologies made for him, the one by 
a Vid. cap. 3.  Constantinus Veruna, the 
b Lugduni de iusta abdicatione Henr. 3. 1610.  other without a name indeed, but with the mark and cognizance of the jesuits order, and the last was publicly commended in a Sermon by a Monk of Colein, as it is reported by the excellent Thuanus.  
Not much less than this is that of Baronius, just I am sure of the same spirit with james and john, for he calls for a ruin upon the Venetians for opposing of his Holiness. Arise Peter, not to feed these wand'ring sheep, but to destroy them, throw away thy Pastoral staff and take thy sword. I confess here is some more ingenuity, to oppose Murdering to Feeding then to make them all one, as Sanders doth, but yet 
De clavae David cap. 14.  the same fiery spirit inflames them both, as if all 
Vide pag. 7.  Rome were on fire, and would put the world in a combustion.  
Farther yet. Guignard a jesuit of Clerimont College in Paris was executed by command of the 
Arrest. de Parliam. 7. de Tanv. 1595.  Parliament for some conclusions he had writ which were of a high nature treasonable, and yet as if, either there were an infallibility in every person of the Society, or as if the Parliament had done in justice in condemning Guignard, or lastly as if they approved his Doctrine, he was Apologized for by 
a Expostul. Apologet. pro Societ. jesus.  Lewes Richeome, and 
b Amphith. honour. lib. 1.  Bonarscius. I know they will not say that every jesuit is infallible, they are not come to that yet, it is plain than they are of the same mind with Guignard, or else (which I think they dare not say) the Parliament was unjust in the condemnation of him, but if they do, they thus proclaim their approbation of these Doctrines he was hanged for; for that he had such, was under his own hand, by his own confession, and of itself evident; as is to be seen in the Arrest of the Parliament against him.  
Lastly, more pertinent to the day is the fact of Garnet, who because a jesuit could have done nothing for which he should not have found an Apologist, for even for this his last act of high treason he was Apologized for, by 
a Apol. adv. R. Angliae.  Bellarmine, 
b Stigm. Misery.  Gretser, & 
c Apol. pro Garnetto.  Eudamon Johannes.  
Thus far we have found out persons fit enough to match any malice; Boanerges all, and more than a pareil for james and john: but I shall anon discover the disease to be more Epidemical, and the pest of a more Catholic infection, and yet if we sum up our accounts, we shall already find the doctrine to be too Catholic. For we have already met with Emanuel Sá a Portugal, Mariana & Ribadineira Spaniards, Bonarscius a bas Almain, Gretser a German, Eudaemon johannes a false Greek, Guignard, Richeome and the Apologists for Chastell, Frenchmen, Bellarmine and Baronius, Italians, Garnet and Sanders, English.  
The Doctrine you see they would fain make Catholic, now if it prove to be but Apostolic too, than we have found out an exact parallel for james and john, great Disciples and Apostles, and whether or no the See Apostolic may not sometime be of a fiery and consuming spirit, we have so strange examples, even in our own home, that we need seek no farther for resolution of the Quare. In the Bull of excommunication put forth by Pius quintus against Q. Elizabeth of blessed memory, there is more than a naked encouragement, as much as comes to a Volumus & jubemus ut adversus Elizabetham Angliae Reginam subditi arma capessant. Bone jesus! in que nos reservasti tempora? Here is a command to turn rebels, a necessity of being Traitors. Quid co infelicius, cui iam esse malum necesse est?  
The business is put something farther home by Catena and Gabutius, who writ the life of Pius quintus, were resident at Rome, one of them an advocate in the Roman Court; their Books both printed at 
1588.  Rome, con licenza, and con privilegio. And now hear 
1605.  their testimonies of the whole business between the Queen and his Holiness.  
Pius quintus published a Bull against Q. Elizabeth, declared her a Heretic, and deprived her of her 
Pio publicò una bolla & sentezza contra Elisabetta, dichiarandola heretica, & priva del regno, ... in tall forma concedendo che ciascuno andar contra le potesse etc.  Kingdom, absolved her subjects from their oath of Allegiance, excommunicated her, and gave power to any one to rebel against her etc. This was but the first step, he therefore thus proceeds, He procures a gentleman of Florence to move her subjects to a rebellion against her for her destruction. Farther yet, he thought this would be such a real benefit to Christendom to have her destroyed, that the Pope was ready to aid in person, to spend the whole revenue of 
Girolamo catena p. 114. Il quale .... muovesse gli usimi all sollevamento per distruttione d' Elizabetta.  the See Apostolic, all the Chalices and crosses of the Church, and even his very clothes to promote so pious a business as was the destruction of Q. Elizabeth.  
The witnesses of truth usually agree in one. The same story is told by 
b De vitâ & Giftis Pii 5. lib. 3. cap. 9  Antonius Gabutius, and some more circumstances added. First he names the end 
Pag. 113.  of the Pope's design, it was to take her life away, in 
L'andare in persona, inpegnae tutte le sostanze della sede Apostolica, & calici, e. i proprii vestimenti. Pag. 117.  case she would not turn, Roman Catholic. To achieve this, because no Legate could come into England, nor any public messenger from the See Apostolic he employed a Florentine Merchant to 〈◊〉 her subjects to a rebellion for her perdition. Nothing but Sollevamento, 
Qui incolarum animos ad Elizabethae perditionem. rebellione fact â commoveret.  Rebellion, Perdition and destruction to the Queen could be thought upon by his Holiness.  
More yet; for when the Duke of Alva had seized upon the English Merchants goods which were at Antwerp, the Pope took the occasion, instigated the King of Spain to aid the pious attempts of those who conspired against the Queen: they are the words of Gabatius. This rebellion was intended to be; under 
Efflagitabat ab Rege ut Anglorum in Elizabetham pie conspirantium studia soveret.  the conduct of the Duke of Norfolk, Viro Catholico, a Roman Catholic, Gabutius notes it, for fear some heretic might be suspected of the design, and so the Catholics loof the glory of the action. However Pius quintus intended to use the utmost and most extreme remedies to cure her heresy, & all means to increase and strengthen the rebellion. I durst not have thought so much of his Halinesse, if his own had not said it; but if this be not worse than the fiery spirit which our blessed Saviour reproved in james and john, I know not what is.  
I have nothing to do to specify the spirit of Paulus quintus in the Venetian cause; this only, Baronius propounded the example of Gregory the seaventh 
Hildebrand.  to him, of which how far short he came, the world is witness. Our own business calls to mind the Bulls of Pope Clemont the eight, in which the Catholics in England were commanded to see that however the right of succession did entitle any man to the Crown of England, yet if he were not a Catholic, they should have none of him, but with all their power they should hinder his coming in. This Bull Bellarmine doth extremely magnify, and indeed 
Apol. adv. R. Angl.  it was for his purpose, for it was (if not author) yet the main encouragor of Catesby to the Powder Treason. For when Garnet would willingly have known the Pope's mind in the business, Catesby eased him of the trouble of sending to Rome, since the Pope's 
Proceed agt. Traitors.  mind was clear. I doubt not (said Catesby) at all of the Pope's mind, but that he, who commanded our endeavours to hinder his coming in, is willing enough we should throw him out. It was but a reasonable collection.  
I shall not need to instance in the effects which this Bull produced; the Treason of Watson & Clerk; two English Seminaries are sufficiently known, it was as a Praeludium or warning piece to the great Fougade, the discharge of the Powder Treason; Briefly, the case was so, that after the Publication of the Bull of Pius quintus, these Catholics in England durst not be good Subjects till F. Parsons and Campian got a dispensation that they might for a while do it, and rebus sic stantibus with a safe conscience profess a general obedience in causes Temporal: and after the Bull of Clement a great many of them were not good subjects, and if the rest had not taken to themselves the Privilege which the Pope 
Innoc. Decretal de rescript cap. si quando.  sometimes gave to the Archbishop of Ravenna, either to do as the Pope bid them, or to pretend a reason why they would not: we may say as Creswell in defence 
Philop pag. 212, n. 306.  of Cardinal Allen; certainly we might have had more bloody tragedies in England, if the moderation of some more discreetly tempered had not been interposed. However it is no thank to his Holiness, his spirit blew high enough.  
But I will open this secret no farther, if I may have but leave to instance once more. If I mistake 
Scp. 11, 1589  not, it was Sixtus Quintus who sometimes pronounced a speech in full Consistory, in which he compares the assasinat of jaques Clement upon Henry the third, to the exploits of Eleazar & judith, where after having aggravated the faults of the murdered King, concluded him to have diedimpenitent, denied him the solemnities of Mass, Dirge and Requiem, for his soul, at last he ends with a prayer, that God would finish what in this (bloody) manner had been begun. I will not aggravate the foulness of the thing by any circumstances (though I cannot but wonder that his Holiness should say a prayer of so much abomination.) it is of itself too bad.  
If his Holiness be wronged in the business I have 
By Nichol. Nivelle, and 〈◊〉 Tbierry.  no hand in it; the speech was printed at Paris three months after the murder of the King, and avouched for authentic by the approbation of three Doctors, Boucher, Decreil, and Ancelein; let them answer it, I wash my hands of the accusation, and only consider the danger of such Doctrines, if set forth with so great authority and practised by so uncontrollable 〈◊〉  
If the Disciples of Christ, if Apostles, if the See Apostolic, if the father's Confessors prove 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, I'll no more wonder if the people call for fire to consume us, but rather wonder if they do not. And indeed although it be no rare or unusual thing for a Papist to be de facto loyal and duteous to his Prince, yet it is a wonder that he is so since such Doctrines have been taught by so great Masters, and at the best he depends but upon the Pope's pleasure for his Loyalty, which upon what security it rests, you may easily guess from the antecedents.  
Thus much for consideration of the persons who asked the Question; they were Christ's Disciples, they were james and john.  
