A VINDICATION OF THE SINCERITY OF THE Protestant Religion In the Point of Obedience to SOVEREIGNS.  
Opposed To the Doctrine of Rebellion, authorised and practised by the Pope and the Jesuits.  
In Answer to a Jesuitical Libel, Entitled PHILANAX ANGLICUS  
By PETER DU MOULIN, D. D. Canon of Christ-Church Canterbury, one of His Majesty's Chaplains.  
LONDON, Printed by I. Redmayne, for John Crook, at the Ship in Saint Paul's Churchyard. 1664.   

Imprimatur  
Ex Aedib. Lambeth. Nou. 19 1663. Geo. straddling, S. T. P. River. in Christo Pat. Dom. Gilb. Archiep. Cant. à Sacr. Domest.   

To the Most Reverend Father in God, GILBERT, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his GRACE, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, my most Honoured Diocesan and Visitor.  
My LORD,  
AN Adversary of the Truth, and therefore Yours, hath lately offered to your Grace the same abuse as the Roman Soldiers did to the Lord Jesus. For as they arrayed him in Royal Scarlet, bowed the Knee before him, and said to him, Hail King of the Jews; but at the same time spit upon him, and smote him on the head: This enemy, who is also a Roman Soldier, clotheth your Grace with high praises, and makes a profound obeisance to your Place and Merits in an Epistle Dedicatory; But by the same Epistle he puts under your Grace's Protection a charge of Rebellion against our Catholic Orthodox Church, and an Apology for the Doctrine of the Jesuits. This is stroking and striking together. No blame is so disgraceful as such praises. So did the Devil call Christ the Son of the living God, to disgrace him by his Testimony, and make him to be taken for one of his Confederates. The man never appearing to own his work, seems to acknowledge, that neither his person nor his work deserveth the notice of the world. Yet I thought it necessary to let the world know what a cheat is put upon the Readers by this child of darkness, who being altogether unknown to your Grace (as yourself were pleased to express unto me) beareth himself for your ancient Acquaintance, and claims your Patronage, while he disgraceth your Person, and revileth your Doctrine. Neither doth the Libel, being but an ignorant scolding, deserve an answer; but that the man recompenseth his shallow learning with his superlative malice, making use of this conjuncture, when the minds of loyal subjects are exulcerated by their late and long sufferings by rebellious Zelots under pretence of Religion, to make the sufferers to fall out with Religion itself.  
These are the depths of Satan, who knows perfectly how to steer the spirits by the Rudder of their most sensible Interesses, and at this time labours to drown the too remiss sense of holy Belief, in the quick resentments of personal oppression. Blessed be God that he is come short of his aim in this attempt; and that this Libeler by his Imposture hath only stirred the just indignation of good Christians, in whom the interess of God's truth and glory takes place before all personal concernments. Himself might have been an example of that just severity which he commends in your Grace, if he had been as bold to Present the Book, as audacious to Dedicate it to so great a Patron. I cannot but have recourse unto the same Patron which he hath chosen for his untruths, to protect the confutation of them: Knowing, that the Vindication of the Truth, is in its right place, being put under your Grace's protection; in whose shadow the Church rejoiceth, as of the gracious Patron of Piety and Virtue, the Incourager of Goodness, the Maintainer of the Orthodox Faith; and in that respect, the right Arm of the great Defender of the same. That your Government may be blessed unto the Church, and Prosperous and Honourable unto yourself, is the fervent prayer  
My LORD, Of Your GRACES Most dutiful and humblest Servant, PETER DU MOULIN   

To the Roman Catholics of His Majesty's Dominions.  
My Lords and Gentlemen,  
THe Adversary against whom I appear having laid a Charge of Rebellion against a sort of Protestants in his Title page, hath in his Book brought the generality of Protestants under that Indictment. I will not imitate his unsincerity, by laying that charge proper to the Court of Rome, and the Jesuits, upon all the Roman Catholics, knowing the Loyalty of many of them, with whose acquaintance I am honoured, and making use in this Treatise of the Testimony of great Persons, and whole Courts and Societies of the Roman profession, against the precepts of Disloyalty enjoined by the Roman Court, and acted by the Jesuits. For to these only I profess that my present opposition is limited. Only I will be here your humble Suitor, That since the Pope is called by Cardinal Bellarmine, The 
a Epist. ad Blackwell▪  Head of the Faith, and 
b Praefat. ad lib. de summo Pontisice.  The Fundamental Stone of Zion, you be pleased to consider seriously, how taking the Pope's sense and authority for the foundation of your Faith in this point, can consist with that Honour and Loyalty which you harbour in your generous Breasts: And how you that venture your lives so freely for the Defence of your King, can acknowledge the power which the Pope assumeth of disposing of the Crowns and Lives of Kings, and absolving you from the duty of your Allegience when he thinks good. Certainly, when you have weighed this in the Balance of Conscience and sound Judgement, you shall find yourselves hedged in within this Dilemma, Either to cease to be good subjects, or to acknowledge that the Pope can err, even when he speaks and makes Decrees from his Chair. Of which Truth if you be once persuaded, your way is open to know more Truth. That our faith may be settled upon that Truth which makes us free, we must call upon the 
Joh. 8. 32.  assistance of the God of Truth, and prepare for it a meek, docible, and unprejudiced spirit; which are qualities altogether remote from the furious and contumelious Adversary whom I take in hand in this Treatise. Yet since they are not opprobrious terms, but clear proofs that are most offensive to the accused, I cannot deny that I have been more offensive to him, than he to the Protestants. God govern his Catholic Church with the Spirit of Truth and Peace, and convert with his blessings those that curse us. So prayeth  
My Lords and Gentlemen, Your most humble servant in the Lord jesus. our Common Saviour, Peter Du Moulin.   

Preface.  
The Design, Style, and Genius of that Libel. Observations upon the Epistle and Prefaces.  
THe licentiousness of the Press hath long since beaten me to that patience to let others speak, contenting myself to think; Looking upon the eagerness of some men to confute all untruths that appear abroad, as a relic of Knight-Errantry, which obliged the Knights to redress all the wrongs that were done in the world. But my patience was overcome by the bold and pernicious untruths vented in a Libel, tending to no less than the rooting out of Protestants out of all States of the world, as Rebels by their very Religion, and the Bane of all Governments. The whole Work is purum putum mendacium, right mettle of untruth in the main substance. The Title is false, for it picks a quarrel with the Presbyterians only, whereas the Book declareth open war to all the Protestants under heaven. The pretence false; for the Author pretends to undertake that task out of love to the King, whereas he works the King's ruin by calumnies against his true Subjects, and by maintaining the Jesuits, the sworn enemies of his Crown and State. The face he puts on, is false many ways; for he pretends in his Epistle and Prefaces to publish the Book of a dead man, whereas the uniformity, or rather deformity of the affected broken Style, and Billingsgate language, in the Epistle, Prefaces, and body of the Book, shows all that false coin to have been stamped in the same base Mint. The Author is produced as a Priest of the Church of England; whereas he speaks as a Priest of the Church of Rome. The Publisher calls himself Bellamy, whereas he is a false Friend, and a true Enemy, and most like it is, that no such man as he names himself, is to be found: For such Vizards are borrowed by these children of darkness, A wrong Name, A contrary Profession, A dead man that speaks out of his Grave; three Vizards one over another; lies upon lies in the Porch; a right Entry into a Shop of Lies.  
But how much falsehood is in the Epistle? Was Bellamy or the pretended dead Author well acquainted with that venerable Prelate to whom the Book is dedicated? Did Bellamy ever present the Book to his Lordship? Did he choose him for his Patron, and stroke him with deserved praises, to honour him, or to betray him, and make him odious, as a Patron of Popery, and Protector of Jesuits? And lastly, the accusations laid against the several Protestants, even these that are true, if any be, are they not falsely imputed to the generality of the party? And are not most of the alleged passages out of their writings maimed, detorted, or plainly forged?  
O God of Truth, who lovest Truth in the inward parts, and lookest with piercing judicial eyes into the bottom of crafty projects through all the cover of hypocrisy; Is thy Truth to be defended with Falshood? What followship hath the simplicity of thy Gospel with this heap of multiplied Impostures? And how can the zeal of Religion put a man that hath some sense of Ingenuity, upon such false and crooked ways? Well, I see myself engaged to fight with wild Beasts, as St Paul did at Ephesus. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered. Let them also that hate him, flee before him.  
I did not see the Book but after the second Edition, eight months after its first appearing; And though I had seen it before, I would have made no haste to appear upon the lists against this Adversary, but expected of the Secular Power a more substantial, and indeed the right Confutation. But what! the smallness of the Libel, and the Libeler, kept them hitherto from the Censure of Authority: For those that stand in high places, can hardly discern such straws below: But we that stand below, may look nearer, and see poison in a straw; and aught to represent unto our Superiors the mischievousness of this small, yet dangerous thing.  
Dangerous I say, not for the strength of reason, nor for the bitterness neither; for the very extremity of malice in that Book makes it weak in reason, as it is the natural effect of pride and choler to enervate the judgement, and take reason off the hooks. But that which makes the Book dangerous, is the unparallelled boldness and presumptuousness of the attempt. Can we believe, but that we see it, that in England, where the Law gives no Toleration to the Romish Religion, a Papist durst appear in Print, with his and his Printers name to the Book, to tax not only the Protestant Reformers, but the very Reformation of Rebellion and High Treason? Put among Luther's crimes, That he preached against the Tyranny and Superiority 
Pag. 73. & 74.  of the Bishop of Rome, and persuaded the people not to render him any Obedience. Call the Reformation the New Gospel, Excuse Mariana, and justify the Jesuits, against those that charge them with the Doctrine of King-killing; Cry down Protestants, as persons not to be trusted with any part of the Government of the State, or suffered to live in any Commonwealth; Bestow upon them the most contumelious terms that he could devise, Traitors, Diabolical, Cockatrices, Infernal Spirits, are the mildest words that he giveth them.  
It is a silly colour to his malice to name them always 
In his pa, 109. his vizard falls down and he saith openly, These rebel doctrines are backed by the generality of those that call themselves Protestant's. pag. 71.  Protestants of Integrity, as if he meant a different sort from other Protestants; whereas under that name he persecuteth all the Reformed Christians of Europe, following them from Country to Country. And although he durst not so openly rail against the English Reformers, yet can he not abstain to tax them of Rebellion under Queen Mary, saying most falsely, That there was more Rebellions in her poor five years, then in the forty four of Queen Elizabeth; thereby to show, that the Roman Catholics are the far more loyal subjects.  
But that which goes beyond all examples of the most superlative impudence, that most virulent Libel against the Protestants of Integrity, which is the Religion professed in England, he makes bold to recommend to the Protection of that Eminent and Virtuous Prelate, now our most Reverend Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, than the second Ecclesiastical Person of all the Province, and Precedent of the Convocation.  
I pray Sir Philopapa (for Philanax Anglicus is too good a Title for you) do you know who you speak to? Do you think what you say? Do you remember where you are? In qua tandem Civitate Catilina, arbitraris te vivere? Do you think you are at Rome or Madrid, where you may bring, as you do, all Protessants to the Inquisition? Or do you hope that our loyal Clergy will mistake you for one of their side, because you rail against Knox and Buchanan, and make some profession of Obedience, and declaim against the late rebellion? And when they know you once for the man you are, do you presume that you can make them forget what Sovereign you are sworn unto, and what power the Pope claims over all Kingdoms, and what particular Title he pretends to England and Ireland?  
Certainly Sir Philopapa (for the Pope is the King you love, and whose Interest you promote among our King's Subjects) I hope you shall find that your loud cries at my Lord's Grace of Canterbury's door, for the putting down of all Protestants of Integrity, will prove as improper and unseasonable, as if you proclaimed at the Court gates the Ordinance of the Rebel's Parliament for putting down Monarchy; and that you shall be helped with some personal interest to increase your hatred against the Protestants of Integrity: for such shall you find the King's Majesty, his Council, his Parliament, the pious Fathers of the Church, and the wise Judges of the Land. Can you not content yourself to enjoy quietly your Sovereign's Clemency and forbearance, but you must defame in Print all that are not of your gang, which are no less than the King and the State? From their Justice nothing can secure you but your obscurity. But while you take an order that your person may lie undiscovered, I will make bold to discover some of your Impostures: All I cannot, neither is it material; for all that I need to do to provide an antidote against your poison, is to do two things: The one, to wipe off the aspersions of Rebellion which you cast upon the holy Doctrine of the Protestant Churches. The other, to bring to the Bar the true Rebels; which will be no recrimination, but asserting the Pope in his ancient known possession, of being the grand Patron and Architect of Rebellion of subjects against their Sovereigns, and the especial director of high Treason against the Kings of England.  
Before I look to the body of his Book, something must be said of his Epistle and Prefaces. His Epistle is addressed to no less than the Right Reverend Father in God, Gilbert Lord Bishop of London, and Dean of His Majesty's Chapel Royal, since deservedly promoted to the highest Dignity of the Church of England. A great Honour to his Book▪ How far the great Patron which he chooseth is honoured with that Dedication, and the due praises which he payeth unto him, is obvious to any ordinary understanding. Praise at the best is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but a light gift to a wise man. And since praise 
Seneca▪ Sit tibi tam turpe laudari a turpibus quam si lauderis ob turpia.  hath its price from the praiser, that eminent Prelate is little obliged to this Gentleman's praises, who justifies in his Book what he is, and what he aims at. It is praising him with a vengeance, to take him for a Protector of his mischievous attempt.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
He hath more obliged our▪ late most Reverend Archbishop Juxon, now a glorious Saint in heaven, whom he hath not spared to blame, though he doth not name him, but he points at him with his finger: And then tells My Lord of London, From all these vanities, your Lordships known Innocency and Piety hath always defended you; scientifically inferring, that Innocency and Piety is inconsistent with the Character which he had given of that great Prelate. Can this Epistles be so senseless as to expect thanks from a Bishop of London, for raising his commendation upon the disgrace of his Metropolitan? What needed he to go so far out of his subject to bring in that malicious exception? For the blame of the one adds nothing to the praise of the other. Does he not show his hatred against Protestant Prelates, which he could not but express, even when he took one of them for his Patron? And no wonder that a Jesuit should malign an Archbishop of Canterbury, seeing the Jesuits had no greater enemies than those that sat in that See. That which he finds amiss in that rarely accomplished Prelate, is commended in him by wise men, his laudable curiosity, fit for a great Naturalist, as he was; to keep several sorts of Animals about his house, as Aristotle did before him: Their Nature and Inclinations he would observe with a judicious eye, and speak of them pertinently and delightfully. Of these Natural Lectures he was pleased to make me hearer several times, and to employ me to find him Books of that subject. So serious were his Recreations, when he would unbend, among those whom he honoured with his Discourses and Table, after his great Employments about the Government of Church and State.  
As that great person's known Piety and Innocency cannot be blasted by such a weak enemy as this Jesuit, so it needs not be defended by such a weak Champion as I am. His admired Virtue shines in an Orb elevated far above the reach of the barking of envy; and if he needed the approbation of any under God, he had a Royal Testimony, when his late Majesty, our glorious Saint and Martyr had so much confidence in his Piety and Innocency, and together in his Wisdom and Courage, that of all his Divines he chose him for his second, when he was to encounter the terrors of a violent and ignominious death: And by the excellent use which he made of his godly counsel in the retirement of his last devotions, he ended his combats in a victorious death over all his enemies spiritual and temporal, and yielded his great soul unto God with joy and comfort. For one thing this Jesuit and his confreres had great reason to hate that godly Prelate; That after His Majesty had spoken many divine words upon the Scaffold, he put him in mind to make a profession of his Religion; which he did, and professed before God and the world, that he died a Protestant according to the Religion established by Law in the Church of England. A profession which gave great discontent to the Papists and the fanatics, for both wished that he had died a Papist indeed.  
It is known with what calmness of spirit, prudence, and magnanimity, that virtuous Prelate went through the trials which he was put to after the King's death; for he was as wise as a serpent, though as harmless as a dove: And among his many Virtues, he was a great Master of two, which seldom meet together, a singular and Moses-like meekness, and an invincible constancy. They that have known him moderating in the University, and have seen him since acting in the greatest businesses of the Kingdom, admire the readiness and solidity of his judgement, fitted alike for speculation and action, and in both excellent. His dexterity and patience, overcoming the most difficult affairs. His sincerity in declaring himself without Compliments, and his fidelity in keeping his promises without wavering, were very remote from the imputation of vanity, which this enemy would fasten upon the reputation of that truly great and good man. I cannot leave, I cannot part from the mention of him, without that reverend and affectionate expression of the Jews when they speak of their virtuous friends departed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let his memory be blessed, for so his soul is in heaven, for all the good he hath done in earth to so many, and to me for one, for to his Grace's goodness, next to God, I own the greatest part of my well-being.  
To return to our Adversary; Many things in his Epistle and Preface show him to be an Adversary indeed to the whole Protestant party, and a sworn slave to the Court of Rome. But as he takes no pains to prove any thing, but that all Protestants are Rebels by their Religion, I will not take the pains to disprove any thing else.  
All his Preface is verba & voces; Moralities far from his purpose, interlarded with invectives without ground. For who are those that will do no good works for fear of meriting by them? And where are those Protestants among whom dulness and heaviness of spirit is taken up as a practice? A character more befitting Monastical devotion. God fetcheth light out of darkness; but it is the Devils work to fetch darkness out of light. This man labours to do the same, Sententias loquitur carnifex. But he goeth untowardly to work: For he pulls his doctrines by the hair to bring them to his uses. It seems the man had made some petty declamations when he was a Grammar Scholar, in a broken boyish style, made up of a thousand stolen shreds: And now, lest these pieces of wit should perish, he brings them in by head and shoulders to decide controversies in points not controverted. For to his silly commendations of devotion and humility, one may say as that King to him that would commend Hector in his presence, Quis vero illas vituperat? What need you speak for these Virtues, when no body speaks against them? And what are these declamations to the matter in hand?  
To give a taste of his learning in Greek, he translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an eloquent Oration.  
He calls St. Austin the Oracle of the Latin Church; But he never belonged to it, but to the African.  
And for a taste of his wit and eloquence, barking at the Moon, he saith to be the Divinity of Dogs.  
This is of the same kind, The blessed eyes of Bats they have to mock at the greatest lights. But if the Bats mocked at the great light, they would outface it, whereas they hid themselves from it.  
One more of these impertinencies out of the body of the book. He gives these commendations to our late 
pag. 57 & 58.  excellent King, a Prince as wise as Apollo, valiant 
There wanted no more but animo prudens, ut Homerus; as it is upon the Tomb of Richard the 11.  as Achilles, virtuous as Socrates, pious as Aeneas, and beautiful as an Amazon. O brave boy! Well declamed for a Scholar of the second Form! See what comes by being bred in the Colleges of the Jesuits of Flanders; for such a gallant strain of Oratory could never have been learned in the Schools of Westminster or Eton. Yet methinks the first and the last of these comparisons, have a reach quite beyond common sense. Will he call holy King Charles a Prince as wise as Apollo? It is a fit parallel for Julian the Apostate. Had he no better comparison for that Saint than a Pagan God and a Devil, who by reason of the uncertainty of his Oracles, was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 crooked and winding: How doth that fit such a pattern of Christian and Royal ingenuity, so sincere in his words, so real in his actions? The last parallel is as incongruous as the first, He calls the King as beautiful as an Amazon. Where hath this Antiquary found those viragines the Amazons with their right breast burnt, set out as Paragons of beauty? And though they had been such, Is a woman's beauty fit to express the majestical presence of a King? How do these two comparisons suit with the subject, and one with another?  

Velut aegri somnia vanae  
Finguntur species, ut nec pes nec caput uni  
Reddatur formae.   
This writer affords more occasions to make sport with him by his ignorance, but more by his blind choler; than which there is nothing that disarmeth a man more, and exposeth him more to be a laughing stock. Such another Pierochol and Cacafuego I never met with, His style is a continual casting of firebrands, and firing of Granado's to scatter among the Protestants in all the corners of the world. What would become of the Ship of this Church, if these men ruled upon the Deck, and were masters of the Stern and the Sails, seeing they are so swaggering now they lie under the Hatches?  
Let the Author of the book keep himself there for me, and remain unknown. The publisher will not acknowledge himself to be the Father, but only the Godfather; although the Epistle, Preface, and Book, look like three brats of one venture. We need not question who is the father, since the godfather answereth for the child.  
Neither is it more material to search into the occasion of the writing of the book, which he saith to be a Letter from a Protestant of integrity, in answer to a letter from a person of quality. These letters I never saw: But if that Protestant of integrity will have the Presbyterians conformable to the Church of England in ecclesiastics, as the Epistle seems to intimate, we are of his mind; neither is any more required of the Presbyterians for the blessed work of concord, and for the comfort of their Protestant brethren, and their own.  
The Title of Philanax Anglicus, whereby the Author makes a profession to love the King, is his passport into the patience of the Reader: And he makes of it a Fort, under the shelter of which he thinks he may boldly shoot upon whom he pleaseth to take for his mark. But what advantage this lover of the King alloweth to him, is much like the gift of Jugglers; his Majesty may hold it fast, and find nothing in his hand, as we shall see afterwards.   

A Vindication of the Protestant Religion in the point of obedience to Sovereigns; opposed to the doctrine of Rebellion, authorized and practised by the Pope and the Jesuits. In answer to a Jesuitical Libel, entitled, Philanax Anglicus.  

