REPLY I.

Is not this great malice, to make a pari­ty between them who considered Q. Eli­zabeth as an Usurper, and us that (in words and sufferings) acknowledge no Prince had ever a more unquestionable Title then ours? To this I need not say more, having in the latter end of the Pre­face shewed, that time and accidents have quite altered the Scene, and doubtless our obedience to the Government is now ap­parently so great, that tis as probable the Heptarchy may be revived, or the Welsh rebel (which were high folly to imagine) as that disorders or tumults can be again occasioned by the Catholiques.

[Page 55]Concerning the Irish Rebellion, I never so much as once mentioned it in the Apo­logy, believing there could not be found a man so inhumane, that would charge a thing upon us, which for 26 years toget­her we were all acknowledged to be clear of, though the late Enemies of the King­dom had made strict inquisition about it; and every body knows they wanted not will (had there been probability) to make us Partizans in all detestable and odious contrivances. 'Twas evident the English Catholicks abhorred it, that several fought against the Rebels, that we all decried their proceedings; nor did I ever hear any of our Party in the least excuse the fact, though to my knowledge Protestants have often done it.

My Lord Macquire (who being a prime Actor, knew the whole Conspiracy) at his Execution at Tyborn was conjured as a dy­ing man to declare if the English Papists had any knowledge or hand in the Design: Ʋid. His last Speech etc. and Printed by Au­thority 1644. He took it on his death, that not a man in En­gland knew of it but one, and he was an Irish­man, and a Protestant also.

But who is ignorant (unless wilfully [Page 56] opinionated) that, that which produced this wickedness, was both a National ani­mosity, and a particular hatred of the Con­quered to the Conqueror? Nor would less have been done; had any English Ca­tholique King been their Governour. Re­ligion is no tie between Nations when great hatreds arise, or great advantages for freedom (as they term it) offer themselves, as we experimentally find by the Sicilian Vespers abroad, and at home by the total Massacre in one night of the, Cib. B [...]it. p. 143. Danes by the English. The Protestant Irishman you see also was so willing to have the English out of Ireland, that he never discovered the Plot, though he knew what was intended against his own Religion.

For his Criticism about the word infini­tie, 'tis as ridiculous as his poor quibble ab­out Purgatory; and for Queen Maries days, I shal by and by speak of them at lar­ge in a more [...]ep. [...] proper place.

REPLY. II.

Judge whether this man be not madde then Fox; for Fox never thought any fit for Kalendar-Saints and Martyrs, but those that denied Popery; as Fox Feb. 12. Roger Only, ali [...] Bullingbroke, whom Fox hath Canonized though condemned (as Stow says) to di [...] for Stovv Hen. 6. p. 627. 628. Necromancy. Sir Fox Ian. 7. Roger Acton also han­ged for Stovv H. 5. p. 561. Rebellion; and many score of the like Gang. Now the Minister by his Ar­gument will have Protestant all the Parlia­ments that made Magna Charta and ou [...] other Priviledges, all people that acknow­ledged them, and all Officers that from time to time have executed these ancient Laws: Yet these transactions were in the darkest times of Popery; nor did the Wal­denses, Albigenses, Wi [...]kliffians, Lollards, &c. look on the Government then as Pro­testant, as you may seè in Mr. Fox hi [...] voluminous Story. And since I have named this famous Author, who is call'd a sound new writer in the much celebrated Practice of piety, in the eight reason for the morality [...] Hey [...]. Geog. [...]. 20. of the Sabbath; Mr. Heylin also rank's him as the prime modern Ecclesiasticall [Page 59] Writer. I say since I have nam'd this once famous Mr Fox. I cannot but condole his misfortune, that instead of having his Book in Churches as formerly it was wont, 'tis now thought fit onely to cramp sleepers, according to Mrs. Abigails Practice. And truly a like fate attends all the first Cham­pions of Reformation; for in tract of time their Principles being found by theyr fol­lowers impossible to be maintained, new ones (sometimes opposite to the former) are therefore invented, which hereafter will also fail as the others did before them.

REPLY. III.

Who would now think that a man could be so abominable as to lay such a [Page 60] thing to our charge without any proof at all? Reader, this Godly Minister has do­ne it, and that he might show his utmost malice, he cites only in the Margent the Answerer of Philanax, as if we were un­doubtedly found guilty of the fact. But because my Minister durst not for shame set dowd Du Moulins words, I will here present you with his Accusation verbatim; nor will Christ himself be innocent, if such evidence as this be sufficient.

Du Moulins v [...]ords in ansv. to Phil. p. 58. When the business of the late bad times are once ripe for an History, and time the bringer forth 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 profest themselves Indepen­dents, 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 King and Church, they had their Spies and their Agents. The Roman Priest and Confessour is known, who when he saw the fatal stroke gi­ven to our Holy King and Martyr, flouris­hed [Page 61] with his Sword and said, Now the grea­test Enemy▪ we have in the World is gone.

Now, Reader, let me ask you when will the business of our times be ripe for History? or what discoveries can there be made against us, if in six and twenty years after the beginning of the War, if in twen­ty years after the end of it, and perpetra­tion of that most accursed Murther, we have not only been owned as Loyal Sub­jects, but still embrac'd by the Protestant Cavaliers as true Partizans with them in all their glorious Sufferings? I am sure the Press was free both in the Rumps and Oli­vers Tyranny; and if it were possible to suppose those times had been unseasonable, why have not the grave Historians since the Kings restauration made our late perfi­diousness appear? I am sure Protestants Bates▪ Elenc. mo [...]. p. both Lay and Clergy, for their Treason in his Majesties absence have been convic­ted since his return, when as no Papist could ever yet be suspected for the least de­fection from our Soveraing. Can this man think himself Canon of Canterbury) and dare say, that the Priest is known who flourisht his Sword at the fatal stroke, [Page 62] when as no body knows him, no not he himsef? Doubtless he means some Hugonot Minister: for what Cavalier was ever in France, and knows not how those Saints adored Cromwel? hating from the begin­ning to the end both our King and his Party. Let the World judge of this Story concerning this nameless Priest, by him whom he names, viz. Mr. White whose Book of Obedience and Government he lays as a Ansv. Phil. p. 61. blot on all of our Religion; when as this Mr. White has not only been sharply used by the Catholicks of England, but he and this very Book were openly con­demned by the Pope himself; nor durst he since shew his head in any Catholique Coun­trey. Thus may be seen the Conscience of this Monsieur who would charge us with a crime, which at the writing he knew was false; & from this son of Darkness has my Minister and others owned to have recei­ved their light; and what kind of light it is, pray be pleased farther to observe.

He tells us, Ansv. Phil. p. 59. That a year before the Kings death a select Company of English Jesuits we­re sent from their whole Party to consult with the Faculty of Sorbon (who you must [Page 63] know Reader, are the greatest Catholick Enemies the Society has in France) whe­ther they might lawfully make away the King. The Doctors answered affirmavely to the Question, being then stated in writing; but afterwards when the Pope saw that the Kings Murther was decried by every body, he com­manded tha Jesuits to burn all the Papers ab­out the Question; but one of them was she­wed by a Papist to a Protestant. Yet for all this secrecy commanded by the Pope, Du Moulin tells us (p. 58.) that at Roan many Jesuited persons told a Protestant op­enly on the news of the Kings death, That they having often admonished the King from time to time to remember his promise at Marriage of becoming a Papist, were forc'd to take the­se courses for his destruction.

After this History, he says ( p. 61.) That the Friers at Dunkirk) and by the way, there was never in that Town a House of English, Scotch, or Irish Friers) told a Pro­testant Gentleman, that had a mind to pump them, That the Jesuits would fain engross the Honour of the Kings death to themselves; but the truth was, they had laboured as effec­tually as the Jesuits to compass it. Then he [Page 64] tells, ( pag. 60.) That thirty Jesuits neer Diep met a stranger (a Protestant Gentle­man) on the Road and told him that they we­re going into England to be Agitators in the Independent Army.

Good Protestant Reader, I am quite ti­red with this senceless stuff; and if you think it false, consider what a jewel you have got from France; but if you can deem it true, let me entreat you hereafter never to fear Jesuite or Priest; for I am sure such prating fools can never do you harm. Besides, I wonder how it came to pass that all the Great Cavaliers caress't the Jesuits, and always employ'd them in much busi­ness during the Kings exile; neither were they then, or the rest of the Popish Priests, less welcome to the Royallists of England, But pardon me, I beseech you Reader, if I use so many words about a matter that deserves so little; yet I cannot but confess▪ I am engaged to the Frenche Divine for being so notoriously malitious and foolish: nor did I ever think that Sir Walters disco­very of the Plot in 1641. of blowing up the Thames to drown the City, could ever be pa­rallell'd; but here I now find it outdone.

[Page 65]Have we not seen, Good Reader, that such ridiculous Stories as these have lately ruined the Kingdom? and can any man believe if they once come in fashion again, they will end with Papists? No doubtless, for both Church and Court will soon find the smart; as by experience we begin to feel.

For my own part, I should never have taken notice of Sieur du Moulin or his Book; had not my Minister owned him, as I said, for his informer; and now I see he has imita­ted him also in his method; for my worthy Answerer calls me a Jesuite, and so the Dr. does Philanax, though I am confident he knows him to be a Lay-man, and a married man also. But now, Reader, it will not be amiss to tell you why this Mr. du Mou­lin is so angry with the Jesuites.

You must know, that Petra Sancta (a famous Writer in the Society) Calvi­nian us verber [...] p. 4 [...]. taxes the Drs Father for jugling, viz. for being in France a Presbyterian, and in England Epis­copal, and so complying for gain with tho­se Ceremonies which his Calvinistical Bre­thren abominated as superstitious.

This old du Moulin (his reverend father; [Page 66] as the Dr. calls him) writ a Ansv. to Phila­nax, pag. 38. Letter for­sooth, as his son says, to the Rebels at Ro­chel, to exhort them to obey the King in brea­king up their Assembly, which was then hatching the Rebellion that presently af­ter broke out; and yet (though it has been lickt and amended, I doubt not, by the Doctor) you may find, That a Ib. p. 41. ground of his perswasion was, because they were not strong enough to resist the King. and besides, the Reverend Divine in that perswasion to Loyalty, concludes, Ib. p. 44. Notwithstanding all he had said, they ought to look after their safety; fort'was unreasonable for them to sepa­rate their Assembly with the peril of their per­sons. Of the same Loyal judgment also I find the Dr. himself; for after all his ray­ling against Jesuites for Sedition, he con­fesses the Term was expired of the grant of the strong Places to the Hugonots; Nevert­heless, he says, they seem to Ib. p. 37. be justified for keeping those Towns, by the reason of the first Grant, which was to preserve them from their bitter Enemies.

This was the Doctrine, you see, of this worthy Divine, who also vindicated the actions of the Reformed in Geneva, Hol­land, [Page 67] Germany, &c. and therefore I won­der not at his aspersing us for our service to our King and Country. 'Tis not my business to run over all his Book in order, having one of his Disciples already to deal with; but this I must tell him and the rest of his Tribe, That since they steal one from the other, none of their Fopperies shall go unanswered: and this they may find in so­me part or other of the present treatise.

REPLY IV.

Is not this pretty, that no body died in England for Religion, but for Treason? and yet many hundred of Priests have been executed for no other crime, but being Priests. Nay, Lay-men have been han­ged for being converted, and others for letting a Priest say Mass in their houses; when as to hear Mass on Festivals every Catholique is in Conscience obliged, if he can. Besides, have not many Catholi­ques also suffered for believing the Pope to be Head of the Church? By this Argument then, if the Parliament should make it Treason (as who knows but they may?) to hold Episcopal Ordination only valid, or that the King cannot give Orders; it might then be as well said, that they (that are executed in pursuance of that Law) died for Treason, and not for their Religion.