But when james and john [saw this] Our next inquiry shall be of the cause of this their angry Question. This we must learn from the foregoing story. Christ was going to the feast at jerusalem, and passing through a Village of Samaria asked lodging 
Ver. 〈◊〉  for a night; but they perceiving that he was a jew would by no means entertain him, as being of a different Religion. For although God appointed that all of the seed of jacob should go up to 〈◊〉 to worship, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet the 
〈◊〉 in hunclocum.  Tribes of the separation first under 〈◊〉 worshipped in Groves and High places, and after the captivity being a mixed people, half jew, half Gentile, procured a Temple to be built them by 〈◊〉 
josephi antiq. 〈◊〉. 11, c. 6.  their Precedent, near the City 〈◊〉 upon the mountain Gerezim, styling themselves pertinentes 
〈◊〉 de linguis. lib. 12 Deut. 27.  〈◊〉 Montem benedictum, by allusion to the words of God by Mofes, they shall stand upon the Mount Gerezim to bless the people, and these upon Mount Ebal to curse. And in case arguments should fail to make this schism plausible, they will make it good by turning their Adversaries out of doors. They shall not come near their blessed Mount of Gerezim, but fastening an Anathema on them let them go to Ebal, and curse there. And now I wonder not that these Disciples were very angry at them who had lost the true Religion, and neglected the offices of humanity to them that kept it. They might go near now to make it a cause of Religion; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Nazianzen speaks) might seem to Apologise 
Orat. 12.  for them, and so it might if it had not led them to indiscreet and uncharitable zeal. But men care not how far they go if they do but once think they can make God a party of their Quarrel. For when Religion which ought to be the antidote of our malice, proves its greatest incentive, our uncharitableness must needs run faster to a mischief, by how much that which stopped its course before, drives it on with the greater violence. And therefore as it is ordinary for charity to be called coldness in Religion, so it is as ordinary for a pretence of Religion to make cold charity.  
The present case of the Disciples and the same spirit which, for the same 〈◊〉 cause, is takenup by the persons of the day, proves all this true; with whom fire and faggot is esteemed the best argument to convince the understanding, and the Inquisitors of heretical pravity, the best Doctors and subtlest 
Decret. Carolquinti, pro Flandris.  Disputants, determining all with a Virro is ignem, fossan mulieribus. For thus we had like to have suffered, it was mistaken Religion that moved these Traitors to so damnable a Conspiracy, not for any defence of their own cause, but for extirpation of ours. For 
Orat 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  else what grievances, did they groan under? In quos corum populum exaestuantem solicit a vimus? quibus vitae periculum attulimus? It was Nazianzen's question to the Apostate. Give me leave to consider it as appliable to our present case, and try if I can make a just discovery of the cause that moved these Traitors to so accursed a Confpiracy.  
1 Then there was no cause at all given them by us; none put to death for being a Roman Catholic 
Vid. L. Burleighs' book called Execution for Treason not religion. King james his declaration to all 〈◊〉 Kings and Princes, and the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his speech in Star-chamber in Burtons' case.  nor any of them punished for his Religion.  
This hath been the constant attestation of our Princes and State since the first Laws made against Recusants & the thing itself will bear them record.  
From primo of Elizabeth to undecimo, the Papists made no scruple of coming to our Churches, Recusancy was not then so much as a Chrism, not an Embryo. But when Pius quintus sent forth his Breves of Excommunication and Deposition of the Queen, than first they forbore to pray with us, or to have any religious communion. This although every where known, yet being a matter of fact and so as likely to be denied by others as affirmed by us without good evidence, see it therefore affirmed expressly by an Act of Parliament in Decimo tertio of Elizabeth, which specifies this as one inconvenience and ill consequence of the Bull. [Whereby 〈◊〉 grown great 〈◊〉 and bolonesse in many, not only to 〈◊〉 and absent themselves from 〈◊〉 service, now most 〈◊〉 set forth and used within this Realm, but also have thought themselves discharged of all 〈◊〉 & c.] Not only Recusancy, but likewise disobedience; therefore both Recusancy and disobedience.  
Two years therefore after this Bull, this Statute was made if it was possible to nullify the effects of it, to hinder its execution, and if it might be, by this means to keep them, as they had been before, in Communion with the Church of England, and obedience to her Majesty. This was the first Statute that concerned them in special, but yet their Religion was not meddled with; For this Statute against execution of the Pope's Bulls was no more than what had been established by Act of Parliament, in the 16th year of Richard the second, by which it was made 〈◊〉 to purchase Bulls from Rome, and the delinquents in this kind with all their [〈◊〉, fautors, 〈◊〉, and maintainers to be referred to the King's Council for farther punishment.] There was indeed this severity expressed in the Act of 130 of the Queen, that the putting them in Execution should be Capital; and yet this severity was no more than what was inflicted upon the Bishop of Ely in Edward the thirds time, for publishing of a Bull against the Earl of Chester without the King's leave, and on the Bishop of Carlisle, in the time of Henry the fourth, for the like offence. Thus far our Laws are innocent.  
But when this Statute did not take the good effect for which it was intended, neither keeping them in their ancient Communion nor obedience, but for all this, maine, Campian, and many others, came as the Pope's Emissaries for execution of the Bull, the State proceeded to a farther severity, making Laws against Recusancy, against Seditious and Traitorous Books, and against the residence of Romish Priests in England, making the first fineable with a pecuniary mulct, the two later, Capital, as being made of a Treasonable nature. Of these in order.  
1 The mulct which was imposed for Recusancy, was not soul money, or paid for Religion; and that for these reasons. 1. Because it is plain Religion did not make them absent themselves from our Churches, unless they had changed their Religion since the Bull came over. For if Religion could consist with their Communion with us before the Bull (as it's plain it did) then why not after the Bull, unless it be part of their Religion to obey the Pope, rather than to obey God commanding us to obey our Prince? 2. Their Recusancy was an apparent mischiefeto our Kingdom, and it was the prevention or diversion of this that was the only or special end of these Laws.  
The mischief is apparent these two ways. 1. Because by their Recusancy they gave attestation that they held the Bull to be valid; for else why should they after the Bull deny their Communion, which before they did not? Either they must think the Queen for a just cause, and by a just power excommunicate, or why did they separate from her Communion? Now if the Queen by virtue of the Bull was excommunicate, why should they stop here? She was by the same deposed, they absolved from all Allegiance to her, and commanded to take arms against her. I confess it is no good argument of itself, to say, The Pope might excommunicate the Queen, therefore depose her from her Kingdom; But this concludes with them sufficiently, with whom excommunication not only drives from spirituals, but deprives of temporals, and is not to mend our lives but to take them away; I speak how it is in the case of Princes, (and I shall anon prove it) for they being public persons from whose Deposition more may be gotten, are like to suffer more, ut ex tunc ipse (〈◊〉) vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos, & terr am exponat Catholic is occupandam, as they are taught by Pope Innocent the third, in the eight Later an Council: such is their Excommunication for matter of Heresy, as was this pretended in the Queen's case, so that in respect of them the danger was apparent.  
2 It is plain that Recusancy and disobedience came actually hand in hand; I say not that one was the issue of the other, but that they were coetaneous, for the same persons that moved them to Recusancy by virtue of the Bull, moved them to the execution of it per omnia. Now see whither this would tend! They by Recusancy were better able to judge of their forces in England, and what party they were able to make for execution of the Bull, whilst by that as by a discriminative cognisance they were pointed at, as Abettors of the Catholic cause.  
Thus far they suffered not for their Religion or conscience, unless it were against their conscience to be good subjects, and then it was not Religion, at least not Christian, that was inconsistent with their Loyalty, & so hitherto in respect of us, their machination was altogether causeless.  
2. For the second (of which sometimes they accuse our laws) I mean the writing & publishing of Seditious & Traitorous Books, I shall not need to say any 
Apud 〈◊〉 de senten. excommunicate.  thing in defence of its being made Capital, for they were ever so, & of a high nature Treasonable, and the 
Item omnes illos excommunicationis innodamus sententia qui pacem & tranquillitatem Domini Regis & Regni, iniuriose perturbare 〈◊〉, & qui iura Demini Regis 〈◊〉 detincre contendunt.  Publishers of them by the Canons of the Church were ipsofacto excommunicate. This I noted, because the same 〈◊〉 involves more, by virtue of the same Canon: I mean, not only the seditious Libelers but impugners of the King's Regalties, as also the Bringers, Publishers, and Executioners of the Bull; as is to be seen in the constitution of Archbishop Stephen, in a Coat cell held at Oxford. But secondly, whether they were or were not, it matters nothing; this I suppose was no part of their Religion, therefore this might be made Treason, and yet their Religion and peace of conscience undistarbed. 3. But the next is the main outcry of all, the very Conclamatum est of the Catholic cause, if suffered; it was made Treason to be a Priest, or at least if any of their Priests should be found in England he should be adjudged a Traitor, and these Laws were not yet repealed, but then in execution.  
When certain Sycophants told Philip of Macedon, that some of his discontented Subjects called him Tyrant, his answer was, Rudes sunt Macedones, & scapham vocant scapham. I wish these men who object this, had the same ingenuity, and would acknowledge that the rudenesle of a Macedonian teltroth is no apparent calumny. And truly, as the case then stood, it was no worse. For consider that the statute against Priests was not made till sixteen years after the Bull of Pius quintus, and after much evidence both by the confession of some Priests themselves, and diverse Lay-people, that at least, many of them came into England with this errand, that they might instigate the Queen's liege people to the Execution of it. This is very plain in the case of maine the lesuit, and M. Tregion who were executed 
1577.  at Launston for the same business.  
The state could not certainly know what would be the issue, but yet could not but think it likely to produce more and worse consequences for the future. 