CHAPTER I. Of the Objections out of the Books of Protestant Writers.  
THe Book of this Adversary consisting of stolen Objections, which have been a thousand times answered, would put me and any man that would answer him to the unavoidable necessity of saying over many things that were said before; but that all his Objections may be reduced into one, and therefore one answer will serve for them all.  
For from the beginning to the end, he objects unto us some passages out of Protestant Writers which savour of disobedience, as he dresseth them, and some faults in that kind of those that have embraced the Protestant party: whence he inferreth, That both the Doctrine and the Practice of Reformed Religion is Rebellion. He labours especially to pick faults in the first Reformers; but coming short of his end, he quarrelleth with others that came long since the Reformation.  
But though he had brought the Reformers to plead guilty, he hath done nothing against us; For to all these allegations we answer, that our Belief depends not upon the doctrine of any particular person or persons, much less upon their actions. But that to know the true belief of our Churches, one must look upon their public Confessions of Faith.  
The Law was received by the disposition of Angels, saith St. Steven, Act. 7. 53. and so was the Gospel. But those whom God used to draw his Church out of the abuses of Popery were not Angels but men, whom we hold not to have been infallible. Wherefore if one allege to the English Churches some hard Say of persons that had a hand in the Reformation, to the German Churches of Luther, to the Helvetian of Zwinglius; they will answer, They were men. They are not the Pillars of our Faith. Since those men have laid open the Holy Scripture before us which was shut up before, it is no more for their word that we believe, for ourselves have seen the saving Truth of God, and upon that we are built.  
But that the faults of men may not be employed or received to give a prejudice against the Doctrine of God, I desire all judicious and sober minded to consider, that in the midst of the Romish darkness it was not to be expected that the saving light of God's truth, and the Apostolical Government of the Church should be discovered upon a sudden by any man, completely & with all its parts. As Rome was not built in one day, no more was Zion. Many were great helpers towards the knowledge of the truth, who were themselves very short of it, and nevertheless aught to be reverently remembered by us for doing more than was to be expected in that Age. Such were the Waldenses; such was Wiclef, such was John Hus, men too severely censured by some of us as not thoroughly principled in many points of Religion. But how much truth did they discover? How much saving Doctrine did they bring forth? What lasting seeds of Reformation did they sow, which lying buried for some Ages, sprung forth, and had a happy growth to a greater perfection in the age of our Fathers? Truly, although the announcing of the Gospel by the Angels be called the Dayspring from on high, because that light 
Luk. 1. 78.  at Christ's coming broke forth as it were from the Meridian, not from the Horizon, and was full at its very rising; we are not to expect at every return of that light after a long night that there shall be no difference between break of Day and Noon. No; the Truth is compared 
2 Pet. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉.  unto a Light shining in a dark place until the day dawn and the Day-Starr arise. In these last Ages of the world, after a long darkness, the Sun of Truth did rise by little and little. It shone at the first with much fog about it and cast long shades. And we have reason to acknowledge with thankfulness and admiration, that among those shades so much saving Light did shine as enlightened the understanding and comforted the conscience with the mystery of God's reconciliation with men in Jesus Christ through faith and repentance, which is the main substance of Religion. For Grace as Nature▪ gins with the noble parts, which are perfectioned long before the outward be finished.  
Although I reverence very much the memory of those that were raised by God to discover the errors of the Court of Rome, I will not justify their errors, if they had any, nor all the words and writings of them that came after, and brought their Work to a greater perfection. To compass that great work among the highest contradiction, and against the current of custom, if men of stout spirits (and there was need of such) had let fall from their mouth or pen some less reverend expressions than duty required concerning the superior powers that opposed them, none needs wonder at it, and yet none needs to justify it, and we are very far from it. But though they had spoken treason, it casts not blur upon our profession, which is expressed in our public confessions. Neither do we acknowledge any private man to be the warrant of our faith.  
I may then save my labour in examining whether our Adversary hath faithfully alleged the writings of Protestant Divines, and truly represented their opinions, since their opinions are not our rule. And yet so much we will say for them, that those very men whose opinions their Adversaries misrepresent unto the world, were the Writers and Composers of those Confessions of Faith which were subscribed unto, and acknowledged by the National Churches as the public Declarations of their belief. Which Confessions are so full and pregnant in asserting the obedience of subjects unto their Sovereigns (as I will demonstrate, God willing, in the third Chapter of this Treatise) that the greatest Adversaries find little to say against it. And our Adversary (to whom his Party owes this commendation, that he hath carefully collected and epitomised all the objections made against us about the point of Obedience) passeth by our Confessions of faith as being without the reach of his exceptions. Only he nibbleth a little at the 39 Article of the French Confession, which is this; We affirm that Laws are to be obeyed, tributes to be paid, and the yoke of subjection to be born, although the Magistrates be infidels. Thus far excellent well, saith the Adversary, but that which follows spoils all in his opinion. The Sovereign Empire of God remaining always entire, Why? here is a gallant latitude (saith he) for disobedience and rebellion. But no such latitude is left by the Article. All that good reason can infer out of it, is, that we must obey the Magistrates as long as we may do it without disobeying God. There is great difference between not obeying and rebelling.  
I see nothing else bearing the stamp of public consent of any National Church among Protestants that this man excepts against in the point of obedience. For his invective against the Geneva Bible, is a wilful mistake. Some English exiles at Geneva printed there a Bible; An Edition justly discredited by a Note in the Margin, 2 Chron. 5. 16. upon that Asa put by his mother Maacha from the government for her idolatry. And the annotation saith, that he should not only have deposed her, but killed her. Which impious Paradox this Gentleman imputeth to the whole Congregation of those Protestants of integrity, as he calls us, because, saith he, their holy Geneva Bible is admitted by their whole Kirk; which we deny. No English Translation of the Bible is authentical to be read in Churches, but that which was made by the commandment of King JAMES of glorious memory. Neither was that Geneva Bible translated or received by public authority. Neither is Geneva more to be taxed for it, than London for printing the wicked libel which I am now confuting, both being printed without Licence. That, Note, put in by some Fanatic, is rejected by all Protestants, and the generality must not be charged with a private man's folly.  
Although I answer not for any private man, yet that the Reader may judge what credit he may give to this Gentleman's allegations. I have set down here a sample 
Pag. 82, and 83.  of his unsincerity in his alleging of Luther. He sets down three passages taken, as he saith, out of Luther's 
I made use of the Edition of jena An. 1600 tom. 2. omnium operum D. Mart. Lutheri,  Treatise De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae. The first cap. De Sacramento Baptismi. Ab omnibus hominum legibus exempti sumus libertate Christiana nobis per Baptismum donata; that is, We are freed from all humane Laws by the Christian liberty given to us by Baptism.  
I may confidently affirm that these words are not to be found either in that Chapter, or in the whole Treatise. And if the Reader will be so inquisitive as to look upon the place, he shall find it so. There Luther complains of the ceremonies wherewith the Pope hath clogged the Sacrament of Baptism, and maintaineth that neither Bishop, nor Pope, nor Angel hath power to impose such humane additions upon the conscience of Christians to be obeyed as Laws. And yet if they be imposed he will have Christians to bear with them, keeping still to themselves that liberty of conscience to remember, that such things are wrongfully imposed, and taking heed either to justify the tyranny, or to murmur against it. This is the sense of the whole discourse of Luther. But he saith no where that the Christian liberty given to us by Baptism, exempts us from the Laws of men. This is a mere fiction.  
So is his second allegation out of the same book, cap. de Matrimonio. Scio nullam Remp. Legibus feliciter administrari. He makes Luther say, I know that no State is happily governed by Laws: but there is not one word of that in the whole Chapter of Matrimony, nor in the whole Treatise.  
And Luther's opinion was as far from that Tenet as the East is from the West, and the Pope and his Conclave from Christ and his Apostles. Shall we wonder that the Pope altars the words of Scripture making the Text say, she shall bruise thy heel, in stead of he, to transfer the victory of Christ over the Devil unto Christ's Mother; or that he giveth to Scripture a contrary sense, turning Feed my sheep into Depose Kings, and dispose of Kingdoms? when such men as our Adversary take upon them to forge what words and sense they will, and to father them upon whom they please?  
Quid Domini facient audent cum talia fures?  
The third allegation is out of the Chapter de Ordine in the same Treatise; the words, as our Adversary recites them, are these, Turpe enim est, & iniquiter servile Christianum hominem qui liber est aliis quam coelestibus & divinis legibus subjectum esse; that is, It is a foul thing, and wickedly servile, that a Christian man who is free, should be subject to any other but the divine and heavenly laws. But this Gentleman, or he from whom he hath borrowed these allegations, hath basely corrupted and falsified this passage, putting legibus in stead of traditionibus, which altars the sense altogether, and changeth the question: for Luther disputeth against imposing unnecessary traditions in Religion, as necessary to salvation, and would not have a Christian to subject himself in that kind to any tradition, but such as are divine and heavenly. But this corrupter represents him as refusing subjection to civil laws and temporal powers. Can there be a more ungodly and odious imposture? And how doth this man's inference follow upon Luther's discourse? So that it is most plain (saith he) that it was not Luther ' s design only to pull down Monarchy, but all other kinds of civil Government, and to extirpate all humane laws. Certainly that inference depends no more upon Luther's discourse, than the new stars of Galilee upon the Aphorisms of Hypocrates.  
It is a good sport to see how incensed this Gentleman is against Luther for exhorting Kings and Princes to fall upon the Pope and his Cardinals, and to fulfil the Prophecy of Rev. 17. That the Kings of the earth shall strip the great harlot naked, devour herself, and burn her with fire. Which he exagerates as high treason, because he acknowledgeth the Pope for his Sovereign, and the King of kings, whom none can resist or call to account without incurring the crime of Rebellion.  
For his other allegations against Luther, he shall not have the luck to be believed upon his word, after I have laid open his infidelity in that kind. He that hath leisure or curiosity enough, may search the places and examine whether they be true or false, neither of which concerns us. Yet a judicious view of the affairs of Germany at that time, and of the nature of Sovereignty and Subjection in the Empire, of which I intent to say something in the next Chapter, which will make his hardest expressions to seem less strange.  
It is certain that he writ against King Henry the VIII. most slovenly. Yet observe, that Henry the VIII. was not his King. That he said nothing against the obedience due to him by his subjects, and that he made amends to the King since, and cried Peccavi. He was then less to blame then the Jesuit Saunder, who called 
Saunder. lib. de Schismate Anglicano.  the same King (his natural Prince) another Mahomet, the root of sin, and a most impious and sacrilegious Tyrant, and Queen Elizabeth Lupam Anglicanam, the English wolf-bitch, and made them no amends for it.  
This testimony cannot be denied to Luther, that he opposed rebellion most vigorously; as it may be seen 
Sleidan. lib. 5. ad an. 1525. Id. lib. 14. ad an. 1542.  in his Epistle to the Boors that risen in arms, and by his Sermon in the Camp, both pregnant for the obedience of subjects to their Princes; of which Sleidan giveth a faithful account, a better Author than our Adversary, or Cochlaeus Luther's enemy.  
The first and greatest instrument of the Helvetian Reformation was Zuinglius, out of whose books the Adversary picks some passages to exhort the Swissers and Germans to defend their Religion against the Emperor. If there had been no quarrel of Religion at that time, yet he would have exhorted them to stand for their liberties against the Emperor. For the Swissers having shaken off the yoke of the Empire two hundred years before. It is no marvel that Zuinglius was not careful to exhort his Countrymen and neighbours to obedience to the Emperor, the perpetual underminer of the State which he lived in.  
Observe that the Authors that writ of the power of Princes, and of the duty of subjects, determine it according to the form of the States in which they live: and so no wonder that Zuinglius a Swisser acknowledgeth no successive power, but conceiveth all Princes to be eligible and deposable by the Commonwealth. And that Calvin and Beza living in an Aristocratical State, shown also in their Writings more inclination towards that kind of Government. So the Germane and Italian Writers are for a mixed and much limited Government. The English and French for Monarchy, with certain Laws. And if the Turks and Muscovites could make Books, they▪ would write for the Despotical and unlimited power.  
Our Adversary layeth a heavy charge upon Melanchton, that he should say that the inferior Magistrates 
Pag. 105. Melancton in Epit. Moral. Philos. Id. in lib. de Consil. Evangelicis.  may cut the throats of the superior, and all this for reforming Religion: for which he referreth us to two of his Books, without quoting the particular place; much like the direction of the Goodwifes' Letter, To my Husband dwelling at the wars. But no such thing shall be found in all Melanchton's Works. Neither is it suitable to the spirit of that wise and meek man.  
For Calvin, by reason of his Aristocratical Doctrine about the Tribunitian power of the tres ordines regni over the King: I would leave him for such as he is; but that it is my proper business at this time to discover the imposture of my Adversary, and he hath committed a signal one against Calvin, whom he hath served just as he did Luther before. For he brings him upon the Stage,  

— Lacerum crudeliter ora,  
Ora manusque ambas.—   
as he did the other, miserably torn and disfigured.  
Speaking of oaths which bind us to observe and obey 
Pag. 103.  the King, he saith, that to all oaths of this nature Mr. Calvin from his high Cathedral and Consistorial Tribunal gives this absolution; Quibuscunque hujus Evangelii lux affulget, etc. ab omnibus laqueis & juramentis absolvitur. I cannot make good English of false Latin, of which Calvin is not guilty, but it is as familiar with this Gentleman as false Doctrine. His meaning is to make Calvin say, that when a man is enlightened with the Gospel of Geneva, he is free from all oaths to his Sovereign; for it is of all oaths of that nature that he makes Mr. Calvin to give absolution. But there is a swarm of corruptions in that allegation. The words of Calvin are these. Quibuscunque ergo 
Calvin. l. 4. Inst. c. 13. sect. 21. Qui ex Monachismo ad honestum aliquod vivendi genus concedunt, fractae fidei & perjurii graviter accusantur, quod vinculum (ut vulgo creditur) insolubile quo erant Deo & Ecclesiae obligati abruperint. At ego nullum fuisse vinculum dico, ubi quod homo confirmat Deus abrogat. Deinde ut demus fuisse obligatos quum ignoratione Dei & errore impliciti venerentur nunc postquam veritatis notitī sunt illuminati, simul Christi gratia liberos esse dico. Nam si tantam efficaciam habet crux Christi ut à Legis divinae maledictione quâ vincti detinebamur nos absolvat, quanto magis ab extraneis vinculis (quae nihil sunt quam captiosa Satanae retia) nos eruet. Quibuscunque ergo Christus luce Evangelii sui affulget, non dubium est quin ab omnibus eos laqueis expediat quibus se per superstitionem induerant.  Christus Evangelii sui luce affulget, non dubium est quin ab omnibus eos laqueis expediat quibus se per superstitionem induerant; that is, As many then as Christ illuminateth with the light of his Gospel, no doubt but he sets them free from the suares into which they had engaged themselves by superstition. Without insisting upon all the words which he changeth, or addeth, or leaveth out. He altereth Calvin's question, whose discourse I have therefore set in the Margin, that the Reader may see that he speaks of Monastical vows, which he affirms to be void, when by the light of the Gospel they appear to be contrary to the Christian liberty purchased by Christ unto his Church. Whereas this Gentleman makes use of that passage to make Calvin absolve subjects of their allegiance to their Sovereigns. Where is conscience? Where is sincerity? Will Jesuits use such pious frauds to make proselytes? Habeat jam Roma pudorem.  
I cannot pardon this Gentleman his prevarication about Calvin, though I should make a digression for it; for is it not good sport to see him defend Calvin when he takes upon him to defame him? For having accused Calvin of Delicacy and Epicureisme in his behaviour, he brings for a witness Florimond de Remond, a Gentleman 
Pag. 7.  of quality, who hath left us (saith he) the lively image of him. And when upon that I would see what 
Florimundus Raymundus Historiae de nativ. Haer. etc. lib. 7. cap. 10.  lively image Florimond de Remond left us of him, I found that he giveth this account of his life. Calvin from his youth did macerate his body with fasting; whither it was to preserve his health, and by that abstinence dissipate the fumes of meagrom wherewith he was afflicted, or that he might thereby be the more free to write, study, and exercise his memory. The truth is, that hardly could a man be found that equalled Calvin in laboriousness. For twenty three years that he lived at Geneva, he preached every day, and many times twice upon Sundays: every week he made public lessons of Divinity, and every Friday he was present at the Colloquy or Conference of Pastors which they call Congregation. The rest of his time he employed in writing Books, or answering letters of divers persons.  
Well, Sir Jesuit, do you tax Calvin of Epicureisme after your confreres, and bring convincing proofs against it? What discipline must ye expect from your Superiors at Dovay for thus betraying their cause? It is well if you can scape the Chamber of Meditations. In the mean while all those serpentine Geneva Rabbins, that conquering Legion of the right cockatrice kind, against 
These are his words Pag. 48, and 49.  whom you rail so emphatically, will give you thanks for your real help.  
The Adversary having done with Calvin, falls upon Beza, a man for whom I am less partial than for any of the Reformed Divines, herein heir of my Reverend Father's dislike of him for dashing the fair hopes of agreement in Religion in the Colloquy of Poissy by his immoderate behaviour. But to lay a charge upon Beza's Doctrine about the point of the authority of Kings, and obedience of subjects, he should have taken allegations out of Beza's undoubted Writings, not out of pieces without name, ascribed to him by his enemies. Such is Eusebius Philadelphus: Such is the treatise de jure Magistratus, which this very Adversary saith to be ascribed by some to Hottoman. Such is also Junius Brutus; concerning whom we stand to the Oracle of our English Solomon King JAMES in his Defense of the right of Kings against Cardinal Perron. Junius Brutus, when he objects unto us, is an unknown Author, and perhaps some of the Roman Church hath made it to make Protestants odious unto Princes. The conjectures of that great King are more certain than the affirmations of the Jesuits.  
As for Beza's siding with the Princes of the blood that were in arms against the Court, which our Adversary objects unto him, and proveth it by some letters of his, and the testimony of Baldwin his enemy; the quality of that charge depends upon the nature of that quarrel, of which something must be said before he and I part.  
For Paraeus, we are against him about the point of obedience as much as our Adversary. His son seeing what 
Philip. Paraeus Append. ad Rom. 13. Loquitur D. parens meus cum Politicis & jurisconsultis non de Rege absoluta potestate induto, sed sub conditione admisso. Pag. 23.  general opposition his Doctrine found among the Protestants, and that the Book was burnt in England by authority, made this excuse for his father, Valeat quantum valere potest; My father speaks with the Politics and jurisconsults, not of a King invested with absolute power, but admitted upon conditions. Paraeus considered not how the world was abroad, but how it was in his country.  
The Adversary quarrelleth also with Gracerus, but hath nothing else to say against him, but that he is against the Antichrist. Coercenda gladio est Antichristi ambitio, which he expounds thus, That Antichristian ambition is to be cut off with the sword, that is, all Princes and Prelates. It seems the man taketh part with Antichrist since he taxeth Gracerus for being against him. But that Gracerus would cut off Princes and Prelates because he would repress the ambition of Antichrist, is a great inconsequence. Observe this Gentleman's learning, the Verb coercere signifieth repress, which is a modest term of Gracerus. But our Adversary translates it cut off; showing himself to be as great a scholar in Latin, as he approved himself to be in Greek, when he translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an eloquent Oration. And that his head is much like that upon a clipped sixpence, it is a little head without letters.  
His objection of the rebellious Maxims of some Scots, 
Pag. 47, & seq.  as Knox and Buchanan, is now stolen and out of season, since they have been generally condemned and exploded by Protestants both on this and the other side of 
Rivet. Castiga. Not. in Epist. ad Balsac. cap. 13. num. 14. sub finem.  the sea. The judgement of the learned Rivet to this purpose is ingenuous and prudent, that these things must be imputed to the hot and audacious brains of the Scots, then heated again by persecution. Let me add, that when the persecution was pretty well overcome, they were kept in their heat by sharp contention. There being then a Royal Bastard, who pretending that his Father had once a design to make him King, followed that design very close, yet closely, raising all the troubles he could against the King's Widow, and his legitimate Heir: for which the difference of Religion happening about that time, gave him fair play; for all his ambitious projects were cloaked with the furtherance of the cause of the Gospel. This was the man that countenanced that divinity of rebellion.  
Which that it may not be imputed to the Religion, I desire all judicious heads maturely to ponder Dr. Rivet's wise observation; That the Scots of a hundred and five Kings, which they reckon till Queen Mary, had deposed three, expelled five, and killed thirty five. I demand then whether all those excesses must be imputed to the doctrine and zeal of Religion. If so, let the Roman Catholics look how they shall defend their Religion which then was prevalent. But if that must be imputed to the bold and stirring Genius of the Nation, why shall the troubles risen under the Queen Regent of Scotland and her daughter Mary be ascribed to Religion, and Reformation, supposed the cause, not the occasion, by the managing of crafty self-seeking men, of the distempers of the State, and the intemperance of pens? Yea, it shall be found, as Dr. Rivet observeth, (and we find it now) that the light of the Evangelical truth did very much mitigate the fierceness of the Nation; and that those disorders, as turbulent as they were, are not comparable to those that were in former times in Scotland: which as we are too ingenuous to ascribe to the Religion of those days, the Papists ought to show the like ingenuity about the excesses of wits and swords since the coming of the Reformation.  
It were to no purpose to follow all the objections of this Gentleman out of Protestant Writers; since whether they be well or ill alleged, our belief is not engaged in their ill opinions, nor our reputation concerned in the wrong done to them by perverse and unfaithful allegations. I have discovered so many of them, that the Reader may well mistrust his other citations. If all were as they are represented, they are but so many Doctors opinions strengthened with no approbation of persons authorized for it. And to speak after our Most Excellent King JAMES in his Defense of the right of Kings. I would not defend all that some private men could say. It is enough that in our Religion there is no rule to be found that prescribeth rebellion, nor any thing that dispenseth subjects from the oath of their allegiance, nor any of our Churches that receive that abominable doctrine.  
This is spoken with a Royal brevity, and an imperious weight, which both confutes all objections in that kind, and together silently retorts upon the Roman Catholics, that among them they have rules that prescribe rebellion, and an authority dispensing from the oath of allegiance, and that their Church is commanded to receive that abominable doctrine.  
Blessed be God, our doctrine about the point of obedience never gave yet jealousy to Kings, though of contrary Religion. Whereas the Sovereign Courts of the same Princes have expelled the Jesuits for teaching and practising the murder of Kings, and condemned the Pope's Bulls to be torn for sowing rebellion among the people. Is it not a matter for no less patience then that of God, to see those that teach rebellion by the public express laws of the head of their Church, now to charge our Churches with rebellion for some words of private men, either falsely imputed unto them, or disallowed by the generality of the Protestant Churches? Is it for him that hath cut the purse to cry, stop the thief? Must the Doctors of high treason lay an action of rebellion against us, in effect because we will not be rebels with them, and acknowledge a King above our King? for when all is said, that is the ground of the quarrel, and we can buy our peace with them at no other rate. But before I lay the charge against them, at which I long to be, I must make an end of answering the charge which they lay against us.   

CHAP. II. Whether the Reformation of Religion ought to be charged with Rebellion. Reflections upon the actions of the Protestant party.  
THe Charge of Rebellion which the Adversary layeth against us, consisteth in two things, The Doctrine of our Divines and the actions of our party, especially in the beginnings of the Reformation. I have answered the first part of the Charge, and shown that either the Charge is false, or it is nothing to us, because we have no dependence upon the Authors charged with it. To which I will add but this; That if as much pains was taken to set forth all that those very men have written for obedience, as this Gentleman hath taken to make them speak treason, it would be far more in bulk, and more home, than all that the Roman Catholics have written or dare write of that subject.  