But lest the Minister (that has the bold­ness in almost every Paragraph to deny apparently known things) might to decei­ve his Acquaintance still say, I have not proved what I assert: Not to trouble my Reader with many citations, take this one [Page 69] example out of Q. E [...]. p. 1259. John Stow, that down­right & plain Historian. He tells us, That fourteen Papists were at a clap executed; six only for being made Priests beyond Sea, and remaining here; four Lay-men only for being reconciled; and four more, only for abet­ting or relieving the others. Now if that be sufficient for the justice of the procedure, to say there are Laws to this purpose en­acted, then most certain it is, that the Pri­mitive Christians were all Traytors, being banisht by the lawful Magistrate from se­veral places where they taught, and kno­wing also many particular Injunctions against their Preaching and seducing the Emperors Subjects, as the Ethnicks were pleased to call it. Nay, the Great St. Alban our famous Proto-Martyr was executed (as may be seen in the Martyrology) for being (contrary to Dioclesians Laws) con­verted to the Faith, and abetting or enter­taining in his House the Priest Amphiba­lus, which Priest was his Spiritual Instruc­tor, according to Mr. Cambden in his fa­mous Treatise p. 413. of Brittain.

REPLY V.

Pray, Reader, upon mature considera­tion [Page 71] tell me now, whether they were not the Kings Murtherers that pursued Papists in the beginning of the War? Their de­sign afterward, I am sure plainly appeared; and pray God those were not of the same Tribe, who first promoted our late trou­bles. Let me ask also, whether you find not us at home and abroad as strict to our promises as any other you converse with.

But since this Minister upbraids us with our dispensing with Vows, be pleased to consider who has been most busy, the Romish or Protestant Pope herein. The Pa­pists have from the beninning refused the Oath of Allegeance as 'tis now worded, but the Reformed took it in all the degrees of preferment, viz. when graduated in the Universities, when admitted into Orders, when Justices of Peace, when Parlima­ment-men; and in short, when any Dig­nity either in Church or State is conferred. Yet for all the often repetition of it, half the Kingdom were in Rebellion against the King, even directly contrary to what they had sworn. Now on the other side, there was no Papist that declared not for the [Page 72] King, though all the Party (as I said) re­fused the Oath, and for this refusal seve­rely suffered both in their Estates and Per­sons. Besides, if it were a Doctrine amongst us (as the Protestants state it) that the Po­pe can when he pleases absolve us from our Oaths, why should we then (do you think) refuse the taking of this? Doubt­less a Dispensation (if it could be granted) might be procured at less charge then two thirds of our Estates, omitting all corpo­ral punishments. Oaths by our Tenets are not in themselves unlawful, nor can it be out of want of zeal for our Prince that we refuse them; since 'tis plain, that we all, like one man, stood by him in his great afflic­tion and misery.

You must know, Reader, this Oath was framed by one Perkins an Apostate Jesuite, who knowing what we could take, and what not, purposely mingled certain tru­ths with uncertain speculative points, to make us fall within the Law of refusal▪ Twould be tedious to shew all the real ex­ceptions we have to it, nor do any of them truly relate to our obedience to the King; for as to the Allegeance, I would be bound [Page 73] to word an Oath, which no Papist shall scruple at, and yet it shall be more strong then this. But, Reader, to give you my opinion of Oaths (though nevertheless I am not for taking away that laudable Cu­stome of swearing Subjects) I think them really useless, where without them (as in Allegeance) we are naturally bound: for honest men will be punctual in duty, though they never swore; when as the wicked can at no time be obliged, let the Bond be never so Sacred.

REPLY. 6.

To answer to these things perspicu­ously, I shall treat of them singly.

Object. 1. That our General Councels decree this, he proves by the Lateran Councel under Innocent the III. which expresly ordains, he says, That in case any Prince be a favourer of Hereticks, after admo­nition given, the Pope shall discharge his Sub­jects from their Allegeance, and shall give away the Kingdome to some Catholique, that may root out these Heretiques.

I grant that the sense of the words is in the Councel, and that in determinations of Faith Councels are infallible. But as for other matters, we say not, that Councels are infallible in every point, even in mat­ter of Fact. Besides, Councel's ordinations are to be taken according to the prudent meaning of the Legislators, and oftenti­mes beare another sense then the bare words taken as they lie, and weighed out [Page 75] of due circumstances seeme to signifie. Nor will this seem strange to an English Uni­versity man, since they grant, that in some matters God is not pleas'd that the Scripture it self should in it's obvious sense be taken as infallible, for no body will there say, that all the Philosophy in the Bible is un­questionable, or that the Mathema­ticks of it is to a Tittle just. The Molten Sea is described to be 1. K. 7. 23. ten Cubits (in diame­ter) from brim to brim, and that it was round, and that a line of thirty cubits did com­pass it. Now who is it (having read less then the first six Books of Euclid) but can demonstrate that this is not altogether ex­act? The Blood is not now thought by their learn'd Physitians to be the Levit. 17. 14. life of a Creature but the Vehicle. Nor do their As­tronomers believe that the Stars are less then the Sun or Moon, though in Genesis they are called the two Gen. 1. 16. great Lights. The solution to these Objections is easie, and in every Sophisters mouth, viz. that the Holy Pen-men writ of such matters, either brie­fly (as that measure of a Circle is to this day ordinarily express'd) or else according to the Hypothesis or Opinion then assen­ted [Page 76] to by the World. But where this Sa­cred Word speaks to us doctrinally, 'tis to be believed on pain of Damnation: so a Councel when it determines of faith, we are to reverence those determinations as coming from the Holy Ghost.

Neverthelesse it's other Constitutions, being but humain lawes, are changeable, and oftentimes admit several exceptions; nor doe they alwais bring with them such an inevitable obligation, that there is not possible way to avoid it's bond. For Pro­mulgation &c must precede. This plainely appeares by the Councel of Trent, to the doctrine whereof all Catholiques whatsoe­ver submit though the rest of it's Decrees bind not in France, no in any place els, where they are yet unreceived.

But the case now in controversie needs not all this: for I suppose the Minister will not deny, but that the Emperors of the East and West, the Kings of England, Frāce, Hungary, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Arragon, &c. may agree together (if they please) to pur­ge their Kingdoms of Heresie, and upon failure, that the Church shall give their Dominions to another that will perform the compact. [Page 77] These Princes, Reader, that I have named were Mat. Paris p. 262. If there had be­en any Protistants in those days, I vvould not ha­ve cited this Au­thor. present (by their Embassadors) at this Councel and what was there done, was by their consent, the Albigensian Heresie beginning then to be somewhat nume­rous. Nor did those Monarchs thinke themselves in a worse condition for this Ordination. Moreover we never heard that any Catholique King since ever did Protest, or exclaim against the Councel; which doubtless they would have done, had they been in any dangerby it. On the cōtrary we know, that Mariana (as the Mi­nister confesses) was condemned, for barely in­clining to the opinion of thus deposing Kings; which judgmēt could not have pass'd aga­inst him, had this been by any Councel ad­judged an Article of Faith. 'Twere a mor­tal sin in me, and I should presently incur all Ecclesiastical censure, if I did deny Tran­substantiation, by reason it is an Article of Faith, and so declared by this very Lateran Councel: but as for the absolute powre of deposing Kings, it is held by severall as a meere opiniō, and opposed by many as fals, nor wil Divines say, they are the worse Ca­tholicks for it. Certāly it were not unlawful, [Page 78] if the Princes and States (that own themsel­ves Christians) should now in an Assem­bly agree (by reason they saw Judaism or Turcism encreasing) that every one of them must do what he could to hinder this growth, and in case any was found favou­ring it, his Dominions should be given to another. This, I say, without doubt is lawful; and though it were not made to bind our Posterity, yet it might be hoped that the zeal of so sacred an Assembly would make Governours hereafter dili­gent to weed out all Infidelity.

What therefore was here ordered, was to oblige the Kings, who by compact ack­nowledg'd the procedure; and 'twas also imagined, that succeeding Catholique Princes would be more careful to keep their people from error, when they should call to mind that this was agreed to in a Councel where the East and West met, ( Matt. Paris p. 262. for the Patriarch's of Constantinople and Hierusalem were present, Antioch and Ale­xandria sent deputies) and which consisted of 77. Primates, 412. Bishops, and above 800. Abbots and Priors; besides the Embassadors of so many Monarchs; all which put to­gether, [Page 79] makes this to be the greatest Coun­cel that ever was. Much more could I say concerning this Councel, and many other considerations (for brevities sake) I am forced to pass by.

But Pray, Reader, before I end, let me mind you of this, That the Popes never give away (as men call it) a Kingdom from a Prince simply Heretical, but from one that is an Apostate, and so revolted from the Church. For we see that Hen. 8. was condemned, yet nothing was done to his Son Edw. 6. And again, though Queen Elizabeth, (who went to Mass in Queen Maries time, and also had actually owned the Pope, by keeping her Embassadour in the beginning at Rome) was deprived of So­veraignty by the Bull of Pius Quintus; yet no censure past against King James, K. Charles the first, or this present Monarch: and the reason is, because they always pro­fessed themselves Protestants, and never acknowledged his Holiness as their Bishop and Pastor. Therefore Protestāt Magistrates have no reasō to fear either Pope or Papists.

The Answerer having urged this Coun­cel, to vilisie it the more, tells us, 'twas [Page 80] Innocent the III. who there presided, that deposed our K. John, and Otho IV.: and then runs extravaganly to a forraign thing, in hopes to make it more disgust­ful, viz. that this Councel which made Re­bellion a duty, made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith.

Concerning King John, I have told you before, that Popes as private Doctors may err, nay it is not certaine, that without a Councel they are infallible even in their interpretations of faith; much more ther­fore they are liable to err in their actions. Neither doe I canonize or approve what­soever Popes have done in deposing Kings. And if some Popes have transgress'd, it follows not that all have, no more then because some Princes have been Tyrants, their Predecessors and Successors must be so too. Differences between Kings and Po­pes, I consider as between Man and Wife▪ for in all Quarrels the right can be but on one side; yet it happens through humane imbecility, and revenge, that the most in­jured often commits some absurdity or o­ther, by which the Peccant party may gain a very seeming advātage. No brave English [Page 81] King needed to have more feared Popes, then they needed to have feared their other gaping Neighbours. This Prince, Pro­testant Historians conclude to be the least deserving of all our Governours; for (pas­sing by his Mar­tin Hen. 2. p. 3 [...] Ric. 1. p. youthful Rebellion, the Heyl. p. 89. Dan. 110 Murthe­ring of his Nephew, his Baker. Atheism, &c. which they record) 'tis he that lost our whole interest (either by Conquest or Matches) in Heyl. pag. 97. France, and discontenting all his People, never obliged any body that I heard of, unless the Mayor and Cor­poration of He ga­ve them a Svvord & Cup vvhich they keep still. Lynne. This yet is no excuse to the Pope, but shews only the unhappiness of the Nation, that it had not a more gene­rous Prince (for S ^r. Rob: Cotton Vid. his Hen. 3. pag. 1. call's him a licentious soueraigne) to defend our Rights and Priviledges.

Now for Transubstantiation, it is true that in this Councel the word was first made Authoritatively use of, as in the Councel of Nice, the word Trinity; but the sence and meaning of both Trinity and Transubstan­tiation was in the Scripture, and held from age to age: Nay, the word Transubstantia­tion it self was used by Hovē ­den. p. 576. Ble­sensis Chap­lain to Hen. 2. Ep. 140. grave Authors in Writings before.

[Page 82] Object. 2. Concerning the Decrees and Bulls of Popes, he says, that from Gregory VII, they made such a trade of deposing Kings, that no weak King could wear his Crown, but at the Popes curtesie; and that Boniface VIII. declares in these words▪ We say, and define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary to salvation for every crea­ture to be subject to the Bishop of Rome.