Tacitus lib. 3. Annal.  Leges autem justa in factaconstituuntur quiafutura in incerto sunt. The Queen then providing for her safety banished these Priests out of her dominions. This was all, and this done with so much lenity and moderation as if of purpose to render good for their evil; such was her innocence, and yet to provide for her safety, such was her prudence. She gave them forty day's time of preparation for their journey, imposed no penalty for their longer stay incase that any of them were less healthful, or that the winds were cross, or that the wether served not: provided that during their stay, they gave security for their due obedience to her laws, and that they should attempt nothing against her person or government, for this was all she aimed at; but if they obeyed not the Proscription, having no just cause to the contrary, such as were expressed in the Act, than it should be adjudged their errand was not right, & therefore (not their Religion, but) their disobedience Treasonable.  
This was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the severity of this state against them, now first I shall briefly show that this proscription which was the highest penalty, was for just cause as the case then stood, and deserved on their part. 2. It was but reasonable, in case they obeyed not the proscription, their stay should be made Treason. 1. Because the Priests did generally preach the Pope's power either directly over temporals, or else in order to spirituals, of which the Pope being judge it would come to the same issue, and this was dangerous to the peace of the Kingdom, and entrenched too much upon the Regalty. In particular, the case of bringing from the See of Rome, and publishing of Bulls, was by the Lords of the Parliament in the sixteenth year of Richard the second, judged to be [clearly in 〈◊〉 of the King's Crown and of his Regalty, as it is well known and hath been of a long time known,] and therefore they protested [together and every one 〈◊〉 by himself, that they would be with the same Crown and Regalty inthese cases specially, and in all other cases which shall be attempted against the same Crown and Regalty in all points with all their power,] I hope then if the State in the time of Queen Elizabeth having far greater reason than ever, shall judge that these Bulls, the publishing of them, the Preaching of their validity, and reconciling by virtue of them her Subjects to the See of Rome, be derogatory to her Crown and Regalty, I see no reason She should be frighted from her just defence with the bugbear of pretended Religion, for if it was not against Religion then, why is it now? I confess there is a reason for it, to wit, because now the Pope's power is an Article of Faith (as I shall show anon) but than it was not with them, any more than now it is with us: but whether this will convince any man of reason I leave it to himself to consider.  
But one thing is observable in that Act of Parliament of Richard the second, I mean this clause [as it is well 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 been of a long time known.] The Pope's encroachments upon the State of England had been an old sore, and by its eld almost habituate; but yet it grieved them nevertheless, nor was the less a fever for being hectical: but so it is that I am confident upon very good grounds, it may be made as apparent as the noon Sun, for these 600 years and upwards, that the Bishops of Rome have exercised so extreme and continual Tyranny and exactions in this Kingdom, that our condition was under him worse than the State of the Athenians under their thirty Tyrants, or then our neighbours are now under their Belgic Tributes. So many greivances of the people, expilations of the Church, abuses to the State, intrenchments upon the Royalties of the Crown were continued, that it was a great blessing of Almighty God, our Kingdom was delivered from them upon so easy terms, which Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln thought would never be done, but in Ore gladii cruentandi: and now to have all these mischiefs return with more strength upon us by the attempts of these Priests, had been the highest point of indiscretion and sleepiness. I said [with more strength] because what anciently at the highest was thought but a privilege of the Church began now to be an Article of Faith, and therefore if admitted would have bound stronger and without all possibility of redress.  
And now if after all this any man should doubt of the justice of these Laws against the Priest's obtruding upon the State the Pope's power, I only refer him to the Parliament of Paris, where let him hold his Plea against those great Sages of the Law, for their just censures upon Florentinus jacobus, Thomas 
1561.  Blanzius, and john Tanquerell, who were all condemned to a solemn honorary penance and satisfaction to the State, and not without extreme difficulty escaped death, for the same cause. But this is hot all. I add.  
Secondly, the Pope had his Agent in England to stir up the Subjects to rebel against the Queen, as I proved before by the testimonies of Catena and 〈◊〉. It is not then imaginable that he should so poorly intent his own designs, to employ one on purpose, and he but a Merchant, and that the Priests who were the men, if any, most likely to do the business, should be unemployed. I speak not of the argument from matter of fact, (for it is apparent that they were employed, as I showed but now,) but it is plain also that they must have been employed, if we had had no other argument but a presumption of the Pope's ordinary discretion.  
Things then remaining in this condition what security could the Queen or State have without the absence of those men who must be the instruments of their mischief? Thirdly, there was great reason those men might be banished who might from their own principles plead immunity from all Laws, and subordination to the Prince. But that so these Priests might, I only bring two witnesses, leading men of their own Side. Thus Bellarmine: The Pope hath exempted all Clerks from subjection to Princes. 
Lib. 1. cap. 28. 〈◊〉 Clericis.  The same is taught by Emanuel Sà in his Aphorisms, 〈◊〉 Clericus. I must not dissemble that this Aphorism however it passed the Press at first, yet in the Edition of Paris it was left out. The cause is known to every man: For that it was merely to serve their ends is apparent; for their French freedom was there taken from them, they durst not parlour tout so near the Parliament; but the Aphorism is to this day retained in the Editions of 〈◊〉 and Colein.  
If this be their Doctrine, as it is plain it is taught by these leading Authors, I mean Sà and Bellarmine, I know no reason but it may be very just and most convenient to deny those men the Country from whose Laws they plead exemption.  
Secondly, it was but reasonable, in case they obeyed not the proscription, their disobedience should be made Capital. For if they did not obey, then either they sinned against their conscience in disobeying their lawful Prince, and so are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and inexcusable from the Law's penalty, which may be extended at the pleasure of the Lawgiver, where there is no positive injustice in the disproportion; or if they did not sin against their conscience, then of necessity must they think her to be no lawful Prince or not their lawful Prince, nor they her Subjects, & so ipso 〈◊〉 are guilty of high Treason, & their execution 
De simplic. 〈◊〉.  was for Treason not Religion, and so the Principal is evicted which I shall beg leave to express in S. Cyprians language, Non erat illa fidei Corona, sed poena 〈◊〉; nec 〈◊〉 virtut is exitus gloriosus, sed desperation is 〈◊〉.  
For if Valentius banish Eusebius from 〈◊〉, and Eusebius obey not the edict, if Valentius puts 
〈◊〉. l. 4. c. 14.  him to death, it is not for his being a Christian that he suffers death, but for staying at 〈◊〉 against the command of Valentius. Such was the case of the Priests, whom for just cause (as I have proved) and too apparent proof of seditious practices the Queen banished. Now if the Queen was their lawful Sovereign, then were they bound to obey her Decree of exile, though it had been unjust as was the case of Eusebius; or if they did not obey, not to think the Laws unjust for punishing their disobedience. I say again, their Disobedience, not their Religion: for that it was not their Religion that was struck at by the justice of these Laws, but the security of the Queen and State only aimed at, (besides what I have already said,) is apparent to the evidence of sense. For when Hart, and Bosgrave, jesuits both, came into England against the Law, they were apprehended and imprisoned: (for the Laws without just Execution were of no force for the Queen's safety;) but when these men had acknowledged the Queen's legitimate power, and put in their security for their due obedience, they obtained their pardon and their liberty. The same proceedings were in the case of Horton and Rishton, all which I hope were not 〈◊〉 from their Order or Religion, but so they must have been or not have escaped death, in case that their Religion had been made Capital. Lastly, this Statute extended only to such Priests who were made Priests since Primo of Elizabeth, & were born in England. It was not Treason for a French Priest to be in England, but yet so it must have been if Religion had been the thing they aimed at. But 'tis so foul a Calumny, I am ashamed to stand longer to efute it. The proceedings of the Church and State of England were just, honourable and religious, full of mercy and discretion, and unless it were that as C. Fimbria complained of Q. Scaevola, we did not open our breasts wide enough to receive the danger, there is no cause imaginable, I mean on our parts, to move them to so damned a conspiracy, or indeed to any just complaint.  
Secondly, if these were not the causes (as they would fain abuse the world into a persuasion that they were,) what was? I shall tell you, if you will give me leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to derive it from its very head, and then I will leave it to you to judge whether or no my Augury fails me.  
First, I guess that the Traitors were encouraged and primarily moved to this Treason from the prevailing opinion which is most generally received on that side of the lawfulness of deposing Princes that are Heretical. I say generally received, and I shall make my words good, or else the blame shall lay on themselves for deceiving me when they declare their own minds. I instance first in the Fathers of the Society. 
a Necullaeis injuria fiet si 〈◊〉. Lib. 5. de Rom. 〈◊〉. cap 7. Exipsa vi juris & ante 〈◊〉 sententiam fupremi Pastoris ac judicis 〈◊〉 sum prolatam. Lugduni impres. 1593. p. 106. n. 157. Amphith honour. p. 117. Sedheus Arnalde à 〈◊〉 institutione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 posse intercidere causam quae regem cogat abire regno? Non 〈◊〉?  Bellarmine teacheth that Kings have no wrong done them if they be deprived of their Kingdoms when they prove Heretics. Creswell in his Philopater goes farther, saying, that if his Heresy be manifest he is deposed without any explicit judicial sentence of the Pope, the Law itself hath passed the sentence of deposition. And therefore  
Bonarscius is very angry at Arnald the French Kings Advocate for affirming that Religion could be no just cause to depose a lawful Prince, If he had been brought up in their Schools he might have learned another lesson; papa Potest mutare regna 
Bellar. de Pont. R. c. 6. lib. 5.  & uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus Princeps spiritualis, si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem, saith Bellarmine. He gives his reason too, quia alioqui possent mali Principes impunè fovere Haereticos, which is a thing not to be suffered by his Holiness. 
Cap. 71.   