* pag. 72. Azor. Moral. Instit. parte 1. lib. 8. cap. 13. Eos omnes qui erant haeretico aliqua ratione obstricti jurisjurandi seu fidelitatis feu alterius pactionis & promissionis liberari.  Our Adversary chargeth Luther, the first Instrument in God's hands for the work of Reformation in Germany, that he was the great Grandfather of the prodigious Doctrines against the State, Dignity, and Persons of Kings and Princes. Why? Did he rebel against his Princes? Did he stir rebellion in other Prince's States? Did he teach, as the Jesuit Azorius did since, that all that were tied with any bond of oath or fidelity, or any other paction or promise to an Heretic, were freed of it? Then, if ever, it was the right time for him to preach that doctrine, if he had approved of it, when Commons and Corporations embraced the Reformation, many of them without the Prince's consent. Nay, he did always labour most earnestly and successfully to put down rebellions when any arose. What was then his rebellion? Marry, he preached against the tyranny and superiority of the Bishop of Rome, saith our Adversary, and persuaded 
pag. 73, & 74.  the people not to render to him any obedience. This was the rebellion, the most horrid of all rebellions in the eyes of Jesuits. I enter not into the question of the Pope's superiority. My Adversary keeping himself to matters of fact, I must keep myself to it also.  
Luther was a man of an invincible spirit; one that spared neither King nor Pope, when the Truth of God which he announced was opposed: And in his expressions he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that spoke down right without mincing. Yet as stout as he was, I find that he behaved himself with great modesty and patience with the Pope for a great while: And in all his Addresses to him for redress of the horrible abuses reigning in the Church, he used a Christian humility and submission to the Pope's pleasure, if his Holiness would have harkened to conscience and reason, and remembered the duty of his place. But when the Pope and the great Clergy of Germany used him with the utmost scorn and inhumanity, he paid them in the same coin. The Pope burned his Theses, and he burned the Pope's Decretals in the market place; and writ against the highest of the Roman Clergy in high terms, a crime much exaggerated by our Adversary. This is all the rebellion (if they call it so) that either Luther or the beginning of the Reformation can be charged with. For the Reformation was embraced by many Princes and Imperial Cities so freely and so quietly, that the Adversary could find no ground to object any other rebellion unto them but that against the Bishop of Rome, who in effect was neither their Bishop nor their Prince.  
So that which our Adversary (after others) objects against Luther, That he exhorted the Emperor, Kings 
pag. 74. Luther in Sylvestrium Pruratem. Si sures surcâ, si latrones gladio, si haereticos igne plectimus, cur non magis istos magistros perditionis, hos Cardinals, hos Papas, & totam istam Romanae Sodomae colluviem quae Ecclesiam Dei sine fine corrumpit, omnibus armis impetimus?  and Princes to fall upon the Pope and Cardinals, and all the filth of the Roman Sodom, is nothing to the question in hand. For there Luther speaks not of any insurrection of subjects against their lawful Sovereign, but of the justice which the Princes of Christian Provinces ought to exercise against the Tyrants and Corruptors of the Church. He had tried all means of Piety, Charity, Equity, and Reason. When all would not serve, and that the Pope and the Cardinals would neither reform the Church nor themselves, nor admit of an Appeal to the Council for that great Work, than Luther broke out into these words: Mihi verò videtur, si ita pergat furor Romanistarum, nullum esse reliquum remedium quàm ut Imperator, Reges & Principes vi & armis accincti, aggrediantur has pests Orbis terrarum, rémque non jam verbis sed ferro decernant. That is, It is my opinion, if the fury of the Romanists continue, that there is no remedy remaining but that the Emperor, Kings, and Princes who are furnished with force and arms, should take these plagues of the world in hand, and decide the quarrel no more with words but with the sword. And then follow the words written in our margin which are a continuation of his exhortation to the Higher Powers to make use against them of the sword of Justice. This is better than to set on private men to stab them, or stir the rabble to fall upon them according to the maxims and practice of the Jesuits. But Luther went the right way to work, when he exhorted those to whom God had committed the power of the sword, to make use of it to repress the tyranny and oppression both spiritual and civil used in their Dominions by a foreign usurped power; and the rather, because the Emperor and the Princes had been very earnest with the Pope to remove by his Pastoral care all the causes of complaint.  
It is objected against Luther and his party, that they entered into a Confederacy of defensive arms at Smalcald; that Luther himself made a book contra duo Mandata Caesaris, against two Edicts of the Emperor▪ And that in his book de bello contra Turcas, he denied the Emperor to be the Head of the Christian Commonwealth: But to judge aright of that Confederacy, and of the opinions of the Germane Divines and Lawyers about the Emperor's Rights, and of the Wars of that Age between the Emperor and the Princes of the Empire, we must consider the constitution of the Empire of Germany. And to that end look to their Magna Charta which is Bulla aurea made under the Emperor CHARLES IU. and Capitulatio 
Melchior Goladast Tom. 3. pag. 424. Quod si nos ipsi (inquit Imperator) quod absit, aut quisquam Successorum nostrorum, quod non speramus, processu temporis aliquo huic nostrae statutioni aut ordinationi contravenire voluerit aut eam retractare, aut alio quoris modo violare praesumpserit, praesentium literarum authoritate & potestatis regiae plenitudine ex certâ Majestatis nostrae scientiâ, nec non cum consensu & beneplacito praefatorum sacri Romani Imperii principum Electorum in robur perpetuae firmitatis sancivimus, ex tunc tam ipsi Electores quàm caeteri Principes, Ecclesiastici & Saeculares, Praelati, Comites, Barones, Nobiles, & Communitates sacri nostri Imperii, universi ac singuli, praesentes & suturi, licitum habeant sine Rebellionis aut Infidelitatis crimine resistendi ac contradicendi nobis & Successoribus nostris Romanorum Regibus vel Imperatoribus in perpetuam libertatem.  Caesarea anno 1356. Whereby, if the Emperor or the King of the Romans violate any of the Rights of the Subject established by that Capitulation, It is declared to be lawful for the Electors, Princes, Prelates, Nobles, and Commons, either jointly or severally, to resist them without crime of Rebellion or Infidelity.  
Three hundred and fifty years before that, a Germane Pope Gregory V had brought in the Institution of the Electors, as the Centuriators of Magdeburg report. But Aventinus and Onuphrius more credibly make it of later date, after the death of Frederick II. whom Pope Innocent iv had persecuted to death; and the Empire being much weakened by the loss of that great Emperor, to weaken him more yet, either Innocent IU. or his Successor Alexander III. procured seven perpetual Electors, whose Interest should be to keep always the Emperor's low to keep themselves high. Since that time the Emperor's Authority in many parts of Germany is little more than a title, and a respect without power; for the Electors may both elect and depose him. They and the other Princes of the Empire govern their Signories, and pay nothing to him but homage. And the Cities called Imperial are they that have the greatest exemptions from the Imperial Laws. Wherefore the exclamations of the Adversaries about the resistance of the Elector of Saxony, with other Princes of the Empire, and some Imperial Cities against the Emperor, and about the words of Germane Divines or Jurists to that purpose; are very ignorantly or maliciously urged as rebellious; for neither the words nor the actions of those Germans ought to be weighed in the balance of the duty of other subjects to their absolute Sovereigns.  
Luther who was always very rigid for the subjection of every soul to the higher powers, and had written a book expressly of that subject, had much ado to be persuaded to consent to a confederacy of defensive arms against the Emperor; who being set on by the Court of Rome, oppressed the liberties of Germany; and to suppress the growing Reformation took more cognizance of cases belonging to the jurisdiction of the Princes, and cities of the Empire, than he was allowed by the authentical capitulations, till▪ the learned in the Law satisfied him about the Statutes of his Country, and his reason and conscience shown him, that the Apostle commanding Christians to submit themselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, requireth of them an obedience proportioned to the constitutions of the States, of which they are members. Of that consultation Sleidan giveth this account.  Before they made the confederacy, 
Sleidan. Hist. lib. 8. ad an. 1531. Priusquam soedus iniretur, in consilium adhibiti sunt, non jurisconsulti modo, sed Theologi quoque. Lutherus enim semper docuerat Magistratui non esse resistendum; & exstabat ejus ea de re libellus. Cum autem in hac deliberatione periti juris docerent legibus esse permissum resistere nonnunquam, & nunc in eum casum de quo leges inter alia mentionem faciunt rem esse deductam ostenderent, Lutherus ingenue profitetur se nescivisse hoc licere: Et quia leges Politicas Evangelium non impugnat aut aboleat, uti semper docuerit. Deinde quoniam hoc tempore tam dubio tamque formidoloso multa possint accidere, sic ut non modo jus ipsum sed conscientiae quoque vis atque necessitas arma nobis porrigat, defensionis causa foedus iniri posse dicit, five Caesar ipse, sive quis alius forte bellum ejus nomine saciat.  they called to counsel, not only Jurists, but Divines also. For Luther had taught always that the Magistrate must not be resisted, and a book of his concerning that subject was extant. But when in that consultation the learned in law showed that it was permitted by the laws to resist sometimes, and demonstrated that at that time their business was come to that very case, of which the laws make mention among other things; Luther did ingeniously profess that he knew not that it was lawful: And because the Gospel doth not impugn or abolish the Politic laws, as he had always taught. Also because, the time being so perilous and full of terror, many things might happen which would put the arms in our hands, not only by the prescript of the law, but by the force of conscience and necessity, he declared his opinion, that a defensive League might justly be made whether the Emperor himself, or any other in his name should make war against us. 
While they were thus met at Smalcald, the Emperor sent letters to them, not to condemn or dissolve their meeting, as a King of England or France would have done, for he knew that by the laws they might meet to look to their common interest without him, yea and against him. But to charge the Protestants to send help against the Turk, who was advancing with a great army towards Germany. The Protestants answered, that because the Emperor would grant them no peace at home, nor suspension of the decree of confiscation against their estates for their Religion, and that they were in daily expectation of proscription and hostile dealing from him, they could not cut off their own sinews, and lay themselves open to his hostility to help him against a foreign enemy. But if he would make all fiscal proceed for the matter of Religion to surcease till the time of the promised Council, and grant them peace and safety at home, they would not only assist him against the Turk with all their power, but serve him in all the public interests to which their duty bound them. And this is that confeder●… 〈…〉 which the Adversary cryeth down as the ●p●… 〈…〉 ●…rn of Rebellion from that time to our days, how 〈…〉 the equitable Reader judge.  
If it be objected, that this abridging of the Emperor's power was wrongfully got from him, I will grant it: It was jus quod coepit ab injuria; a right that began by wrong; yet confirmed by the Emperors with authentical Charters, and strengthened by long prescription. The Emperor may thank the Popefor it, who having an ancient jealousy of the Imperial rights in Italy, and not able to suffer any King of the Romans, but themselves, have powerfully laboured for many ages to break the Emperor's power every where. And it was by their practices, that the constitution of the Electors and the Golden Bull was made, and those great immunities given to the Princes of the Empire and Imperial Cities, whereby the Emperor is remained a manacled Prince; so unable in most parts of the Empire to stretch his hands upon the meanest persons that trouble him, that he could never so much as secure Luther a poor Monk, though urged to it by the most powerful and irresistible solicitations of the Court of Rome; but Luther continued till death (about thirty years) destroying the Pope's interests in Germany, and all parts of Europe, and neither Pope nor Caesar could touch him. Wonderful are the ways of God's justice, that the Pope by fomenting factions in the Empire, and breaking the Emperor's power, did prepare safety and facility for his enemies in the following ages, to make that great breach in his Kingdom, and give that mortal wound to his power, of which it shall bleed till it die of it.  
Against the Helvetian Reformation the Adversary saith nothing, only he arrayeth Zuinglius in a swaggering 
Pag. 3.  swash buckler habit, as if he had wrought Reformation with sword and buckler; yet it was made quietly the preaching of the Gospel, and began at Zurick in the year 1522. When Zuinglius was censured by the Bishop 
Sleidan.  of Constance his Ordinary for oppressing the Romish errors, he set forth Theses containing his doctrine, and the Senate of Zurick called together all the Clergy of the Canton to confer about Religion, and requested the Bishop to be present, or send some authorized by him. The Bishop sent Johannes Faber his Vicar General, in whose presence the Consul invited all the assistants, if they had any thing to oppose unto the Theses of Zuinglius that they would speak. And Zuinglius having addressed the same invitation to the Vicar in particular, the Vicar answered, that treating of Controversies was not fit for that place, and that it belonged to the Council which should assemble shortly. After that many words had passed between them, when none appeared that had any thing to oppose, the Senate made an Edict, that in all their dominions the Gospel should be purely taught out of the Books of the Old and New Testament, and that humane traditions should be banished. This was obeyed, and Reformation was established without either sword or buckler. Neither do I read that Zuinglius was in arms till eleven years after that five Gantons of contrary Religion suddenly invaded that of Zurick, and put Zurick▪ men to a necessary but disorderly defence, in which Zuinglius was slain. The Swissers had cantoned themselves in the year 1315. which was 200▪ years before the Reformation. Were I as unsincere as my Adversary, I should charge the Roman Religion which then reigned with that change of State.  
From Zuinglius the Adversary passeth to Calvin as the head of the French Reformation, wherein he showeth his great ignorance; for the Reformed Religion was spread in France twenty years before Calvin was settled in Geneva, and well nigh assoon as in Germany. The beginning of which must not be ascribed to one Hugo, whom our Adversary knowsnot, nor any body else. But the truth is, that it was in France long before it was in Germany, ever since the errors and tyranny of the Court of Rome began to be opposed by the Valdenses, whose relics after long persecutions by fire and sword, remained in the Vale of Cabrieres and Marindol in Provence. It was from thence that Reformation was propagated, encouraged by the happy progresses of Luther and Zuinglius. Wherefore the Pope's creatures perceiving whence that blow came upon the Roman Court, never left soliciting Francis the I. of France, till they got an Edict for the extirpating of them, which was executed with the utmost rigour.  
And it was not for Religion that they were thus butchered, but merely to make a sacrifice to the pride and cruelty of Rome. For as for their doctrine that excellent King Lewis the XII. liked it so well, that to some that represented it to him, and would incense him against them. He answered, that they were better Christians than he and his Kingdom.  
This was then the true Origine of the Reformation of France, the doctrine of the Valdenses preserved in the relics of their descent: a doctrine perfectioned since into a more Orthodox Confession conformable to the Confessions of other Protestant Churches. So Calvin had no hand in that Reformation, and no more had he with that of Geneva, or in turning that State into an Aristocracy, as this Adversary upbraids him.  
My business being to vindicate Reformation from the charge of rebellion, I must take from the Reformers of Geneva that aspersion, that they expelled their Bishop, and that they altered the constitution of that State, and both these ascribed unto Calvin. It is a tradition received in England for a currant and undoubted truth. And upon that ground many fine and judicious inferences are built. But it is like the stories of the Phoenix, and the singing of Swans before their death, never the truer for the curious similes and ingenious moralities that have 
Epistola Benedicti. Turretini ad Scultetum in Annal. reformationis An. 1529.  been spun out of that stuff. What credit can we give to Histories of things happened in the Indies two thousand years ago, if in things done to lately, and so near us, gross mistakes go for uncontrollable truths? I say it is utterly false that Calvin was one of the planters of Reformed Religion at Geneva. False also that he or the Reformers of Geneva turned their Bishop out of doors. And false also that the Bishop went away upon the quarrel of Religion. Farel, Froment, and Viret were they that wrought under God the conversion of the City by their Sermons, and by a public conference with the Friars and Clergy of Geneva, there being then no Bishop in that Town, who was fled eight months before, seeing his conspiracy discovered, to oppress the liberties of the City, by the help of the Duke of Savoy, for which his Secretary was hanged, after he was gone; the said Bishop being hated before, for the rape of a Virgin, and many adulteries with Citizen's Wives. And it is most to be noted, that they who after his flight 
See the book entitled, A view of the Government, etc. by john Durel.  reform the Civil Government, were strong Papists, and mainly opposed the Reformation of Religion. To which something like was seen in England, not far from that time: For the same English Bishops that most earnestly served Henry the VIII. to make him acknowledged the Supreme Head of the Church of England, 
Tonstal. Gardiner. Bonner etc.  were afterwards the greatest opposers of the Work of Reformation, and the fiercest persecutors of the Protestants.  
That the Church Discipline of Geneva was constituted without a bishop, is a matter of another nature: Their Successors that continue it so to this day, are of age, let them speak for themselves. It is enough for my present purpose, that I have vindicated the Introduction of Reformation into that State, from the crime of rebellion.  
As long as their Bishop lived, they could not have another, and durst not receive him, being manifestly convicted of selling the City's liberty to the Duke of Savoy: And when the Bishop died, they had used themselves to live without a Bishop.  
The first proof of our Adversary to indite the French Reformation of rebellion, is the enterprise of Amboise An. 1560. But the Protestant Religion had subsisted already forty years in France under the cross: And the Professors of the same, though numerous, had never fought for their Religion, but by their constancy in asserting the truth and suffering for it.  
The enterprise of Amboise was a 〈◊〉 quarrel of State, not of Religion; and ●●…and●● the Leader was a man most averse from the Protestant Religion: The quarrel was this, King Francis the II. being about sixteen years of age, and younger in understanding then years, was altogether governed by some Lords of the House of Guise, then looked upon as strangers, and the Princes of the blood were excluded from the businesses of State. These excluded Princes plotted to surprise the Court at Amboise, and remove strangers from about the King's person, thinking themselves sufficiently warranted by their quality and interest; that plot was cried 
Thuan. Hist lib. 24. Nullos ex conjuratis convictos fuisse alicujus molitionis in Regemaut Reginam, sed tantum in exteros sui in Aulâ tyrannicé omnia administrabant nempe Guisianos.  down as rebellious, because it did not take effect; and being discovered, the House of Guise did not fail to make it a matter of High Treason: although the great Thuanus depose for the conspirators, that, None of them was convicted of any attempt against the King and Queen, but only against strangers, who governed all things about the Court in a tyrannical way. Who so knoweth the interests of the Princes of the blood in France, will never call that attempt treason. And if they could do so much by the right of their birth, their right was never the worse for their being Protestants.  
Francis II. being dead soon after, and his Successor Charles the IX. being under age, the Princes of the blood had more right than before, to claim the management of the public affairs, being entrusted with them by the Laws of the Kingdom in the King's minority, at least in conjunction with the Queen Mother. And being excluded from it again they raised an Army to recover their right. That right is not considered at all by Jesuits, that take upon them now a hundred years after to censure their actions, but these Princes and their followers are represented only as Heretics and Rebels that made War against their Sovereign.  
After the King was out of minority, the Princes and their party, seeing that the King was much incensed against them, and was of a dangerous and implacable nature, durst not come near him; and the frequent Massacres, made them keep themselves in a posture of defence, and repel force by force.  
To be rid of them at once, the King used that famous and unparallelled treachery of a feigned peace with the Protestants, sealed with the Marriage of his Sister with the Head of their party, the first Prince of the blood next to his Brothers, Henry King of Navarre; and having invited them to the Wedding, he slew them in their beds. The number of the slain in cold blood on St. Bartholomew's Day and since, within the space of three months, amounted to about a hundred thousand. An action publicly commended by the Pope, and the Murderers rewarded with many spiritual graces by his Holiness.  
That the relics of the party after that general execution, took defensive arms, as it is not to be commended, it is not to be wondered at neither: Men are not Angels, and there is nothing more natural, then to strive for life.  
The House of Guise having form the League pretended for the destruction of Heresy, but intended 〈◊〉 them for the pulling down of the Royal House; King Henry the III. perceiving this too late, made ●●e of Henry King of Navarre, than the apparent Heir of the Crown, and of his Protestants Army, to oppose the League.  
That King being stabbed by a Monk soon after, the Head of the Protestant party became lawful King, and his Protestant Army the Royal Army: yet their arms then though never so just, were as much condemned by the Pope as before, and as much taxed of rebellion. But that praise cannot be denied to their arms, that by them, as Gods chief instruments, the rebellion of the League was defeated, and the lawful King preserved, raised, and settled upon his Throne, whilst the Jesuited Zealots expressed their zeal of religion, by attempting to stab him, and were too good Catholics, to be good Subjects.  
Since our Adversary allegeth the words of King James of blessed and glorious memory, and sets himself forth under the name of Philanax, a Lover of the King, he must in duty stand to the judgement of that great and judicious King. This Sentence his Majesty pronounceth of that cause which this enemy calleth a 
Defence of the Right of Kings.  most unanswerable rebellion, pag. 14. I never knew yet (saith the King) that the French Protestants took arms against their King. In the first troubles they stood only upon their defence. Before they took arms they were burnt and massacred every where; and the quarrel did not begin for Religion, but because when King Francis the II. was under age, they had been the refuge of the Princes of the blood expelled from the Court, even of the Grandfather of the King now reigning, and of that of the Prince of Conde, who knew not where to take sanctuary: For which the present King hath reason to wish them well. It shall not be found that they made any other war, nay, is it not true that King Henry the III. sent armies against them, to destroy them; and yet they ran to his help, as soon as they saw him in danger? Is it not true that they saved his life at Tours, and delivered him from an extreme peril? Is it not true that they never forsook neither him nor his Successor, in the midst of the revolt and rebellion of most part of the Kingdom, raised by the Pope and the greatest part of his Clergy? Is it not true that they have assisted him in all his battles, and helped much to raise the Crown again, which was ready to fall? Is it not true that they which persecuted the late King (Henry the II.) enjoy this day the fruits of the services done by the Protestants? who are now maligned not for controversies of Religion, but because that if their advice was followed, the Crown of the French Kings should no more depend on the Pope, there would be no Frenchman in France, that is not the King's Subject; there would be no appeal to Rome of beneficial and matrimonial causes, and the Kingdom should be no more tributary, under colour of Annats, and the like impositions. Even Cardinal Perron cleareth them from that imputation (of rebellion) when he saith that the doctrine of the deposition of Kings by the Pope was received in France till Calvin: He doth then silently acknowledge that Kings were ill served before, and that those whom he calls heretics, having brought forth the Holy Scripture to the public sight, have made the Right of Kings known, which was oppressed before. Such a judgement is of great weight, coming from a wise King, who was truly informed of the businesses of his neighbours: Certainly, si perito in arte sua credendum est: If a skilful Artist must be believed, when he speaketh within the compass of his Art, none can decide better what rebellion is, and what is not, than a great Monarch, jealous of the Royal Authority, skilled in the duty of Subjects, and one that had a long struggling with rebellious spirits.  
This Sentence was pronounced by his Majesty in the year 1615, when France had peace at home and abroad.  
Two years after they had the like testimony of their fidelity from their own King, by a Letter of his Majesty written to their Deputies assembled in a Synod at Vitre, in these terms: 
Nous avons receu bien volontiers les nowelles assurances & protestations que vous nous avez faites de vostre fidelity & obeissance▪ En laquelle persistans comme vous devez & que vous avez sait par le passè, vous powez aussi estre assurez que nous aurons toussours soin de vous maintenir & conserver en tous les avantages qui vous ont esté accordez. These Letters were printed and published with other Declarations.  We have received with good satisfaction, the new assurances and protestations which you have made unto us of your fidelity and obedience: In the which if you persist as you ought and as you have done before, you may also be assured, that we shall always have a care to maintain and preserve you in all the advantages which have been granted unto you. These Letrers bear the Date of May 29. 1617. from Paris.  
Cardinal d'Ossat speaking to Cardinal Aldobrandin, Nephew to Clement the VIII. about the execrable murder attempted by john Chastel against Henry the iv of France, told him, that if 
Silius y avoit lieu a de tells assassinats' ce seroit aux Heretics a les purchasser & executer, qu'il a quittez & abandonnez & qui avoyent a se craindre de luy & toutesois ils n'ont rien attenté contre luy ni contre aucun de cinq de nos Roys ses predecesseurs quelque boucherie que leurs Majestez ayent fait desdits Huguenots. Card. d'Ossat. Epist. 8. a Mr. de Velleroy,▪ jan. 25. 1595. pag. 77.  such attempts were allowable, they were more proper to execute for the Heretics (so he is pleased to call the Protestants) whom the King hath left and forsaken, and who have reason to stand in fear of him: and yet they never attempted any such thing, neither against him, nor against any of the Kings, his predecessors, what slaughter soever they have made of the said Huguenots.  
But the greatest testimony of their fidelity, is that famous Edict of Nantes, which was expressly made to reward them with privileges, for their constant adhering to their King, in the long calamities of France.  
Seeing then that the French Protestants were acknowledged good Subjects by their Sovereign, and have deserved by their signal loyalty and long services to the Crown, those few privileges which they hardly enjoy; it is evident how unjust the extraordinary expostulation is, That the Roman Catholics have not the public allowed exercise of Religion in England, as the Protestants have in France. There is great reason for that differing dealing. The French Protestants have deserved that liberty and more, by their constant fidelity and valour, having maintained their King with their purses, and defended him with their swords, so many years, against the Jesuitical party, who had made a League with strangers to keep him from the Crown, and take away his life. It is known that the Grandfather of the King now reigning, was set upon the Throne by the swords of his Protestant Subjects: Let the Jesuitical party of England show the like service to their Sovereign, whereby they deserve the like recompense. What care did they take of the preservation of their Sovereigns lives, Queen Elizabeth and King james? How did they defend their Crowns against the claim and invasion of strangers? Did they further or hinder the return of our gracious King now reigning? If some few Roman Catholics have fought for our glorious King and Martyr Charles the I. their whole party fares the better by it now, and finds the King a grateful Prince, remembering good deeds, and forgetting injuries: Then the difference of their doctrine in point of Government, aught to make a great difference in the allowance of the public exercise of their Religion. The Jesuited Catholics acknowledge another Sovereign over their King, both for the Spiritual and the Temporal, a foreign power, which can dispense them of their Allegiance to him. The Protestants acknowledge no Sovereign above their King, and give no jealousy by their doctrine to the Roman Catholic Princes and States under which they live, as the Jesuits have done, even to Roman Catholics, by whom they have been expelled out of their Dominions, as Teachers of a doctrine tending to rebellion.  
Of the troubles that followed, who so will give an impartial judgement, must look upon the condition of the French Protestants since King Henry iv bought his peace with the party of the League by the change of his Religion. That King seeing himself obliged to provide for the safety of his Protestant subjects, by whose arms and long service he had been preserved in his adversities, and finally placed upon the Royal Seat, gave them some places of strength in several Provinces of the Kingdom for certain years; and by an Edict (called the Edict of Nantes) the free enjoying of their estates, and the open exercise of their Religion, with some limitation of places.  
Of the privileges granted them by that Edict, there were many infractions, especially since the death of Henry the iv who both by his authority, and together by his ancient interest in the Protestant party, kept all quiet, and preserved them from those wrongs to which the weakest are always obnoxious.  
The term being expired of the grant of those places, King Lewis the XIII. renewed it for four or five years, after which he would have them out of their hands. That they were to be restored upon the King's demand, was the opinion of grave Protestants, the severest exactors of the obedience of subjects to the Sovereign; of my Reverend Father especially, who being eminent and respected in the party, was a principal means to keep the Protestant Churches on this side Loire in peace and in duty to their King, for which his Majesty sent him a considerable sum of money, which he refused to take, saying, that he could be loyal to his King without being bought.  
But the necessity of their keeping those places, seemed to be justified by the reason of the first grant, which was to preserve them from the violence of their bitter enemies; for (said they) if so many places of safety could not keep us safe from their insolence, what will become of us when we shall lie naked of all defence, and exposed to the will of that party which used us before like sheep appointed to the slaughter?  
Upon those terms they were when the Assembly of 
The Assembly of Rochel was not an Ecclesiastic but▪ a Politic Assembly, for those two sorts of Assemblies they were allowed to keep, but now the Ecclesiastic only is allowed.  Rochel being once licenced by their King, and since forbidden, sat against his will, and took order for a defensive war. Whereupon, my Reverend Father returning from the National Synod of Alais, of which he had been Precedent, writ a Letter to them, which I insert here as very pertinent to my purpose.  
Gentlemen,  
I do not write to you to power my sorrows into your bosom, or to entertain you with my private crosses: upon that I need no comforter, accounting it a great honour, that in the public affliction of the Church, God would have me to march in the front. And I would account it a great happiness if all the storm should light on my head, so that I were the only sufferer, and the Church of God should enjoy peace and prosperity. A more smarting care hath moved me to write to you, and forced me to go beyond my nature, which was always averse from meddling with public businesses, and from moving out of the sphere of my proper calling. For seeing the general body of the Church in eminent danger, and upon the brink of a dismal precipice, it was not possible for me to keep silence. Nay, I cannot be silent in this urgent necessity, without drawing upon me the guilt of insensibility and Cruelty towards the Church of God. And I am full of hope that while I deliver my mind to you about public businesses, my domestic affliction will free me from jealousies in your opinion. And if I be not believed, at least I shall be excused. Indeed it doth not become me to take upon me to give counsel to an assembly of persons chosen out of the whole Kingdom to bear the burden of the public affairs in a time so full of difficulties; yet I think it useful for you to be truly informed what the sense is, and what the disposition of our Churches 
None could have a more particular knowledge of it, than he who was lately come from the National Synod in the South of France, where he made it his business to observe the posture of the affairs of the Protestants.  by persons that have a particular knowledge of it.  
The question being then, whether you ought to separate your Assembly to obey his Majesty, or keep together to give order to the affairs of the Churches, I am obliged to tell you, that the general desire of our Churches is, that it may please God to continue our peace in our obedience to his Majesty. And that seeing the King resolved to make himself obeyed by the force of his arms, they trust, that you will do your best to avoid that storm, and rather yield unto necessity, then to engage them in a war which most certainly will ruin most part of our Churches, and will bring us into a trouble, of which we see the beginning, but can see no end. By obeying the King you shall take away the pretence used by those that set his Majesty on to persecute us: and if we must be persecuted, all that fear God desire that it may be for the profession of the Gospel, and that our persecution may truly be the cross of Christ. In one word, I can assure you, gentlemans, that the greatest and best part of our Churches wisheth for your separation, if it may be with the safety of your persons: yea, that many of the Roman Church desiring the public peace, are continually about us, beseeching and exhorting us that we do not by casting ourselves headlong, involve them in the same ruin.  
Hereupon I need not represent unto you how terribly and generally our poor flocks are frighted and dismayed, casting their eyes upon you, as persons that may procure their rest, and by yielding to the present necessity, blow away the storm hanging over their heads. Many already have forsaken the land, many have forsaken their Religion; whence you may judge what dissipation is like to follow, if this exasperation go on further.  
No more do I need to recommend unto you to have a tender care of the preservation of our poor Churches, knowing that you would choose death, rather than to draw that reproach upon you, that you have hastened the persecution of the Church, and destroyed that which the zeal of our Fathers have planted, and that you have put this State in confusion.  
I am not ignorant, that many reasons are alleged to persuade you to continue your Assembly, they tell you that the King hath granted it; but for that grant of his Majesty you can show no Warrant, nor any written Declaration, without which all promises are but words in the air: for Kings believe they have power to forbid that which they have permitted, and to revoke that which they have granted, when they judge it expedient for the good of their affairs. Neither is there any of you, after he hath sent his servant, or given him leave to go to some place, that thinks not that he hath power to call him back. Sovereign Princes especially, are very unwilling to keep their promises, when they have been extorted.  
Also great number of grievances and contraventions to the King's Edicts are represented unto you, which complaints, to our great grief, are too true. But that I may not urge that we have given occasion to many of those evils our own selves, the difficulty lieth not in representing our griefs, but in finding the remedies. Consider then whether the subsistence of your Assembly can heal all these sores; whether your sitting can give a shelter to our Churches, provide all things necessary for a war where the parties are so unequal, raise forces, and make a stock to pay them; Whether all the good that your sitting can produce can countervail the dissipation of so many Churches which lie open to the wrath of their enemies: Whether when they are fallen you can raise them again: Whether in the evident division that is amongus, you are able to rally the scattered parts of that divided body, which if it were well united, yet would be too weak to stand upon the defensive.  