To this I answer, that in the next Cen­tury (or a little more) after K. John, the­re were more weak Kings in England then eiher before or since, viz. Hen. 3. Edw. 2. Ric. and yet the Popes did not offer to take away their Crowns, or ever stirred to per­plex them, though their wicked Subjects gave the Pope opportunity enough. Nay, though Hen. 3. denied any acknowledgment upon the gift of King John, yet the Pope assi­sted him against the Rebellious Barons. And for the composition of Edward the Seconds troubles, his Holiness sent him two Dan. Ed. [...]. p. 175. Cardinals, but the Rebels would not accept of their Mediation, as knowing them too much of the Kings Party. Besides, I told you again and again, that the Popes Decrees and Bulls are not alwayes held infallible: and [Page 83] may be opposed, as they often have been by stiff and Religious Papists; nor will good Catholiques scruple to do it, espe­cially about Temporal affairs. And if Po­pes should speak in such a Dialect (as the Minister urges) they mean subjection in Spiritual matters.

3. Object. Among the Divines that a­gree to the deposing of Kings, he men­tions some Jesuites, as Bellarmine, Suarez, Valentia, Parsons or Creswel; Mariana also he names, though he confesses him cō ­demned. Out of these he cites several pla­ces to this purpose viz. As Jehojada depo­sed Athaliah, so may Popes deal with Kings.

To this I say, Let the Jesuites answer for their own Doctrine, for I am sure they are of age, and able also; neither did they ever tell me otherwise, but that I might reject such and the like opinions, they be­ing only the private fancies of some of their Order. It has never been my study to pore upon Schoolmen, nor is it worth my pains now to search Libraries, whether they have said so or no; which truly I do very much doubt of. For my part, I can­not think Jesuites such King-haters, becau­se [Page 84] Kings would then hate them; when as on the contrary we see all Princes caress them, and make them their Confessors. At this time the Jesuites are in this Office to the Emperor, the Queen of England, the King of France, the Queen Regent of Spain, the King of Poland, and as I take it, to the now King of Portugal; for they belonged thus to the late old King and Queen of that King­dom: the Dukes of Bavary, Newburgh, and many other great Princes of Germany are also their Penitents; all which considered, I must look upon Jesuites in general to be faithfuller Subjects then Protestants ima­gine; for Kings though Papists are not al­ways fools. But, suppose Jesuites were Villains; what is that to the Catholick Faith? must Cambridge be Babylon, and the English Religion false, because the Mē ­bers of one Colledge (suppose Emanuel) were thought knaves and hypocrites?

The other Divines and Canonists whom the Minister urges, are Baronius, Bertrand; Lancelotus, Peron, Rossaeus, who say (ac­cording to his citations) things to the sa­me purpose about deposing of Kings.

All this put together, Reader, is the force of his Argument. The Objection ab­out [Page 85] Councels and Bulls, you see is no­thing; about Divines I have already gi­ven you a touch, but now I will handle it a little fuller. You must know (the Soul of man being so sublime and towring) there is no profession in the world, but that the wits of it aim to resolve all diffi­culties that can be proposed in the Science. This makes Philosophers Metaphysicians, and Schoolmen run into those seeming odd subtleties, with which their writings are cram'd. In the like manner Casuists (thinking it a disgrace not to be able to answer something to whatever can be pro­posed) treat in their Books about all Cases which their nimble fancies can start. Among many impertinent niceties and curious Questions, this of deposing Apostatizing Princes comes to be handled; some perchance are for it others in may be against it. Now▪ because some have adjud­ged, That upon a notorious falling away, the Church may give to the sound the Dominions of the infected sheep, lest the whole slock might be tainted: immediately the Minister and other Protestants declare, that the dethro­ning of Kings is the Catholique Doctrine.

[Page 86]I am sure this was not so absolutely a­greed to by the English Protestāts themsel­ves (at least in discourse) that there could be none found among them, who have favoured the opinion which we are said to hold: how many well-meaning men fou­ght against Charles the I, only because they falsely thought him a Papist? and I my self have heard those of condition say, when the King was abroad, that should the Pope and his crew peruert him, they would oppose his return. There was no danger of this, becau­se his Majesty (like his Father and Grād­father) has so great a veneration for Pro­testantism; but yet this that I urge was frequently spoke of and no body that reads this, but has heard such discourses often▪ What has been done about Religion in this our Country, I shall tell you Vid. [...]ep. 12. hereafter; and at present I shall shew you that we Papists are not the only Rebel-teachers, but that there are Reformists that profess this Divinity also.

Loc. Com. [...] 57. Luther says, You complain that by our Gospel the World is become tumultous. I ans­wer, God be thanked; these things I would have be, and wo me miserable, if they were not.

[Page 87] Epist. l 4. p. 866. Zwinglius. If the Roman Empire, or what other Soveraignty soever, should oppress the sincere Religion, and we negligently suffer the same, we shall be charged with contempt no less then the oppressors themselves; whereof we have an example in 15. Jer. where the destruction of the people is Prophesied, because they suffered their K. Manasses, being ungod­ly, to be unpunisht.

In Da­niel. C. 6. v. 22. Calvin. Earthly Princes do hereave them­selves of Authority when they erect themsel­ves against God: yea, they are unworthy to be accounted in the number of men, therefore we must rather spit in their faces then obey them,

Passing by what Ʋid al­so [...]rimst. Hist▪ of▪ France. Beza did in France (Davila often mentions.) He writ a Book of the Power of Magistrates, which Mr. Sutcliffe confesses, armed Subjects against their Prince.

Bancr▪ Dange­rous Posi­tions▪ p. 34. Sundry Englishmen writ wholly of this Argument: That the Councellors, and rather then fail, the very people were bound to reform Religion whether the Queen would or no, though it were by putting her to death.

I shall trouble you, Reader, with no more Citations (of which our Books are full) for I content my self with naming [Page 88] these of the greatest eminency: and cer­tainly the opinions of these Doctors may be more justly charged upon Protestants in general, then the opinions of private Catholicks upon us; because Luther, Zwinglius, Calvin and Beza were the first Reformers: and if the Spirit of God taught them so much truth; as they are said to pre­ach, why should this be more questionable then the rest? Therefore the Pope being Pharaoh, and Popery Egypt (as Ministers daily affirm in their Pulpits) we may well say, These are thy Gods, O Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt.

These Apostles rested not in the Theo­ry, but fell to the Practice also: for whe­reas the Popes since the first rise of the Re­formation, never gave away (evenby word) but two Crowns, viz. England and France; the Reformed have actually deposed the absolute Princes of Scotland, Denmark, Swedeland and Geneva; have ra­visht also from their lawful Governours, the Low-Countreys, Transylvania, and ma­ny Towns, which are now called Free. And for Rebellion and Tumults, they have been eminent in Poland, Boheme, [Page 89] Hungary, France, Germany? and in short, in all places where this Gospel has been preacht. This every Historian can tell you; nay, blind Mr. Heylin plainly saw it, therefore did all he could (when these Countries in his Geography were to be handled) to purge the Reformed from the Rebellion truly laid to their charge: but finding that washing a Blackmore was la­bour in vain, he was forced (with his Bro­ther Sleidan) to fly for shelter to this abo­minable and prodigious Argument, Heyl. p. 314. viz. That Christ foretold, that Fathers should be against their sons, and brothers against bro­thers for his sake; and that we find not in any Story, the true Religion was induc'd, or cor­rupt about to be amended without War and Bloodshed.

It is true, the lawful Protestant Church of England teaches no such Doctrine; but this I do not much wonder at, for why should men (the King being so absolute in Spirituals) run the risk to be undone for venting such notions, when as their Mo­narchs have been so strict Professors of the­ir Religion? The test of this would be, if the Prince and people were different, or [Page 90] like to be so in Faith and Worship. [...] what the English have done herein wh [...] this has happened, I will shew you, [...] said, Vid. [...]. [...]. 22. by and by.

For my part, I look upon the English to be the most well-meaning and most Re­ligious people in the World; and it is that▪ which makes them all so violent in what their Conscience tells them is true. This made Papists so earnest for their Religion, which had governed England so long in glory. This made Protestants fierce to root out what they thought Idolatry. This ma­de Presbyterians desire to have Prelatick Superstition reformed; and this made Inde­pendents and their brood cry down every thing, standing stiffly (as they imagined) for the Kingdom of Iesus Christ. I say, this great sincerity and zeal, makes all our Countrymen so violent: which good in­tention, wicked people taking advantage of, have caused so many disturbances among us; nor can Sectaries ever be quiet, till they are convinc'd that some Church or other is infallible.

Thus, Reader, have I answered to this strange Calumny against us, That our [Page 91] Principles are inconsistent with Goven­ment; by shewing that deposing of Kings is no part of the Catholick Faith (which Catholique Princes do very well know) and also, that in Doctrine and Practice, the Reformed have been (wheresoever they came) far more faulty then we.

REPLY VII.

Now I plainly see the design of this Minister is (to the end his flock may belie­ve every thing answered) to say something to each Paragragh, let it be never so fri­volous. Who is it, Reader, that having read History is ignorant of the great power the Bishop of Rome had over the East, as the Greek Fathers tell us? for wee read in Eusebius that Pope Victor (about anno a Euseb lib. 5. Ch. [...]4. 200.) Excomunicated the Eastern Church for not keeping Easter the Roman way. and this Grimston also has in his account of Popes. Or who knows not of the Appeals from Africk, when matters of moment arose, even in the most acknowledged Primitive times? But I ask your pardon for asserting this, because in the Primitive times, they say, the Popes themselves were Protestants. Yet though this were so, I wonder the Mi­nister should be so forgetful of the Great Antichrist Boniface the III, who is baited by every Shoolboy. This arrant Pope li­ved [Page 93] above Ann [...] 604. 1000. years aago, and not on­ly called himself Universal Bishop, but was owned so too by Phocas the Universal Emperor as all Protestants declare. Might not then a man modestly say, that Popery governed the civilized World, when it governed the whole World? But I▪ d of wil­lingly forgive a man this, that has the con­fidence to say that we did not govern the Western World, till it grew ignorant and barbarous. It may be he means that those Parts have been so ever since Christs time, otherwise (till this late Reformation) the­re was never any Government on this si­de Greece, that denied the Popes Jurisdic­tion; and Greece it self owned it in the Councel of Lateran, and in Hen. 3. time al­so, as Protestant p. 130. Sir Richard Baker testi­fies.

Ever since Rome made het self Mistress of all Arts and Sciences, the West took the name of the only civilized place: There­fore had he understood civility, he would not have made so simple a cavil; and I dare say, he is the first Protestāt Writer (though they have been as bold as Hectors in their denials) that has affirmed the Church of Ro­me [Page 94] never governed the civilized World.

But since this Minister mentions here Popish ignorance, I must desire the Reader, if he knows any of our Profession in the Country, to tell me, whether generally speaking, they are not esteemed more lear­ned then their Neighbours of the same rank and degree. I am sure they that live at London, are thought by their Protestant Acquaintance as well bred, and as greate scholars as any of their condition with whom they usually converse. Concerning our Priests, consult their Books, and tell me then, whether they have been out done or no: and if any English man would know how they are abroad, let them go but to his next Neighbours the French, and there in every Diocess, he shall find a Cler­gy not only learned to admiration, but so far outgoing the Hugonot-Ministers, that one would think they lived not in the sa­me Clime or Region. Nay, what is yet mo­re, there is neither private nor publick Li­brary in this very Island, but seven of ten of the choice Books in all Sciences were writ by Catholicks.

Is not this, Good Reader, strange igno­rance, [Page 95] for Protestants to be thus deceived, and implicitly led on by their Pastors con­trary to what they hear and see? This, I must say, is incredible blindness, and ex­ceeds that of the silliest Papists, who if they are cozened, it must be in things beyond their capacity, or by distance far remote from them. But now in England nothing is more common, then to have wise Pro­testants run into this and the like fond fan­cies; and at last when they can say no mo­re, they are fain to shift it off with this Phanatical evasion, That it is true, Papists are carnally, but not spiritually learned.

REPLY. 8.