This Doctrine is not the private opinion of these Doctors, but est certa, definita, atque, indubitata virorum clarissimorum sententia, saith F. Creswell, I suppose 
Vbi suprà p. 107.  he means in his own Order; and yet I must take heed what I say, for Eudaemon johannes is very angry with Sir Edward Cook for saying it is the Doctrine of the jesuits. Do they then deny it? No surely, 
Apol. pro Garnet. c. 3.  but Non est jesuitarum propria, it is not theirs alone, sed ut Garnettus respondit, totius Ecclesiae, & quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta Doctrina nostra est, and there he reckons up seven and twenty famous Authors of the same opinion. Creswell in his Philopater says as much, if not more: Hinc etiam infert Vniversa Theologorum & juris consultorum Ecclesiasticorum Schola & est certum 
Num. 157.  & de fide, quemconque Principem Christianum si à religione Catbolicá manifestè deflexerit, & alios avocare voluerit, excidere statim omni potestate ac dignitate ex ipsà vi juris tum Humani tum Divini. You see how easily they swallow this great camel. Add to this that Bellarmine himself proves that the Pope's temporal power, or of disposing of Prince's Kingdoms is a Catholic Doctrine, for he reckons 
Contra 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉. ferè.  up of this opinion, one and twenty Italians, fourteen French, 〈◊〉 Germans, seven English and Scotch, nineteen Spaniards, & these not è faece plebis, but e 〈◊〉, all very famous and very leading Authors.  
You see it is good Divinity amongst them, and I have made it good that it is a general opinion received by all their Side if you will believe themselves and now let us see if it will pass for good Law as well as good Divinity.  
It is not for nothing that the Church of France protests against some of their received Canons; if they did not I know not what would become of their Princes. Their Lilies may be to day, and to morrow be cast into the oven, if the Pope either call their Prince 〈◊〉, as he did Henry the fourth, or Tyrant as Henry the third, or unprofitable for the Church or Kingdom, as he did King Childeric, whom Pope 〈◊〉, de 〈◊〉 did depose for the same cause, and inserted his act into the body of the 
Can. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 15. 9 6.  Law as a precedent for the future, quod etiam ex 〈◊〉 frequenti agit sancta Ecclesia, it is impaled in a 〈◊〉 in the body of the Canon, lest deposition of Princes should be taken for news. The law is clear for matter of fact; the lawfulness follows.  
[〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est auferri 〈◊〉 habent,] and this 
Cl. 1. in Summa. 23. 9 7.  not only from a private man, but even from Princes, [nam qui in majore dignitate, est plus punitur] or take it if you please in more proper terms. [Dominus 
Gl. cap. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de haereticis. l. 5.  Papa Principem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propter haeresim,] & so another may be chosen like the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 in Poland, just as if the King were dead, 〈◊〉 per haeresim 〈◊〉 civiliter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Simancha, and that by virtue of a 
Cap. 45. de 〈◊〉.  constitution of 〈◊〉 the ninth, by which every man is freed from all duty, homage, allegiance or subordination whatsoever due to a Heretic, whether due by a natural, civil, or political right; [aliquo pacto, aut quâcunque firmitate vallatum.] Et sic nota (saith the gloss) quoth Papa potest absolvere Laicum de iuramento fidelitatis.  
I end those things with the attestation of Bellarmine, 
〈◊〉 Barclaiumc. ap. 3.  Est res certa & 〈◊〉 at a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maximum iustis de causis temporalibus indicare, atque ipsos Temporales Principes aliquando deponere. And again that we may be sure to know of what nature this doctrine is, he repeats it; Sic igitur de potestate in Temporalibus quod ea sit in Papa non Opinio, sed Certitudo apud Catholices est. And now let any man say if this be not a Catholic Doctrine, and a likely antecedent to have Treason to be its consequent.  
But I fix not here, only this, it is plain that this proposition is no friend to Loyalty; but that which follows is absolutely inconsistent with it, in case our Prince be of a different perswafion in matters of Religion. For,  
2 It is not only lawful to depose Princes that are heretical, but it is necessary, and the Catholics are bound to do it sub mortali. I know not whether it be so generally, I am sure it is as confidently taught as the former, and by as great Doctors.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erraret si admitteret aliquem 
Lib. 5. de Rom. 〈◊〉 c. 7.  Regem, qui vellet impunè fovere quamlibet Sectam, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Bellarmine. And again, Non licet Christianis tolerare Regem haereticum, si conetur pertrahere subditos ad suam haeresim. But F. 
Ibid.  Creswell puts the business home to purpose, Certè non tantum licet, sed summâ etiam iuris Divini necessitate, 
Philopat p. 110 n. 162.  ac praecepto, imò conscientiae vinculo arctissimo, & extremo animarum suarum periculo ac discrimine Christianis omnibus hoc ipsum incumbit, si praestare rem possint. Under peril of their souls they must not suffer an heretical Prince to reign over them. 
〈◊〉. 106. n. 157.  Possunt & debent 〈◊〉 arcere ex hominum Christianorum dominatu, ne alios inficiat etc.  
3 He that saith Subjects may and are bound to depose their Princes, and to drive them from all rule over Christians, if they be able, means something more: For what if the Prince resist still he is bound to depose him if he be able. How if the Prince make a 〈◊〉 The Catholic subject must do his duty nevertheless, and war too, if he be able. He that 〈◊〉 he may wage a war with his Prince, I doubt not but thinks he may kill him; and if the fortune of the war lights so upon him, the subject cannot be blamed, for doing of his duty.  
It is plain that killing a Prince is a certain consequent of deposing him, unless the Prince be bound in conscience to think himself a Heretic, when the Pope declares him so, and be likewise bound not to resist, and besides all this will perform these his obligations, and as certainly think himself heretical, and as really give over his Kingdom quietly, as he is bound. For in case any of these should fail, there can be but very sleder assurance of his life. I would be loath to obtrude upon men the odious consequences of their opinions, or to make any thing worse which is capable of a fairer construction; but I crave pardon in this particular, the life of Princes is sacred, and is not to be violated so much as in thought, or by the most remote consequence of a public doctrine: But here indeed it is so immediate and natural a consequent of the former that it must not be dissembled. But what shall we think if even this blasphemy be taught in terminis? See this too.  
In the year 1407. when the Duke of Orleans had been slain by john of Burgundy, and the fact notorious beyond a possibility of conccalement, he thought it his best way to employ his Chaplain to justify the act, pretending that Orleans was a Tyrant. This stood him in small stead; for by the procurement of Gerson, it was decreed in the Council of Constance, that Tyranny was no sufficient cause for a man to kill a Prince. But yet I find that even this decree will not stand Princes in much stead. First, because the decree runs [ut nemo privatâ Authoritate etc.] but if the Pope commands it, than it is judicium publicum, and so they are never the more secure for all this. Secondly, because 〈◊〉 tells us, that this Decree is nothing. 〈◊〉 id decretum (Concilij 〈◊〉) Romano Pontifici Martino 
De Reg & R. instit. lib. 1. c. 6.  quinto probatum non invenio, non Eugenio 〈◊〉 Successoribus, quorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat. Thirdly, because though the Council had forbidden killing of Tyrannical Princes even by public authority, though this Decree had been confirmed by the Pope, which yet it was not, yet Princes are never the more secure if they be convict of Heresy, and therefore let them but add Heresy to their Tyranny, and this Council Non obstante they may be killed by any man; for so it is determined in an Apology made for Chastel, Licitum 
Franc. Verum. Const. p. 2. c. 2.  esse privatis & singulis Reges & Principes Hareseos & Tyrannidis condemnatos occidere, non obstante Decreto Concilij Constantiensis; And the Author of the Book de iustâ abdicatione Henrici. 3. affirms it not only lawful but meritorious.  
How much less than this is that of Bellarmine? 
De Pont. R. lib. 5. c6.  Si obsint fini Spirituali, Spiritualis potestas potest & debet coercere Temporalem, omni ratione ac viâ. If omniratione, than this of killing him in case of necessity or greater convenience, must not be excluded. But to confess the business openly and freely; It is known that either the Consent of the people, or the Sentence of the Pope, or Consent of learned men is with them held to be a publicum 〈◊〉, and sufficient to sentence a Prince and convict him of Heresy or Tyranny. That opinion which makes the people judge is very rare amongst them but almost generally exploded, that opinion which 
Vide P. D. M. Image of both Churches.  makes the learned to be their judge is I think proper to Mariana or to a few more with him, but that the sentence of the Pope is a sufficient conviction of him, and a complete 〈◊〉 act, is the most Catholic opinion on that Side, as I shall show anon. Now whether the Pope, or learned men, or the people be to pass this sentence upon the Prince, it is plain that it is an Universal Doctrine amongst them that after this sentence (whosesoever it be) it is then without Question lawful to kill him, and the most that ever they say is, that it is indeed not lawful to kill a King, not lawful for a private man, of his own head, without the public sentence of his judge, but when this judge (whom they affirm to be the Pope) hath passed his sentence, than they doubt not of its being lawful. That I say true I appeal to 
a Tom. 3. disp. 5. q. S. punct. 3.  Gregory de Valentia, 
a In sum. 〈◊〉. 5. c. 6. A polog ad  Tolet, 
a R Angl. c. 13  Bellarmine, 
d Defence fidei lib. 6 c. 4.  Suarez, 
e in 13 cap. ad Rom. disp. 5.  Salmeron, 
f Quest p. in c. 3. 〈◊〉.  Serarius, 
g De just. & inre. 〈◊〉 m. 4. 〈◊〉. 3. d. 6.  Molina, 
h Aphoris. verb. Tyrant. nus. 1. Instit. Moral 2. p. lib.  〈◊〉 Sà, 
i 1. c. 5. q 10.  〈◊〉, 
k In Hercul. Furent.  Martinus 〈◊〉, 
l de justit. & jure. c 9 dub 4  Lessius, 
m Chawe sauris polit  Gretser, 
n in resp ad Aphoris. Calvinistarun  〈◊〉, 
o Contr. Calvinist. Aphcrism. c. 3. ad Aphor. 1.  〈◊〉 Heissius, 
p In expostul. ad Henrici. 〈◊〉. pro Societate  〈◊〉, 
q in Apolog. pro Henrico Garnetto.  〈◊〉 johannes, 
r Ad annum Mundi. 2669. n. 7.  Salianus, 
s Tract. 29. p. 2. de quinto praecepro Decal. n. 12.  Filliucius, 
t tom. 3. disp. 4. q 8. dub. 3  Adam Tanner, and their great 
u 32, u. opusc. 20. & lib. 1. de 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 c. 6.  Thomas Aquinas.  