Pardon me, gentlemans, if I tell you that you shall not find all our Protestants inclined to obey your resolutions; and that the fire being kindled all about you, shall remain helpless beholders of the ruin which you have drawn on our heads. Neither can it be unknown to you, that many of the best quality among us, and best able to defend us, openly blame your actions, holding and professing, that suffering for this cause is not suffering for the cause of God. These making no resistance, and opening the gates of their places, or joining their arms with the Kings, you may easily judge what loss and what weakening of the party that will be. How many of our Nobility will forsake y●u, some out of treachery, some out of weakness? Even they who in an Assembly are most vehement in their votes, and to 
And so it proved.  show themselves zealous, are altogether for violent ways, are very often they that will revolt and betray their brethren. They bring our distressed Churches to the hottest danger, and there leave them, going away after they have set the house on fire.  
If there be once fight or besieging of our towns, whatsoever the issue may be of the combat or the siege, all that while it will be hard to keep the people animated against us, from falling upon our Churches, which have neither retreat nor defence. And what order soever the Magistrates of contrary Religion take about it, they shall never be able to compass it.  
I might also represent unto you many reasons out of the state of our Churches, both within and without the Kingdom, to show you that this stirring of yours is altogether unseasonable, and that you set sail against wind and tide. But you are clearsighted enough to see it, and to consider in what posture your neighbours are, and from whence you may look for help; whether among you the virtue and the concord, and the quality of the heads is grown or diminished. Certainly this is not the time when the troubling of this pool can heal our diseases. And certain it is, that if any thing can help so much weakness, it must be the zeal of Religion, which in the time of our fathers hath upholden us, when we had less strength, and more virtue. But in this cause you shall find that zeal languishing, because most of our people believe that this evil might have been avoided without breach of conscience. Be ye sure that there will be always disunion among us, every time that we shall stir for civil causes, and not directly for the cause of the Gospel.  
Against that it is objected, that our enemies have determined our ruin; that they undermine us by little and little; that it is better to begin now, then to stay longer. Truly that man should be void of common sense, that doubted of their ill will. And yet when I call to mind our several losses, as that of Lectoure, Privas, and Bearn, I find that we ourselves have contributed to them, and it is no wonder that our enemies take no care to remedy our faults, and that they join with us to do us harm. But hence it follows, not that we throw the helve after the hatchet, and set our house on fire ourselves, because others are resolved to burn it, or take in hand to remedy particular losses by means weak to redress them, but strong and certain to ruin the general. God, who hath so many times diverted the counsels taken for our ruin, hath neither lost his power, nor altered his will. We shall find him the same still, if we have the grace to wait for his assistance, not casting ourselves headlong by our impatience, or setting our mind obstinately upon impossibilities. Take this for certain, that although our enemies seek our ruin, they will never undertake it openly, without some pretence, other and better than that of Religion, which we must not give them. For if we keep ourselves in the obedience which subjects own to their Sovereign, you shall see, that while our enemies hope in vain that we shall make ourselves guilty by some disobedience. God will give them some other work, and afford us occasions to show to his Majesty that we are a body useful to this State, and put him in mind of the signal services that our Churches have done to the late King of glorious memory. But if we are so unfortunate, that while we keep ourselves in our duty, the calumnies of our enemies prevail, at least we shall get this satisfaction, that we have kept all the right on our side, and made it appear, that we love the peace of the State.  
Notwithstanding all this, Gentlemen, you may and aught to take order for the safety of your persons. For whereas his Majesty and his Counsel have said often, that if you separate yourselves, he will let our Churches enjoy peace, and the benefit of his Edicts, it is not reasonable that your separation be done with the peril of your persons. And whenever you petition for your safe dissolution, I trust it will be easily obtained, if you make possible requests, and such, as the misery of the time, and the present necessity can bear. In the mean while you may advise before you part, what should be done, if notwithstanding your separation, we should be oppressed, that order your prudence may find, and it is not my part to suggest it unto you.  
If by propounding these things unto you, I have exceeded the limits of discretion, you will be pleased to impute it to my zeal for the good and preservation of the Church. And if this advice of mine is rejected, as unworthy of your consideration, this comfort I shall have, that I have discharged my conscience, and retiring myself into some foreign Country, there I will end those few days which I have yet to live, lamenting the loss of the Church, and the destruction of the Temple, for the building whereof I have laboured with much more courage and fidelity than success. The Lord turn away his wrath from us, direct your Assembly, and preserve your persons. I rest, etc.  
From Sedan, Feb. 12. 1621.  
When this Letter was read in the Assembly, some arose immediately and left it: others continued to sit, and by their sitting turned these warnings into prophecies. This Epistle will give to the judicious Reader an insight into the affairs of that time and State; and together into the present question, which is altogether of fact, whether and how far the French Protestants may be taxed of disobedience against their Sovereign. For it is justified by this relation, that when some of them resisted, they had the greatest temptation to it that a just fear can present unto flesh and blood; and yet that even than they were disavowed by the best and the most of their Church, and exhorted to their duty by their Divines, which in points of conscience are the representative persons of a party when they are solemnly met; and this was the sense of the National Synod, of which this eminent Divine was Precedent but two months before.  
Here every wise and charitable Christian should lay David's doctrine to heart, Psal. 41. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blessed is he that considers with intelligence and judgement him that is in a low condition. It is easy for us that enjoy prosperity under a gracious King, to determine the point of passive obedience: not so for them that groan under the sad burden of the Cross. Christian equity ought to pity those that are exposed to the sad counsels of terror and despair.  
I am not without suspicion, that when those places of safety were granted to them by Henry the iv their enemies in the King's Counsel suggested or furthered that grant for their undoing in the time to come; for they might well foresee, that on the one side a wise King would not suffer long such a disease in his own bowels as a party of his subjects armed with places of security against him: and that on the other side, the party so secured, would not part with that security for their Religion, Liberties, and Lives, without committing such actions as would make them obnoxious to their Sovereign's anger, and their ruin.  
Three or four years after the rendition of all those places to the King, the Duke of Montmorancy raised a party against him in Languedock, of which he was Governor, hoping to find the Protestants which are numerous there, prepared subjects for an insurrection; yet neither his solicitations, nor the resentment of their sufferings could move them to assist him. But they joined universally with the King, and did rare service in a battle where that Duke was defeated and taken, and with him a Jesuited Bishop. And it is to be noted, that old Marshal de la Force a Protestant, that hardly escaped the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, was one of the chief Commanders of the King's Army.  
The Adversary gives a touch of the wars, begun in Germany, Bohemia, and Hungary in the year 1619. of which he imputes the whole cause to the Protestants. I undertake not to justify their errors; I say only, that whoso had looked with an ordinary judgement upon the face of those countries', as they were then divided and balanced between the Papist and the Protestant party, might have foretold without a spirit of prophecy, that they should not enjoy a long peace, there being so many free spirits animated to liberty and revenge by the severity of the superstitious house of Austria towards their Protestant subjects.  
If Bethlem Gabor was a prodigious man, and a demi-Turk, as this man makes him, it is nothing to us: as Religion justifieth no man's faults, no man's faults can condemn Religion. The notion under which I fancy that man, is, that of a cannon-shot without bullet, which makes a great and short crack, and no effect. All that the Adversary saith of his dealing with the Turk, showeth, that the Protestants of Hungary were so oppressed by the Emperor, that they wished themselves the Turks subjects. I pray God they do not so still, and with them the other Protestants belonging to the Emperor's hereditary Countries, seeing their brethren that live under the Turk enjoy the freedom of their Religion. The same reason might make the Protestants of the Empire slow to contribute towards the war against the Turk; yet I hear they are as forward as any. It is not declaiming against them (as the Adversary doth) but using them like Christians that will make them join hearty with the Emperor in that war. The Spanish branch of the house of Austria hath lost great part of Netherlands by the inflexibleness of Philip the II. of Spain, to grant liberty of Religion to his Protestant subjects. Let the Germane branch of Austria which useth the like hardness, take heed of the like loss.  
The Reformation of Religion in the United Provinces, is that upon which the Adversary triumpheth most, it being very apparent, to his thinking, that they brought it in by shaking the Yoke of the King of Spain. But there is great difference between reforming and establishing the Reformation. The first was done by the Word, the second by the Sword, and the first forty years before the second. The Reformed Religion was spread over the Seventeen Provinces many years, before there was any thought of making an Union against the Spaniard; neither was that Union made upon the score of Religion, but of State, for maintaining their Franchises against the oppression of Spain; as it was sufficiently justified, by their choosing of Francis Duke of Alenson, a Roman Catholic, for their Prince; 
An. 1583.  which they would never have done, if the Union had ever marched under the notion of Religion, as our Adversary 
pag. 32.  affirmeth, or if the Protestants had been the greater number. And that Religion was not that which knit the party, and that there was no such thing in the Articles, it appeared again when some Provinces forsook the Union, because the Prince of Orange had put Religion among the causes of their defensive War. If then the Union was unjust, the injustice must not be cast upon Religion, since it was not made upon that interest; and if it was just, it could not become unjust, by the accession of the interest of Religion, to the other interests. So that which way soever the Adversary takes it, the Roman Catholics bear an equal share with the Protestants, in the right and wrong of the cause; Flanders and Brabant were as guilty as Holland and Zealand: The difference is, that Flanders and Brabant were beaten to obedience by the Duke of Parma, but Holland and Zealand proved too strong for him. The World beholds with amazement the success of that Union, that these little Provinces should bring their Prince to be their suppliant, that he might be allowed to quit his right over them, and acknowledge them Free States, yea and to justify their arms. It is that success, not their guilt, that makes our Adversary so vehement against them; for ill Gamesters will be angry, when they are loser's.  
Whether it be out of wilfulness or ignorance, this Gentleman misrepresents that business, speaking of the King of Spain, as of an absolute Sovereign of the Low Countries, and of the people, as of mere Subjects. Philip the II. was not their King, but their Count But 
I have said something of that in my Clamour Regii Sanguinis ad Caelum.  it is besides my business, to inquire how the rights of Sovereignty were divided between the Prince and the People, which ought to be known before the case be stated.  
If the cause of Religion made the quarrel irreconcilable, Philip the II. may thank himself for it. Strada the great friend of the Spaniard, tells us that the Great Council of Spain represented to the King, that unless he granted liberty of conscience to his Subjects of the Netherlands, the Country would be lost, and the War perpetual; whereupon the King fell on his knees before a Crucifix, and vowed that he would choose to lose his Dominions, rather than to permit heresy, so he called the Protestant Religion. If many years after they were offered to be secured for their Religion, as our Adversary saith (which I never heard before) it was 
pag. 39  too late. It is an unequitable motion, and more advantageous for the Roman party than ours, that excesses happening by the ordinary course of humane businesses be not imputed to Religion. Oppression will make subjects to shake off the yoke: And the prosperity of their defection keeps them from returning to their former subjection.  
From Holland the Adversary saileth into Scotland, and objects to us the Maxims of Knox and Buchanan, and the disorders of that time. Of which I have said enough in the Chapter before.  
Of the Work of Reformation in England, and the public actions of that age upon that interest, he speaks very scornfully; saying, that the Sect of Wicleff lay 
pag. 71.  strangled in the cradle till King Edward the VI his days, when some ends of it were taken up again, and set out with more ostentation than ever, in that Prince's minority: and what rare effects of obedience were by that means produced in Queen Mary's time, who brought them up again to the test, may be easily read in our Chronicles. Wherein it is plain, that in the poor five years of her Reign there was de facto more open and violent opposition and rebellion, made by her own subjects, than Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years; or any Prince before or since the Wicleffian doctrine, till the same smothered fire broke out at last in good King Charles his time, to his utter ruin, and the shaking of the very foundation of his Monarchy. Is this spoken like a most observant Son, and in every honest man's esteem a pious, reverend, and learned Priest of the Church of England, as this Author is termed in the Publishers Epistle to the Reader? Certainly a Son and a Priest of the Church of England would never have derived from Wickleff, but from the Holy Scripture, the Religion of the Church his Mother; nor ascribed to her Religion the cause of the late horrid rebellion. We see what a Son and Priest of the Church he is, the tree is known by his fruit. What better figs can be gathered from such a thorn? What better grapes from such a bramble? And what is that doctrine of Wickliff which he imputes to the Protestants, to the English especially? Impios nullum dominium habere, That the ungodly 
pag. 70.  can have no right of dominion: Was that the doctrine set out with ostentation in Edward the VI his days? Or was any of the Protestants found tainted with that doctrine, when Queen Mary burned them, which this man calls bringing them to the test? Sure it was not upon that ground that some oppositions were made against that Queen. It is a wonder that she met with no more, considering how her Father had declared by Act of Parliament her Mother's Marriage unlawful, and herself incapable of the Crown, and had miserably encumbered the Title and Succession of his Children.  
That there was more open and violent opposition against her in her five years' reign from her own Subjects, than Queen Elizabeth had in forty five years, it is, because they that went to question her Title, went to work plainly above board; but no secret Jesuitical conspiracies to stab or poison her, as against Queen Elizabeth.  
The means she made to reduce her dissenting subjects in Religion, when they made no opposition against her, was to make bonfires of them. Three hundred of those burnt-offerings she sacrificed unto God: A fare greater number in her poor five years, then that of the Popish Martyrs of disobedience, since the death of that Queen, now above a hundred years. For no Papist was executed for his Religion, all for disobeying the Laws of the Land, and many of them for High Treason.  
It is known that Queen Mary got the Crown by the assistance of the Protestants of Suffolk, and what recompense she gave them for it. And, whereas no fewer than eight rebellions did rise in Henry the VIII. his days, I find not that the Protestants had a hand in any of them. All were raised by Papists; and upon the score of Popery.  
The principal colour of our Adversaries malice is his detestation of the late rebellion of England, and the execrable Murder committed in the sacred Person of our gracious Sovereign. Upon this he makes several Panegyrics, which are very ill sorted with his Apology for Mariana, and justifying of the jesuites doctrine: Especially seeing that those actions were copied out upon their principles. Felicia tempora quae te Moribus admorunt. Belike the curious pens of the wise Statesmen and learned Scholars of England, had need to be supplied by the boyish themes of a petty Novice of Douai, to learn the duty of Subjects, and to abhor the guiltiness of rebellion.  
The venom that lieth under that oratory of invectives, is that all the mischief is imputed to the Protestants of Integrity, a term which he useth like a stirrup-leather, longer or shorter, according to his occasions, yet always treacherously to cast the faults of some particular person, or some heretical Sect upon the generality of the Protestants. But let him know, that the King, the Church, and the State, are Protestants of Integrity: and that the parricides and troublers of our Israel will never give him thanks for calling them Protestants: Also that we acknowledge them not for such, unless it be upon a new score, because they protest against the King's power and the duty of their obedience.  
When Jesuits or their Scholars, (as this Gentleman is) charge our fanatics with High Treason, they do but act that which they had prepared to do, if the Powder-Plot had taken. For they had a Declaration ready to indite the Protestants of that Treason. For these men would story the just clamour against them for their doctrine of rebellion and parricide, by laying the same charge with loud words upon others.  
We have great reason to call upon the Justice of God and Men to condemn the unsincerity of this clamour. With what face or conscience can the Jesuits pass a hard Sentence upon the late Rebels and King-killers, seeing that these furious Zealots have neither taught nor done any thing in that horrible defection, but what they had learned of the Jesuits? For what do they blame them for?  
Is it for teaching that the Sovereign Power lieth in the Commons, and that they may alter the Government of a State? Did they not learn 
Bellarm. de Laicis, lib. 3. cap. 6. Potestas immediate est tanquam in subjecto in tota multitudine, & si causa legitima adsit potest multitudo mutare regnum in Aristocratiam, aut Democratiam, & è contrary.  that of Bellarmine? The Power (saith he) is in the whole multitude, as in its subject, and if there be a lawful cause for it, the multitude may alter the Royal State into an Aristocracy, or Democracy, and so on the contrary.  
Is it for saying that the people makes the King, and may unmake him, and retains still the habit of power? Did they not learn of the same Bellarmine, that, In the Kingdoms of 
Bellarm. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 19 In regnis hominum potestas Regis est à populo, quia populus facit Regem. Ibid. cap. 19 sect ad alteram. In Rebusp. temporalibus si Rex degeneret in tyrannum, licet caput sit Regni, tamen à populo potest deponi & eligi alius. Et Recogn. lib. de Laicis sect. Addo experientiam laudat Navarrum qui non dubitat affirmare nunquam populum ita potestatem suam in Regem transferre quin illam sibi in habitu retineat; ut in certis quibusdam casibus etiam actu recipere possit.  men, the King's power is from the people, because the people makes the King. And in temporal Commonwealths, if the King degenerate into a Tyrant, though he be the Head of the Kingdom, he may be deposed by the people, and another elected. And doth he not praise Navarrus for saying, that the people never so transfer their power to the King, but they retain it in the habit; so that in some cases they may resume it.  
Is it for saying that the Commonwealth may take defensive arms against the King, and expel him? The Jesuit Suarez taught them that doctrine. 
Suarez Defence Fid lib. 6. c. 19 sect. 17. Resp. ex sola rei natura spectatam prout fuit apud Gentiles & nunc est inter Ethnicos habet potestatem se desendendi à Tyranno Rege. & sect. 15. Si Rex legitimus tyrannice gubernat & regno nullum aliud sit remedium nisi Regem expellere & deponere, poterit Resp. tota publico & communi consensu civitatem & procerum Regem deponere.  The Commonwealth (saith he) considered in her mere nature, and as it was among the Gentiles, and as it is now among the Pagans, hath the power to defend herself against a Tyrant. If a lawful King govern tyrannically, and that there be no other remedy for the Kingdom but to expel and depose the King, the whole Commonwealth by the public and common consent of the Cities and the Peers, may depose the King.  
Or do the Jesuits inveigh against them for making a formal and aggressive War against the King? They have no reason for it, seeing that the Jesuit Mariana hath set them down the whole course which they have followed. The readiest 
Mariana lib. 6. de Rege, cap. 6. pag. 59 & 60. Expedita maximé & tuta via est si publici conventus facultas detur communi consensu quid statuendum sit deliberare, fixum ratumque habere quod communi sententia steterit. Monendus in primis Princeps erit atque ad sanitatem revocandus, etc. Qui si medicinam respuat, neque spes ulla sanitatis relinquatur, sententia pronuntiata licebit Reip, ejus imperium detrectare primum, & quoniam bellum necessario concitabitur, ejus defendendi consilia explicare, expedire arma, pecunias in belli sumptus imperare populis: & si res feret neque aliter se Resp. tueri possit, eodem defensionis jure, ac vero potiori authoritate & propria Principem publice hostem declaratum ferro perimere.  and the safest way (saith he) if the people may meet in a public Assembly, is to deliberate by common consent what is to be done, and then to keep inviolably that which is agreed on by common consent. The Prince must first be admonished and exhorted to mend: But if he refuse the remedy, and there be no hope of his mending, the sentence being once pronounced (against him) it will be lawful for the Commonwealth to refuse to obey him. And because a War must necessarily follow, the counsels how to maintain it must be set down, arms must be quickly provided, and taxes laid upon the people, to bear the expenses of the War. And if it be requisite, and the Commonwealth cannot otherwise maintain itself, it shall be lawful, both by the right of defence, and more by the Authority proper (to the people) to declare publicly the King to be the common enemy, and then kill him with the sword.  
Do the Jesuits look with horror upon that Court of Justice erected to try the King? Let them remember that they had Mariana's warrant for it. That the Commonwealth from which the Royal Power hath its original, may when the case requires 
Mariana Ibid.  à Rep. unde ortum habet regia potestas rebus exigentibus Regem in jus vocari posse, & si sanitatem respuat Principatu spoliari. Neque ita in Principem jura potestatis transtulit ut non sibi majorem reservarit potestatem.  it, bring the King to judgement; and if he refuse to mend, deprive him of his Sovereignty: For the Commonwealth hath not so transferred the right of power unto the Prince, but it hath reserved a greater power to itself.  
And why doth our Adversary, an earnest defender of the Jesuits, exclaim so much against the abominable parricide acted upon our Sacred Sovereign, seeing that the people which made War against him, held him to be a Tyrant, and 
Lessius lib. 2. de justitia & jure cap. 9 dubio 4. scribit. Verum Principem qui tyrannus est ratione administrationis non posse à privatis interimi quamdiu manet Princeps,— primum à Repub. vel comitiis Regni vel alio habente authoritatem esse deponendum, & hostem declarandum, ut in ipsius personam liceat quicquam attentare.  it is the currant opinion of the Jesuits, that a tyrant may be killed by any private man. A true Prince (saith Lessius) who is a tyrant by reason of his administration, cannot be killed by a private person as long as he remaineth a Prince,— but he must first be deposed and declared enemy by the Commonwealth, or the Parliament of the Kingdom, or some other, having Authority, that it may be lawful to attempt any 
Suarez contra Regem Mag. Brit. lib. 6. cap. 4. sect. 14. Post sententiam lutam domnino privatur regno ita ut non possit justo titulo illud possidere; ergo ex tunc poterit tanquam tyrannus tractari & consequenter à quocunquè privato poterit intersici.  thing against his person. And Suarez saith to the same purpose, that after the Sentence given (against a King) he is altogether deprived of his Kingdom, so that he can no more possess it with a just title. Wherefore from thenceforth he may be used like a tyrant, and killed by any private person.  
Neither ought the Jesuits to find fault with the public thanksgiving for murdering the King, and making of the thirtieth of january a Thanksgiving Day, seeing that the Jesuits of Paris shown the way for that to the Rebels in England, for in the time of the French League, they made Solemn Thanksgivings for the murdering of their King, as Pope Sixtus the V did since at Rome, with a vehement oration, in which he applieth a Prophecy of the Incarnation of the Son of God unto that King's Murder.  
So much the late Rebels of England have learned of you, Father's Jesuits, and no reason have you to chide your Scholars for following your doctrine and example; how far you are yet before them, I will show before I have done with you. For they do not make the crown of their Kings obnoxious to be kicked down by the Pope, and have learned no further of your maxims, then will serve them to kill the King, and keep the crown for themselves. And by their gross dealing with their King, beheading him upon a Scaffold, whereby they have spun a halter for their own necks, they have showed themselves not skilled in the mysteries of King-killing, set forth by your Mariana, who to put a King to death with less danger to the Actors, 
Mariana lib. 1. cap. 7. Hoc temperamento uti in hac quidem disputatione licebit, si non ipse qui perimitur venenum haurire cogitur quo intimis medullis concepto pereat: sed exterius ab alio adhibeatur, nihil adjuvante co qui perin▪ endus est. Nimirum cum tanta vis est veneni in sella eo, autveste delibuta, ut vim interficiendi habeat. Qua artè à Mauris Regibus invenio saepe alios Principes mislis donis, veste pretiosa, linteis, armis, ephippiis, suisse oppressos.  then to stab him, will have him taken away by poison. Yet so merciful he is to such a King, that lest he should be accessary to his own death, by taking the poison himself in his meat or drink, he will have a strong and subtle poison put in a garment or saddle, which may spread its mortiferous quality into his body. And for that he propounds the example of Moor Kings, who have killed their enemies with poisoned presents. These Jesuitical curiosities about a murder are too fine for our Northern fanatics; but for going so far with you as they have done, you have reason to cherish them.  
When the businesses of the late bad times are once ripe for an history, and time the bringer of truth hath discovered the mysteries of iniquity, and the depths of Satan which have wrought so much crime and mischief, it will be found, that the late rebellion was raised and fostered by the arts of the Court of Rome. That Jesuits professed themselves Independent, as not depending on the Church of England; and Fifth-Monarchy-men, that they might pull down the English Monarchy, and that in the Committees, for the destruction of the King and the Church, they had their spies and their agents. The Roman Priest and Confessor is known, who when he saw the fatal stroke given to our Holy King and Martyr, flourished with his sword, and said, Now the greatest enemy that we had in the world is gone.  
When the news of that horrible execution came to Rouen, a Protestant Gentleman of good credit was present in a great company of Jesuited persons: where after great expressions of joy, the gravest of the company, to whom all gave ear, spoke much after this sort: The King of England at his Marriage had promised 
Which is most false.  us the re-establishing of the Catholic Religion in England; and when he delayed to fulfil his promise, we summoned him from time to time to perform it: We came so far as to tell him, that if he would not do it, we should be forced to take those courses which would bring him to his destruction. We have given him lawful warning, and when no warning would serve, we have kept our word to him, since he would not keep his word to us.  
That grave Rabbis sentence agreeth with this certain intelligence which shall be justified whensoever Authority will require it: That the year before the King's death, a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England; first to Paris, to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon, then altogether Jesuited; to whom they put this question in writing: That seeing the State of England was in a likely posture to change Government, whether it was lawful for the Catholics to work that change, for the advancing and securing of the Catholic Cause in England, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his heresy? Which was answered affirmatively. After which the same persons went to Rome, where the same question being propounded and debated, it was concluded by the Pope and his Council, that it was both lawful and expedient for the Catholics to promote that alteration of State. What followed that Consultation and Sentence, all the World knoweth, and how the Jesuits went to work, God knoweth; and Time the bringer forth of truth, will let us know. But when the horrible parricide committed in the King's Sacred Person, was so universally cried down as the greatest villainy that had been committed in many ages, the Pope commanded all the papers about that question to be gathered and burnt: In obedience to which order, a Roman Catholic in Paris was demanded a Copy which he had of those papers; but the Gentleman who had had time to consider and detest the wickedness of that project, refused to give it, and shown it to a Protestant friend of his; and related to him the whole carriage of this negotiation, with great abhorrency of the practices of the Jesuits.  
In pursuance of that Order from Rome, for the pulling down both the Monarch and the Monarchy of England, many Jesuits came over, who took several shapes, to go about their work, but most of them took party in the Army. About thirty of them were met by a Protestant Gentleman, between Rouen and deep, to whom they said (taking him for one of their party) that they were going into England, and would take Arms in the Independent Army, and endeavour to be Agitators.  
A Protestant Lady living in Paris in the time of our late calamities, was persuaded by a Jesuit going in scarlet, to turn Roman Catholic: When the dismal news of the King's Murder came to Paris, this Lady, as all other good English Subjects, was most deeply afflicted with it. And when this Scarlet Divine came to see her, and found her melting in tears, about that heavy and common disaster; he told her with a smiling countenance, that she had no reason to lament, but rather to rejoice, seeing that the Catholics were rid of their greatest enemy, and that the Catholic 'Cause was much furthered by his death. Upon which the Lady in great anger put the man down the stairs: saying, If that be your Religion, I have done with you for ever. And God hath given her the grace to make her word good hitherto.  
Many intelligent Travellers can tell of the great joy among the English Convents and Seminaries, about the King's death, as having overcome their enemy, and done their main work for their settlement in England; of which they made themselves so sure, that the Benedictins were in great care that the Jesuits should not get their land: and the English Nuns were contending who should be Abbesses in England.  
An understanding Gentleman visiting the English Friars of Dunkirk, put them upon the discourse of the King's death, and to pump out their sense about it, said that the Jesuits had laboured very much, to compass that great work: To which they answered, that the Jesuits would engross to themselves the glory of all great and good works, and of this among others works; whereas they had laboured as diligently and effectually for it as they. So there was striving for the glory of that achievement, and the Friars shown themselves as much Jesuited as the Jesuits.  
In the height of oliver's Tyranny, Thomas White Gentleman, a Priest, and a right Jesuit in all his principles about obedience, set out a Book entitled, the Grounds of Obedience and Government: Wherein he 
pag. 122.  maintains that, If the people by any circumstance be devolved to the State of Anarchy, their promise made (to their expelled Governor) binds no more. That the people is remitted by the evil managing or insufficiency of their Governor, to the force of Nature to provide for themselves, and not bound by any promise made to their Governor. 
pag. 123, & 124.  That the Magistrate by his miscarriages abdicateth himself from being a Magistrate, and proveth a Brigand or Robber instead of a Defender. That word Defender he writes with a great D. that the Reader may take notice whom he means.  
If the Magistrate (saith he) have truly deserved to be 
pag. 133.  dispossessed, or if he be rationally doubted, that he hath deserved it, and he be actually out of possession. In the former case, it is certain the subject hath no Obligation to hazard for his restitution, but rather to hinder it: For since it is the common good that both the Magistrate and the Subject are to aim at, and clearly out of what is expressed, it is the common harm to admit again of such a Magistrate, every one to his power is bound to resist him. The next case is, 
pag. 135.  if he be innocent, and wrongfully deposed, nay let us add, One who had governed well, and deserved much of the Commonwealth, yet is he totally dispossessed: And so that it is plain in these circumstances, It were better for the Common good to stay as they are, then to venture the restoring him, because of the public hazard.  
And not to set down all his words, and follow his style, which is affectedly intricate and obscure, he maintaineth that a dispossessed Prince, whether by right or wrong, is obliged absolutely to renounce all Right and 
pag. 136.  Claim to Government; and if he does not, he is worse than an Infidel.  
He tells us, That Pope Vrban the VIII. published a 
pag. 151.  Decision, That after five years quiet possession of an Estate, the Church was not bound to take notice whether the Title were lawful or no, but acknowledge the Possessor in Ecclesiastical business.  
That when the people's good stands on the Possessors side, 
pag. 154.  then clearly he gins to gain right and power. That when the people think themselves well, they manifestly consent to the present Government. Besides (saith he) who can answer they shall be better by the return of the dispossessed party? Surely by common presumption the gainer is like to defend them better than he who lost it. He comes so far as to conclude, That if the old Magistrate offer to return, he must be repulsed by force of Arms. His reasoning is this: What if an open enemy should come; could 
pag 1●7.  or ought the subjects join against him with their new Magistrate? If not, the whole Public must perish: If they may, than their case is the same against their old Magistrate, since his right stood upon the common Peace; and that transferred from him to his Rival by the Title of quiet possession.  
This was the Philosophy of that contemplative Gentleman, when the King lived in exile, and Oliver sat on the Throne. Having so well deserved of the King, he was not long since highly recommended to His Majesty, by a man of great Note: But the King who hath a Royal Insight into persons and businesses, stopped him with this short answer, No more of that, I know what man he is.  
Father Bret was of M. Whites opinion, for the Castle of Jersey being surrendered after that resistance which for the length of standing out, and the height of Valour, shall be memorable in all ages: When the Gentlemen who had defended it were pressed to take the Engagement, contrary to the Articles of their Rendition: That goodly Divine was very earnest with them at St Malo to take it; maintaining, That they were not to acknowledge any Supreme but the prevailing power.  
When his Majesty cast himself upon the Spaniard, the Jesuitical party thought they had him sure enough from ever returning: But God disappointed their hopes, and deceived our fears by his miraculous mercy: For it was the Lords doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes, that he scaped out of those hands.  
I cannot leave un-observed, That in the height of the late Tyranny, two heads of the Gunpowder Traitors that were set up upon the House of Lords, were taken down; not by the high winds, but by the same zeal which had plotted that Treason, and with the leave of Traitors of another feather. We may hear in time that those holy Relics are shrined up in gold, and are working miracles.   