Certainly, Reader, the Minister is besi­des [Page 97] himself, since he can say the English dif­fered not so much from the Protestants then▪ as we do now. Has the man railed all this while against the Tyranny of Popes, and ur­ged those times as the height of their Autho­rity; and then comes to this evasion? I would fain know, if the Clergy and Religious were since ever more in power then in those days? was there ever more of Pilgrimages and all sorts of Devotion, which Protestants call Su­perstitious? were not Schoolmen then most in their splendor? And lastly, could any Publi­can Lollard, Wickliffian, or new Sect stir, but the whole Kingdom presently detested them? Who then will ever believe a word more he says, when he is so strangely impu­dent to no purpose? But these are the worthy tricks used to keep the poor people in igno­rance; and just with as▪ much truth are the Fathers called defenders of the Protestant Religion: for the Fathers stiled them always Hereticks that ran out of the visible Church.

For the Laws that have been made by any of our Kings if they made any against Eccle­siastical usurpations, God reward them; and to this all Catholicks will say, Amen. Con­cerning K. John we have already spoke en­ough. And for the Popes claim to Scotland, [Page 98] judge, Reader, whether any man can be ful­ler of falsity and malice then this Minister, my Adversary. For here he would have the World think (by his placing this Accusation after King Johns business, and by calling it the Popes wrestling with Edward I. for the Soveraignty of Scotland) there was some notorious injustice done by the Sea of Rome. In short, the business was only this, as you may find in Hollingshead, the most vio­lent English Historian against Papists that ever yet writ. The Scots having always an animosity against the English, and not knowing how to resist the Victo­rious Arms of Edward, who was again coming with a great Army against them, surrendred the Kingdom, (or so pretended) to Boniface. 8. He thereupon sent to the King to desist, because the Crown belon­ged to the Church. Edward immediately re­turned an Answer, and so did all the Barons of England, to manifest the Kings right, and the invalidity of the new pretence. The Po­pe (says Hol. p. 311. Hollingshead) when he deliberately pondered the Kings Answer, with the Letter from the English Barons, waxt cold in the matter, and followed it no farther. Thus, Reader, you see how the case stood, and how [Page 99] Catholiques are wronged by ill men; nor is there any difference between a false aggra­vation, and a downright lye. In the same manner are we used in this Accusation of Ireland; for the Pope never medled with Ire­land but since the Reformation, and so in­vaded it in the time of Queen Elizabeth, of which you shall see farther in the Ʋid. Rep. 22 Section of Popish misdemeanors in her Reign.

The parity between S. Th. Becket and Oldcastle is doubtless very odd; the last being a Rebel (with Complices in arms) against Stovv. p. 561. Henry the fifth: the other disputing only about Priviledges, which he said were grā ­ted to Priests. Just as if our Peers should stād upon the freedome of their Persons, were there a design to have them imprisoned as other Subjects, or tried by a common Jury. Besides, all Princes of Christendome then, owned Becket for a Saint; when as no body (unless such a man as Fox) thought Oldcast­le deserved any thing but the Gallows.

REPLY IX.

I shewed you before in the sixth Reply, that though the Reformed have actually ta­ken away from their lawful Governours so many Dominions, yet the Pope never gave away but England and France which nevert­heless are still under their proper Soveraigns. Consider then, whether (since the light of the Gospel appeared) the Protestant or Popish manner of dealing has be­en most destructive to Princes: and judge if this be an Answer to my demand, which was, Whether France acknowledging the Pope, be not as absolute as Sweden or Den­mark that are Protestants? If so, it follows then, that Popery does not enslave a King. [Page 101] We are beholden to the Minister, for con­fessing the King of France is of the same Religion with the Pope: for I have heard some in England say, he was a Protestant. Thanks be to God, there is no danger of a breach between Rome and France in matters of Faith; for (as the very Gazets told us An. 1664) when the French Army was in Italy, The King (having owned the con­demnation of Jansenius) even then sent to the Pope to prosecute the Jansenists in France. Henry the Eighth will be a warning to his Neighbours for revolting hereafter from the Church; for instead of a little Eccle­siastical dependence on the Sea of Rome, he has embroiled England in perpetual confu­sion about Religion; millions of Sects daily dividing and subdividing, each of which pretend they are in the right, and each quo­te Scripture for their Opinions.

And by the way, Reader, be pleased to remember, that had not this King of ours destroyed Religious Houses, all the truly devout Sectaries at present would have vo­luntarily been cloister'd there, who now distract both the Kingdom & themselves; for having no quiet place to vent that zeal which boyls within, they become a prey to [Page 102] a few wicked men, that blow up their well­meaning Piety into disorders and sedition. Nay, many of the discontented Factious▪ themselves, who now lie open to the sway and hurry of their own passions, would have been glad of such a retreat, honorable to all, even from the Monarch to the Pesant. The­refore I see now why Sp. pag. 28. Speed a Protestant (when he made an end of his Catalogue of the destroyed Abbies) spoke in this man­ner: We have laid to your view a great part of King Henry's ill, the waste of so much of Gods revenue, however abused, But Cambden is yet more tart, for he Cam. Brit p. [...]63. A. says That many Reli­gious places, Monuments of our Forefathers Piety and Devotion, to the honour of God, and Propagation of Christian faith, &c. were in a moment prophaned, Cam. Brit. [...]63. D. and the Riches disperst▪ which had been consecrated to God since the En­glish Nation first profest Christianity.

REPLY. V 10.

To this I reply, That the Spaniard being now in actual possession, can as well defend these places (were he a Protestant) as Mil­lan, Flanders, &c. which are not the Popes gift; or as well as other Reformed Princes have done their Countries. And for the Sub­jects being Papists, that is nothing, For all subjects before Luthers time were Papists also. The Minister therefore grants me here all that from the first I desired. For if our for­mer Kings were considerable abroad, and as safe at home, as since the change of Religion: If the King of France be as absolute as Den­marck or Sweden; and if the House of Austria cannot better secure the fidelity of their Sub­jects by becoming Protestants, then by con­tinuing Papists: I say, it must necessarily follow, That Kings and Kingdoms by be­ing [Page 104] Papists are not less absolute then if Re­formed: and by the same Consequence, their Subjects not one whit faithfuller to their Lords by being Protestants, then if they we­re Papists. Tell me then, where is the Temporal advantage of Reformation? and whether our Answerer has not bauld long in vain; since he now by this grants me, that Kings may be absolute, and Subjects faithful under Popery: and yet lately he affirmed, That Popery is inconsistent with Government, by reason of Princes depen­dence on the Pope in Ecclesiastical matters; and that all Papists are prone to Rebellion, by the Determination of our Councels, Bulls and Divines.

But the Minister says, What is all this to England, where Prince and people are Pro­testants? I answer, 'tis thus much to En­gland, That now it is plain, 'tis an errour that Popery is inconsistent with Govern­ment; and it also shews that Princes get no power (in the long-run) by reforming, but on the contrary, perpetual disorders follow. How dangerous we have been to our Pro­testant Princes, shall be discust in the Re­flexion on the Popish Rep. 2 [...]. & Rep. 28 misdemeanours in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King Ja­mes: [Page 105] But how faithful and serviceable we were to King Charles the First and Second, all Europe has sufficiently declared in our be­halves.

REPLY 11.

What a Volume might there be here writ, if every matter mentioned were to be fully discust? But these are the artifices of [Page 106] the Brethren, that when they know not what to say, run to another thing, in hopes to puzzle an ordinary Reader, who cannot imagine (hearing so great a buzze) but that there must be something at least of real.

My assertion in the Apology was, That our former English Papists never did such villanies as have been committed since the Reformation. To this he answers nothing, but impertinently runs to the private Mur­thers of some of our Kings. Is this proportio­nable, Good Reader? Who knows not that the Murtherers of Ed. 2. Ric. 2. and Hen. 6. were so conscious of their wickedness, that all was done in the dark; nor would they ever own otherwise then that they dyed wit­hout violence. For twas given out that the death of the first of these Princes came by ex­treame Dan. Ed. 3. p. 183. Griefe. That the other Buck Ric. 3. p 150. Starved him­selfe, and that the last died of a Naturall Buck. p 81. sicknesse But the execution of the Queen of Scots was bare-fac'd in the sight of the World, and which was more, under the cloak of Law. My Lord of Leicester was sen­sible of the dishonour that would accrew to the Nation, and therefore sent Walsin­hham An. 1585. Cam. p. 41 [...]. a godly Divine to satisfie his conscien­ce, that it was lawful to poyson her; but [Page] the Minister could no more convince his penitent, then the Saints could Harrison a­bout the clandestine Murther of the Grand­child. And doubtless the whole intrigue against. Q. Mary gave precedent and bol­dness to our execrable Parricides, openly to do their detestable villany in a formal me­thod and manner.

This procedure against the Queen, con­trary, as 'twas imagined, to the Law of Nations (she being both a Guest and an ab­solute Princess) drew an universal odium upon the Kingdom, Hist. Mem. 2 Eliz. p. 21. for the Reproach was entailed on the whole nation by the apparition of a mimicall and Counterfeit justice, as Osborne call's it: nor did any Englishman, either Papist or Protestant ever misse to be upbrai­ded with it abroad; till the greatness of the abomination against King Charles made them leave off a little speaking of the first, to remember us more piquantly of the last.

Is it to excuse the two unheard of [...] that he tell; me of four or five Kings since the Conquest made away by Papists? It may be it is that I should again retort, that (since Hen. 8. Reign) there were but ^b Ed. 6. Eliz. & Iam. & Char. [...]. four Protes­testant Monarchs, and three of them were said to come to violent deaths. But what is Ra­villac's [Page 108] murther of Hen. 4. to us in England, more then to Saxony, the poysoning of Edw. 6. by the Lord Robert Dudly, for so P. 444 vid. also Buck. R 3. p. 123. Sir Ri­chard Baker conceives he hid. I know Cle­ment the Frier destroyed Hen 3. so did Ju­das his Master; and yet neither the Disci­ples, nor Christian Religion were ever thought the worse for it.

For the Murther of the Protestants in Irelād I shew'd you in the Rep. 1 beginning, how we de­tested it. Cōcerning the Blood spilt in Frāce, I shall speak at large in the Paragraph about that Rep. 18 Massacre. But I wonder the Piemōthusiness should be unged by Royallist; for I remēber when Crōwel made a Collectiō for thē in pre­tence, but for himself in reality, the Cavaliers ever stiled them Rebels, and said, the Duke of Sa­voy was necessitated for his quiet to subdue them thus by Arms. Yet for all their hard usage, I wish we had as much freedome as they.

Now for Queen Maries Reign, which this man so often calls the Bloody days, I will here speak a little, eternally to stop his mouth hereafter. First, Bish. Good­vvin, Baker, Speed, &c. Reformed Historians agree, that the Queen her self was a marveillous good woman, therefore it was not she, but her Bishops that were cruel. Again, every En­glishman knows, that no man can be put to [Page 109] death amongst us without Law; therefore they were not the Bishops, but the Laws that were cruel: which Laws still continue, and have been made use of since the Reforma­tion by Q. Elez. & K. [...]ames to burne Hereticks.

Yet for all these Laws there died of Pro­testants in the whole, but Baker Q. M. p. 467. 277. as Baker and Speed, Q. M. p. 8 [...]2. other Protestant Writers record. Besi­des, were these 277. now alive, 200. at least, in stead of pity, would be thrown in­to prison, and there rot for Non-conformists: but all things were called Saints in the da­wning of the light even so much as Collins and his dog for Fox in his Act's, and Monu­ments say's that Collins beeing mad, and see­ing a Priest hold up the Host to the people, tooke a dog and held it up, as the Priest did the Host, for wch he and the dog were Anno 15 [...]8. burnt. Yet though this Collins be own'd by Fox to be mad, never the less he places him as a Mar­tyr on the 10. of Octob. as may be seen in his Calendar.

In the next place, let me know whether a man may be executed for this Tenets in Re­ligion, or no? If it be lawful, why might not Papists put to death men (who they thought deserved it) as well as Protestants? If no man ought to suffer for his Conscience, [Page 110] why did Stovv in the several Regin [...] of these tvvo Princes Edward 6. and Q. Eliz. condemn so many Hereticks in their time? all which were executed, but some few that recanted▪ and so saved their lives. Or why did K. Ja­mes put to death Baker [...]. 1. p. 611. Legat and Wightman, but because he religiously thought it was unfit they should longer live to blaspheme?