All these and many more that I have seen teach the lawfulness of kill Kings after public sentence, and then to beautify the matter profess that they deny the lawfulness of Regicidium, by a private authority. For if the Pope sentence him then he is no longer a King, and so the kill of him is not Regicidium, and if any man doth kill him after such sentence, than he kills him not privatâ Authoritate, or 〈◊〉 judicio publico, which is all they affirm to be unlawful.  
And thus they hope to stop the clamour of the world against them, yet to have their opinions stand entire, the way to their own ends fair, but the Prince no jot the more secure of his life. I do them no wrong, I appeal to the Authors themselves, thereI will be tried. For that either the People, or that a Company of learned men, or to be sure the Pope may licence a man to kill the King, they speak it with one voice, and tongue. And now after all this we may better guess what manner of counsel or 
In lib. sub 〈◊〉 Torti. edit. Colon. Agrip. 1610. pag 21.  threatening (for I know not which to call it) that was which Bellarmine gave sometimes to K. james of B. M. Si securus regnare velit Rex, si vitae suae & suorum consulere cupiat, sinat Catholicos frui religione suâ! If this be good counsel, then in case the Catholics were hindered from the free profession of their Religion, at the best it was full of danger if not certain ruin. But I will no more rake this Augaean Stable, in my first Part I showed it was too Catholic a Doctrine, and too much practised by the great Cisalpine Prelate. I add no more, lest truth itself should blush, fearing to become incredible.  
Now if we put all these things together, and then we should prove to be 〈◊〉 in their account, we are in a fair case both Prince and people, if we can but guess rightly at this we shall need I think to look no further why fire was called for to consume both our King and Country, nor why we may fear it another time.  
The Author of the Epistle of comfort to the Catholics in prison printed by authority in the year of the Powder Treason, is very earnest to persuade his Catholics not to come to our Churches or communicate with us in any part of our divine service, affrighting them with the strange terriculamenta of half Christians, Hypocrites, Denyers of Christ, in case they joined with us in our Liturgy. Strange affrightments these yet not much more than what is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  true if they esteem us Heretics. For if they think us so, we are so to them, and they communicating with us do as much sin, as if we were so indeed.  
But if we be not Heretics what need all this stir permissu Superiorum. the Counsel of Recusancy was unreasonable, dangerous, schismatical, and as the case then stood, very imprudent. In charity to their discretion we cannot but think them uncharitable in their opinion of us.  
But there is no need we should dispute ourselves into a conjecture, themselves speak out and plain enough. Hear Ballarmine under the visor of Tortus, 
Apol ad R. Angl.  affirming that the King's Edict commanded the Catholics, to go to Heretics Churches, speaking of ours But more plain is that of Champ the Sorbonist 
Cap. 11. pag. 149 Douai. 1616.  in his Treatise of Vocation of Bishops. Therefore as arianism is a condemned Heresy, & the Professors thereof be Heretics, sa likewiseiss Protestantisme a condemned Heresy, and those that Profess it be also Heretics.  
By this time we see too plainly that the state of Protestant Princes is full of danger where these men have to do. They may be deposed and expelled from the Government of their Kingdoms, they must be deposed by the Catholics under peril of their souls, it may be done any way that is most convenient, they may be rebelled against, fought with, slain. For all this, it were some ease, if here we might fix a 〈◊〉. For perhaps these Princes might put in a 〈◊〉 for themselves, and go near to prove themselves to be no Heretics. All'sone, for though they do, yet unless they can persuade his Holiness not to judge them so, or declare them Heretics, all is to no purprse, for to him they must stand or fall. Namiudicare an Rex pertrahat ad haresim 〈◊〉 pertinet ad Pontificem. So Bellarmine They need not stay till his Heresy be of itself manifest, he is then to be used like a Heretic when by the rope of Rome he shall be judged Heretical.  
But what matter is it if the Pope be judge, for if they may be deposed, as good he as any else. What grievance then, can this be to the state of Princes more than the former? Yes, very much. 1. Because the Pope by his order to spirituals may take away Kingdoms upon more pretences then actual heresy. It is a large title, and may do any thing. Bellarmine 
Vbi supra.  expresses it handsomely, and it is the doctrine of their great Aquinas. The Pope (saith he) by 
De regim. Princip.  his Spiritual power may dispose of the Temporalties of all the Christians in the World, when it is requisite to the end of the Spiritual power. The words are plain that he may do it for his own ends (for his is the Spiritual power) that is, for the advancement of the See 〈◊〉, and thus (to be sure) he did actually wish Frederick Barbarossa, john of Navarre, the Earl of Tholouse, and our own King john. 2. The Pope pretends to a power that to avoid the probable danger of the increase of heresy he may take away a Territory from the right owner, as is reported by the Cardinal D'Ossat, and this is soon pretended, for who is there that cannot make probabilities, especially when a Kingdom is at stake? 3. We find examples that the Pope hath excommunicate Princes, and declared them heretics when all the heresy hath been a not laying their crowns at the feet of S. Peter. The case of Lewis the fourth is every where known, whom john the twenty third Excommunicated. Platina tells the reason. He called himself 
In Clement. 〈◊〉.  Emperor without the Pope's leave, and aided the 〈◊〉 deputies to recover Milan. Doubtless a most damnable and fundamental heresy. 4. How if it proves in the Pope's account to be a heresy to defend the immediate right of Princes to their Kingtholiques, dependant only on God, not on the See 〈◊〉 If this be no heresy, nor like heresy to say it, I would fain learn the meaning of Baronius concerning the book of johannes de Roa, who sometimes had been a jesuit, but then changed his order, and 
Baron. tom, 6. Annal. An Dom 447. n 8  became 〈◊〉, saying, it was sentenced to the fire before it had escaped the press. And good reason, Nihil enim tale à Patribus societatis didicit. Good men, they never taught him any such doctrine as is contained in that pestilent book, de iuribus principalibus defendendis & moderandis iustè. Now if this be heresy or like it, to preach such a Doctrine, then likely it will be judged heresy in Princes to do so, that is, to hold their crowns without acknowledgement of subordination to S. Peter's chair. And if it be not heresy to do so, it is in their account as bad, for so the jesuits in their Veritas defensa against the Action of Arnald the Advocate affirm in terminis, that the actions of some Kings of France against the Pope in defence of their Regalties, were but examples of rebellion, and spots to disgrace the purity of the French Lilies. 5. Put case the Pope should chance to mistake in his sentence against a Prince, for the cause of heresy, yet for all this mistake, he can secure any man to take away the Prince's life or Kingdom. His Lawyers will be his security for this point. For although in this case, the deposition of the Prince should be, and be acknowledged to be against God's law, the Prince being neither Tyrant nor heretic, yet his Holiness commanding it, takes away the unlawfulness of it, by his dispensation. So D. Marta, and for this doctrine he 
De jurisd cas. 64, 〈◊〉, 14.  quotes Hostiensis, Felinus, Cratus, the Abbot, the Arch bishop of Florence, Ancharanus, johannes Andreas, Laurentius de Pinu, and some others. Indeed his Divines deny this, sed contrarium 〈◊〉 observatur, 
Num. 17.  as it's very well observed by the same Doctor, for he brings the practice & example of Pope Martin the fifth, julius the second, Celestine the third, Alexander the third, and Sixtus quintus, all which dispensed in cases acknowledged to be expressly against God's law. 6. Lastly. How if the Pope should lay a claim to all the Kingdoms of the world, as belonging to S. Peter's patrimony by right of spiritual pre-eminence? I know no great security we have to the contrary. For first, It is known he hath claimed the Kingdom of England, as feudatary to the 
a Rex 〈◊〉 est subditus Romano Pontisici 〈◊〉 directi dominii quol in Regnum Angliae & Hibernie Romana 〈◊〉 Ecclesia. Bellarm. Apol. alv. R. Angl. c. 3.  See Apostolic. Which when I considered I wondered not at that new and insolent title which Mosconius gives his Holiness of Desensor fidei. He might have added the title of Rex Catholicus, & Christianisstmus. For D. Marta in his treatise of jurisdiction, which he dedicated to Paulus quintus, hath that for an argument why he dedicated his Book to him, because, for soothe the Pope is the only Monarch of the World. But of greater authority is that of Thomas Aquinas affirming, 
b De Mayest. milit. Eccles. c. 1. pag. 25.  the Pope to be the vertical top of all power Ecclesiastical 
c Tibi à quo emanat omuis 〈◊〉, unicus in orbe Pontisex, Imperator & Rex, omnium Principum superior, 〈◊〉 & personarum supremus & Dominus. Epist. Dedicat.  
d 2 Scent, dist. 44. & lib. 3 de Regim. Princ.  and Civil. So that now it may be true which the Bishop of Patara told the Emperor, in behalf of Pope Sylverius. Multos esse Reges, sed nullum 
Lib. erat. in Breviar. de 〈◊〉 Nestorian cap. 21.  talem, qualis ille, qui est Papa super Ecclesiam Mundi totius.  