CHAP. III The Doctrine of the Protestant Churches about the Obedience of Subjects to the Higher Powers, as it is set down in the Public Confessions of the several National Churches.  
TO ease the search of those that would know what the Protestant Churches hold in the point of obedience to the Magistrate: And that some picked periods out of private Authors unfaithfully alleged by their Adversaries be not taken for the Doctrine of their party, I have set down here their public Confessions in that point. For whether some of those allegations be true or false, their word must not be taken for the opinion of their Church, before that of the General Confession.  

The Augustan Confession.  

Article XVI. sub finem. CHristiani necessario debent obedire praesentibus Magistratibus ac legibus, nisi quum jubent peccare. Tunc enim wagis debent obedire Deo quam hominibus. Act. 4.  
Article XVI. sub finem. Christians' must necessarily obey the present Magistrates and Laws, but when they command to sin. For than they must obey God rather than men. Act. 4.    

The French Confession.  

Article XXXIX DEus gladium in Magistratuum manus tradidit reprimendis ni mirum delictis, non modo contra secundam Tabulam sed etiam contra primam commissis. Oportet igitur propter illum hujus ordinis authorem non tantum pati ut two dominentur, quos ille nobis praefecit, sed etiam omni honore & reverentia eos prosequi, tanquam ejus Legatos & Ministros ad legitimum & sanctum munus obeundum ab ipso designa●os.  
Article XXXIX GOd hath put the sword in the Magistrates hands to repress offences, not only against the Second Table, but also against the First. We ought therefore for his sake, who is the Author of this order, not only to suffer those to govern whom God hath set over us, but also yield to them honour and all respect, as to his Lieutenants and Ministers, appointed by him to bear a lawful and holy Office.   

Article XL. Affirmamus ergo parendum esse legibus & statutis, solvenda tributa & reliqua onera perferenda; subjectionis deniqne jugum voluntarie tolerandum, etiamsi infidelis fuerint Magistratus, dummodo Dei summum imperium integrum & illibatum maneat.  
Article XL. We maintain then that we ought to obey laws and statutes, pay tributes, and bear other burdens of subjection, and undergo the yoke with a good will, although the Magistrates should be Infidels, so that Gods Sovereign Authority remain entire and inviolate.    

The Belgic Confession.  
CVncti homines cujuscumque sint vel dignitatis, vel conditionis, vel status, legitimis Magistratibus subjiei debent, illisque vectigalia ac pendere, & eye in omnibus obsequi ac obedire quae verbo Dei non repugnant: preces etiam pro eis fundere ut eos Deus in omnibus ipsorum actionibus dirigere dignetur, nos vero vitam tranquillam & quietam sub ipsis cum omni pietate & honestate ducere possimus.  
ALl men of what dignity quality or state soever they be, must subject themselves unto the lawful Magistrates, pay unto them imposts and tributes, and please and obey them in all things that are not repugnant unto the Word of God: Also pray for them, that God be pleased to direct them in all their actions, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life under them, in all piety and honesty.   

The Helvetick Confessions.  
SIcut Deus salutem populi sui operari vult per Magistratum quem mundo veluti patrem dedit, ita subditi omnes hoc Dei beneficium in Magistratu agnoscere jubentur. Honorent ergo & revereantur Magistratum tanquam Dei Ministrum. Ament eum, faveant ei, & orent pro illo tanquam pro patre. Obediant item omnibus ejus justis & aequis mandatis. Denique pendant vectigalia atque tributa, & quae alia hujus generis debita sunt, fideliter atque libenter. Et fi salus publica patriae & justitia requirat, & Magistratus ex necessitate bellum suscipiat, deponant etiam vitam & fundant sanguinem pro salute publicâ Magistratusque, & quidem in Dei nomine, libenter, fortiter & alacriter. Qui enim Magistratui se opponit iram gravem Dei in se provocat.  
AS God will work the safety of his people by the Magistrate, whom he hath given to the World as a Father, so all subjects are commanded to acknowledge that benefit in the Magistrate. Let them honour and reverence the Magistrate as the Minister of God. Let them love and assist him, and pray for him as their Father. Let them obey him in all his just and equitable commands. And let them pay all imposts and tributes, and all other deuce of that kind, faithfully and willingly. And if the public safety of the Country and Justice require it, and that the Magistrate undertake a War by necessity; let them also lay down their lives, and spill their blood for the good of the public and of the Magistrate, and that in the Name of God; willingly, valiantly, and cheerfully. For he that opposeth himself to the Magistrate, provoketh the heavy wrath of God upon himself.   

The Bohemian Confession.  
UNiversi & singuli in omnibus quae Deo tantum non sunt contraria eminenti potestati subjectionem praestent; primum Regiae Majestati, postea omnibus Magistratibus & qui cum potestate sunt, in quibuscunque muneribus sint collocati, sive ipsi per se boni viri sint sive mali; itemque omnibus Administris & Legatis horum, & ut eos revereantur, colant, & quaecunque eis jure debentur ea omnia ut praestent, etiam honorem eis tributum, vectigal, similia alia ad quae pendenda obligantur ut praestent & pendant.  
LEt all every one yield subjection in all things that are no ways contrary to God, unto the higher power; first to the King's Majesty, and next to all Magistrates, and those that are in Authority, in what Offices soever they be placed, whether the men be good or bad; as also to all their Officers and Deputies. And let them defer unto them all honour, and perform all things which are due unto them by right; let them pay unto them also the homage, imposts, tribute, and the like, which they are obliged to pay and perform.   

The Saxonick Confession.  
MAgistratui Politico subditi debent obedientiam sicut Paulus (docet) Rom. 13. Non solum propter iram id est metu poenae corporalis, qua afficiuntur contumaces ab ipsis Magistratibus sed etiam propter conscientiam, id est contumacia est peccatum offendens Deum & avellens conscientiam a Deo.  
SUbjects own obedience to the Politic Magistrate, as St. Paul teacheth Rom. 13 not only for wrath, that is for fear of the corporal punishment which the Magistrates inflict upon the disobedient, but also for conscience sake; that is, disobedience is a sin offending God, and separating the conscience from God.   

The Suevick Confession.  
NOstri Ecclesiastae obedientiae quae exhibetur Magistratibus inter primi ordinis bona opera locum dederunt, docentes hoc unumquemque studiosius sese accommodare publicis legibus quo sincerior fuerit Christianus, fideque ditior. Juxta docent fungi Magistratu munus esse sacratissimum quod quidem homini contingere possit. Vnde & factum sit quod qui gerunt publicam potestatem Dii in Scriptures vocentur.  
OUr Divines have placed the obedience which is done to the Magistrates, among the good works of the first rank, teaching that the more a Christian is sincere and rich in faith, the more careful aught he to be to subject himself unto the public Laws. They likewise teach that to be a Magistrate, is the most Sacred Office that a man may have. Whence also it cometh, that they that bear a public Authoriry, are called Gods in the Scriptures.   

After all these, the English Confession shall speak last, to give the Sentence; as the Apostle St. James spoke the last in the Synod of the Apostles at jerusalem, because he was the Bishop.  

Article XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate.  
THe King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Causes, doth appertain: And it is not, nor aught to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.  
Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous persons are offended, we give not to our Princes the Ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth Our Queen, do most plainly testify; but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture, by God himself, that is, that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restraiz with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers.  
The Bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this Realm of England.  
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous crimes.  
It is lawful for Christian men, at the Commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the Wars.   

The XXXV. Article appoints Homilies against Rebellion to be read in Churches. The summary of these Homilies, and the whole drift of them, is contained 
First part page 2. of the first Homily against wilful disobedience and rebellion.  in these words, In reading of the holy Scriptures we shall find in very many and almost infinite places, as well of the Old Testament as of the New; That Kings and Princes, as well the evil as the good, do reign by God's Ordinance, and that subjects are bound to obey them. And that Doctrine of the Church of England, which is that of the Word of God, is fully demonstrated in these godly Homilies, published and enjoined to be read in Churches by Royal Authority.     

CHAP. IU. Proving by the Bulls and Decrees of Popes, That the Doctrine of the Roman Court in the point of Obedience to Sovereigns, is a Doctrine of Rebellion.  
HItherto we have stood upon the Defensive, and have with no great labour wiped off the false and foul aspersions of Rebellion cast upon the Doctrine of the Protestant Churches: Let us try whether we can use the Sword as well as the Buckler. And we will use no other than the Popes own Sword; For as David said of Goliah's sword, There is none like that, give it me: In this Combat the enemy's sword is the right weapon, none like it. The Adversary to disgrace our Doctrine, hath objected to us some passages of our Authors, most of them false or wrested, and some actions of persons of the Protestant party. But though he had proved all these to be true, he had done no harm to our Doctrine, which is not built upon private opinions, or upon private or public actions. He should have taken our Confessions in hand, and Indicted them of rebellious Tenets, if he could have found any: Or finding none, he should have given glory to God, and confessed the Truth of God with us.  
But if I bring him the Bulls of his Popes, and their Decrees, can he scape as we do, when he urgeth us with maxims of Buchanan or Goodman? Can he say, The Pope speaks Treason, and prescribes Rebellion, as we say of these men; and my faith is not tied to his authority? Can he as freely go off from the Pope's judgement, as we do from the best of our party, when their Tenet is represented to us aberring from the rule of God's Word, and dissenting from the Articles of Religion, consented unto by the Provincial Convocations of the Church? We will then object to him and his party that which they cannot disown, unless they disown their Faith and Religion, since their Faith and Religion depend upon the Pope's Decrees; and that so strongly, and with such a spirit of delusion, that the most pestilent opinions pass with them for Evangelical Truths, and the most abominable actions for patterns of Holiness, if they be once marked with that stamp; according to Bellarmine's sentence, which not Romanist hath yet disallowed for any thing I know. If the Pope did 
Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontifice, ca 5. Si Papa erraret in praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam loqui. Idem cap. 31. in Barklaium. In bono sensu dedit Christus Petro potestatem faciendi de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccatum.  err in commanding vices, or prohibiting virtues, the Church should be obliged to believe that vices are good, and virtues evil, unless she would speak against Conscience. And to the same purpose he affirmeth, That in good sense Christ hath given to St. Peter the power to make sin to be no sin, and that which is no sin, to be sin. And he takes it for granted, That the power which Christ hath given to St. Peter, he hath ipso facto given it to the Pope his Successor. If then we prove that sedition, rebellion, and murder of Kings, is justified, promoted, yea and commanded by that Head of their Faith, the Papists must either approve it as good and holy, or cease to be Papists, and learn to have the Faith of the Lord Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, without respect of persons.  
Since the Roman Church stands much upon her Antiquity, we will begin by the ancientest example of approving the murder of Kings that can be charged 
Ann. Chr. 611.  upon the Roman See. It is that of Gregory the I. who hearing that Phocas had slain the Emperor Mauritius his Liege Lord, having first killed his children before his face, and that he had invaded the Empire, writ a gratulatory Epistle to that monster, where these words are found. We are glad that the benignity 
Greg. 1. lib. 11. Epist. 36. Benignitatem pietatis vestrae ad Imperiale fastigium pervenisse gaudemus: Laetentur Coeli, & exultet Terra, & de benignis actibus vestris universae Reip. populus hilarescat.  of your Piety hath attained to the Imperial Dignity: Let the heavens rojoyce, and let the Earth be glad, and let the people of the whole Commonwealth be joyful for your gracious deeds.  
The next example shall be that of Gregory the II. who rebelled against his Sovereign, the Emperor 
Ann. Chr. 726.  Leo Isaurus, and made Rome and the Roman Duchy do the same: And while the Emperor was sore afflicted with the wars of the Saracens in the East, he made himself Lord of that part of his Master's Dominions in Italy; for which Sigonius giveth an admirable 
Sigonius Hist. de Regno Italiae, lib. 3. Ita Roma Romanusque Ducatus à Graecis ad Romanum Pontificem propter nesandam eorum haeresim impietatemque pervenit.  reason. That Rome and the Roman Duchy were lost by the Grecians, and got by the Pope of Rome, by reason of their wicked heresy. A strange kind of penance from a Pastor, to turn the sinner out of his house, and possess himself of it. That wicked heresy of Leo Isaurus was, That he prohibited the adoration of Images, and pulled them down every where: For that Heresy and Impiety, the holy Father Gregory the II. imposed this penance upon the Emperor; He made him lose his Estate, and himself seized upon it. This is the beginning of the Pope's Temporal Principality. This is the Title whereby he holds Rome and the Territory of it to this day; even plain Rebellion, and Tyrannical Invasion of his Sovereign's Estate and Dominion.  
The next Successor of Gregory the II. was Gregory the III. of whom Platina writeth thus. This Pope as soon as he attained to the Papal 
Platina in Greg. III. Hic statim ubi Pontificatum iniit Cleri Romani consensu Leonem tertium Imperatorem Constantinopolitanum Imperio simul & communione Fidelium private, quod sanctas Imagines è sacris aedibus abrasisset.  Degree, by the consent of the Roman Clergy, deprived Leo the III. Emperor of Constantinople, both of his Empire, and of the Communion of the faithful, because he had swept away the holy Images out of the Churches. Observe that Platina that writ about the year 1472. at Rome, speaks according to the great interest of that time and place, which was, That an Emperor excommunicated, was ipso facto deprived of his Empire: Whereas the Popes that lived 700 years before, either had not that ambition, or wanted the courage to depose Emperors. But the Popes that reigned two or three hundred years ago, made that power of deposing Princes, as ancient as they could by their Historians.  
The same must be said of the pretended deposition of Chilperick King of France by Pope Zachary, the next Successor of Gregory the III. Cardinal Perron sets forth that example to fright Kings, in his Oration before the three States of France, and saith that the Pope absolved the people of France from their Allegiance to that King, for which he allegeth the testimony of two new Authors, Paulus Aemilius and Du Tillet. But Ado Bishop of Vienna in his Chronicle saith, That the French by the counsel of Ambassadors, and of Pope Zachary, established Pepin their King. And Trithemius in his Abridgement of Annals speaks thus: Chilperick King of the French, is put out from the Kingdom, as incapable to reign, by the common consent of the great persons of the Kingdom, Pope Zachary giving them counsel.  
But although the Champions of the Court of Rome ascribe to these ancient Popes that power which they never exercised or pretended to. That assertion of theirs is very favourable to my purpose, which is to show that the Roman Court is, and delights to be the Troubler of Christendom by that usurpation of deposing Kings, and absolving Subjects from their Allegiance: For the more they strive for it, and labour to root it in Antiquity, the more they show the stirring of Rebellions to be essential and original unto their wicked Throne.  
After Zachary followed Stephen the II. who set on Pepin to expel the Exarches out of Italy, and obtained 
Platina.  of him the Exarchat for himself, though belonging to the Emperor of Constantinople his true Sovereign: So there was both Rebellion and Robbery in that proceeding. Wherein he followed the steps of Gregory the II. who thirty years before had rob the Emperor his Master of the City of Rome, and the Roman Duchy.  
Yet in these Dominions the Emperors of the West, (which then begun again) kept the Imperial power. 
a Platina in vita Eugenii II. Lotharius in Italiam veniens Magistratum delegit qui populo Romano jus diceret.  Platina affirmeth, That when Lothary came into Italy, he chose Magistrates to judge the people of Rome: For in the partage between the sons of Lewis the Meek, Italy and Rome fell to the share of Lothary the eldest. But above all, the testimony of Sigonius is express, who speaking of the posture of Italy in the year 973. saith, That the Pope kept Rome, Ravenna, and the 
Sigonius de Regno Italiae, lib. 7. ann. 973. Pontifex Romam, Ravennam, & ditiones reliquas tenebat authoritate magis quam imperio: quod Civitates Pontificem ut Reip. Principem, Regem vero ut summum Dominum intuerentur, atque ei tributa obsequiaque praeberent.  rest of his Territories, rather by Authority then Sovereignty; because the Cities looked upon the Pope as a Prince of the Commonwealth, but upon the King as their Sovereign Lord, and to him they paid Tribute, and yielded Obedience. It appeareth by the Histories of Volaterranus, Blondus, and Sabellicus, that it is but about two hundred years since the Pope is absolute Master in Rome. And for the Spiritual 
It was about the year 800.  power, Sigonius affirmeth, That Pope Hadrian the I. yielded to the Emperor Charlemain, the power of ordering the Church, and electing the Pope, which was so approved by Pope Leo the VIII. eightscore years after, that 
a Sigonius de reg. Ital. ad an. 963. Non sine causa Adrianum I. Carolo magno tribuisse ut Ecclesiam ordinaret, & Pontificem eligeret. Platina in Paschalis I. Paschalis nulla interposita Imperatoris authoritate Pontiséx creature: Hanc ob rem ubi Pontificatum iniit statim Legatos ad Ludovicum misit, qui ejus rei culpam omnem in Clerum & populum rejicerent, quod ab his vi coactus esset pontisicium munus obire. Accepta hac satisfactione Ludovicus respondit populo & Clero, majorum instituta & pacta servanda esse, caverent ne dein ceps Majestatem lae derent.  he said that it was not without cause that Hadrian the first had done so.  
Yet Pope Paschalis the I. got into the Roman See without the Emperor's Authority and consent, (as his Predecessor Stephen the iv had done before him) and then sent to Lewis the Meek to purge himself, and cast the fault upon the importunity of the Clergy and the people. The Emperor accepted the excuse, but said withal, That the Clergy and the people should no more offend the Emperor's Majesty in that sort. Let it be then remembered, that the Pope's power is an usurpation, first upon the Emperors of the East, and since upon those of the West; that it be not found strange that his power having begun by Rebellion and Usurpation, is maintained in the following ages by answerable means, and liveth by the same elements of which it was composed. This also will give an evidence to the judicious Reader of the true cause why the Popes had such a long and pertinacious quarrel with the Emperors, and thundered continually upon them with Excommunications, created to them enemies, and tore the Empire with Factions; even that they might strip the Emperor of all his right in Italy, make themselves independent both for the Spiritual and the Temporal, and raise their greatness upon the fall of the Empire. So the many examples which I shall bring of excommunicating and deposing of Emperors, and absolving their subjects from their Allegiance, shall lay a double guilt of rebellion upon the Popes, both as commanding rebellion abroad, and practising rebellion at home against their lawful Sovereigns.  
The first Pope that offered to excommunicate the King of France, was Gregory the iv who joined with 
Sigebert. An. 832.  the Sons of Lewis the meek, who had conspired against their Father. But the French Bishops threatened to excommunicate him, so he desisted.  
The first Pope that attempted to draw his spiritual Sword against the Emperor, was that honest man Gregory 
Anno circiter. 1080.  the VII, called before Hildebrand, who excommunicated the Emperor Henry the IV, but deposed him before. The Empire he translated to Rudolph 
Platina in Greg. VII. Imperatorem ipsum anathemate notavit, privatum prius omni Regia administratione.  Duke of Suevia. But you must understand that though he gave him the Empire, he did not deliver it. For Rudolph was slain in battle by the Emperor. Rome was taken by the Emperor, and Gregory died for grief. The last words of Rudolph are notable: Seeing his hand cut off, he 
Marianus Scotus. Sigebertus. Vspergensis,  said to the Bishops that had made him take arms. You see my hand which I had lift up to God with an Oath of fidelity to my Sovereign, now punished for fight traitorously against him by your instigation. It seems that the Pope's command could not clear his conscience of the crime of rebellion.  
Vrban the II. did also excommunicate and persecute 
Platira. Sigebertus.  that worthy Emperor Henry the iv This is that urban who made that 
urban II. Causa 15. q. 6. Can. juratos. juratos milites Hugoni Comitine ipsi quandiu excommunicatus est serviant prohibemus.  goodly Decree, That an Oath made to an excommunicated person, must not be kept. The quarrel which made these Pope's excommunicate the Emperor was about collation of Benefices.  
Pope Paschal the II. who succeeded Vrban, made that Emperor's Son to take arms against his Father. 
Aventinus. ●ttho Frisengensis.  And that ungracious Son was such an obedient Son to his Holiness, that he gave battle to his Father: Who being overcome, and in his enemy's hands, was deposed in a Synod held at Mentz, by the Pope's command to that purpose, and the Crown and other Imperial ornaments, were taken violently from him by three Bishops, of Mentz, of Collen, and of Worms, and given to his Son Henry the V The old Emperor being soon after dead for grief, the Pope would not suffer his Son to bury him, but he lay five years unburied. These are the holy actions of him that cannot err, and hath all right shrined up in the closet of 
Platina in Paulo II.  his breast.  
It is worth relating how that Paschal sped by these wicked acts. The new Emperor came to Rome to be crowned by him. There the quarrel was renewed about collation of Benefices. And because the people 
Baronius An. Chr. 1111.  of Rome risen in a mutiny against him, he made a great slaughter of them, and took his Holiness prisoner; using jacobs' words, I will not let thee go, till thou hast given me thy blessing. That blessing was the yielding of the Collation of Benefices, which Paschal granted 
Observe that the Roman Church hath altered her belief in that point, for they hold now that the body of Christ in the Sacrament cannot be divided.  and confirmed it by Oath. But he revoked that Grant as soon as he was free again, although the Oath was taken by the Altar, where Paschal dividing the Host between the Emperor and him; used these words, which Baronius relates: Sicubi pars haec vivifici corporis divisa est, ita divisus sit à regno Christi qui pactum hoc violare tentaverit. As this part of the vivifying body is divided, so let him be divided from Christ's Kingdom, that will go about to break this Covenant. But what! the Pope absolveth others from their Oath, much more himself, when he listeth.  
This horrible action of a Son giving battle to his Father, and keeping him prisoner till he die, through hardness and anguish, is highly commended by Baronius. Why? the Son did it in obedience to the Pope, who would not pardon his Father, no not after his death. These are Baronius his words; In this action, the Son is no more to be condemned, 
Baron. loco citato. Nihil habes in quo damnes filium, magis quam si insanienti surentique pius filius vincula injiciat patri. Quis negare potest summum suisse hoc pietatis genus?  then if a pious Son should bind his Father, who is fallen mad. And again, Who can deny that it was the highest kind of piety, to have showed himself cruel in this case? Here is rebellion in the height, of a subject against his Sovereign: Here is a most horrible parricide, of a Son armed against his Father: both commanded by the Pope, and at his command executed. And both praised and recommended by a Jesuit and a famous Cardinal, as a pattern for posterity.  
Calixtus the II. his next Successor but one, excommunicated Henry the V and forced him to compound.  
How the Pope could be so bold abroad, being so 
Frinsingensis, Platina.  weak at home, it is a wonder to me; for the Romans rebelled against Innocent the II. and created a Magistrate which they called Patritius, to whom they deferred the Government, whereby they broke his heart, and made him die for sorrow. And when Pope Lucius the II. went about to put down that new Magistrate, he was answered, that the Senate would recover that right which the Popes had invaded by the help of Charlemagne. Lucius called upon the Emperor Conrade for help, who either could not, or would not help him. Lucius raiseth Soldiers, and assaults the Capitol, but in that assault he was so bepelted with stones, that he died few days after.  
And although Pope Eugenius the II. came to some composition with the Romans, yet both he and his Successors, Anastasius the iv and Hadrian the iv were kept under by them, and Hadrian was in the end forced to fly from Rome. Yet the same Hadrian suffered the Emperor Frederick the I. to hold his Stirrup, and quarrelled 
Helmodi Chron. lib. 1. cap. 81.  with him for taking the left instead of the right.  
That brave Emperor was more coarsely used yet by the next Pope Alexander the III. who trod upon his neck when he stooped to kiss his Holinesses Foot, using these words of the Psalm 91. Thou shalt tread upon the Lion and Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon shalt thou trample underfeets.  
And when the Emperor said, Non tibi sed Petro, This submission I do not to thee, but to Peter; the Pope treading upon him again, said, Et mihi & Petro, Both to me and to Peter.  
Such was that Pope's humility. So did he obey Saint Peter's command. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake. The Pope had before excommunicated Frederick; and when he came to submit and reconcile himself unto the Pope, his Holiness gave him this welcome.  
This so memorable passage, so known and so odious to all the World, is left out for shame by Platina and his Commentator Onuphrius. And all that Platina saith of that meeting is, that Frederick kissed the Pope's feet in 
Platina in Alexandro III.  the Porch of Saint Mark of Venice, and then they went together to the great Altar. But it is attested by twenty Historians alleged by Hieronymo Bardo in his Historia Navalis. The great Jurisconsult 
* Duarenus lib. 1. de sacris Ecclesiae Ministeriis, cap. 2.  Duarenus relateth it with great detestation of so great a pride and tyranny. For which Joseph Stevan 
‖ joseph Stevan. Epist. ad Gregor. XIII. de osculo pedum Papae. jure meritoque in Religionis & Ecclesiae infensissimum hostem Fredericum Barbarossam, non ut in salem insatuatum quem jubet Christus pedibus proterere sed potius ut horrendam belluam calcibus insultavit.  who writ at Rome to Gregory the XIII. of kissing the Pope's feet, checks Duarenus, saying that Pope Alexander the III. trod the Emperor Frederick under foot, not only as salt which hath lost its savour, but as an horrible wild beast. And Otho Frisingensis both relates it and commends it, 
* Otho Frising. lib. 5. cap. 14. Quod sactum summis liberum est sacerdotibus, cum Principum tyrannidem, aut violatam fidem aut Ecclesiae imminutam dignitatem vident.  and saith, That the Popes have the power to do so much, when they see the tyranny of Princes, or that faith is violated, or the dignity of the Church embezzled. So though the History were not as it is, most undoubtedly true, the approving and exalting of the fact in the Court of Rome makes that Court as guilty, as if it had been done. But it was done, and as bad was done by other Popes.  
Pope Celestin the III. gave Constantia a Nun in marriage to the Emperor Henry the VI and gave him for her dowry the Kingdom of both the Sicily's, upon 
Platina Uspergensis.  condition he should expel Tancred, who was possessed of the Kingdom. Hence a bloody War between Henry the VI and Tancred. It is ordinary to the Pope to give that which is none of his. When the Pope giveth a Kingdom from a Prince that enjoyeth it, he commands together the people to resist him, making a sport to spill their blood, and damn their souls.  
Baronius commends very much that Pope's behaviour 
Annal. Roger. an. 1191. Sedebat Dominus Papa in Cathedra Pontificali tenens coronam auream inter pedes suos; & Imperator inclinato capite recepit coronam, & imperator similiter de pedibus Domini Papae: Dominus autem Papa statim percussit cum pede suo coronam Imperatoris, & dejecit eam in terram, significans quod ipse potestatem ejiciendi eum ab Imperio habet, si ille demeruerit.  in the Crowning of the Emperor Henry the VI and his Wife, thus related in the Annals of Rogerius. The Pope was sitting in his pontifical chair holding an Imperial golden Crown between his feet; and the Emperor bowing his head, received the Crown, and the Empress likewise by the feet of the Pope. And the Pope presently hit the Emperor's Crown, and kicked it down to the ground, thereby signifying that he had power to cast him down from the Empire if he deserved it. Baronius having related this, amplifieth it with this morality  