Over and above these (that died for a Religion of their own making) I saw a Roll at Doway, wherein to the year 1632. there suffered out of that one House 105. Priests; since which there died many out of the sa­me Colledge. Add to these many out of the Portugal, Spanish, and Roman Seminaries, ma­ny of other Orders, and many Laymen also, who have been executed for owning the Po­pe in Spirituals, or for having a Priest say Mass in their Houses according to the obliga­tion of their Consciences. If these were then all numbred, I am sure, there suffered ma­ny more Catholicks (omitting the innume­rable Confiscations) by the Protestant Go­vernment, then ever there did Protestants by the Catholick. Nay, if together with Catholicks I should reckon all sorts of people that died for their Conscience though enemyes to Popery (which may be found in Fox, Stow and others in the Reignes of Hen. 8. Ed. 6. [Page 111] and Queen Elizabeth) it is evident, there has been more Blood spilt on a Religious ac­count under our Princes that disowned the Pope, then by the Papists from St. Augustins Conversion to Luthers time. Iudge then, if Catholicks be so bloody as they are reported and thought.

REPLY XII.

Nay, now I have quite geven over my Minister; for though he had no regard of himself me thinks he might have had more respect for our King, then to parallel his Grand-mother with Wallis. You must know Reader that Edward the First by his valour conquered Scotland, and made all the No­bles swear Fealty to him. About Ann. 1300. (when all things were thus at quiet) up starts Wallis Dan. Ed. 1. p. 166. a poore private Gentlemen, who though he had distressed the English a whi­le, yet never so much as once pretended to the Crown, either by Sword, or Birth. Af­terwards he was taken by our King, and Dan. p. 168. exe­cuted for his Insurrections. Is this man then a fit parallel with Mary Stuart, owned not only as Queen of Scots abroad, but by Queen Elizabeth her self also, who often sent and received Embassadors from her, with the [Page 113] same state, as was used to the King of Fran­ce, or any other Potentate? What King Ia­mes and King Charles thought of the action, I know not; but I wish it had never been done.

Concerning the other part of his Answer: First, I did never charge the Kings Mur­ther on any body, but those that were the Authors of it; he knows best whether he was one of them or no: this I am sure of, he can falsifie, and (to use Harrisons words) blac­ken as well as the best of them, as you may see all a long, and especially in the next Se­ction.

Secondly, I do verily believe that King Charles died a sincere Protestant. And lastly, I am so far from laying any crime upon the Cavalier Protestants, that I think them as bra­ve and as worthy Gentlemen, as any Nation bears. But this I must say, that the English Church (though of an honest intention) is built upon such Principles, that as long as it lasts, it will hatch a dissenting brood: and these graceless Children, upon every advan­tage will be ready to Rebel. This is then the benefit entailed by Hen. 8. Reformation; which has (as Bak p 390. Baker confesses) so shaken the Church that it has stood indistraction ever since.

REPLY XIII.

Lord, what blasphemies are here! and what a heap of unsorted falsities are put to­gether, without any probability or proof! Because Richelieu a great Minister of State (who intrigued in every Nation▪) is sup­posed to have dealt with the Presbyterians of Scotland, the Papists of England were the cause of the Rebellion. This is rare Logick, especially every body knowing that fire and water agreed better then those Saints and we. I wonder the Papists were not guilty of the dangerous commotion anno 1666 in that Kingdom. But this is so ridiculous, that I should be more abominable then he, if I made more words of it; Nor does that great An­ti-Papist H. L. in his P. [...]6 Reigne of Ch. 1. scruple to write, that the Liturgy (or Common Prayer) was the Originall of the Scotch troubles.

In the next place if the flame break out in Ireland, (which Heath a Protestant histo­rian Heath pag. 36. sayes can be noe where more imputable then to the Parliament's unwarantable procee­dure against my Lord Strafford) we in England are again the cause of it; so that if forraign Catholicks, or forraign Protestants Rebel, still we must be the Authors, that never [Page 116] had any correspondence with either of these Nations, nor have to this day, as all the World sees. Well then may this man falsely charge the Pope who is remote, when he dares say thus of us who can so easily con­tradict his calumnies.

Lastly, for England, he urges we were the occasion of jealousies, and they made the War. O ridiculous impudence! If the ma­jority of both Houses conspire against the King, suggest in open Debates fears of their own hatching, and at the same time with all violence persecute Papists, yet we are to be blamed, and causers of the Com­motions. Certainly, this is like him that cursed the Lord Chancellour, because his horse stumbled. I am sure many grave men of your Coat (Mr. Parson) ingenuously confest, that it was the Translation of the Bible, or the too frequent reading of it by the ignorant (which is a consequent of the Translation) that caused our disorders.

Consider now, Reader, this strange man: for if his malice had not exceeded all bo­unds, he would have told you, That the Non-conformists took root assoon as the Re­formation: That Queen Elizabeths pruden­ce kept them a little down: That in King [Page 117] James his Reign they grew much stronger; and that great Statesmen have often blamed that wise Prince, because (to keep things quiet in his Reign) he occasioned the Tide to rush in with such irresistable force in our late unhappy times. Thus was this storm by knowing Pilots foreseen long ago.

But would not a man now think this Minister had abused us sufficiently? No, he must yet go farther, even The Kings death was agreed to in the Councels of our Clergy. Doubtelss he cannot mean our Priests by the word, for what did their agreeing sig­nifie more, then if the Mayor of Quinborough and his Brethren agreed, that the Janizaries should strangle the Grand Seignior? Had our Priests any power in England? Were they not forced to skulk always in holes, and hanged as often as taken? I am sure Iesuites, Seculars, and Friers were executed, no Or­der escaping, al being fish that came to net. But now I remember my self, Mr. Parson pretends to be skilled in Rhetorick, and per­chance he uses a Trope of his own making; that is, That because two Negatives make an affirmative, or a thing contrary to them­selves; therefore his four falsities in this one Section, shall dubb an irrefragable truth [Page 118] opposite to each single assertion. The Mini­sters meaning then it seems is this, That in stead of our being false to the State, We ha­ve been most intirely faithful to our King and Country.

Good Reader, I must ask you pardon, for saying any thing against these vain and groundless cavils; seeing the whole World knows, that never were men more earnest­ly Loyal then we. Beware therefore of this man, for it was he, or some of the like Prin­ciples, that (out of malice against the late King) wickedly▪ divulged, That his Ma­jesty had underhand caused the Irish Rebellion: that he had a mind to bring in Popery, and to enslave the Nation, had sent for an Outlan­dish Guard. Thus cried the English Rebels against their glorious Prince; and thus now invents this Minister Stories, to mischief, if he can, his innocent fellow-Subjects and Country-men. And who can be guiltless, if assertions without any shadow of proof shall be received against him?

REPLY XIV.

What is the meaning of this distinction, That many of my Church were not of my Party? Have we not been all of the same Party, or can there he named a Papist that was not for the King, even in te worst of times? But, Good Mr. Parson, have you all this while cut our throats, and do you now come with your insignificant flatteries, that there were some eminent among us for Loyalty? I fear not the worst you can say, and for the best I scorn it. Did I ever say otherwise, then that the Protestants were to be honoured for their wonderful service to the King? Was not the Apology directed to them? and have I not always declared, that his Majesty ows as much to them, as ever Prince can owe to Subjects? Certainly, 'tis no lessning of their worth, because we did [Page 121] our endeavours, and have been fellow-sufferers with them in that Glorious Quar­rel. I never prest in the Apology to have any particular body exempted: We only say there, Little did we once think that the ne­cessity of affairs would occasion the Royal Party to advise the punishment of us all, and in the crowd those worthy Preservers of the King at Worcester. Yet, Sir (with your per­mission) it were not so unreasonable neither, as you would have it, for the service of so­me few to suspend the Laws against a Party. You have read, I know, the Scripture, and therefore may remember Mordecay's case, who by saving the Kings life, not only preser­ved himself and his Nation from Ruine, but obtained also honour and freedom for them all. But what do you drive at by Throgmortons usage? Will you never leave perverting History, or at best betraying your own ig­norance? First, you must know, Reader, that Throgmorton by none of our Historians is mē ­tioned to have done any service for Queen Mary; Yet Reign Q. M. p. 1104. Hollins head has his trial at lar­ge (which John Lilburn afterwards copied out to the life) where no evasion is omitted; and certainly it had been then a fit time to urge merits, had he had any.

[Page 122]But suppose he was as eminent and faith­ful as Bedin field, Jerningham, &c. Must that excuse a man from being fairly tried for Treason? This Sir Nicholas Throgmorton (you must know) with others, was accu­sed as a Speed, Q. M. p. 847. Stovv. Q. M. 1055. Conspirator with Wyat, for which he had a Tryal and was acquitted by his Jury. Why, distempered Sir, 'tis so far from our business, that we do earnestly desire in the Apology (upon the least offence against the State) the Transgressour may die without mercy; and this I'le be bound Col. Carlos and the rest of those brave men shall willingly subscribe. But will you, worthy Country­man (that know his Majesties thoughts so well) engage that none of the factious shall murmure at him for rewarding those that have done well?

Now for the stigmatized, I find, Mr. Parson, you pretend to be very well acqua­inted with their actions: If they have done any thing (which God knows is little, and not to the hundreth part of their transgres­sion) let them thank God for the grace he has given them to do the King at length service: but I am sure if they really meant well, they would never promote the harassing of a faithful Party, till they found them ma­chinating [Page 123] against their Prince. I have no particular spleen to any man, yet can­not look on those men, as either of wit or honesty, who needlesly disoblige, and who strive with violence to have Christians persecuted for Religion; when as they themsel­ves are the first that rail against all mankind, if their own Consciences be toucht, though it be by the establisht Laws of the Nation.

REPLY 15.

Good, Mr. Parson, speak truth, and you will shame no body but your self: have you bespattered us all this while with falsities; and will you now do it farther by your Pe­dantick Rhetorick? Pray, Reader, to speak moderately, is not this man the archest wrangler that ever was? for if he dares di­sown a thing which all men know, how will he then cavil, do you think, at what is known but only to the Wise? was ever any thing so evident, as that the Rebels deemed all Papists Cavaliers, and all Cavaliers Papists? I do not infer that therefore all Cavaliers were Papists, only, I say, they were gene­rally so called; nor is any body ignorant, that the reason was, to make them more ha­ted by the people, as this Minister by his false glosses would at this instant serve us.

Concerning our frankness to serve the King, it is so fully treated in the Preface, that no truth was ever more plainly made [Page 126] manifest. But what made this mad man ask where we were in all those weak efforts of gaspink Loyalty? Were not we where the rest of the Royal party were? Some of us were in London, some with the King, some about dispatches, some in the Tower, some sold to the Islands; and in fine, was there any Plot but the Catholicks were as numerous in it pro­portionably as any other Subjects? Was ever man so impudent as to deny this? Yes, the Minister does it, and farther says, we were flattering the Rebels wich Addresses, and ow­ning them the Supream Power of the Nation. Reader, lest this should be a stumbling-block to the weak, I wille give you some account of the matter.