For these reasons I think it is true enough that the constituting the Pope the judge of Princes in the matter of deposition, is of more danger than the thing itself. The sum is this. However schism or heresy may be pretended, yet it is but during the Pope's pleasure that Kings or subjects shall remain firm in their mutual necessitude. For if our Prince be but excommunicate or declared heretic, then to be a good subject will be accounted no better than irreligion and Anti-Catholicisme. If the conclusion be too hard and intolerable then so are the Premises, and yet they pass for good Catholic doctrine among themselves.  
But if truly and ex animo they are otherwise affected, they should do well to unsay what hath been said, and declare themselves by public authority against such doctrines. And say whether or no their determinations shall be de fide? If they be, than all those famous Catholic Doctors, Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Creswell, Mariana, Emanuel Sà, etc. are heretics, and their Canons teach heresy, and Many of their Popes to be condemned as heretical, for practising and teaching deposition of Princes by an authority usurped against, and in prejudice of the Christian faith. But if their answers be not de fide, than they had as good say nothing, for the danger is not at all decreased, because if there be Doctors on both sides by their own 
* Charity maintained by Cath. cap. 7.  assertion they may without sin follow either, but yet more safely if they follow the most received and the most authorized, and whether this rule will lead them, I will be judged by any man that hath considered the premises. Briefly either this thing must remain in the same state it is, and our Princes still exposed to so extreme hazards, or else let his Holiness seat himself in his chair, condemn these doctrines, vow against their future practice, limit his ordo ad spiritualia, contain himself within the limits of causes directly and merely Ecclesiastical, disclaim all power, so much as indirect over Prince's temporals, and all this with an intent to oblige all Christendom. Which when I see done, I shall be most ready to believe that nothing in Popery, doth either directly or by a necessary consequence destroy Loyalty to our lawful Prince, but not till then, having so much evidence to the contrary.  
Thus much was occasioned by consideration of the cause of the Disciples Quaere which was when they saw this, that their L. and M. for his difference in Religion was turned forth of doors, which when they saw,  
They said Lord] It was well they asked at all, and would not too hastily act what they too suddenly had intended, but it was better that they asked Christ, it had been the best warrant they could have had, could they have obtained but a Magister dixit. But this was not likely, it was too strange a Question to ask of such a Mr. A Magistre 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crudelitatis? Nothing could have come more cross to his disposition. His spirit never was addicted to blood, unless it were to shed his own. He was a Prince of peace and set forth to us by all the Symbols of peace and gentleness, as of a sheep, a lamb, a hen, a gentle twining vine, the healing 〈◊〉. and is it likely that such a one should give his placet to the utter ruin of a company of poor Villagers for denying him a night's lodging moved thereto by the foregoing scandal of a Schism? He knew better what it cost to redeem aman, and to save his life from destruction then to be so hasty for his ruin. And if the Father's Confessors who were to answer the Question of the day had but reflected upon this Gospel, they might have informed their penitents better than to have engaged them upon such Antichristian, and Treasonable practices, as to destroy an assembly of Christians, as to depose or kill a King.  
It is the proper cognisance of Mahumetanisme, by fire and sword to maintain their cause, and to propagate their Religion, by ruin of Princes and conquering their Kingdoms. But it is the excellency of Christianity, that by humility and obedience it made Prince's tributary to our Dear Master, and homagers to his Kingdom. When Valentinian sent Calligonus his Chamberlain to S. Ambrose to threaten him from his faith, his answer was, Deus permittit tibi ut impleas quod minaris. Ego patiar, quod est Episcopi, 〈◊〉 facies quod est spadonis. He did not stir up the numerous people of his Diocese to rebel against the Emperor, or depose him, employed no agent in his Court to undermine his security, nor assasine to take his life. He and the rest of those good Fathers, would not have lost their possibility of being Martyrs, for the world, unless it were by persuading the Emperors to the Christian faith. We pray for all our Governors, that they might have long life, a secure government, a safe house, strong armies, good subjects, quiet world. So 〈◊〉. 
Apologet.   
I had thought that the Doctrine and example of our B. Saviour, the practice Apostolical and primitive, had been ties enough to keep us in our obedience to God and the King, and in Christian charity to all, but I find that all these precepts come to nothing, for the Apostles and primitive Christians did not actually depose Kings, nor alter states, nor call for fire to consume their enemies: not because it was simply unlawful so to do, or any way adverse to the precepts of Christ, but because they wanted Power. So Bellarmine: The Church gave 
De Pontif. R. l. 5. c. 7.  leave that the faithful should obey julian, because than they wanted forces. And F. Creswell is very confident of the business, They might without all Question have 
Philopater P. 107. n. 158.  appointed to themselves other Kings and Princes, if the Christians had been strong enough to bring their intendments to pass. But because they could not, therefore it was not lawful for them to go about it, nor is it for us in the same case, especially if the Prince hath quiet possession, and a strong guard about him, then by no means is it lawful for a single man by 
Disp. 5. inc. 13. add Roman.  then by no means is it lawful for a single man by his own authority to assault his Prince that rules Tyrannically. So Salmeron. But who sees not that this way murder may be lawful. For true it is God commanded us, saying, Thou shalt not kill, that is, if thou art not able to lift up thy hand, or strike a stroke; thou shalt not blaspheme, that is, if thou be'st speechless, thou must be obedient to thy Prince, that is, if thou canst not tell how to help it. Good Doctrine this! And indeed it might possibly be something if God had commanded our subordination to Princes only for wrath, for then si vires 〈◊〉, if we can defend ourselves we are secure, we need not fear his wrath, but when he adds, also for conscience sake, I cannot sufficiently wonder that any man should obtrude so 〈◊〉, so illiterate, and so impious an interpretation upon the Christian world, under the Title of Catholic Doctrine.  
Christ when he was betrayed and seized upon by his Murderers could have commanded twelve Legions of Angels for his Guard, Non defuerunt vires; and in all humane likelihood such a Satellitium as that would have moved them to a belief in him, or else I am sure, might have destroyed the unbelievers. Shall I say more against this rude 〈◊〉 Then thus. It is false that the Primitive Christians had not power to defend themselves against their Persecutors, Hear S. Cyprian; Nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur reluctatur, nec se adversus iniustitiam, & violentiam vestram quamvis nimius & copiosus noster sit Populus, ulciscitur. They could have resisted and that to blood, but they had not so learned Christ. Prayers and tears were the arms of Christians, and then they had a defence beyond all this, when they were hard put to it, Mori potuerunt, a submission of their bodies to Martyrdom was their last refuge.  
Thus S. Agnes, Lucia, Agatha, Christina, Domitilla saved both their faith and chastity, non armis, sedignibus & carnificis manu, the tormentors last cruelty defended them from all succeeding danger.  
I will not yet conclude, that, that which these men obtrude for Catholic Doctrine is flat and direct heresy, I will instance but once more and then I shall. In the fourth Council of Toledo which was assembled when the usurping and Tyrannising Goths did domineer in Europe, the most whereof were Tyrants, Usurpers, or Arrians; the Council decreed that if any man did violate the life or person of his King, aut potestate Regni exuerit, kill him or depose him, Anathema sit etc. He should be accursed in the sight of God and his Holy Angels, and together withal the companions of his iniquity, he should be separated from the Catholic Church. And now I hope I may say that these men who either practice or advise such practices as killing or deposing Kings, areas formally condemned for heresy, and anathematised, as ever was Manichee or Cataphrygian. I know not, but perhaps this might be thought of when the 〈◊〉 were inscribed heretics upon the public pillar before the Lowre in Paris, upon their banishment: however, let them answer it as they may, it concerns them as much as their being Catholics comes to, Et considerent, quia quae praedicant tantoperè verba, aut ipsorum summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbrias extendentium, 〈◊〉 illorum qui eis adulantur, as said Aeneas Silvius, but at 
De gestis consil. Basil. lib. 1.  no hand can it be Christian Doctrine.  
I instanced in these things to show the 〈◊〉 between the spirit of our B. Saviour who answered the Question of the text, and the Father's Confessors of whom was asked the Question of the day.  
But give me leave to consider them not only as misinforming their penitents, but as concealing their intended purpose, for even this way, the persons 
a Cap 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. excom. &. c. delicto ibid. in 〈◊〉 13. q. 3. q. 3.  to whom the Question was propounded made themselves guilty of the intended machination. For by all Law Ecclesiastical and Civil he that conceals an intended Murder or Treason makes himself 
b l. 1. Occisorum ad 〈◊〉. c. 〈◊〉 & l 1. §. 1. ad l. Cornel. de falsis l. quisquis ad l lub. Mayest.  as much a party for concealing, as is the Principal for contriving.  
Ob. But these Father's Confessors could not be accused by virtue of these general Laws, as being exempt by virtue of special case, for they received notice of these things only in confession, the seal of which is so sacred and inviolable, that he is sacrilegious who in any case doth break it open, though it be to avoid the greatest evil that can happen, so Bellarmine, to save the lives of all the Kings in Christendom, 
Apol. adv. R. Angl.  so Binet; though to save a whole common 
Casaub. ad Front. Duc. In 3. part. D. Thom. disp. 33. Sect. 1. 〈◊〉. 2.  wealth from damage temporal or spiritual, of body or soul, so Suarez.  
A considerable matter! On the one side we are threatened by sacrilege, on the other by danger of Princes and commonwealths, for the case may happen, that either the Prince and whole State may be suffered to perish bodily and ghostly, or else the Priest must certainly damn himself by the sacrilegious breach of the holy Seal of confession. Give me leave briefly to consider it, and, both for the acquittance of our state in its proceedings against these Traitors, and for the regulating of the case itself, to say these two things.  
1 This present Treason was not revealed to these Father's Confessors in formal confession. 2. If it had, it did not bind to secrecy in the present case. Of the first, only a word.  