‖ Baron. Tom. 12. Anno 1191. sect. 10. Ut fixum menti [Caesaris] haereret, nempe dare, custodire, conservare, & auserre, si causa exigeret, imperium esse in voluntate Romani Pontificis, ejusmodi voluit commenere eum exemplo.  That it might remain fixed in the Emperor's mind, that it lieth in the Pope's pleasure to give, keep, preserve, and take away the Empire if there be cause for it, he would admonish him with such an example.  
Can the Devil have set up pride to a higher pin? to put the Emperor's Crown at his feet, as a footstool for him to tread upon; put the Crown on the Emperor's head with his feet, as an office too low for his hands: and then with his foot kicked it down, as having a quarrel against the Imperial Crown, and together a contempt for it. This and the treading upon the Emperor's neck were significant ceremonies with a witness. And what more effectual course could have been taken to raise rebellion in all the States of Christendom, then thus to blast the respect of Majesty? For thereby all Nations were taught, that their Princes were not Sovereigns, but the Pope's Vassals and Liegemen: That themselves were not their King's Subjects, but the Popes, who could kick down their Crowns when he listed; and that when that supreme Head shall command it, the Feet, that is the inferior Members of the State, must make Footballs of the Crowns of Emperors and Kings.  
After Celestin the III. came Innocent the III. as proud, but more active than he. England hath reason to remember this Pope. For he excommunicated King John, deposed him, absolved his Subjects from their allegiance to him, and cast an Interdict upon England, which lasted six years. All which time no Divine Service was said in the Kingdom, but in some privileged places, no Sacrament was administered, and no corpse buried in Consecrated Ground. The Kingdom of England he gave to Philip August of France, if he could take it; and that by a formal order, thus related by Matthew Paris; The Pope by the counsel 
Matth. Paris in vita Reg. Johan. Papa ex consilio Cardinalium, Episcoporum, & aliorum vivorum prudentium, sententialiter definivit ut Rex a solio deponeretur. Ad hujus quoque sententiae executionem scripsit Dominus Papa potentissimo Regi Francorum Philippo, quatenus in remissionem peccatorum suorum hunc laborem assumeret.  of the Cardinals, Bishops, and other prudent men gave a definitive sentence, that the King should be put down from his Throne: For the execution of that Sentence, the Pope writ to the most potent King of the French, Philip, that for the remission of his sins he should take that labour upon him. A new way for that King to get the remission of his sins, to invade his neighbour's estate. As in the age of our Father's Pope Sixtus the V gave nine years of true indulgence to all the French that would bear Arms against their King Henry the III. Thus the remission of sins purchased by the blood of the Son of God, and presented by his Gospel to all that repent and believe, is by the Pope given as a reward of Invasion and Rebellion.  
Matthew Paris writeth, that, The Pope having gotten the Kingdom of England to himself (to his thinking) sent to Philip August, to enjoin him to be reconciled with King John, else he would put France to Interdict. Philip answered, that he feared not his sentence, and that it belonged not to the Church of Rome to pronounce a sentence against the King of France.  
It is a long and a sad story, how King John was persecuted by Pope Innocent the III. his Barons made to rise against him, his Neighbours to fall upon him, his Clergy to revile him, and his people to despise him; till that unlucky King was brought to such an extremity, that to buy his peace he gave his Kingdom to the Pope, and yet could not get his peace that way. The Gold which he laid at the Legates feet in sign of subjection, the Legate trod under his feet in scorn, yet took it in his hand after, so great was his clemency.  
What a cruel tyranny did the following Pope's exercise over his Son Henry the III. in his long and unfortunate Reign, insulting over his weakness and superstition? How licentiously did these Wolves tear and raven in England, while the public cry of the oppressed 
Matth. Paris in vitae Hen. III.  people represented unto the King, that his Kingdom was become like a Vine, whose fence is pulled down, and rooted out by the wild Bear.  
These Histories which make the usurpations of the Roman Court to be abhorred, yet are set forth by the Jesuit Petra Sancta as examples for all Princes; And 
Petra Sancta Not. in Epist. ad Balzac.  he would have all Kings to imitate King John and Henry the III. of England in their subjection to the Pope. He could not have chosen more frequent examples to dehort them from it, considering the gulf of miseries which they sunk into, by their stooping under the Pope's tyranny. But they have more reason to follow the example of the next King, brave Edward the I. who recovered his own and his Kingdom's liberty, by expelling all the Roman Exactours out of England; and by his contempt of Rome reigned peaceably and glorious. For the Pope, who in the Reigns of his Father and Grandfather was thundering continually, and cudgelling both King and people, never spoke a word against this stout King.  
Pope Innocent the III. played with his Spiritual Sword in Germany as well as in England, for he excommunicated the Emperor Otho the iv 
Platina in Innocent III. Otho iram Pontificis in se concitavit à quo & anathemate notatur & Imperii titulis privatur.  and deprived him of the titles of the Empire, as Platina speaks warily, for Popes cannot take away Kingdoms, but only deny to acknowledge the titles.  
The Emperor Frederick the II. was worse used by the Popes, though much deserving of the Roman See, to which he had given the County of Fundi. For he was excommunicated and deposed by Pope Honorius the III. and again by Gregory the IX. for that Monster 
Platina.  of pride and greediness, when the Emperor was gone on his errand into Palaestina, anathematised him, raised him enemies in Germany, by his preaching Friars, 
Matth. Paris in Vita Hen. III. Reg. Angl. Vspergensis. Trithemius  and taking advantage of his absence, sent an army into Appulia, and seized upon the Emperor's Lands. Twice he shown himself reconciled with the Emperor, and twice again broke with him, and excommunicated him; but with ill success to himself: For by all these Excommunications and Depositions the Emperor thrived; who after a long patience fell upon the Pope; made his Interdicts laid upon the Empire, to be hissed out; and so distressed the Pope by his armies, that he died for wrath and sorrow.  
The same Emperor was also excommunicated and 
Platina. Matth. Paris.  persecuted by Pope Innocent the iv And when after the Emperor's death, the arms of his Son prospered in Italy, he gave the Kingdom of Sicily to Richard brother to Henry the III. of England; Richard not acquainted with the Pope's giving of Kingdoms, asketh that the Forts and the Treasure and Hostages be given to him. Herein wiser (if he had stayed there) then others, who accept that which the Pope cannot deliver.  
I will pass by many Popes that came after, who sent their Excommunications no further than the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily, and filled Italy with factions, that they might fish in troubled waters: Let us fix our contemplation a little upon that high pattern of Pontifical virtues, Boniface the VIII. upon whom Platina bestoweth this Character. That Boniface 
Platina in Bonifacio. Bonifacius ille qui Imperatoribus, Regibus, Principibus, Nationibus, Populis, terrorem potius quam religionem injicere conabatur; Quique dare regna & auferre, pellere homines ac reducere, pro arbitrio conabatur; aurum undique conquisitum plus quam dici potest sitiens.  who studied to give terror rather than religion, unto Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Nations, and laboured to give and take away Kingdoms, drive men away, and bring them again, according to his pleasure. One that was thirsty of goods scraped up from all places, more than can be expressed.  
The passages between him and the French King Philip the Fair, are known, yet perhaps not to all. This is the History in short: This Pope having a grudge against him about the Collation of Benefices, and desiring to pick a quarrel, sent to him the Bishop of Pamiers, 
Stella. Histoire de France.  to command him to undertake an expedition to the Holy Land, and to threaten him if he refused. The Bishop did that errand so malapertly, that the King offended, committed him to prison. The Pope angry, demanded the Bishop again, and had him; and sent this Letter to the King. Fear God, and keep his Commandments, We will have thee to know that thou art our Subject, both for the Spiritual and the Temporal. That no Collation of Benefices and prebend's belongs to thee. And if thou hast the custody of any of them that are vacant, we will have thee to reserve the fruits for their Successors. And if thou hast granted any (Benefices) We declare all such Collations null, and as far as they are executed de facto, We revoke them. Those that believe otherwise, we hold them for Heretics. These goodly Letters being brought to Paris by a Legate, were plucked from him by the King's Council and Judges, and cast into the fire by the Earl of Artois. And to them the King returned this Answer, Philip by the Grace of God, King of the French, to Boniface, calling himself Sovereign Pontife; but little greeting, or rather none at all. Let thy most egregious folly know that in temporal things we are subject to no man. That the Collation of Churches and prebend's belongs unto us by Royal Right, and converting the same to our use, during the vacancy. That the Collation by us made, and to be made, shall be valid; and that in virtue of the same, we will courageously defend the possessors. Those that hold otherwise, We hold to be idiots, and bereft of their sense.  
The Pope enraged excommunicates the King, but none durst be the publisher or bearer of that Bull. The King assembleth at paris his Knights, Barons, and Prelates, and asketh them of whom they hold their Lordships, and the temporal of their Ecclesiastical preferments. All answer that they hold them of the King, not of the Pope, whom they charge with heresy and many crimes, The Pope assembleth a General Council (as Platina calleth it) though it was gathered out of few 
Platina.  Countries) and by a Decree of that Council, depriveth Philip of his Kingdom, and giveth it to the Emperor Albert; and laboureth to arm Germany and Netherlands against France. But that vigorous King sent Nogaret into Italy, who by the help of Sciarra Columna, whose Family Boniface had cruelly oppressed, got two hundred horse, and surprised the Pope at Anagnia, whom they mounted upon a poor jade, and brought him prisoner to Rome, where he was so ill beloved, that no body stirred to rescue him. With this adversity his proud heart was broken, and he died five and thirty days after.  
Benedict the XI. who was elected in his place, absolved Philip presently. And his Successor Clement the V to that Absolution added a complimental Bull, in which Philip is exalted as a pious and religious Prince, 
As it may be seen Extravagante Meruit.  and well deserving of the Church; as it may be seen Extravagante Meruit. For the Popes easily pardon the sins of those whom they fear. Truly that virtuous King hath left a fair lesson to posterity, by what ways the favour of that Holy See aught to be purchased and preserved. And since Lewis the XIV. now reigning is taking the like course with the Pope, he is like to be in time the favourite of his Holiness, and to obtain from him another Bull meruit; declaring how well that eldest Son of the Church hath deserved from the Church his Mother.  
Pope john XXIII. angry that Ludovicus Bavarus had taken upon him the administration of the Empire, before 
Platina Hieronymus Marius.  he got his leave, refused to crown him, though many times desired by him. The Emperor did nothing the less continue his power and imperial care both in Germany and Italy, and going to Rome (the Pope then sitting at Avignon) was crowned by the joint consent of Clergy, Nobles, and People. Upon which he was excommunicated and deprived of the Empire as far as words could do it, by this Pope. And the same Sentence was confirmed against the Emperor, by the Successor of john, Benedict the XII.  
Clement the VI who came next after, was more inclement than his predecessors, in persecuting Ludovicus Bavarus. For he excommunicated all the Bishops that 
Nauclerus.  adhered to him; and set Bulls at the doors of all the Churches, to raise rebellion against him. And when the Emperor would submit to him, and sue for peace, he required such conditions of him, as neither he, nor the Princes of the Empire, would or could yield unto, as that he should depose himself, put all his Estate, and his own Sons in the Pope's power, and promise to undertake no more any thing, without the Pope's leave. These conditions being rejected by the Emperor, Clement charged the Electors to elect another. Which when the Archbishop of Ments refused to do, representing the Emperor's innocency, he deprived him of his Archbishopric, and of his Electoral dignity. The other Electors corrupted with money by John King of Bohemia, elected his Son Charles King of the Romans, whom Clement approved; whence great and bloody Wars followed, and the Emperor Ludovicus Bavarus, was taken away by poison by Clement's means, as some Authors writ.  
That Election of Charles the iv was the breaking 
Fasciculus temp. Volatterran  of the back of the Empire, which the Popes had been long labouring for. For this Charles, that he might be elected Emperor, pawned the tributes of the Empire to the Electors. And the Electors made him swear that he would never disengage that pawn. Then they made him make that authentical Capitulation, which I have produced in my first Chapter. The Empire being thus weakened, and losing the Tributes, which are the sinews of War, was disabled from resisting the Turk, who hath since wasted the Christian Provinces with little opposition, and hath destroyed so many Churches, or turned them into Moskites. For all these distractions, the Church and the Empire may thank the See of Rome, which had a hand in all the Negotiations of the Princes of Germany and Italy; and whose Authority acted always for the depression of the Emperor. Neither could all these conditions, so hurtful to the Imperial Dignity, and the public subsistence, have past into standing laws, if the Pope had not promoted them, or if he would have showed himself against them.  
Since this Pope Clement the VI for about fifty or threescore years, I find not that the Popes had many irons in the fire out of the limits of Italy, the Papal power being much broken with Schisms. So that the Popes instead of fulminating Bulls against Emperors and Kings, courted its several Monarches of Christendom, to take their party against their Anti-popes'.  
Benedict the XIII. in the year 1408. being incensed 
Theodoricus à Niem in nemore unionis.  against Charles the VI of France, for inhibiting the exactions of the Papal Court, sent a Bull of Excommunication against the King and his Princes. The University 
Somnium Viridarii▪  of Paris required that the Bull should be torn, and that Pope Benedict, (whom they called Peter de Luna) should be declared Heretic, Schismatic, and disturber of peace: Which was done. The Bull was torn by Sentence of the Court. And two Bullists, bearers 
Carolus Molinaeus contra parvas datas, relates that Sentence of the Court.  of that Bull, made that which they call Honourable amends, upon the Palace stairs, than were carried in two dung carts, arrayed in Jerkins of course linen cloth painted, with paper Mitres on their head, the trumpets sounding before them, and the common people howting upon them, and abusing them. So little account did they make of the roaring of the Pope's Bulls.  
For a hundred years after Benedict the XIII. I find not that the Popes made use of their spiritual Sword against any Prince out of Italy and Sicily; partly by reason of Schisms, when that Roman Beast had many heads; partly by reason of the Councils occasioned by these Schisms. For they had three Councils in less than forty years, at Constance, at Basil, and at Florence; and the first and second of them took upon them to depose Popes, and gave credit to that dangerous opinion, so odious to the Court of Rome, that the Council is above the Pope. This kept the Popes for a time in some order and respect to the Princes of Christendom, but for some wrangling about pragmatic sanctions, which grew not so high as to War or Excommunication.  
But in recompense, Julius the II. raised wars and tumults, as much as would serve for a hundred years. He drew both his Swords against several Princes and States of Christendom; especially against that excellent King Lewis the XII. of France. For having drawn him into Italy for his ends, he makes a League 
O●●phrius Paul. ●●●●us.  to drive him out; excommunicates him, and puts his Kingdom to Interdict. Excommunicates the Venetians, giveth their dominions to any that will take them. Driveth the Bentivogli out of Bononia; exposeth their houses to pillage: Excommunicates the Duke of Ferrara, and invades his Country by Arms; goes to War in person. Makes the English, the Spaniards, and the Swissers, to fall upon the French; takes many Imperial Cities. Excommunicates the King of Navarre, and giveth his Kingdom to the King of Arragon, who upon that invades and takes it: And this is all the title that the Spaniard hath to Navarre, which he keepeth to this day. So much blood was shed in Christendom by the means of that plague of mankind Pope Julius the II. that it is thought that he was the death of two hundred thousand Christians, in seven years' time.  
In a Synod of the Gallican Church at Tours, it was 
Nicol. Cilles in Vita Ludou. XIII. Thuan. lib. 1.  declared that the Pope hath no power to make war against a Christian Prince; and if he do so, that the Prince hath power to invade the Pope's Territories. This the King signifieth to Julius, and citys him to answer to a General Council, which both the Emperor and he had called to be held at Lions. The Council was held there, but soon removed to Pisa; where the Council cited Julius to appear; and he not appearing, was condemned as an Incendiary, unworthy to sit at the Helm of the Church, and declared deprived of the Papal Dignity. There also Lewis coined golden Crowns with this Motto, Perdam nomen Babylonis. I will destroy the name of Babylon. For it is observable, that all that have quarrelled with the See of Rome these thirteen hundred years, have called it Babylon, and Saint 
Hierom ad Marcellam.  Hierome was he that began.  
We cannot charge the Successor of julins, Leo the X. to have stirred Wars abroad; he loved too much his ease at home for that. But I could not pass by him, for indeed his memory is precious to all Protestants, for giving occasion to the Reformation by his Indulgences. And he is worthy to be recorded for his sentence spoken to his Secretary Cardinal Bembo, Quantum nobis 
Crispinus.  nostrisque ea de Christo fabula profuerit satis est omnibus saeculis notum, an anxiome of too high a nature to be Englished.  
After him came next but one Clement the VII. the Fomenter of the quarrel between the Emperor and the French, joining sometimes to the one, sometimes to the other, and playing false with both, whereby he gave occasion to the taking and sacking of Rome. The thundering of this Pope, and of his Successor 
jovius.  Paul the III. against Henry the VIII. did him no harm, but to themselves, and to the Roman See very much.  
Of the following Popes till Pius the V the Protestants have much to say, as of men that sought their own pleasure, and wrought their ruin. Hence so much blood split in horrible Massacres. But these are besides my subject, which is to make the Popes to appear Authors of rebellion.  
But now in a good time we are come to Pius the V that Pope whom the English Protestants have most reason to remember. For without admonition or citation 
Cambdens' Hist of Qu. Elizabeth.  premised, he pronounced a sentence of anathema against that blessed and glorious Queen Elizabeth, to raise rebellion in the Kingdom against her Authority and Life, and caused the same to be published and set up upon the Palace Gate of the Bishop of London: the Title was this; A sentence declaratory of our holy Lord 
Micolaus Sanderus de schismate Anglicano, lib. 3.  Pope Pius against Elizabeth Queen of England, and the Heretics adhering unto her, Wherein her Subjects are declared absolved from the Oath of Allegiance, and every thing due unto her whatsoever; and those which from thenceforth obey her, are innodated with the anathema. In that Bull Pope Pius having first styled himself Servant of Servants, declareth that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build. Then he calleth Elizabeth the pretended Queen of England, the servant of wickedness. And having declared her crimes, which are to have taken upon herself that supremacy which his Holiness pretended to, and to have established the true Catholic Orthodox Religion in her Kingdoms, he doth thunder out this seditious Decree against her and all her loyal Subjects. We do out of the fullness of our Apostolic power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being an Heretic, and a favourer of Heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema, and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And moreover we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended Title to the Kingdom aforesaid, and of all Dominion, Dignity, and Privilege whatsoever. And also the Nobility, Subjects, and People of the said Kingdom, and all other which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such Oath, and all manner of duty of Dominion, Allegiance, and Obedience, as we also do by authority of these presents absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended Title to the Kingdom, and all other things abovesaid. And we do command and interdict all and every the Noblemen, Subjects, People, and others aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her Monitions, Mandates, and Laws: And those which shall do to the contrary, we do innodate with the like sentence of anathema.  
This Bull was the fire and the roaring of the Canon, and the bullet came forth immediately; which was the rebellion in the North, for which Chapino Vitelli was sent into England from the Duke of Alva, under pretence of compounding some controversies about commerce. And Nicholas Morton was sent from the Pope to knit the rebellion. Which he did, denouncing from his Master, that Queen Elizabeth was an Heretic, and thereby had forfeited to the Pope all her dominion and power. At the same time a rebellion broke out in Ireland, kindled or blown by a Spaniard, juan Mendoza. And when the Rebels of England were defeated, they found refuge among the Papist Rebels of Scotland, who set up again the English rebellion. All these in vain, by the gracious assistance of God to poor England, as if his compassion had been stirred up by his jealousy, after that the Pope had declared himself so insolently, Prince over all People, and all Kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, consume, plant, and build. And God would show, that to himself, not to the Pope, belongeth the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory for ever.  
Neither did Pius the V fight only by Bulls, but at the same time that the Bull was published, he laid down a hundred thousand Crowns to raise the rebellion, and promised fifty thousand more, yea, and to bear the whole charge of the War. That money was distributed by one Ridolpho. And how active that Pope was to stir Spain, France, and Netherlands against the Queen, and to put her Kingdom in combustion, is related by Hieronymo Catena, an Author of great credit at Rome in his life of Pius the V.  
Gregory the XIII. succeeded Pius the V in all his plots against England. He gave to Thomas Stukely, an English Rebel, a Commission to help the Rebels of Ireland, and get that Kingdom for the Bastard-Son of his Holiness, james Boncompagnon; and gave him the command of eight hundred Italians to join with King Sebastian of Portugal, who had engaged his word to the Pope to serve him with his whole power against Queen Elizabeth, and had raised a great Army for that expedition. But when Stukely came to Sebastian, he found him possessed with a new project to help a Moor King of Fez, against another King who kept him out of possession, and to get the Kingdom from them both. To that War he invited Stukely, promising that presently after that work done (which he represented to him most easy) they should go together to the War against England and Ireland. So they sailed over into Africa, where Sebastian and his whole Army were destroyed; and with him Stukely and the Pope's Italian Soldiers were cut in pieces. A deliverance of England ever to be remembered with praise and admiration. So let thine enemies perish, O Lord.  
This Pope had a great hand in that unparallelled villainy wrought by the marriage of Henry King of Navarra, with the Sister of Charles the IX. of France. A marriage which Pius the V would never consent unto, by reason of their difference in Religion. But when his Successor Gregory the XIII. was told by the Cardinal of Lorraine, that this marriage was intended as a trap to destroy Henry and his Protestant party, he presently gave his dispensation for the celebrating of it, and encouraged the design. The horrible massacre which attended the jollity of that marriage, was received at 
Thuanus.  Rome with triumphant expressions of public joy. And Cardinal Vrsin was sent Legate into France, to praise the King's piety and wisdom in that great action, and to bestow blessings and spiritual graces upon the King and the Actors of that fearful Tragedy. The Court of Rome might well praise what themselves had procured, if not contrived; and truly the plot hath an Italian garb, and looks not like a production of the French soil.  
Not long after this Pope sent to Henry the III. of France and to his people Indulgences for millions of years, which were to be obtained by making processions to four Churches in Paris, and by being zealous and diligent in the extirpation of heresies, that is (in his style) to extermine the Protestants.  
The male line of the Kings of Portugal being extinct, this Pope laid a claim to the Kingdom, as depending from the holy See, and would have the Nation to have taken Arms for him against the heirs from the females: But his claim was hissed out with great scorn.  
In the year 1580. this Pope sent an Italian called San josepho with some Italian Troops into Ireland, to join with the Irish Rebels. When they were demanded by a message from the Lord Deputy who they were, and what they came for, they answered, Some that they were sent by the most holy Father the Pope, and some from the Catholic King of Spain, to whom the Pope had given Ireland, because Queen Elizabeth had justly forfeited her Title to Ireland by her heresy. A doctrine which at the same time was preached in England and Ireland by Jesuits and other Seminary Priests; with great boldness and vehemency: till the Queen and her Council perceiving what danger the State was running into by these men's activeness and impunity, Campian and some others sent by the Pope on that errand were apprehended. And being examined, they obstinately defended the Pope's authority over the Queen, and maintained that she was no Queen, as being lawfully deposed by the Pope; upon which they were condemned and executed. That Crown of Martyrdom the Pope procured to his Confessors. And the greater the number is of those Martyrs that the Papists muster, the more they exaggerate the Pope's cruelty to his truest Vassals. For could the Pope expect, that persons sent to persuade the people to dispossess and kill their Sovereign, should have other dealing from the hand of Justice.  
The principal Article of the late Papal Creed is, that which Pius the V sets forth in his Bull against the Queen, that God hath made the Bishop of Rome Prince over all people and all Kingdoms. But the English Papists are taught that besides that general right over all Kingdoms, the Pope hath a peculiar right over England and Ireland as his proper Dominions. This is Beauties' doctrine which he hath made bold to maintain unto King James himself. The King 
Bellarm. lib. cui Titulus Tortus pag. 19 Rex Anglorum duplici jure subjectus est Papae, uno communi omnibus Christianis ratione Apostolicae potestatis quae in omnes extenditur, juxta illud. Ps. 44. Constitues eos Principes super omnem terram: Altero proprio, ratione recti dominii.  of England (saith he) is subject to the Pope by double right. The one by reason of his Apostolic power, which extends over all men, according to that (Charter) Ps. 44. Thou shalt establish them Princes over all the earth. The other proper, by a right dominion. Then he pleadeth that England and Ireland are the Church's dominions, the Pope the direct Lord, and the King his Vassal. This then being become an Article of Religion, in which the English Papists are instructed; and this in consequence, that if the Pope disallow the King, he is no more King of England, but an Usurper, and must be used accordingly: Let any man judge, who hath some equity and freedom of judgement left, whether a prudent Prince and Council of State, aught to suffer such an instruction to be given to the people. Truly the more Religion is pretended for that doctrine, and the practice of Rebellion obtruded as a commandment of the Church, the more it concerns the loyal Magistrate to oppose it vigorously.  
Pope Sixtus the V to favour the enterprise of Philip the II. upon England, renewed the Excommunication of Queen Elizabeth, pronounced by Pius the V deprived her (verbo tenus) of her Kingdom, absolved her subjects from all Allegiance to her, and published a Croisada against her, as against the Turk, giving plenary Indulgence to all that would make war against her. But the Pope's Curses provoked God's blessings upon the Queen, who might say as David, when Shimei cursed him; The Lord will requite me good for his cursing this day. All the storms raised against England, were blown over without harm. The great preparations of Spain served only to disable it, and secure England. And the many attempts against the Queen's life upon that Bull, contributed to her safety, by manifesting to the World the wickedness of Rome, and the pernicious effects of the Roman principles. For which I might produce the Examinations and Confessions of many that suffered for attempting to murder the Queen, but I will bring but one for all. William Parry acknowledged that he had promised at Rome to kill the Queen, about which he was most troubled in his conscience, till he lighted upon Dr. Allens book, which taught that Prince's excommunicate for heresy, were to be deprived of Kingdom and life: Which book (saith he) did vehemently excite me to prosecute my attempt.  
This Pope's Excommunications had more effect in France, for after that he had excommunicated King Henry the III. and absolved his subjects from all Allegiance to him; in consequence of that Bull many of the French rebelled against their King, and he wasslain upon that account, by a Dominican Friar. Which when this Pope heard, he commended the action highly, in a full Consistory at Rome, and forbade that any funeral rites should be celebrated for him. Which funeral rites (usually celebrated at Rome for departed Princes) consisting most in prayer for their souls, it appeareth that his Holiness was not contented that he had slain that King by his Bull, but would also damn his soul.  
Gregory the XIV. excommunicated by his Bulls Henry the iv of France, forbidding all Peers, Nobles, Cities and Commons, to yield him obedience, and declaring him incapable of the Crown, as an Heretic and relapse. But that Bull was by the Court of Parliament, then sitting at Tours, condemned to be torn and burnt by the Hangman.  
Clement the VIII. did the same over again, and excommunicated Henry: The Bull was condemned as the other, to be burnt by the hand of the Hangman▪ But the effect of these Bulls appeared by the attempts against the King's life, which soon after followed; first by a woman, next by Peter Barriere, and again by John Chastel; all denying him to be King, because he was not absolved by the Pope. Neither did the effects of these Bulls cease, after that the King was absolved by his Holiness: For by them the King got his death. Ravilliac who killed him, could allege them when he was examined; and say that the King was an Heretic in his heart, and deserved to be slain, as an enemy of the Church.  
Paul the V was as turbulent as his predecessors, as he shown it in his insolent and impertinent quarrel with the Venetians, because they had stopped by Edict the giving of Lands to the Church, whereby the State lost many tributes and services. He threatened them of Excommunication, if they did not recall that Law. And upon their maintaining of it, he excommunicated them, and put their State in Interdict. But it took no effect, for none of their Clergy would or durst obey it; the Jesuits only excepted, who therefore were expelled out of their dominions. They condemned the Pope's Bull by Edict, and forbade the bringing of it into their Territory, upon pain of hanging: Neither did they give any satisfaction to the Pope, when the business came to an Arbitrement: but forced him to make amends to himself, and to come to their terms.  
In the beginning of this Pope's reign, was detected that Treason, not to be matched in any age for cruelty and depth of villainy, the Gunpowder-plot, to have destroyed in one blow the King, the Parliament, the Judges of the Land, and all the flower and strength of the Kingdom of England. This horrid Treason was the effect of the several Bulls of the Pope before the Reign of our gracious King James of glorious memory; who coming into his Kingdom of England, found it lying under a Papal Interdict; and himself excluded from the Crown, by a Bull sent into England, a little before the death of Queen Elizabeth, whereby all that are not Roman Catholics, are declared incapable of, and excluded from the Succession: of which his Majesty complains in his Apology. And that Bull was produced in the Indictment of the Jesuit Garnet, as the principal motive of the Gunpowder Treason.  
This gave occasion to the Oath of Supremacy, set forth by the King and his Parliament then sitting, for the security of his Majesty's Life and Dignity; wherein it is required of all to whom it is administered, to acknowledge his Majesty to be the lawful King of the Realms of England, Scotland and Ireland; and that the Pope hath no right to depose him of his Kingdoms, or dispense his Subjects from their obedience to him. Also that they abhor as impious and heretical, this doctrine, That Princes excommunicated by the Pope, may justly be deposed or slain by their own Subjects.  
This Oath being presented to the Roman Catholics, some of them made no difficulty to take it, among others, Blackwell the Archpriest. Whereupon the Pope sent Apostolical Letters into England, declaring that 
Dated Sept. 22. 1606.  this Oath could not be taken with a safe conscience, and exhorting the English to suffer all kinds of torments, and death itself, rather than to offend God's Majesty by such an Oath. To imitate the constancy of other English Martyrs. To have their loins girt about with virtue, to put on the Breastplate of righteousness, and take the Buckler of Faith. He tells them that God who hath begun in them that good work, will perfect it, and will not suffer them to be Orphans, etc. And he enjoineth them to observe diligently the precepts contained in the Letters which Clement the VIII. his predecessor had written a little before to Mr. George Archpriest of England. By which Letters all Princes of a Religion contrary to the Roman, are excluded from the Crown of England.  
These Letters whereby the English were exhorted to be Martyrs of the Pope's Sovereignty in England, and to make it an Article of their faith, which they must sign with their blood, that the Pope hath power to depose Princes, and expose them to be expelled and slain by their own subjects, did not receive that entertainment which he expected among the English of his Religion: For some rejected them as supposititious, & forged by the Heretics, to draw persecution upon them, and kindle their King's wrath against them, he being already justly provoked to revenge by the late conspiracy. The Pope hearing of this, sends other, and more express letters 
Dated Aug. 23. 1607.  into England, to expostulate with the Roman Catholics; saying That he wondered at their doubting of the truth of the Apostolic letters, to dispense themselves upon that pretence from obeying his commandments: And therefore he declareth, That those Letters were written by himself, not only motu proprio & ex certa scientia, by his own motion and certain knowledge, but also after a long and grave deliberation, enjoining them again to obey those Letters, because such is his pleasure.  
To these letters which set up rebellion with a high hand, as an Article of the Roman Faith, were joined letters of Cardinal Bellarmine to Blackwell the Archpriest, wherein he chides him bitterly for taking the Oath, which under colour of modifications, had no other end, but to transport the Pope's authority to a Successor of Henry the VIII. And by the examples of his Predecessors, he exhorteth him to defend the Pope's primacy, whom he calleth The Head of the Faith.  
Of this Oath thus prohibited by the Pope, and cried down by Bellarmine, the Jesuit Becanus saith, That both of them [the Pope and Bellarmine] 
Beean. de dissidio Anglic. Vterque negat salva conscientia praestari posse hoc juramentum quia abnegarent fi-Catholicam.  deny that it may be taken with a safe Conscience; because by taking it, the Catholic Faith is denied.  
Is it then an Article of the Catholic Roman faith, that Princes excommunicated by the Pope, are ipso facto deposed, and their subjects absolved from all obedience and fidelity to them? It is directly, though not believed but by few: You have that fundamental Law authentically pronounced by Gregory the VII. and it is made a Canon of the Roman Church. By Apostolical 
Causa 15. Qu. 5. cap. Nos Sanctorum. Eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut Sacramento constricti sunt Apostolica authoritate a juramento absolvivimus, & ne sibi fidem observent omnibus modis prohibemus.  authority we absolve from their oath, all them that are bound by fidelity or oath to excommunicate persons, and by means we forbidden them to keep faith unto such persons. I would ask the Roman Catholics, Seriously do you believe this? And are you ready to seal that faith with your obedience or sufferings upon occasions? If you believe and will maintain it, you are not good subjects, but dangerous persons in the State. If you deny faith and obedience to that Papal Decree, you are not good Roman Catholics; for if you were, you would acknowledge the Pope the Head of the Faith, with Bellarmine, and that the Pope cannot err in his Canons, and that it is in the Pope's power to make Articles of faith, according to the determination of the Council of Trent. Now the Pope hath made this an Article of your faith, the denying of it an heresy, and the resisting of it a crime punished in the persons of Kings by the deprivation of Kingdom and life.  
Open your eyes, Christian souls, that are so much blinded as to pin your faith upon the Pope's Decrees; And reading in your own Authors the histories of the Pope's behaviour which I have here represented, acknowledge that those Decrees for many hundred years have been the powerful stirrers of rebellion in Christendom, and the ambition of Popes the first Intelligence that sets the great Orb of sedition on going.  
After that the Popes have thus commanded and wrought rebellion by express Decrees, and filled the Christian world with fire and blood these five or six hundred years, have the Jesuits the face, when we object this against the Head of their Faith, to object unto us in exchange some passages out of books either false, or disowned by us, if true: And the defensive Arms of a few persons, living under the Cross, and driven by themselves upon the brink of despair? The evil which men of our Religion have said or done, we condemn freely and openly. Let the Romanists condemn also so many Decrees of the Popes which have been the Incentives of war, and brands of rebellion: But that they cannot, as long as they remain Papists, sworn to approve all that the Pope saith or doth.  
The difference between the faults of the Pope and those of Protestants about the point of obedience, is this; That disobedience with us is a crime, but with him it is a Law. We punish rebels, but the Pope rewards them. We say to rebels after St Paul, That they that 
So did Sixtus the V of which before.  resist the higher powers, shall receive to themselves damnation. But the Pope promiseth eternal life to make subjects rebel against their King. We abhor the murderers of Kings, but the Pope sets them on by his excommunications, and after the murder committed, makes panegyrics on their praise.  
Can the Romanists produce among us a Priest that hath made himself a Temporal Prince by robbing his Master of his land, who hath kicked down the Emperor's crown, trodden upon his neck with his foot, deposed him from his Kingdom, made his son rise in Arms against him, absolved his subjects from their obedience, and given his Dominions to another; One that makes himself the absolute disposer of Kingdoms, and Master of the Universe? Such a Priest is not where to be found but at Rome.  
After this true account of so many Emperors and Kings deposed and killed, and so much rebellion, slaughter, and desolation wrought in Christendom by the Papal excommunications and factions; let the conscionable Reader, who is not altogether ignorant in modern History, judge what truth there is in our Adversaries assertion, That in this last Century of years there have been 
pag. 93.  more Princes deposed and murdered for their Religion by those Protestants of Integrity, then have been in all the others since Christ's time by the Pope's excommunications, or the attempts and means of Roman Catholics. He should have set down a list of those Princes deposed and murdered by Protestants, and for their Religion. For my part I have heard of none. Indeed Charles the I. our holy King and Martyr, suffered for his Religion: and the Adversary may take that one for many, because he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worth alone many Princes. But they that murdered him were not Protestants, they disavow that name; And it was for the Protestant Religion that he suffered.  
But since he speaks of the means and attempts made by Roman Catholics against Princes, he shall hear a little more of them.   