After the Rebels had trampled down Monarchy, and enslaved the whole Nation by force; it happened that a Lay-Gentleman (with whom I have no manner of acquain­tance, but have heard him ever esteemed of much wit and integrity) seeing the then ru­ling Grandees pretend by their Principles to be against all Persecution for Conscien­ce; thought it would not disoblige the Ca­tholiques or any body else, if he stickled a little for a private Toleration. The Prote­stant Cavaliers had many daily Congrega­tions [Page 127] at London, which, the constancy and courage of Dr. Wild, Dr. Gunning, Dr. Thris­cross, &c. (with some sweet words also) forc'd the Rebels to a kind of connivence at; but the Papists could not follow the same Me­thod: For whereas the Protestant Ministers (if the Governement had on a sudden fell to severity) knew they should be but car­ried to the White Hart, or at most impriso­ned for a day or two; a Popish Priest was sure to be hanged, and all his Auditory fi­neable also by the known Laws of the Land. This Gentleman therefore, to try the pulse of the Rebels, that juggled in all their Pro­fessions, writ two Books, called the First and Second Moderators: the thing in it self could not be discommended; but for the wording, he (I mean the Author) is to answer for it. The Books I have not by me, but you may be sure the Minister has quoted the worst things in them; and I question not a little whether all be true he mentions, ha­ving already found him false, as you see in many particulars.

I need not vindicate the Gentleman, for he can do it himself to the purpose: My bu­siness at present only is to admire the folly of my Adversary, who hand over head lays [Page 128] as a crime, the indiscretion (which is the most that can be said of it) of a private man to all his Party. Would not this Logick then make the whole Church of England guilty of Phanatick Principles, because Dr. Taylor writ for liberty of Prophesie? And if our Gentleman may be thought to have shewed his Papers to some Catholiques befo­re they were published, 'tis every jot as pro­bable, the Dr. made Protestants acquainted with his Book before it was sent to the Press. It is very severe doubtless, if the inconside­rateness of one, should not only be fathered on us all, but urged against us, equal to the Treason of the late Transgressors. No peo­ple on Earth can be safe at this rate: nay, all the Protestant Cavaliers themselves (those great patterns of Loyalty) would be involved, if such consequences were allowed. Every body knows, that some Great men got out of Decimation by favour, and that many Gentlemen (it may be out of prudence, knowing the end of Plots) refused to recei­ve Letters, much less Commissions from the King. How many Souldiers also were the­re that served Cromwel at Jamaica and other Places: neither failed there a compliance in Poets too, as in Cowly and Cleveland them­selves: [Page 129] and for Lawyers there was no want of them in Westminster-Hall, wsensoever a Ca­valier had need. The Ministry also of the Nation had some among them that were not able to resist Temptation; for there were not a few that took the Covenant; and Dr. Martin in his printed Letters taxes a great One for complying with the Presby­terians abroad. But why does my Minister lay the taking of the Engagement as a crime against us, seeing it was generally taken through the whole Kingdom, no body be­ing capable of Law that had not done it? Nor did any body fail of calling the Parlia­ment the Supream Authority of the Nation, if they had Law-suits Petitions or any thing else of that Nature. Is this a blemish to the Cavaliers in general? No, 'tis so far from it, that even the most of these I mention, when occasion served, were ever forward in the Kings concerns. But all things perchance are lawful to all men, so they be not Catho­licks.

REPLY XVI.

Concerning his saying, that he agrees with me in all that is truly Catholick, I kiss his hands, for so said Jacob Behmen, and so I dare say will Mr. Woodcock, this being the old Song of all Hereticks. I have proved be­fore, that forreign Jurisdiction in Spiri­tuals may well agree in all Governments; and no Kingdoms have been more happy at home, or glorious abroad, then when the Pope was their Spiritual Pastor.

But methinks my Gentleman might ha­ve acknowledged tha the last Conversion at least was Popish, it being performed Ann. 596. in the time of Pope Gregory, whom Act Mon. p. 107. Fox calls the basest of all his Predecessours; and it was done also by Austin a Speed, p. 347. Monck, which very name is enough to tell a Protestant, the Missioner was Popishly perswaded. Mo­reover, this Austin survived his Master Gregory, and consequently was according to Fox ( who dreames that he lived in England 16. yeares) not only obedient to Boniface the 3. (the Great Antichrist) but made his Com­panion Lawrence his Stovv. p. 67. Successour, who had [Page 132] the like veneration for Popes, though they then stiled themselves Universal Bishops as all Protestants affirme; nor did ever Canter­bury deny the Roman Sea, till Cranmer in the time of Hen. 8.

If any man yet shall not think Austin Papist enough, let him read St. Bedes Histo­ry, or rather some Protestants about it, a­mong which let J. Bale an Apostate Dese. Brit. fol 35. Frier be one, who will tell you, That Austin was sent to convert the Saxons to a Popish Faith, and that he taught false Doctrine, and minded mo­re the getting oblations for Masses, then the Preaching of the Gospel. Yet Act. Mon. p. 105. Fox, though he call St. Austin Pharisaical, says, never­theless, that those Missioners did Miracles be­fore King Ethelbert.

For the Conversion under King Lucius, all Reformed Historians confess that Pope Eleutherius sent Damianus and Fugatius (two Ministers forsooth as Heyl. p. 469. Heylin calls them) who preacht Christ to the Bri­tains. No man can doubt then, if these were sent from Rome, but that they taught the Faith of Rome. Now when Austin (whom you see the Protestants already confess Po­pish) came to convert the Saxons, he had conference with Dinoth the Abbot, and se­veral [Page 133] of the Monks at Bangor, who still pre­served Christian Religion among the British. In all their Dispute we finde no debate but about the Customes of the Church; nor did Austin demand of them any more, then the Stovv. p. 66. alteration in keeping of Easter, and some Ceremonies in Baptism: but had there been any difference in Faith, and doctrine (as Speed Sp. p. 348. sayes positwely there was none) Histo­rians would not have failed to remember that, seeing they take notice of things of l [...]ss moment: and besides, every body knows how scrupulous the Church was in Doctrine, having condemned the Arrians, Eutychians, Nestorians and the like, for some things w­hich to ordinary and humane capacities see­med but meer niceties.

This then proves plainly that Austin the Popish Monck (who also according to Pag. 195. K. Iohn. Hol­lingshead infected us with the poyson of Romish Errours.) preacht no other Doctrine then what the British had received afore: but the the British, according to Fox and others of our Protestant Authors, were the uncorrupt preservers of Gods word, having received from their King Lucius, who lived about 180. years after Christ. Let any man therefore judge, who are most Primative, & whe­ther [Page 134] he that has the face to deny that Papists twice converted England, would not also deny our Saviour, were it as much for his ad­vantage as we see this to be.

REPLY XVII.

I could not imagine the Minister would have discover'd so great a Truth: for now, Reader, you see that he confesses that what­soever is said of Papists is generally belie­ved. How are Papists traduced! What Sto­ries are told of Popes! How many things of the whole body of Papists! and all taken for Gospel, as the adversary himself acknowled­ges. [Page 136] Thus people are possest with a horrour of Qu. Mary's days, as if all were really true; and yet, as I have treated before, there has been more bloud Judicially spilt about Re­ligion by those that have excluded the Pope, then has been by Papists from the Conver­sion of the Nation to its fall. What does the Minister mean by Protestants known, and no liberty given? Italy and Spain know Prote­stants; nay, the Turk himself knows them, and is obliged to the disturbances made by Luther and his fellows in Germany. For were the Government of that Country united, an not so rent into factions with diversities of Religions (as Sir Ed. S. p. 170 Sir Edwin Sandys observes) breeding endless jealousies, heart-burnings and hatred, it needed no other help to affront the Great Turk, and to repulse all his forces, to the security of Christendom. This therefore was one of the advantages which the Reforma­tion brought.

Certainly I spoke plain enough, and that without deceit, viz. Where the name of Protestant is unknown, (that is, where it has not been yet planted) the Catholike Ma­gistrates take care to keep it out: But where their number or rebellion has moued their natural Prince to grant them terms, in [Page 137] those places I say they live with more liberty then Catholikes under any Protestant Go­vernment. Flanders, was never compelled to let the Reformed have extraordinary privi­ledges; Neverthelesse there are many Pro­testants in that Province, and particularly in the Wallon Countries: nor have they their Ministers hanged, though these places are under the obedience of the most Catholike King. What reason has the Minister to say I could▪ name no other Country But France, where Protestants have open Churches? has he forgot Poland, even Crakaw it self, where theire Orthodox Socinian Cathechism was ma­de? Let him also think on Hungary, both which are Popish Kingdoms, under Popish Kings. Nay, in Piedmont it self they have open Churches; yet a man may legally be hanged in England, if he have but a private Chappel. Besides this, Reader, there is much difference between Papists and Pro­testants, because all Countries were possest by us, and the Reformed had no pretence to Government, (except in England, and in a small Province or two in Germany) but what they got by Rebellion. Therefore, as a man that is turned out of his house by a stranger, may expect more then the stranger [Page 138] being dispossest can do from the right o [...] ­ner: so Papists may justly expect more liber­ty from Protestants, then they can upon any pretence from Papists; yet Protestants li­ve to this day freer in Catholique Kingdoms, then we do under them: For Protestants may have employment in Poppish Countreys, but Papists are debarred from Offices in all Co­untries, I except none, that are of the Re­formed Faith.

I know not what the Minister would be at, that the Low-Country Papists were the chief cause why the Spanish yoak was thrown off. 'Tis true, there were many factious Catholikes there at that time stirr'd up by the insinuation of the Reformed, as Saints enflame honest men now adays. Yet for all this not only the first insurrections & tu­mults were (according to Stap. trans. l. 3. p. 61. Strada) acted by the Calvinists at Tournay, Lisle, and Valencien; but also in the year 1581 (as the Eur. Mod. Spec. p. 85. Protestant Author of Europae Modernae Speculum will tell you) by a publick Instrument they declared their King Philip to have rightfully fallen from the Dominion of those Provinces, then united under the profession of the Reformed Religion: neither would they ever afterwards suffer the Papists to have any share in the Govern­ment, [Page 139] for fear they should bring all things back again to their true Lord an Master. But now suppose, Reader, I had not proved the Dutch villany by the testimony of a Writer of the Protestant Religion, I hope 'tis no excuse to their Rebellion, though some Papists did by accident facilitate their work: For if so, then the Murther of Charles the First by the Independents, and their erecting a Government without King or Lords, were not Rebellion, be­cause the whole body of the Presbyterians began the play; which afterwards (but 'twas too late) they seemed to detest, and openly to exclaim against.

How the Edicts of France were obtained, you shall hear in this next Section.

REPLY XVIII.

Can Thuanus, or any man else, look u­pon that action with more horrour then I? Certainly no: yet, Reader, I must tell you, Thuanus is esteemed as malitiously partial a Writer as ever undertook the writing of a History. Nay, Heylin (that other Hanibal, that sworn enemy of Rome) says, That Heyl. p. 71. Thua­nus savours more of the party, then of the Histo­rian. Now for his professing to be a Catho­lick, it adds nothing to his Authority, be­cause in every Religion there are those that write out of spleen and Faction. To a stran­ger abroad, Milton would go for a Protestant, because he calls himself so; yet in his Books the true matter of Fact is so perverted by his malice, that it becomes at last as false, as the rest of those damnable lies, with which his Papers are stufft. But though Thuanus be [Page 144] thus reputed, yet this Minister will pervert the Divel himself to do us a mischief. He has told us that the Pope ordered a Jubilee through Christendom, to give God thanks for destroying in France the Enemies of the Church; by which he would have the Rea­der believe, that the Massacre was the cause of this Jubilee; when as Th. p. 1065. Thuanus tells us, That the Jubilee was to thank God for the Vi­ctory at Lepanto against the Turk, for the success of Spain against the Rebels in Belgium, and to beseech God for the election of a Catholick King in Poland; as well as for the business in France. But truly, I need not complain, for such Preachers of Gods word may say any thing (so it discredit the Papists) let it be never so improbable in it self.