1 It was only propounded to them in way of Question or consultation (like this in the text) as appeared 
Vide Casaub. ep. ad Frent. D. p. 133.  by their own confessions, and the attestation of then Sir Henry Montague Recorder of London to Garnet himself. It could not therefore be a formal 
D. Soto. in 4. l. Sent. d. 18. q. 4 art. 5. concl. 5.  confession, & therefore not bind to the seal. It is the common opinion of their own Doctors: Non enim inducitur obligatio sigilli in confession quam quis facit 
Navar. 6. 8. n. 18.  sine ullo animo accipiendi absolutionem, sed solum 
Suarez. disp. 33 Sect 2.  consilij pettendi causâ.  
2 It was propounded to these Father's Confessors 
Coninck 〈◊〉 conf. 〈◊〉 1. n. 7.  as a thing not subjicible to their penitential judicature, because it was a fact not repent of, but then in agitation, and resolved upon for the future. How then could this be a confession, whose institution must certainly be in order to absolution, and how could this be in any such order, when it was a business of which they could not expect to be absolved unless they hoped to sin with a pardon about their necks; and on condition God would be merciful to them in its remission, would come and profess that they were resolved to anger him? In reason this could be no act of repentance, neither could it, by confession of their own side. It is the doctrine of Hostiensis: and 
b Cap Sacerdos. 3. q. n. 116.  Navarre, and 
c In lucubrat: ad Barrolum. in L. ut Vim. n. 22 ff. de iuftitia & iure  Cardinal Alban confess it to be most commonly received.  
3 It was not only not repent of, but by them reputed to be a good action, and so could not be a matter of confession. I appeal to any of their own Manuals and penitentiary books. It is culpable say they. I am sure it is ridiculous in any man to confess and shrive himself of a good action, and that this was such in their opinion, it's plain, by that impious answer of Garnet, affirming it a business 
See proceed. against late Traitors.  greatly meritorious, if any good might thence accrue to the Catholic cause.  
4 By this their pretended confession they endeavoured to acquire new complices, as is evident in the proceedings against the Traitors. They were therefore bound to reveal it, for it neither was nor could be a proper and formal confession. That this is the common opinion of their own Schools, see it affirmed by Aegidius 〈◊〉. 
Vbi supra.   
The first particular then is plain. Here neither was the form of confession, nor yet could this thing be a matter of confession, therefore supposing the seal of confession to be sacredly inviolable in all cases, yet they were highly unblamable for their concealment in the present.  
2 But the truth of the second particular is more to be inquired of. That is, that though these things had been only revealed in confession, and this confession had been formal and direct, yet they were bound in the present case to reveal it, because the seal of confession is not so inviolable, as that in no case it is to be broken up, and if in any, especially it may be opened in the case of treason.  
I never knew any thing cried up with so general avoyce upon so little ground, as is the Over hallowed seal of confession.  
True it is that an ordinary secret committed to a friend in civil commerce is not to be revealed upon every cause, nor upon many, (but upon some it may as they all confess.) If thus, then much rather is this to be observed in the revelation of the secrets of our consciences, not only from the ordinary tie to secrecy, but likewise least sins should grow more frequent, if so great a remedy of them be made so odious, as to expose us to a public infancy or danger of the law. The Council therefore that first introduced this obligation was very prudent and reasonable, pleads a thousand years' prescription, and relies upon good conveniences. This is all that ever could be proved of it (as may appear anon) but these are too weak a base, to build so great a structure on it, as to make it sacrilege, or any sin at all, to reveal confessions in some cases.  
1 For first, if because it is delivered as a secret, and such a secret, it is the more closely and religiously to be kept; it is true, but concludes no more, but that it must be a greater cause that must authorise a publication of this, then of the secrets of ordinary commerce between friend and friend.  
2 If the licensing of publication of confession be a way to make confession odious, and therefore that it may not be published, I say if this concludes, then on the contrary it concludes far more strongly, that therefore in some cases it may be published, because nothing can make a thing more odious and intolerable, then if it be made a cover for grand impieties, so as to engage a true subject, quietly & Knowingly to see his Prince murdered.  
3 If it be discouragement to the practice of confession that some sins revealed in it must be published though with peril to the delinquents same & life, than it will be a far greater discouragement to the sin, when that it shall by an universal judgement be so detested, that its concealment may not be permitted, though it be with the hazard of discouraging the Holy duty of confession: and when the being guilty of such a sin, shall reduce men into such straits, that either they shall want the benefit of absolution, or submit themselves to a public satisfaction, and so even in this particular the benefit is far greater than the imaginary inconvenience.  
The conveniences of the 〈◊〉 force no more than that it is convenient to be observed, not simply and absolutely in all cases necessary. And perhaps Suarez the great patron of it perceived it, however he lays the burden, super communi consensu Ecclesiae, 
In 3. part. D Thom disp. 33. sect. 〈◊〉, n, 2  〈◊〉 perpetuâ traditione. If then I can show, that there is no such Catholic consent of the present Church, nor any universal tradition of the ancient Church for the inviolable Seal, but plainly the contrary, than our Church in her permission of the Priests to reveal some confessions is as inculpable as those of the present Church, who (besides herself) teach and practise it, and as the Primitive Church whose, example in this (as in other things) she strictly follows.  
Of the first. The Church of England, which observes the seal of confession as sacredly as reason or religion itself can possibly permit, yet forbids not disclosure in case of Murder or Treason, but in these particulars leaves us entire in our obedience to 
Can. 113. A. D. 1604.  the common laws of England, and these command it.  
That the Church of England gives leave in some cases to reveal confessions, is argument enough to prove that the Seal is not founded upon the consent of the present Catholic Church. For it is no more a begging of the Question (nor apparently so much) to say, the Church of England is a part of the Catholic Church, and therefore her consent is required to make a thing universal, then to say, the Church of Rome is the whole Catholic Church, therefore her consent is sufficient to make a thing Catholic. But I shall not need to proceed this way. For,  
1 It is apparent that of their own side Altisidiorensis largely and professedly proves the lawfulness of publication in some cases as is to be seen. Lib. 4. Summae tract. 6. cap. 3. q. 7. and Garnet himself, the man who if any had most need to stand in defence of the Seal that the pretence of it might have defended him, yet confessed of his own accord, Leges quae celare 
Actio in prodit. lat. p 99  haec prohibent apprimè esse justas & salutares. He adds his reason, and that is more than his authority, for (saith he) it is not fitting that the life and safety of a Prince should depend upon the private niceties of any man's conscience. If two, nay if one dissent, it is enough to destroy a consent. But see farther.  
There are many cases, generally confessed amongst themselves, in which the seal of formal and (as they love to speak) Sacramental confession may be broken open. I instance but in two or three.  
First, confession may be revealed to clear a doubtful case of marriage. It is the opinion of many great 
Practic. crim. Ecclesiast. cap. 109.  Canonists, as you may see them quoted by Suarez de Paz. and 〈◊〉, and the case of the Venetian 
Resol. de Matrimon.  who married a Virgin that was both his sister and daughter: and that at Rome under Pope Paul the third almost to like purpose, were long disputed on both sides, whether they were to be revealed or not, so that at most, it is but a doubtful matter in such cases, whether the tie of secrecy doth oblige. Now if for the proof of marriage the seal may be broken up, that man and wife might live contentedly and as they ought, strange it should be unlawful to reveal confessions in case of Treason, for the safety of a Prince or State!  
2 In case of herely the seal binds not, by their own general confession. It is a rule amongst them, Haeresis est crimen quod non confessio celat. Now I would fain learn why Treason is not as revealeable as Heresy? Is heresy dangerous to souls? Then surely, so is Treason, unless it be none, or a very small crime. May heresy infect others? So may Treason, as it did in the present. It may then as well be revealed as heresy. Now that it may something rather, I have these reasons. 1. Because it is not so certain that such an opinion is heresy as that such a 〈◊〉 is Treason. 2. Because although both Treason and real heresy be damnable and dangerous to souls, yet heresy kills no Kings as treason doth. I confess that heresy may, and doth teach it, but than it degenerates into Treason. Now if some heresy may be Treason, than that Treason is heresy, & so a case of Treason may occur, in which from their own confession, treason is revealeable.  
3 By the most general voice of their own side any man may licence his confessor to reveal his confession. It is the doctrine of Scotus, Durandus, Almain, Navarre, Medina, and generally of all the Thomists. I infer, if a private man may licence his Consessor to reveal his confession, than the seal of confession is not founded upon any divine commandment, for if it were, the penitent could not give the Priest licence to break it. But if the penitent may give his Confessor leave, because the tie of secrecy is a bond in which the Priest stands bound to the penitent, & he giving him leave, remits of his own right, than much rather may a whole State authorize this publication, for what ever personal right a private 
L. quod Maior ff. ad Municipalem.  man hath, that the whole State hath much rather, for he is included in it as a part of the whole, and in such cases as concern the whole commonwealth (as this of treason doth most especially) the rule of the Law holds without exception, Refertur ad 〈◊〉 
ff. de regul 〈◊〉. ad §. refertur. L. 7 §. ult. ff. de pact.  quod publicè fit per maiorem partem, the delinquent gives leave to the publication of confession, therefore because the whole state doth, whereof he is one member. I add, that in the case of Treason this is much rather true, for here the delinquent looseth all his right whatsoever, praedial, personal, and of privilege, & therefore the Commonwealth can the better licence the publication, and the breach of the bond of secrecy, in which the Confessor stood tied to the penitent by virtue of implicit stipulation.  
4 Lastly, even in special in the very case of Treason confessed, many of their own do actually practise a publication, when either they are loyal of themselves, or dare not be otherwise.  