CHAP. V The Adversaries Defence of the Jesuits examined. Their Doctrine and Attempts against the Crown and life of Kings.  
THe Adversary who is commended in the Epistle to the Reader, as a most observant Son of the Church of England, takes upon him the defence of the Jesuit Mariana, so infamous for his doctrine of killing of Kings, and saith three things about that.  
The one is, That he handleth that matter only problematically. 
page 94.  But the Court of Parliament of Paris, composed of grave heads, did not understand it so, when they condemned his book to the fire. Neither doth he speak of the murder of Henry the III. of France problematically, when he exalteth the murderer in these words. Making a show of delivering 
Mariana lib. 1. de Rege & Regis justitutione, cap. 6. Specie litteras in manus tradendi cultro quem herbis noxiis medicatum manu tegebat supra vesicam altum vulnus inflixit. Insignem animi confidentiam! Facinus memorabile— Caeso Rege ingens sibi nomen fecit.  letters [to the King] he gave him a deep wound above the bladder with a poisoned knife which he hide in his hand. O admirable confidence of mind! O memorable action! by killing the King, he got to himself a great name, And in the same place he taxeth the King's servants, who presently killed that murderer, of cruelty and barbarousness.  
The second answer for Mariana is, That the question was not for killing of Kings, but for killing of Tyrants. 
page 94.  This man shows himself a right scholar of the Jesuits, for this is their distinction. But if a King deposed by the Pope keeps his Kingdom in spite of him, they account him no more a King, but a Tyrant. And whereas there are two sorts of Tyrants, some by usurpation, which they call Tyrannos in Titulo, Tyrants in the Title; some Tyrants by administration; the Jesuits hold, That a lawful King when he is once deposed by 
Suarez desens. lib. 6. cap. 5. Incipit esse Tyrannus in Titulo quia non est legitimus Rex,  the Pope, gins to be a Tyrant in his Title, because he is no more a lawful King. And being thus become a Tyrant, it is by their doctrine lawful to kill him. Therefore Henry the iv of France, whom no body durst have called King at Rome before his absolution, was so often assaulted by murderers at that time, because he was accounted a Tyrant as long as he reigned without the Pope's approbation. Upon that account Bellarmine saith, That the 
Bellarm. in Barklaium, cap. 3. Non permitto tibi (inquit Papa) ut regi non pareas, quod esset contra jus divinum, sed sacio ut ille qui tibi Rex erat non sit sibi deinceps Rex.  Pope deposing a King, doth not permit the people to disobey their King, but he makes him that was their King, to be their King no more.  
The third answer is, that the whole order of Jesuits disavows Marian's position, and have categorically determined the contrary. But why then did the same General of the Jesuits, who disavowed it when destruction was hanging over the head of his Order, approve and licence it before? For the Book was approved by Aqua viva General of the Jesuits, and Stephanus Hoyeda Visitor of their Society in the Province of Toledo. And theapprobation mentioneth that 
Quip approbatus prius à viris doctis & gravibus ex eodem ordine.  other Jesuits had approved it before.  
The Adversary brings some allegations out of Books of Jesuits that disown that position, that it is lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince. The Jesuit Eudemono-Johannes had made those allegations ready for him. He makes Tolet say in his Summary, lib. 5. cap. 6. that it is not lawful to attempt against the life of a Prince, though he never so much abuse his Power, and that is flat heresy to maintain the contrary. But these are Tolets words in the alleged 
Tolet Sum. lib. 5. cap. 6. Tyrannum administratione qui quidem habet verum titulum sed tyrannicé tractat subditos non licet absque publicae authoritate occidere.  place, That, It is not lawful to kill with out public authority a Tyrant by admistration, who hath indeed a just Title, but useth his Subjects tyrannycally. Now what public authority doth he mean, but that of the Pope? And that is meant also by 
Suarez Defence. full. lib. 6. cap. 4. Dicimus Principem propter tyrannicum regimen vel propter quaecunque crimina non posse ab aliquo privata authoritate occidi.  Suarez, who saith, That a Prince may not be killed by any out of private authority for his Tyrannical Government, or for any crime whatsoever. He will have a public authority for it, which is that of the Popes. For both Bellarmine and Becan maintain, 
Bellarm lib. 5. de Romano Pontif. cap. 8. Becan lib. de controversia Anglicana. Jojada Pontifex prius privavit Athaliam regno deinde vita. Et paulo post, Quicquid potestatis & jurisdictionis permissum fuit Pontifici in Veteri Testamento, hoc etiam in Novo promissum est illi.  that the Pope hath the same right over Kings, as Jehojada had over Athalia. Now Jehojada the high Priest (saith he) first deprived Athalia of her Kingdom, and next of her life. And a little after, All the power and jurisdiction that was granted to the high Priest in the Old Testament, is promised to him also in the New. This is then that authority without which they will not have a King killed, and by which he may be killed, even the Pope's authority.  
Our Jesuit allegeth Salmeron, expounding the 13. Chapter to the Romans, Where (saith he) he referreth the act of Ehud against King Eglon to God's express commandment. That's granted. But hear him further. It is not lawful for a private 
Salmeron in Rom. 13. Disp. 5. Non licet privato propriá authoritate Tyrannum interficere, maxim si in pacificá possessione sit & armatus satellitio regnet.  person to kill a Tyrant by his own authority, especially if he be in quiet possession and reign armed with Guards about him. All the security which he giveth to Kings, whom the Pope will call them Tyrants, is, that no man by his private authority can kill him; but by the public authority, which is that of the Pope, any man may. And he giveth a good warning to such Kings to keep a strong guard about their persons, without which a Jesuit will soon find it lawful to kill them.  
Gregorius de Valentia alleged by the Adveasary, 
Greg. de Valent. part 2. q. 64.  saith indeed, It is no way permitted, for a man to attempt upon the life of his Prince, albeit he abuse his authority: But he addeth, If it be not done by public judgement. Now that public judgement is either that of the State, or of the Pope, or of the General of the Jesuits. But let us hear the same Gregory speak more home. Temporal domination and superiority over 
Greg. de Valen. Tom. 3. disputationum in Thomamdis. 1. q. 12. pan. 2 Dominatio temporalis & superioritas in subditos per sententiam Papae potest omnino adimi haereticis. Ratio est quia si possunt privari vitá multo magis omnibus bonis, & per consequens omni superioritate in alios.  Subjects, may by the Pope's sentence be taken away from Heretics. The reason is, that if they can be deprived of life, much more of all goods, and by consequence of all superiority over others; taking it for granted and presupposed that Kings may be deprived of life by the Pope's Authority.  
Bellarmin alleged by the Adversary, may have declared his opiniòn as the other Jesuits, that a King must not be deposed and slain by private authority; than it may be done by public authority. And we have showed before that Bellarmin alloweth the same authority to the Pope over Kings, as Jehoiada had over Athalia, whom he deposedand killed; but he speaks more plainly, when 
* Bellarm. sub nomine Matth. Torti▪ pag. 84. & 85. Edit. Colon. Ultus est Deus Christum suum dum per alium sacratum virum alioqui militiae imperitum & inermem regem eundem non manifesto divinae providentiae miraculo interfecit.  he commends the murder committed by a Monk against the person of Henry the III. of France, and calls the Murderer Sacratum Virum, a sacred person. It seems than he had forgotten himself, 
Idem contra Barckl. cap. 7. Non pertinet ad Monachos aut alios Ecclesiasticos viros caedes facere multo minus per insidias Reges occidére; Neque summi Pontisices consueverunt ista ratione Reges coercere. Mos est primum paterne corrigere, deinde per censuram Ecclesiasticam sacramentorum communione privare. Denique subditos eorum à juramento fidelitatis absolvere, eosque dignitate atque authoritate regia privare: Executio ad alios pertinet.  when he would not have Ecclesiastical men to kill Kings with their own hands, but to stand to the method that the Pope observeth. Which is first to admonish Kings fatherly, Then deprive them of the Communion of the Sacraments by Ecclesiastical censures. Finally to absolve their subjects from the Oath of their Allegiance, and if needs be, deprive them of the Royal Authority. The execution belongeth to others.  
The Adversary also allegeth Lessius in his book de Scientia & Jure, he meaneth de Justitia. It seemeth the man had heard of the book, but never seen it. But for that mistake, his quotation is right 
a Lessius de justitia & jure, lib. 2. cap. 9 dubio 4. Talis non potest à privatis interimi quandiu manet Princeps, etc. . In that place speaking of such a King as is not a tyrant by usurpation, but by administration, he saith, Such a Prince cannot be slain by private persons, as long as he remains a Prince. Which is altogether against the security of King's lives: For the Pope's Decrees and the writings of the Jesuits having so many times determined that a Prince deposed by the Pope, is no more a Prince, but a private person; this goodly Aphorism of Lessius exposeth the lives of all Kings deposed or excommunicated to the attempts of all private men 
b Idem Ibid. dubio 11. Princeps non potest à subdito interfici nisi forte ob necessariam vitae suae desensionem. . He alloweth also a subject to kill his Prince in the defence of his own life, contrary to the Evangelical precept of not resisting the higher 
Dub. 12. Si tantum excrescat tyrannis ut non videatur amplius tolerabilis nec ullum aliud remedium supersit, primum à Rep. vel comitiis regni vel alio habente authoritatem esse deponendum & hostem declarandum ut in ipsius personam liceat quicquam attentare. Tunc enim desinit esse Princeps.  powers. And that you may know him to be like his confreres in treasonable doctrine. He concludes that question thus: If the tyranny groweth to that point, that it seem not to be tolerated any more, and that there be no remedy; He must first be deposed by the Commonwealth, or the States of the Kingdom; or by another that hath authority; and declared an enemy, that it may be lawful to attempt any thing against his person. What is that other person that hath authority over King, Commonwealth and States? It must be one that belongs not to the State, else he should be a subject, and could not pretend to that authority of deposing the King, and exposing his life to all attempts. And what other person pretends to that authority, but the Pope.  
He allegeth also Azorius in his Moral Institution, but doth not quote any place. This is his doctrine, All that were bound to an heretic in any 
Azorius hist. Moral. part 1. lib. 8▪ cap. 13. Eos omnes qui erant haeretico aliqua ratione obstrict jusjurandi seu fidelitatis seu alterius pactionis liberari— Absolutos se noverint à debito fidelitatis Domini, & totius obsequii quicunque lapsis manifesto in haeresin aliquo pacto quacunque firmitate tenebantur astricti.  manner, whether with oath or fidelity, or any other paction. Let them know that they are absolved from all debt of fidelity or obedience, etc. The Pope may take away or give a King for just causes, and then the people may obey the Pope as their superior, who hath sovereign power both upon the King and Kingdom. If 
Idem Ibid. part 2. lib. 11. cap. 5.- A Romano Pontifice Rex au, fertur vel datur justis de causis & tunc populus tanquam superiori Romano Pontifici parere debet— Habet in Regem & regnum summam potestatem.  he hath sovereign power over them, he hath power of life and death.  
And whereas this Gentleman allegeth Gretzer as one that confuteth all Mariana's grounds, I find that he defends them all in that very place which he quoteth. We are not such dastards (saith 
Gretzer-Vespertilio Haereticopoliticus, pag. 159. Tam timidi & trepidi non sumus ut asserere palam vereamur Romanum Pontificem posse si necessitas exigat subditos Catholicos solvere juramento fidelitatis, si Princeps tyrannice illos tractet.  he) as to fear openly to affirm that the Pope of Rome may, if necessity so require, free his Catholic subjects from their oath of fidelity, if their Sovereign handle them tyrannically. Yea he takes openly Mariana's cause, saying, pag. 160. that Mariana is wrongfully traduced, for writing that it is lawful to kill any Prince that disobeyeth the Pope; since he maintains that a lawful Prince who disobeyeth the Pope, notwithstanding ought not to be made away by any private man, if sentence be not pronounced against him. And he that must pronounce that Sentence is the Pope. He complaineth also that Mariana is unjustly accused for affirming that a tyrant ought to be poisoned; seeing he 
Idem pag. 162. Ne tyannum quidem primi vel secundi generis etiam post judiciariam contra illum latam sententiam veneno licite tollis, si Tyrannus ipsemet venenum illud sumere & sibi applicare debeat.  maintains the contrary; affirming that a tyrant cannot lawfully be made away by poison, if himself take it, and apply it to himself. Which cannot be avoided, when his meat and drink is poisoned. So in the end he agreeth with Mariana, whose words I have produced in my second Chapter, and is content that a tyrant be poisoned, so that he takes not the poison himself. Is not that straining the gnat, and swallowing the camel? These holy murderers make nothing of killing a King, only they are scrupulous about the circumstance.  
Thus I have showed what those Jesuits say, which this Gentleman allegeth: All but Serarius and Richeome, which I have not by me, no more than he that quoteth them. And I have made it plain, that they all consent with Mariana, and speak the same language.  
But what! he tells us that the opinion of Mariana was condemned by a Provincial Congregation of the Jesuits; and that condemnation ratified by the General of the Jesuits Claudius Aquaviva. So it was, with shame enough, to Aquaviva and his confreres, who had approved and licenced it before. But see what that condemnation comes to, the Jesuits seeing their Sect made odious by the writings of Mariana, Suarez, Vasquez, and others, and more by the murdering of Kings, by persons died with their principles, made 
Ne quisquam scripto vel sermone doceat licitum esse cuicunque personae, quocunque praetextu, tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere.  an order among themselves, whereby they forbade to write or teach that doctrine any more. The words of the Ratification are those, That none teach by writing or speaking, that it is lawful for any person, or upon any pretence of Tyranny, to kill Kings and Princes.  
Was it not time, think ye, to forbid teaching so any more, when they had been expelled for it out of France, and made the objects of the public execration? But how gross is their fraud in that order! Do they forbidden their Society to believe so? By no means, but to teach so. Neither will they have it lawful for any person to kill Kings, but to such as are commissioned for it. Neither will they have the execution done upon any pretence of tyranny, but only upon the definitive Sentence of the Pope or the States. And how are the lives of Kings and Princes more secure than before by their declaring that it is not lawful to kill Kings and Princes, seeing that in their account they are no more Kings and Princes, when they are once excommunicated and deposed by the Pope?  
The Adversary allegeth also the Council of Constance, which condemneth the doctrine of kill tyrants as erroneous. But if this Gentleman be a true Papist, and hold that the Pope is 
Mariana lib. 2. cas. 6. p. 62. Id decretum Romano Pontifici Martino V. probatum non invenio, non Eugenio▪ aut successoribus quorum consensu Conciliorum Ecclesiasticorum sanctitas stat praesertim quod non sine Ecclesiae motu tricipiti Pontificum dissidio de summo Pontificatu contendentium celebratum fuisse scimus.  above the Council, he shall make nothing of that Councils Authority, seeing that it is not liked by the Popes; for we learn of Mariana, that neither Martin the V then elected, nor Eugenius nor his Successors approve it, and he disgraceth it as assembled in a tumultuous time, when there were three Popes reigning together.  
But the truth is, That the Decree of that Council is rather against the safety of Kings. For the case propounded to the Council by Gerson, was not about the murder of Sovereign Princes, but about the kill of a great Officer of the Crown who ruleth tyrannically, and exalts himself above his King: for John Duke of Burgundy who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans, pretended him to have been a Tyrant in that kind. If then such Tyrants be declared inviolable persons by the Council, the Council by its authority guards them against the attempts of loyal subjects, and strengtheneth them against their King.  
Suarez goeth another way to work to elude the authority 
Suarez in Keg. Mag. Brit. lib. 6. cap. 4. sect. 20. Vbileget Rex in Concilio Constantiensi particulam illam, Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati? aut illam per suos subditos aut alios quoscunque.  of that Decree, saying to our Most Excellent King James, That the Council of Constance forbids not the kill of a King excommunicated by the Pope; for indeed that was not the case agitated in the Council.  
And now we are upon Suarez, we will set down here one of his golden sentences to this purpose. If (saith he) under the word of Excommunication 
Ejusdem lib. cap. 6. sect. 24. Si sub voce excommunicationis comprehendatur depositio & diffidatio quae per sententiam cononicam interdum fit, sic veritatem continere illam propositionem Regem excommunicatum impune deponi vel occidi quibuscunque posse.  you comprehend deposition and divesting a Prince of his right, which sometimes is done by a canonical sentence, than there is truth in that proposition, that a King excommunicated may be deposed or slain by any persons whatsoever impunedly.  
The Adversary concludeth his justification of the Jesuits, by alleging the Decree of Sorbon against the doctrine of King-killing, and the Arrest of the Parliament of Paris against the book of Mariana. What style must be given to this man's confidence? Can he presume so much upon the Readers ignorance, as to bring that for the Jesuits which is most against them? Who knows not that the Decree of Sorbon was directly made against the Jesuits, as the assertors of the doctrine of King-killing? Who knows not that the Arrest of Parliament which condemneth Mariana's book to the fire, blasteth expressly the doctrine and the sect of the Jesuits? If he say that he brings that to clear the Roman Religion, he changeth the question, for he had undertaken to defend the Jesuits. And these allegations are for us, who desire to show to the world, that many Professors of the Roman Religion abhor these principles, overcome by the evidence of honest truth; and therefore are not true Papists, since their belief is not ruled by the Head of the Roman Faith in the point which most nearly concerneth his power and grandeur. This Gentleman might be ashamed to allege the Sorbon, if he knoweth what Decree was made by them Apr. 4. 1626. against the book of the Jesuit Santarel, and the Jesuitical doctrine of King-killing: A Decree confirmed the 8. of May following by the University of Paris.  
After these Allegations wherewith this Gentleman cuts the throat of his cause with his own sword, Judge 
page 96.  ye what reason he hath to cry up, By this time I hope the tempest is pretty well laid. But he must have a little more of that tempest about his ears: And having so marred his own market, and given me occasion to lay open the iniquity of his sect, he must labour once more to satisfy divers of his good friends whom he hath found 
ibid.  scandalised at the Fathers of the Society, for protecting so villainous and treasonable a Thesis.  
If now I bring upon the scaffold some more of their most notorious expressions and actions, they may not blame me, as I do them, for charging the whole party with the faults of particulars: For whereas this Gentleman chargeth the generality of the Protestants with the opinions of Knox and Paraeus, I charge not all the Roman Catholics with these villainous doctrines and actions, but only the Court of Rome, and the Jesuits. These two I put together, for all that the Jesuits have taught or done to promote rebellion and high Treason was undertaken to advance the Court of Rome, and by a particular influence from that Court, whose especial favourites and most devoted champions they are.  
Since this Gentleman stands upon the sentence of the Court of Parliament of Paris, let him hear that great man Achilles de Harlay, the first Precedent of that Venerable Court; who, when King Henry the iv of France, after long solicitations of the Court of Rome, was persuaded to recall the jesuites banished before out of the Kingdom, made an Oration to dissuade him from it. That Oration is related by Thuanus another Precedent of that Court, who was then present. There that virtuous Achilles represents to the King the doctrine of the jesuites, which is, That the Pope 
Thuanus Hist. lib. 130. ad ann. 1604. jesuitae docent. Pontisicem jus habere Reges extra communionem Ecclesiae ponandi; excommunicatum Regem tyrannum esse, & subditos impune contra eum insurgere. Ipsorum unumquemque qui vel minoribus Ecclesiae Ordinibus sit initiatus quodcunque crimen admiserit in laesae Majestatis crimen non posse incidere, quip qui minime sint amplius Regis subditi nec jurisdictioni ejus subjecti. Ita Ecclesiasticos per eorum doctrinam a seculari potestate eximi, & Manus cruentas licere impune Regibus sacro-sanctis afferre. Hoc eos libris editis asserere.  hath that right to put Kings out of the communion of the Church; that an excommunicate King is a tyrant, and that his subjects may impunedly rise against him. That every one of those that have but one of the least Orders of the Church, cannot be guilty of Treason, what crime soever he commit; because Clergymen are no more the King's subjects, nor under his jurisdiction: So that Ecclesiastic persons are by their doctrine exempted from the secular powers, and may impunedly fall upon their Kings with their sanguinary hands. This they affirm in their published books. That grave judge spoke that upon good ground; for the books of the jesuites insist much upon the exemption of Clerks from Temporal jurisdictions. Whence the jesuite Emanuel Sa draweth this conclusion, That 
Emanuel Sa in Aphorismis tit. Clericus. Rebellio▪ Clerici adversus Principem, non est crimen lesae Majestatis, quia Principi non est subditus.  the Rebellion of a Clergyman against the Prince, is not Treason, because he is not the Prince's subject. Which words are omitted in the Edition of Paris, but they remain in that of Collen, and in that of Antwerp. For that reason Bellarmine finds great fault with those that slew the Monk who had murdered Henry the III. of France, (as I alleged before) because they had slain sacratum virum, a consecracred man. A more sacred man in his opinion, and more inviolable than the Sacred Majesty of a King. The murder of that great Prince, the Venerable Harlay represented unto the King, and how it was 
Thuanus▪ ibid.  exalted as a holy Act by the jesuite Guignard, who had writ a book in the commendation of the murderer. And puts his Majesty in mind of the Attempt made upon his person by Peter Barriere suborned by the jesuite Varade.  
He might also have put him in mind of John Chastel 
Thuanus  a Scholar of the jesuites, who hit him in the mouth, and struck out one of his teeth, intending to have cut his throat. In his examination he confessed that he being guilty of a great crime, was kept prisoner by the jesuites in the chamber of Meditations, where after they had long terrified his soul, they propounded to him a way to jessen his torments in hell which he had deserved by his crimes; and that was to kill the King, which the miserable youth promised and attempted.  
Upon this the College of the jesuites was searched, and many persons seized on, among which was found a book in the praise of James Clement the murderer of Henry the III. written by the jesuite Guignard, as himself confessed, containing many arguments and reasons to prove that it was lawful and just to kill Henry the III. together with many inductions and incitements to make away his Successor, who was Henry the iv then reigning. The Themes given to young Scholars, were found to be about killing of Tyrants, with praises of the attempt, and exhortations to it. And it was found, that after that Paris was reduced to the King's obedience, the Masters of the Forms had forbidden their scholars to pray for the King.  
The year before, Barriere being examined, had confessed that the jesuite Varade, Rector of the College of the jesuites, had incited and adjured him upon the Sacrament of Confession, and the Communion of the Lords Body, to kill the King; assuring him, that 
Thuanus.  if he suffered for it, he should obtain the Crown of Martyrdom. Upon all these evidences 
Upon that Pyramid the jesuites were called Homines norae & maleficae superstitionis, qui Remp. turbabant, quorum instinctu piacularis adolescens dirum facinus instituerat.  the Jesuits were expelled out of France by Arrest of the Court of Parliament, and a Pyramid erected with inscriptions declaring their expulsion and the causes of it, for a memorial of perpetual execration to posterity.  
Ten years after, they returned from their exile, the same men, corrupting the youth, and working rebellion; till in the end they got what they would have, even the King's heart, which they keep in their principal house la Flesche, after he had been stabbed by Ravaillac, a wretch, who in his examination and confession shown sufficiently by whose instructions he was persuaded to that parricidial act, for he gave this reason why he did it, because the King would make War unto God, in as 
King James defence of the right of Kings.  much as he prepared war against the Pope, and that the Pope was God, which is the plain doctrine of the Jesuits. And being inquired whether he had ever confessed his design to any, he named the Jesuit Aubigny, and that he had showed him the Knife: Which when Aubigny denied, Ravaillac maintained it to him before his Judges.  
To favour the design of killing that great King, and prepare the World for it, four months before he was murdered, the Arrest of the Court of Parliament of Paris 
Note this.  against John Chastel, who had attempted to murder him, was censured and forbidden to be read by an Act of the Consistory at Rome, and together the History of Thuanus for relating too plainly that horrid action, and the part which the Jesuits had in it. By the same Consistorial Act a Book of Mariana was censured; not that which approveth the murdering of Kings. The Court of Rome was not so unkind as to disgrace a work which doth their work; but another Book which treats of Coins. Certainly had they disliked that notorious Book condemned to the fire by the Court of Parliament of Paris, they would not have forgotten to censure it while they were in hand with Mariana.  
As soon as Henry the iv was stricken, the College of the Jesuits was environed with a Guard, the Magistrate and the people looking upon them as the Doctors and Contrivers of high Treason. And presently they were sued by the University of Paris, as corrupters of the youth, and teachers of treasonable doctrine. Peter Marteliere a famous Advocate pleaded for the University, and maintained that in the Confession of Ravaillac evident marks were found of the Doctrine of the Jesuits. The Jesuits were cast, and commanded to shut up their College, and not to teach Scholars any more. The King's Council required their expulsion, but they had friends about the Queen Regent, and were suffered to stay; and in time recovered also the liberty to teach.  
Five years before that King's death, it was a famous History how Father Cotton a jesuite and his Confessor 
Thuanus▪ Hist. lib. 123. ad an. 1604.  had written in a paper some questions which he had propounded to a Maid, who was said to be possessed with a Devil who told strange things. Among other things about which he would be resolved, these were some, What should be the issue of the conversion of Monsieur de Laval, and of the enterprises against Geneva, and the continuance of Heresy, and of the estate of Mademoiselle Acarie, and of the life of the King. Which last question is a matter capital by the Laws, for which Tertullian giveth the same reason that an 
Tertul. Apologet. Qui de salute Principis vel summá Reip. Mathematicos ariolos, aruspices, Vaticinatores consulit, cum co qui responderit capite punitur. Cui autem opus est scrutari super Caesaris salute nisi à quo adversus illum aliquid cogitatur, aut post illam speratur & sustinetur.  English Lawyer would give, because it is imagining the King's death. This paper he had laid in a Book which he had promised to Monsieur Gillot a Councillor of the Great Chamber, and through oversight he gave that paper with the Book.  
Two years after this Monsieur de la Force, Viceroy of Bearn and Navarre, by the intelligences which he had from Spain, by reason of his neighbourhood unto it, was advertised that a Spaniard of such a stature, of such a hair, and in such apparel, departed such a day from Barcelona, to go into France with intendment to make away the King by poison or other means. This Spaniard came to Paris, and addressed himself to Father Cotton, who brought him unto the King, and gave great commendations of him. A while after came the Letters of Monsieur de la Force, giving warning to his Majesty against that Spaniard, with the foresaid description. The King shown the Letters to Father Cotton, and commanded him to bring back again that Spaniard. But Cotton returning a good while after, told the King that he could not find the man, and that he was gone.  
Not a year before the King's death, Cotton writ unto a Provincial of Spain, divers things which the King had revealed unto him in confession: Which treachery being discovered, Cotton was in disgrace for six months, and then was forgiven. But he did not forgive the King, who was stabbed soon after. A few days after the young King being importuned by him, put him off with this gird, I will tell you nothing, for you will write it into Spain, as you did my Father's Confession.  
Half a year after the King's death the Court of Parliament seeing evidently, that the murder of the King, and that of his next Predecessor, were the productions of the doctrine of the jesuites, condemned the Book of Bellarmine against Barklay, as containing a false and execrable proposition, which tends to the overthrowing of the Powers ordained and established by God, inciting Subjects to rebellion, and withdrawing them from the authority of Princes, to plot against their Lives and Kingdoms, and trouble the public peace and tranquillity.  
I have spoken before of the Decree of the Theological 
Santarellus de Haeresi & Schismate  Faculty of Paris, against the Book of the jesuite Santarel, confirmed by the judgement of the University in May 1626. The same Book had been condemned by the Court of Parliament of Paris Martii 13. of the same year to be burnt. And because the Book was printed at Rome by permission of the Superiors, and with the approbation of Mutins Vitelescus General of the jesuites, and Master of the Sacred Palace, the jesuites of Paris were sent for by the Court and demanded, Whereas their General had approved that Book, and declared his opinion, that the contents of it were certain and good, whether they believed as he did. They answered, that Since their General lived at Rome, he could not but approve that which the Court of Rome approveth. What do you believe then? said the Court; The clean contrary, said the jesuites. And what should ye do if you were at Rome? As they do at Rome, said they. To which some of the Court answered, What then! Have these men one conscience at Rome, and another at Paris? God keep us from such Confessors.  
The same Court sent for Father Cotton, and commanded him to confute the Book of santarel. Cotton being put to a sad dilemma, either to offend the Pope his Master, and his General and the whole Society; or to answer an Indictment of high Treason, freed himself by a sudden death, being in perfect health before; or some of his Society took that pains for him. It seems that the Court were more peremptory with him, then King Henry the iv who shown him once that Book of Mariana, which since was condemned to the fire, and commanded him to confute it. But he gave some ill excuse to the King, who pressed him no further about it.  
About the same time that this great Prince was slain by the faction of the jesuites, the Prince of Transylvania was in the same danger by them. So much is certified by Letters of the Baron of Zerotin, May 2. 1610. that a jesuite persuaded a Lord of Transylvania in whose house he lived, to kill the Prince. But the Prince having discovered the Plot, killed the Conspirators, and the jesuite the Author of the conspiracy.  
This Jesuit was taken tardy, and had not the luck of many of his Confreres, who frame the plots, and look standing out of the reach of the blows, the acting of the desperate attempts upon which they have cast others. Yet there was a Scottish Jesuit of the College of Clermont in Paris, his name Alexander Hayes, who was so zealous, as to wish openly, and that often, that King Henry the iv would pass by his College, that he might throw himself down upon him from the window and break his neck. But by that cross caper he might be sure to break his own. For these words, and for teaching openly, that it was good to dissemble and perform obedience in show for a while, he was condemned by Sentence of the Court to perpetual banishment, and (if ever he returned) to be hanged without any other form of arraignment.  
Now if from their feats in foreign Countries, we look to their do in England, what troubles they have stirred, and what mischiefs they have plotted continually against this State, now above a hundred years. We are at a loss in that prodigious heap of iniquity. They have afforded matter to large Volumes of History, and the labour of the worthy writers, need not to be seconded by mine. And when the Jesuit Eudemono-Iohannes in his Apologetic for Garnet, would excuse or deny the treasons wrought under the pretence of a Catholic zeal, the truth of them was asserted by the R. Reverend and Learned Robert Abbot Bishop of 
In his Antilogia.  Salisbury, out of the public Acts and Records of Courts, and out of the very books of Adversaries, Blu●t and Watson. How many attempts were made against the life of the Blessed Queen Elizabeth? And in what treason was there a Jesuit wanting? Parry, Cullen, Williams, York, Squire, Hesket, Lopez, Babington, with his associates, and how many more? All were assisted and prompted by Jesuits, as the judicial examinations will justify.  
And now we speak of Babington and his associates, I find two brothers Bellamy's, both apprehended for hiding them, after they were openly proclaimed traitors, in their house near Harrowhill, where they were kept ten days, and clothed in rustical habits. There they were all taken and thence carried to prison, where one of the Bellamy's strangled himself, the other was executed with the conspirators; his name Hierome Bellamy. From which of the two brothers our Adversary Thomas Bellamy is descended, and whether from either or neither, himself best knows. But it seems by his behaviour, that the crime of hiding and disguising traitors runs in the blood: For what is his covering of the parricidial doctrine of Jesuits with false constructions, but hiding and disguising traitors; whose doctrine is declared treasonable by sundry Acts of Parliament? Let him take warning by the crime and the ill success of these men of his name, and apply to himself that Sentence of Tully, which he misapplyeth to the Protestants of Integrity. Mirror te Antoni quorum facta imitere corum exitus non pertimescere. Since you imitate the actions of men of your name, Sir Bellamy, I wonder you are not frighted, with thinking of their ends.  
The Devil and the Jesuits having been so often disappointed of their attempts against England, in the end contrived the foulest plot that ingenious cruelty did in any age imagine; the Gunpowder-Treason, which shall be to the World's end, the wonder of succeeding ages, and the shame of ours. This was the godly product of the English Seminaries abroad, and the Roman education. It is easy to judge that the plotters of it had been bred long in another Climate than the middle air of England; for it looks like one of the feats of Caesar Borgia. Non nostri generis monstrum nec sanguinis. Of that attempt to cut off King and Kingdom with one blow, none could be capable, but such as had many years breathed the same air where he reigned, who wished that the Romans had but one neck, that he might cut it off with one stroke. But a Jesuit is capable of devising, and the Romish zeal of executing any mischief, though never so prodigious, to promote the Papal interest. And they have law for it, even the Roman Decree, the Oracle of the Pope himself. We do not account them for 
Causa 23. qu. 5. Can. Excommunicatorum. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quos adversus excommunicatos zelo Catholicae Matris Ecclesiae ardentes aliquos eorum trucidasse configerit.  murderers (saith his Holiness) who burning with the zeal of our Catholic Mother the Church against exmunicate persons, shall happen to kill some of them. Now England was lying under many excommnnications, when the Gunpowder-Treason was plotted, and lieth under them still, for they never were repealed.  
Truly so far we must excuse Campian, Garnet, Hall, Hamond, and other Jesuits, who have plotted or encouraged rebellions and treasons in England. They have done no more than they were commanded or allowed by the Pope. And here I must be a suitor to all the conscionable Roman Catholieks, who abhor these wicked ways, to acknowledge ingenuously that the Actors were grounded upon the fundamental Laws of the Court of Rome. And that the Pope the Head of their Faith, is he that commands by his Canons and Bulls the slaughter of those that displease him, the breach of faith, the deposing of Kings, and the rebellion of the people, as I have sufficiently demonstrated before. If after that they adhere to the other points of the Roman Religion, upon this main ground of the Roman Faith, That the Pope cannot err, they blind themselves wilfully, and building their faith upon an unsafe ground, they may come short of the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls.  
This power of deposing Kings, and exposing them to the attempts of their enemies, so peremptorily assumed by the Pope, and so boldly executed by his zealous agents, aught to be grounded upon some proof out of holy Writ. In all the passages which I have alleged out of Jesuits books, I find but two of those proofs.  
The one of Bellarmine, who proveth 
Bellarm. lib. cui Titulus Tortus, p. 19 Rex Anglorum subjectus est Papae jus omnibus Christiadis communi, ratione Apostolicae potestatis juxta illud Ps. 4. 4. Constitues eos Principes super omnem terram.  that the King of England is subject unto the Pope by a right common to all Christians, by reason of the Apostolic power; according to this Text, Psal. 44. Thou shalt make them Princes over all the earth. In that Psalm, which with us is the 45. this promise is made to the King's Spouse, which is the Church, the Spouse of Christ our King; Instead of thy Father's house shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make Princes over all the earth. Answerably to that we learn Rev. 1. 6. That God hath made us Kings and Priests unto God our Father. That blessing then (to be understood and fulfilled in God's good time) belongs to all the true children of the Church. The engrossing of it to the Pope alone, to the exclusion of all Christians, is a bold, and indeed a ridiculous enclosing of Commons without any warrant.  
Suarez brings a proof of the like validity. After that horrid assertion alleged before, that after that a Prince is excommunicated, he may be dispossessed or slain by any persons whatsoever. He prevents the objection out of Rom. 13. 1. Let every soul 
Suarez adversus sect Anglic lib. 6. c. 6. sect. 24. 〈◊〉 Paulus his verbis Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdi. a sit Rom. 13 nunquam addidit, etiam potestatibus excommunicatis vel deprvatis a Papa omnes subditisint.  be subject to the higher Powers, and saith that the Apostle never added, Let all be subject also to the Powers excommunicated and deprived by the Pope. A recreative proof which would make but a poor enthymema. The Apostle addeth not, that we must be subject also to the higher Powers deprived by the Turk; Ergo if the Great Turk pronounce a sentence of deprivation against a Christian Prince, the Subjects of that Prince are free from their allegiance, and may dispossess and kill him when they think good.  
But what! These proofs are as concluding as those that the Popes themselves bring to prove their power, 
Nicholaus 1. Epist. ad Michael Imp. Constant. Petro specialiter ostensum est ut ea mactaret & manducaret Illi soli jussum est ur rete plenum piscibus ad littus traheret.  as when Pope Nicholas the I. proveth the Papal power, because it was said to Saint Peter, Kill and eat; and because to him alone was granted that power to draw a Net full of Fishes to Land.  
Likewise Bonifacius the VIII. proveth his primacy 
Bonifac. VIII. Extravag. Vnam Sanctam.  and Sovereignty, because it is written, that in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Joseph's Coat of many colours, and the Head of Holofernes would have been as pertinent to prove the Pope's Temporal and Spiritual powér. Yet see how resolutely and syllogistically his Holiness concludes upon those premises; Wherefore we declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is of necessity of salvation to be subject to the Roman Prelate.  
After these scientifical proofs of the Pope's power to dispose of the Crowns and Lives of Princes, Who should make any more doubt of it! Who would not in the strength of these reasons venture his life to dethrone Heretic Kings, and spill their heart's blood for a sacrifice of sweet savour unto his Holiness!   