For my part I can believe not, that the Pope and Consistory (who are by Protestants repu­ted dexterous and subtle) would make pu­blike Procession and Triumph for Murther in cold blood, which could bring them no farther good (for the advantages were al­ready obtained) but might occasion much scandal, which, by reason it was the cause of Luthers revolt, was the more carefully to be avoided for the future. It may be they were not sorry in their hearts: For [Page 145] what men are so at the death of their Ene­mies? Yet we see often, that those which ha­ve a titillation the thing being done, would nevertheless loose rather their own lives, then give the least consent to the fact. Da­vila tells us in one place of his Fifth Book, That the King and Queen-Mother contrived the destruction of the Rebels; and communicated their design only to the Duke of Anjou, the Gui­ses, and the Count of Rhetz, and this resolu­tion to Massacre, we see there was, a pretty while before Pius V. died. In another place of this Book, I find this Pope died some three months before the execution. In another place of this Book I find that this Pope would never consent to the marriage of Margaret to the King of Navar, by reason of his Religion; and yet in the time of this Marriage Ch. 9. had determined this Butchery: Therefore put­ting all this together, it was plain the Pope had no hand in the wicked contrivance. Gregory 13. who succeeded, and before who­se Election this Massacre was designed, was at last brought to dispence with the Match, it being made appear to him how dangerous it might be in those Schismatical times, if the King should in anger solemnize the Marriage without leave; for so this Dav. l. 5. King [Page 146] had threatned the aforesaid Pius V. and daily gave more symptoms of his resolution in the Wedding, and anger for being con­tradicted in it at Rome.

Reader, We have no other way to disco­ver the errors of Historians, but by conje­ctures, after we have compared times and circumstances. The reasons that I have there­fore last mentioned, assure me that the Pope had no hand in the design: yet suppose he had been of the Plot with the King, as 'tis plain he was not, I am sure that can be no excuse to the Hugonots for their former Rebellion, and unspeakable abominations, as you shall presently see. But let the Pope have what design he would, 'tis still evident ( accor­ding to the Apology) that the King and Queen-Mother (who could only perform this Murther) were moved to this Massacre for Interest of State, and not Religion. For the King was not such a Bigot or Pious man, u­pon a Spiritual account to draw such a ha­zard, or at least a scandal on his own per­son: and for the Queen-Mother (that great intriguer) she valued Religion little; for sometimes she favoured Protestants, some­times again persecuted them: Nay, when it was for her advantage, she gave great and [Page 147] suspitious signs that she would be of the Re­formed Religion also, as may be seen in Davi­la in the second Book.

My Minister will not perchance be yet satisfied that I call it a Cabinet-Plot, but says they died for their Religion, and that the King had not better Subjects then those that were massacred. Brave Coligni being the first that fell. Now, Reader, that you may see what kind of Subject our Minister is (and such a one I always doubted him) I will briefly shew you how these Hugonots behaved them­selves, among whom Coligni was a Princi­pal, and who is honoured with the title of Brave, by this most Loyal Parson.

In the time of Francis the First Calvin ap­peared, and dedicated his Institutions to him. The preaching, of this man pleased the chan­geable humor of many French; but the Sect was kept under by the King, and especially by his Son Hen. 2. who like wise Governours were unwilling to let an unheard-of Reli­gion get root in their Country, well kno­wing that Rebellion would follow, as af­terwards it happened to the purpose. Fran­cis the 2. succeeded Hen. who was althoge­ther governed by the House of Guise, by reason of the great power they had in the [Page 148] late Kings Reign, and more especially now, because the Queen-Consort was the glorious Mary of Scotland, daughter to the Sister of this ambitious Duke. The House of Bur­bon (being the first Princes of the Blood) were greatly troubled they had no interest in affairs, and tried all manner of ways to get into play. The Prince of Conde (a hot­headed man) seeing he could not ruine the Guises by ordinary means, calls all his partizās together (`among whom Coligni was the Chief) to la Ferte an Apennage of his, and there he told them, they must take Arms to free themselves from the slavery they were in by the ruling Party. The fiery youth were all of the Princes opinion, to begin the War without delay: But, Brave Coligni (as the Minister calls him) replied, That this were to ruine them all, seeing that though their pre­tences were fair, yet few of the Nation would follow them; and on the other side, all forreign Princes were in amity with France by the late agreement of the Kings Father. If they had a mind, he said, to do their business home, the sole way were to pretend Religion, which in it self had an honourable appearance; and besides, the Calvinists in France were many, hating the Guises, and wanting only a Head; nor [Page 149] would the Princes of Germany or Q. Eliza­beth fail to assist them on this score, which o­therwise could not be done on any account.

Thus the Brave man not only consented to Rebellion, but put them in a holy method effectually to perform it. All the Assembly applauded the Counsel of this Achitophel, and there-upon Andelot his Brother ( a most turbulent man) and the Vicedame of Chartres (rich and debauch) were apponted to execu­te their determinations. The manner of the Plot was this: To get a great company of unarmed Hugonots to go to Court, and there clamour for Liberty of Conscience, and free Temples: these poor men (they imagined) should presently be ill treated by the Duke of Guise; whereupon the Protes­tant Souldiers (which for that purpose they were to provide) would immediately come to their assistance; and under pretence that the Hugonots were abused, they might fall on the Court, and wholly destroy their Ene­mies. Besides this, 'twas reported, that in the disorder the King and his three Brethren were to be made away, and God knows whether this last part were not as true as the first, seeing after the death of these Chil­dren, the House of Bourbon (Heads of the [Page 150] design) should succeed in the Throne.

But now see how far the Conspiracy suc­ceeded: The Provinces were divided to se­veral of the most considerable in each divi­sion, who were to make ready their Levies against the 15. of March 1560. at Blois, a Town unfortified, where then the Court resided. Godfry de la Barre (a Gentleman of Perigort, who had left his Country by reason of forgery in a Law-suit and turned Calvinist) was made Commander in Chief; and accor­ding to their success, the Prince, Admiral, and the rest would order affairs. The Kings Councel, having at last notice of this, car­ries the King without noise to Amboise, the better to secure him on a sudden, with the present little force they had in readiness. On the day appointed the Conspirators come, and finding the King gone, follow him to Amboise, and assault the Castle; which be­ing too strong to be presently their's, they were by the Mareschal of St. Andrew, and others wholly defeated and taken. Upon this trayterous attempt, the King summons an Assembly of the Nobles at Fountain-Bleau, where the brave Coligni grave the King a Paper, and said, That the Protestants (hea­ring by his Majesties Edict, that every Sub­ject [Page 151] might make known his Grievan­ce in this Assembly) did present that Petition to him; & though it were not signed, yet when his Majesty pleased, it should be by 150000. hands. The Assembly, for all this arro­gance, advised against a Toleration; but the Hugonots encouraged by these procee­dings, rose in Arms in▪ several places, and filled the Court with complaints of their many insolencies; and on the other side, the Prince with his Complices set upon Lyons. After this the three Estates met at Or­leans, where the Prince was condemned to be executed and in this disorder the King died.

Charles the 9 was about eleven years old when he began his Reign; so that in his minority (the faction of the Protestants be­ing so great) the Prince was acquitted, and liberty granted for publike preaching. Then the Hugonots became so insolent, that they massacred many people in Paris, burnt the Church of St. Medard, rifled Monasteries, and committed many such exorbitances. The Prince would have▪ seised on the Kings Per­son at Fountain-Bleau, but the Duke of Guise got the King of Navar (first Prince of the Blood, and prime Commander of State) to bring him and the Queen-Regent to Pa­ris; [Page 152] which when the Prince of Conde under­stood, and saw himself defeated of his design, he told brave Coligni, that he had plunged himself so deep, that now he must drink or drown; and thereupon attackt Orleans and took it, using all the inhumane barbarities that can be thought of. After this (as Rebels are accustomed) a Manifesto is set out, That he took up Arms to free the Kings Person from the slavery in which the Catholick Lords held him. This was directed to the Parlia­ment; who again answered, That they won­dered how it could be said, the King was priso­ner, being in his own Capital City, of which Charles of Bourbon the Princes own Brother was Governour; where was present the King of Navar Chief Administrator of the King­dom, where the Parliament sat; and in fine; where all the great Officers of the Crown re­sided.

But why do I go to the particulars of this notorious Rebellion? To be short, brave Coligni's own words (a little before his de­ath) will sufficiently declare how great a Traytor he was; for just before the Marriage (like another Nebuchadnezzar in his pride) he said to some of his confidents, That nei­ther Alexander nor Caesar could be compared to [Page 153] him, because Fortune was their friend, but that he dad lost four Battles, yet by his wit, he stil became more formidable to his Enemies. If then this brave man, that began the Rebellion, as you have heard, that lost four Battels against his Prince, that seised on so many Towns, that disswaded Peace so often when desired, and that did so many infamous ac­tions all along, shall pass and not be thou­ght a Rebel, then I will aver there was ne­ver Rebel since the Creation of the World. The things, Reader, which I have here laid down, you many find disperst in the first five Books of Davila's History, who is an Author thought by Protestants so Au­thentick and so impartial (sparing no body of what Rank or Faction soever) that among Historians none hath a clearer fame.

Having given you a short occount how these Potent Hugonots plagued these two Kings, be pleased now to tell me, whether it was not their powerful Rebellion (let their Religion have been what it would) that drew them into this ill-machinated destruction. And by the way, see how simple the cavil of this Minister is, who says, I call it ill-machina­ted, because it was done by halves. The action was wicked, and a Cabinet-Plot, or [Page 154] else there is no such thing in Nature: nei­ther did it want condemning by several fa­mous Catholiques themselves; who would doubtless have been silent, had the Pope so publickly rejoyced at the news, as the Mini­ster would fain have us believe.

The King in Vindication of the cruelty laid to his charge, gives these Reasons to the World: That though every body saw how horribly the Rebels had used him, yet it was not his design to Massacre so many Hugonots, but only to cut off some Heads of the Party, who so highly fomented the Sedition: this made him cause Coligni to be shot, the chief Rebel of thē all; but the bullet only breaking his arm, his Partizans grew to such a rage, that they threa­tned a present War, and destruction to him and his; therefore he was necessitated to what he did, viz. immediately to destroy those that had vowed his ruine. Now to demonstrate that is was not his intention, the Kings friends farther said, That had he intended a general Massacre from the beginning, it had been folly to The Admi­ral vvas shot four days before the Massa­cre Dav. lib. 5. shoot the Admiral so many days before the total execu­tion, because this would have alarmed the Party, and given occasion to many to get away as in truth not a few did, the day before the bloo­dy night.

[Page 155]Reader, I know not whether this De­claration of the King be true or not; but this I am sure, the action was unchristian, though there were never greater Rebels then these Hugonots: for they not only fought many Battles with their Prince, and fortified many of his Towns against him; but besides all this, brought forreign For­ces into France, as Ruyters from Germany, and English from us▪ and because all things are lawful to the Saints, they delivered up Havre de Grace to Queen Elizabeth, by which we had a new footing in France, even we, the profest enemies of the Nation. Nay, they began first to Dav. lib. 2. Massacre Catholiques in Paris; and also Coligni and Beza got Poltrot to murther the Duke of Dav. lib. 3. Guise, father to him that was Killed at Blois. This the Assassine openly confest at his death, being after exe­cuted for the fact. By force then, and such tricks, tyring out their Kings, they got se­veral Priviledges and Edicts: but God send me and my Relations to live for ever in ser­vitude, rather then to obtain liberty by such strange and dissalowable courses. And tru­ly, I doubt not (since this Minister can ju­stifie these Agreements) but he would, if the Four Bills had passed at the Isle of Wight, [Page 156] vindicate the proceedinghs, and cite those Acts with as much confidence, as if they had been obtained without Force in time of Peace and quiet. Had King James lived in our days, and seen how the same preten­ces with those of the Hugonots, viz. Conscien­ce, and the Liberty of the Subject, had like to have ruined his Family, I do believe they would have found small comfort from any Vindication of his. I do therefore openly affirm, that if any Englishman (who has considered the villany of our times) does still justifie Brave Coligni and his Hugonots, he has either been an apparent Rebel, or is so in his heart, and will shew his Teeth upon the first advantage that shall be offered.

REPLY 19.