I instance first in the Church of France. For this See Bodinus, who reports of a Norman Gentleman whom his Confessor discovered for having confessed 
De republs. lib. 2. cap. 5.  a Treasonable purpose he sometimes had, of killing Francis the first, of which he was penitent, did his penance, craved absolution obtain'dit but yet was sentenced to the axe by express commission from the 
Histoire de 〈◊〉.  King to the Parliament of Paris. The like confession was made by the Lord of Haulteville when he was in danger of death, which when he had escaped, he incurred it with the disadvantage of public infamy upon the Scaffold. I instance not in the case of Barriere, it is every where known as it is reported partly by Thuanus, but more fully by the Author of Histoire de la paix. Nor yet is France singular in the practice of publication of confessed Treason. For at Rome there have been examples of the like, I mean 
Dominic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. memb. 3. q 4 concl. 2 derat. regendi secret.  of those who confessed their purpose of killing the Pope, who were revealed by their Confessors, and accordingly punished.  
Thus than the first pretence proves a nullity, & either our Laws are just in commanding publication of confession in case of Treason, or themselves very culpable in teaching & practising it in the same, & in cases of less moment. The 2d is like the first for it is extremely vain to pretend that the seal of confession is founded upon Catholic tradition. judge by the sequel.  
The first word I hear of concealing confessions 
Lib 7. hist. c. 16.  is in Sozomen, relating how the 〈◊〉 Church about 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  the time of Decius the Emperor, set over the penitents a public penitentiary Priest, who was bound to be Virbonae conversationis, 〈◊〉, secretum, a good man and a keeper of secrets, for indeed he was bound to conceal some crimes, in particular those which an Adulteress had confessed, I mean concerning her Adultery, as appears in the Canons of S. Basil. But yet this Priest who was so tied to a religious 
Epist. ad Amphil.  secrecy did publish many of them in the Congregation before the people, that they might reprove the delinquent and discountenance the sin. The same story is reported by Cassiodore, and Niccphorus from the same Author.  
The lawfulness and practice of publication in some cases is as clear in Origen. If (saith he) the Physician 
〈◊〉. 2. in 37. Psal.  of thy soul perceives thy sins to be such as to need so harsh a remedy as to have them published before the assemblies of the people, that others may be admonished, & thou the better cured, he need be very deliberate, and skilful in the application of it. Hitherto no such thing as an Universal tradition for the pretended inviolable sacramental seal, for Origen plainly, and by them confessedly speaks of such sins as first were privately confessed to the Priest; how else should he deliberate of their publication? but yet he did so, and for all the seal of confession, sometimes opened many of them, to no sewer witnesses then a whole assembly. Thus it was in the Greek Church both Law and Custom. But now if we look into the Latin Church we shall find that it was taken up from example of the Greeks and some while practised, that some particular sins should be published in the Church before the Congregation, 
Cap. 10. & 21.  as it is confessed in the Council of Mentz, and inserted by Burchard into his Decree. 
l. 19 c. 37.   
But when the Lay piety began to cool, and the zeal of some Clergy men wax too hot, they would needs heighten this custom of publication of some sins to a Law of the publishing of all sins. This being judged to be inconvenient, expressed the first decree for the seal of confession in the Latin Church. Now see how it is uttered, and it will sufficiently inform us both of the practice and the opinion which Antiquity had of the obligation to the seal.  
Illam contra Apostolicam regulam praesumptionem, etc. that is, it was against the Apostolical ordinance 
Decret 〈◊〉 Leonis. P. M. Epist. 80. ad 〈◊〉. Campan.  that a Law should enjoin that the Priest should reveal all those sins which had been told him in confession. It might be done so it were not required and exacted, and yet might be so required, so it were not a publication of all. Non enim omnium 〈◊〉 sunt peccata; saith S. Leo, some sins are inconvenient to be published, it is not fit the world should know all, therefore, some they might, or else he had said nothing. The reason which he gives makes the business somewhat clearer, for he derives it not from any simple necessity of the thing or a Divine Right, but least men out of inordinate love to themselves, should rather refuse to be washed then buy their purity with so much shame. The whole Epistle hath many things in it excellently to the same purpose.  
I say no more, the Doctrine and practice of antiquity is sufficiently evident, and that there is nothing less than an Universal tradition for the seal of confession to be observed in all cases, even of sins of the highest malignity.  
Thus these Father's Confessors are made totally inexcusable by concealing a Treason which was not revealed to them in a formal confession, and had been likewise culpable though it had, there being as I have shown, no such sacredness of the Seal as to be inviolable in all cases whatsoever.  
I have now done with the several considerations of the persons to whom the Question was propounded, they were the Father's Confessors in the day, but it was Christ the Lord in my text. The Question itself follows.  
Shall we command fire to come from heaven and consume them?  
The Question was concerning the fate of a whole Town of Samaria, in our case it was more; of the Fate of a whole Kingdom. It had been well if such a Question had been silenced by a direct negative or (as the judges of the Areopage used to do) put off ad diem longissimum, that they might have expected the answer three ages after.  
De morte hominis nulla est 〈◊〉 longa, No demur had been too long in a case of so much and so royal blood, the blood of a King, of a King's Children, of a King's Kingdom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 King and Kingdom should have & been made a solemn sacrifice to appease their solemn deliberate malice. I said deliberate, for they were loath to be malicious without good advice, and therefore they asked their question, worthy of an Oracle, even no less than Delphic, where an evil spirit was the Numen, and a Witch the Prophet. For the Question was such of which a Christian could not doubt though he had been fearfully scrupulous in his resolutions. For whoever questioned the unlawfulness of murder, of murdering innocents, of murdering them who were confessed righteous? for such was their proposal, being rather willing that Catholics should perish with those whom they thought, heretics, then that their should be no blood spilt. But to the question: it was fire they called for. The most merciless of all the Elements. No possibility of relenting when once kindled and had its object. It was the fittest instrument for merciless men, men of no bowels whose malice like their instrument did agere ad extremum suarnm virium, work to the highest of its possibility. Secondly, It was fire indeed they called for, but not like that in my text, not fire from heaven, They might have called as long and as loud as those Priests did, who contested with Elisha, no fire would have come from heaven to have consumed what they had intended for a sacrifice. God's 〈◊〉 post not so fast as ours do. Deus non est sicnt homo. Man 〈◊〉 often when God blesseth, men condemn whom God acquits, and therefore they were loath to trust God with their cause, they therefore take it into their own hands. And certainly if to their Anathemas they add some faggots of their own and gunpowder, 'tis odds but than we may be consumed indeed, and so did they, their fire was not from heaven.  
Lastly, it was a fire so strange, that it had no example. The Apostles indeed pleaded a mistaken precedent for the reasonableness of their demand, they desired leave to do but even as Elias did. [The greeks only retain this clause, it is not in the Bibles of the church of Rome] and really these Romano-barbari could never pretend to any precedent for an act so barbarous as theirs. Adrimelech indeed killed a King, but he spared the people, Haman would have killed the people, but spared the King, but that both King and people, Princes and judges, branch, and rush and root should dye at once (as if Caligula's were actuated and all England upon one head) was never known till now, that all the malice in the world met in this as in a centre. The Sicilian 〈◊〉, the matin's of S. Bartholomew, known for the pitiless and damned massacres, were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the dream of the shadow of smoke if compared with this great fire. In tam occupato saeculo fabulas Vulgaris nequitia non invenit. This was a busy age; Herostratus must have invented a more sublimed malice then the burning of one Temple, or not have been so much as spoke of since the discovery of the Powder-Treason. But I must make more haste I shall not else climb the sublimity of this impiety. Nero was sometimes the populare odium was popularly hated, and deserved it too, for he slew his Master, and his wife and all his family once or twice over, opened his mother's womb, fired the City, laughed at it, slandered the Christians for it, but yet all these were but principia malorum, the very first rudiments of evil. Add then to these, Herod's Masterpiece at Ramah as it was deciphred by the tears and sad threnes of the Matrons in an Universal mourning for the loss of their pretty infants, yet this of Herod will prove but an infant wickedness, and that of Nero, the evil but of one city. I would willingly have found out an example, but I see I cannot, should I put into the scale the extract of all the old Tyrants famous in Antique stories, 
Bristonij stabulum Regis, Busiridis arras,  
Antiphatae mensas & Taurica regna Thoantis,  Should I take for true story the highest cruelty as it was fancied by the most hieroglyphical Egyptian, this alone would weigh them down, as if the Alps were put in scale against the dust of a balance. For had this accursed Treason Prospered, we should have had the whole Kingdom mourn for the inestimable loss of its chiefest glory, its life, its present joy, and all its very hopes for the future. For such was their destined malice, that they would not only have inflicted so cruel a blow, but have made it incurable, by cutting off our supplies of joy, the whole succession of the line Royal. Not only the Vine itself but all the Gemmulae, and the tender Olive branches should either have been bend to their intentions, and made to grow crooked, or else been broken.  
And now after such a sublimity of malice, I will not instance in the sacrilegious ruin of the neighbouring Temples which needs must have perished in the flame, nor in the disturbing the ashes of our incombed Kings devouring their dead ruins like sepulchral dogs, these are but minutes, in respect of the ruin prepared for the living Temples.  

Stragem sed istam non tulit  
Christus cadentum Principum 
Prudent, 〈◊〉.   
Impune, ne for san sui  
Patris periret fabrica.  
Ergo quae poterit lingua retexere  
Laudes Christe tuas, qui domitum struis  
Infidum populum cum Duce persido?   
Let us then return to God the cup of thanksgiving, he having poured forth so largely to us of the cup of salvation. We cannot want where withal to fill it, here is matter enough for an eternal thankfulness, for the expressiou of which a short life is too little, but let us here begin our Hallelujahs hoping to finish them hereafter, where the many quires of Angels will fill the consort.  
Praise the Lord ye house of Levi, ye that fear the 
Psal. 135. v. 20. 21.  Lord, Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem.  
FINIS.