CHAP. VI Some Assertions of the Libeler are examined.  
AFter I have vindicated the Protestant Religion from the aspersion of Rebellion, and laid that charge in its proper place, I have done my main business. And now partly out of compassion, partly out of contempt, I will pass by most of the untruths of this Libeler, which are well nigh as many as his lines, contenting myself to have disproved two of 
pag. 109.  them. The one, That the Rebel-doctrines are backed by the generality of them that call themselves Protestant's. But I have proved the contrary by their public Confessions.  
This plain dealing of his is towards the latter end of his Book: He durst not have spoken so in the beginning. But he must amuse the Reader a great while with railing against the Presbyterians, or the Protestants of Integrity, before he charge the generality of the Protestants with rebellion. Besides, he might hope tha few would have the patience to read his book so far.  
This is worse. In this Century of years (saith he) there have been more Princes deposed and murdered for their Religion by these Protestants of Integrity, then have been in all the others since Christ's time by the Pope's excommunications, or the attempts and means of the Roman Catholics.  
It is not easy to determine whether malice or ignorance be prevalent in that assertion. I have showed by unreproachable testimonies, that the Popes have filled Christendom with sedition and rebellion for many centuries of years; and what the Jesuits have been acting undet them in this last Century. To which since the Libeler confines himself, it had been no hard task to name those many Kings deposed and murdered by the Protestants so lately, if the assertion had any truth in it.  
When did a Protestant Minister thrust his knife into his Sovereigns' body, as the Monk James Clement did to his King Henry the III. and as the Jesuit Campian would have done to his Sovereign Queen Elizabeth? When did a Minister instruct any to kill his King, as the Jesuits did Parry, the Jesuit Walpole, Edward Squire, The Jesuit Holt, Patrick, Cullen, York, and Williams; The Jesuit Parsons, Heskec to tempt the Earl of Derby to rebellion? Or as the Jesuit Varade instructed Barriere to kill Henry the iv of France, and the whole College of the Jesuits John Chasiell: Or what Protestant, either of the Clergy or Laity was known to have made an attempt against the life of his Sovereign? For the late English Traitors who brought their most excellent Sovereign to the Scaffold, are no more Protestants than they are Papists, and are Jesuits in the point of obedience.  
When this Libeler called the Ministers of Scotland rare Saltpetre men, fit for fireworks, and to prepare matter to blow up both Church and State, Did he remember that he gave them the right style belonging to the Jesuits Garnet, Hall, Hammond, Gerard and Greenville? For these were Saltpeter-men with a witness; and without metaphor, prepared matter to blow up Church and State.  
Was it ever put to the charge of a Protestant Divine, Chaplain to his Prince, that he recommended to him a man sent by his enemies to make him away? Or that he made questions to the Devil about his life? Or that he sent word to his enemies of such things as he had revealed unto him to ease his Conscience, as the Jesuit Cotton did? Or did ever our Divines blow the doctrine of King-killing into ignorant souls, as the Jesuits did to Ravaillac; who being most rude, and a very Brute in all other points of Religion, was found by his examiners tightly skilful in all the evasions and distinctions of the Jesuits about that horrible doctrine? Or did any convicted Traitor depose that he had declared his purpose to a Minister, and shown him the knife for the execution, as Ravaillac maintained to Father Aubigni before his Judges? Some such charges which might be justified by Records of Courts, and Judicial proceed, this Accuser would have brought, if there had been any; and we are sure that he would not have spared us. If ever any man deserved to be sued upon an Action of Slander, it is this Libeler; for thus slandering the generality of the Protestants, and the State, of which he is a Subject. But I fear that if a Pursuivant were sent for him, he would return and answer, Non est inventus.  
As for his saying, That the doctrine of Rome, with the 
page 110.  opinions and practices of all its Doctors, are (as he hath showed) quite contrary to rebellion, and all that is said against that Church in this particular is mere calumnly. Let the world judge whether he hath showed what he saith, and whether is more credible, his saying, or my proving. Yet because he stands for the Roman Church, I desire my Reader to take notice, that in this point of obedience, my quarrel hath been with the Court, not with the Church of Rome; between which I conceive as much difference, as between the Wind and the Sea. The Church might be quiet enough from storms of rebellion, did not the boisterous wind of sedition make it foam, blown from the Court of Rome by its agents the jesuites.  
After that the Libeler had railed against us, he falls upon a common place of loyalty, and brings some texts of S. Austin, taken out of Protestant books made by our Reverend Divines against the late Rebels. For that he is not acquainted with S. Austin, he shows it by the commendation he giveth him, calling him the most ancient 
pag. 119.  and learned Father of the Christian Church. S. Austin deserveth a better commendation, but he is neither the most ancient, nor the most learned of the Fathers. Most of those whom the Church calls Fathers, were before him, for he died in the fifth Century; And as for Learning, Origen and Hierome were far beyond him. Can the English Seminaries pitch upon no abler Champion to fight against us then this raw soldier? A more passionate and less reasonable Writer I never met with. His style is a perpetual barking, and biting too, but without teeth. I could lay up a great heap of his untruths, ignorances', and impertinencies, if I would make such a wilde-goose-chase as to follow him in all his false turns: But both my Readers and I have better businesses then to heap up dung, or search all the Impostures of a Novice of the jesuites.  
For the end, he brings some rules of Law concerning the nature of the English Monarchy; which if he had studied well, he had never taken upon him to defend the doctrine of the jesuites, which is inconsistent with them: For they allow not that which he affirmeth; That the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no superior; and that the Crown of England is independent, and his jura Regalia are holden of no Lord but the Lord of heaven. Bellarmine saith the clean contrary, and makes the Pope Sovereign of England by double right, as we heard before. Yet this Scholar of the jesuites may give Bellarmine's sense to that assertion, that the Crown of England is independent; for holding with his Masters, that the Crown of England belongeth to the Pope, he will say also that it is independent, and oweth homage to none but God; meaning, that the Pope, the right Sovereign, oweth homage for it to none but God. The man being evidently a Scholar of the Jesuits, cannot but be instructed in the doctrine of equivocations, about which Tolet 
Tolet, lib. 4. Instruct. Sacerd. cap. 21. Aliquando uti licet aequivocatione, & decipere audientem, ut cum judex petit juramentum ab aliquo ut dicat crimen vel proprium vel alienum si omnino est occultum, & jurare cogatur, utatur aequivocatione puta, Nescio, intelligendo intra se, ut dicam tibi vel simile. Et lib. 5. c. 38. & lib. 4. c. 21, 22.  gives large instructions in his book of the Instruction of Priests, saying expressly, That it is lawful sometimes to use equivocations, and to deceive the hearer. And Sanchez tells us in what case it is lawful to equivocate: There is a just cause (saith he) to 
Sanch. oper. Mor. l. 3. c. 6. num. 19 Causa jure utendi his amphibologiis est, quoties id necessarium aut utile est ad salutem corporis honorem, tes familiares tuendas  use these equivocations, whensoever it is necessary or useful for the preservation of body, honour or estate. Since then the sect and Religion of the Jesuits, which subjecteth the Crown of England unto the Pope, cannot subsist in England without palliating that criminal doctrine with equivocation: They find it necessary for the preservation of body, honour, and estate, to profess that the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no superior; and that the Crown of England is independent: but to whom that independent Crown belongs, that they will reserve in their thoughts. Or if they say they will be true to the King, they will by the King understand the Pope, or the King of Spain, to whom the Pope gave the Kingdom of England fourscore years ago, and never recalled that gift since.  
Wherefore if this Gentleman appear in Print again, or any of his confreres for him about this point of obedience, we must desire him to speak more home, before he can justify himself to be a true Philanax Anglicus, and a good English subject of his Majesty. To that end let him declare that he acknowledgeth the following Articles as true and just, and is ready to subscribe unto them.  
I. The Kings Most Excellent Majesty Charles the II. hath no superior on Earth, de jure, in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and other His Majesty's Dominions.  
II. All Roman Catholics born in these His Majesty's Dominions, are his subjects, de jure, and of none else, although they have taken the Orders of the Church of Rome, or have a General of some Religion to whom they have sworn obedience.  
III. The Doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine is false, that the King of England is subject to the Pope by double right, besides his pretended subjection in matters spiritual.  
iv The Pope hath no power to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms, or any way to dispose of their Crowns or their Lives.  
V The Pope cannot absolve the subjects of His Majesty King Charles the II. or of any of His Successors, from the Oath of their Allegiance. Neither are they now absolved from it by any precedent Decree from the Popes.  
VI A King declared heretic or excommunicate by the Pope, is not thereby disabled from exercising his Kingly jurisdiction.  
VII. The excommunicating or depriving of a King by the Pope, doth not exempt that King's natural subjects from the duty of their Allegiance.  
VIII. King John had no power to give his Kingdom to the Pope, without the consent of his Peers and Commons: Neither is that Contract of any validity.  
IX. A Priest having learned in Confession a Conspiracy against the King's life, aught to discover it to the King or his Council.  
X. The Peers and Commons of England, and other His Majesty's Dominions, have no power to judge their King, much less to depose him, or put him to death, or to choose another King, or to alter the Government of the State.  
He that will refuse to subscribe these Articles, and openly profess his consent unto them, cannot justify his love and fidelity to the King, and is altogether unfit to charge the Protestants with rebellious tenets. Vacuum culpa esse decet qui in alium paratus est dicere. He that is in an error cannot justify himself but by forsaking it. That yielding is glorious; and to be overcome by the truth is a great victory. Without such a justification, lessons of loyalty given by a jesuite are unsuitable, and of as little effect as a Lecture of Chastity preached by an allowed Courtesan of Rome.   
JOH. VIII. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 

CAROLE qui Latias artes & fulmina bruta,  
Et Capitolini contemnis Vejovis iras,  
Macte manumissus coelesti lumine Princeps,  
Lumine Romuleas tibi dispellente tenebras,  
Assertamque sacro capiti firmante coronam.  
Dum trepidi Reges & sancti luminis orbi  
Serva Quirinali submittunt colla tyranno,  
Tu liber specta stantes ad fraena Monarchas  
Stratorum officio, succollantesque cathedrae  
Augustos lixas, mox flexo poplite curvos  
Turpia purpureo libantes oscula socco.  
Erige tu curvos rectus; fratresque doceto  
Quos Regum Pater agnoscit Natosque Deosque,  
Quàm male prostituat divum Rex sanctus honorem  
Tarpeiam lambens crepidam; solosque pudendum  
Excussisse jugum, libertatique litasse,  
Gnaviter amplexos coelestia lumina Reges.    
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 8. line 17. Galileo. p. 9 l. 5. put out which. p. 11. in the margin, l. 10. tenerentur, p. 19 l. 12. matter. p. 24. l. 14. Popes. p. 26. l. 10. by the preaching. l. 12. oppressing. l. opposing. p. 30. l. ult. Francis the TWO, p. 31. l. 7. jesuites. p. 33. l. 20. Henry the iv l. 22. because▪ p. 3●. l. ●4. the ordinary. l. 13. any of five Kings. p. 49. l. 28. unequitable. l. equitable. p. 53. l. 13. stony the just. p, 87. l. 13. frequent. l. pregnant. p. 113. l. 24. Pope. p. 115. in the margin, 1. 6. non sine manibus. p. 124. l. put out persons, put letters. p. 128. l. 25. Mutius. p. 137. l. 26. depose.