Here is a great deal of cry, and little wo­ol; for I have often said, the Pope may ha­ve his frailties, as well as other men; and do­es not the Minister know he is a Temporal Prince also, and in that capacity may have intrigues with his Neighbours? What is this to our Religion, more then if the King of Spain should make use▪ of the Politicks too far? Again, if the Pope as our Arch­bishop (all Countries being in his Pro­vince) should commit humane indiscre­tions, Why were we to be more blamed for it, then Durham, Chester and Carlisle ought to be for their Religion, because their Me­tropolitan Williams joyned with the Rebels against King Charles of happy Memory?

I never approved the procedure of the Guises in their League, and have always said they were most insolent Ministers of State to Hen. 3. but when the Duke and Cardinal [Page 159] were murthered at Blois by the King, their Successors learnt of the Hugonots to run into a formal and open War. And truly, my in­ference, I conceive, was pertinent concer­ning the Massacre of the one, and murther of the other, though the Parson thinks it some­thing strange. For in this Example the Outers and the Outees (the Hugonots and Guises) were killed by their Kings. Now since both Parties were prodigious in power, able to cope with the Prince; 'twould be as ridicu­lous to say, that (because the Hugonots were destroyed) they suffered for their Faith, as that the Heads of the League were killed for their Religion.

Davila tells us, That the Pope only refu­sed to absolve Henry the Third, saying, that he could not be contrite for killing a Cardinal, since he kept another still in prison. Nor does this famous Author say any thing of giving nine years Indulgence to his Subjects that should fight against him; and yet if the Po­pe had done so, he must answer for his own actions to God Almighty, and not all the Members of the Catholique Church.

But why does this poor Minister continu­ally harp upon James Clement, whom the Di­vel had seduced for this work? The Minister [Page 160] would have called me worse then a Turk (as he has already done) if I should lay at his door the actions of Hugh Peters, who was as I think ordained, at least as bad as he were. Concer­ning the Popes Speech, you must know, Rea­der, that it was a thing forged (as Tortus says) and never heard of but at Paris, some Grandees having hopes thereby to animate their Party, and others a design to defame the Sea of Rome: and if you consider it, you will find the Pope had no reason to rejoyce at, but much to lament the death of this Prince. For Henry the Third was always a most firm son of the Church, and easily brought again to whatever could be desired. But when he was gone, an apparent Hugonot was to succeed, whom though for the pre­sent they might think they were able to deal with, yet necessarily at best there would be a perpetual distraction among them; and besides, wise men know, that accidents are common in such cases; and to be sure, the least success on Henry the Fourth's side, wo­uld have ruined the Popes interest. To his Conclusion I have answered before suffici­ently, viz. That Protestants live better under Papist Governments, then Papists do under theirs: therefore, I say again, who [Page 161] the Persecutors are, let the World judge.

REPLY XX.

I must here again, Reader, desire your judgment, whether this consequence in the Apology, be not as natural as can be: viz. If the Protestants suffered for Doctrine (when by reason of their strength it was dangerous to disturb them) then doubtless, this haughty Monarch (being as much a Papist in Faith as any of his Ancestors) would soon destroy them now, having neither Force nor Town to resist his might and puis­sance. Certainly, this is as impertinent a ca­vil, as his insisting upon Charlemagn, who was Emperour as well as King of France; and therefore had more Authority, then if he had been but a single Monarch. Besides, I wonder he should urge him as Quarreller with the Pope, being as great a friend as ever that Sea had. For he grave to it the Exar­chate of Ravenna, the Marca Anconitana, and the Dukedome of Spoleto, which are the greatest part of the Church-Lands in Italy. All the power the ancient Caesars had, I know not; if it were great, I wish they had never parted with it; but what they have granted, I think now as truly helongs to the [Page 164] Pope, as any Priuiledges that Towns or Royall­ty's can call theirs, by the Gracious conces­sions of our famous Princes.

How shameless is this man, that can say, the Hugonots would mend their condition by changing with us! and yet he cannot de­ny they have all the advantages before men­tioned. How prettily also (after his usual manner) doth he pervert my meaning, in saying, we have free access to his Highness; for my Argument runs thus: That the Hu­gonots may convert the Kings Brother with­out any prejudice to them by Law; when as it is death to a Catholique to pervert (as they call it) the meanest of his Majesties Subjects. But God send the King may ne­ver find more unfaithful Servants then such; nor the Duke those that shall wish him worse then the worthy Abbot, whom he is pleased to mention. He has a fling also at me, because the Catholique Peers sit in the House, which is quite besides the thing I urged. For I said, the Hugonots must needs think they live happily, enjoying not only their Religion in publike, but also being capable of any manner of Employment, even to be chosen Members of the three Estates; nor is there any Parliament of Fran­ce, [Page 165] but has many of their Religion in it. On the contrary, Catholikes are born with an incapacity of Employment, like the Villains as it were in Ancient times, who had no pro­priety in the Kingdom. If some few Lords sit in their House, 'tis not any favour the Nobility bear to Popery, but because they have gravely considered, that it would be wonderful injustice to turn out a Party for difference in Religion, and permit other dissenters to continue. Now (seeing there are so many Opinions in the World) to turn out all, God knows upon whose Children the Lot may fall next: for the Church of England is no Manna, to relish in every palate; and some wise men also think, that a man may do very well, though he has little Disputes with this his holy Mo­ther.

Why does this Gentleman say, we never knew the Laws executed? I am sure, there have died by these Laws at least 300 Priests, besides Laymen: and how often we have be­en rackt in prison, and how infinitely our Estates have suffered for our Consciences, no body, I think, is ignorant. But, I hope, the brave people of England will intercede for us to his Majesty, that since he (the [Page 166] Messiah & only expectation of the Nation) is come, we may not feel in his days, what we suffered under Cromwel, even by virtue of those Acts which have been formerly ma­de. Nor could Osborn a Protestant (in his Memoires) chuse but confess Hist. Mem. Q. E. p. 17. That against the poor Catholiques nothing in relation to the generality remains upon due proof sufficient to justifie the severity of the Laws daily enacted & put in execution against them.

REPLY. XXI.

Reader, This is the subtlest Sophister that I ever met with; for (before this distinc­tion) I never knew but that Treasons were misdemeanors, and therefore I think the word misdemeanour is not improper.

REPLY 22.

'Tis strange to me, that I must be denied the liberty, which all people else have. No man is forbid to declare their pretensions, when he speaks of the commotions of a Par­ty: yet here I am accused, to think Rebellion no crime, and to excuse their faults, because I tell you what Papists in those days said for themselves. The Minister can call himself a Loyal Subject, and yet defend the Hugo­nots, who were the most notorious and in­solent Rebels that any History can shew; nor had they any other pretence for the Dav. lib. 2. Massacres and continual ravages committed by them, but Mr. Calvin and Mr. Beza's tel­ling them, God said thus and thus: and there­fore, unless their respective Kings would suffer them to destroy a Religion in quiet possession since the Reign of Clouis, they [Page 172] would bring Armies into the field, and for­tifie Towns against their Liege-Lords, as every body knows they did, till subdued in the time of Lewis the XIII. I think, good Mr. Parson, I am as well known in England as your self; and am sure can find more Pro­testants of Quality that shall engage for my Loyalty, thē you can people of any sort. 'Tis not this Minister, Reader, only, but others have called my narration of the matter of fact, a questioning of Queen Elizabeths Title: judge you by my words in the Apo­logy, whether it be so or no; nor could I omit in honour the Plea of the foregoing age, their misdemeanours being every day thrown in my dish.

But suppose I had questioned her Title, there is no Treasonable intention in it I am sure, because the Title of our King has no dependance upon that Princesse: nor was she the first of our Monarchs against whose right Posterity has argued. No body is bla­med for saying King Stephen was an usurper, or that Edward the Fourths Title was better then that of the three preceding Henry's. What is't then, I beseech you (were the fact proved against me) I have committed, that Protestant Authors have not done and worse? [Page 173] Sr. Walter Rawley in his Preface of the History of the world has not only something to say against almost all the Kings of Englād, but Buck in his Ric. 3 has bastardized Hen. 7 and all his offspring, and thereby invalida­tes theire title to the Crowne either as Buck. p. 12 Yorkists or Buck. p. 44. Lancastrians; Nor does Sp II. 4. p. 6 [...]3. Speed refraine from questioning the right of most of our Princes from the Conquest till Henry the fowrth's Reigne. Yet none of these have been bran­ded with the Character of ill Subjects. 'Tis he that is to be accounted wicked, who sedititiously descants on Titles, to breed Commotions and Disorders.

The Minister says, I defend the calumny of those Catholicks, in saying, 'Twas a ve­ry hard question, whether the right to the Crown lay in Queen Elizabeth, or in the Queen of Scots. Reader, that which I said was, That this was a harder Question, then the Dispute of York and Lancaster, which cost so much Blood and Treasure: and be­cause I would know your opinion, I will state these two Questions to you.

York had the interest of a third brother by Marriage; Lancaster that of a fourth Bro­ther; and these two dispute about the Cro­wn of England which women are capable of.

[Page 174]The second Question is this: Henry the eighth married his brothers wife, who was said to be a Virgin; for Prince Arthur was but fifteene and a little more wen he died. By this Princess K. Hen. had our Q. Mary, and after he had lived with her 20 years, he fell in love with a handsome young Lady, whereupon he had in short time a scruple of Conscience that it was unlawful to live lon­ger with his old wife, because she had been­married to his brother. His Conscience be­ing still tender, he caused the Scriptures to be searched, and found not only there the Marriage to be void, but that the Pope him­self had no power in England; and besides, that rich Abbies were also contrary to the word of God. Being thus truly informed, he threw away Wife, Pope and Monks, and married the other, by whom he had Queen Elizabeth, while his first Wife lived. 'Twas thought by many curious wits, that there could be but one of the daughters le­gitimate, because both Mothers were con­temporaries, and that to Christians the Scrip­ture permits but one wife at a time. After the death of this King and his Son, 'twas put to the Kingdom to decide, which of these children were lawfully begotten: [Page 175] both Lords and Commons acknowledged Mary for their Queen, which was as much to say she was born in true Wedlock. Nor did Luther himself fail to disapprove of Queen Elizabeths Hist Mem. Q. Eliz. p. 5. birth.

I doubt not, but the people were infor­med of the cause of the Kings scrupule, as also that this brother Arthur had never known his wife. Nay, before K. Henry mar­ried Queen Katherine, she protested she was a Virgin and offered to be tryed by L. Herb p. 7. Matrons. The Bishop of Ely also L. Herb p. 244. deposed, That the Queen (whom all, even the King himself esteemed for a Saint) had often in confession told him, she never carnally knew the Prince. Nor in the whole examination was there any colourable pretence produc'd, but the common vanity of all boys to be thought men before their time: For 'twas affirmed, Arthur should say the next morning after Marriage, that he had been in Spain that night. Besides this there were those, I believe, that told the People, that though St. John for­bad Herod to take his brother Philips wife, because his said Brother was then alive, (for Josephus Ios. [...] 472. sayes, Herodias parted from her husband Philip in his life time, and in contempt of the lawes married Herod) yet he never pro­hibited [Page 176] by those words a Christian to marry his sister in-law if her Husband were dead.

The Case being thus fancied by the Pa­pists (in the time of Queen Elizabeth) they argued, that if Mary was the true Child, then the other was the Natural: but Mary was owned Legitimate: And my Lord Ba­con H. 7. p. 206. say's the ligitimation of Queen Mary and Elizabeth were incompatible. Ergo the King­dom not being Elective, Mary Stuart (the next Legal Heir) must necessarily succeed her. Yet suppose these Papists were wrong in their conclusion, I am sure nevertheless, I am still in the right, viz. That it is a har­der Question to resolve, whether the Mar­riage be Null, if a woman marries two Bro­thers, then whether a third or fourth brother has the better Title to the Crown; for that was the contest betwixt York and Lancaster.

But the Minister urges, if the Papists thought Queen Elizabeth an Usurper, why did not they stir sooner? for there was no Rebellion, he says, in ten years: and when after ten it broke out in the North, there was not the least mention made of the Q. of Scots, or her Title.

I wish the Catholicks had not only sat still ten years, but forty five years also; yet [Page 177] to shew you that this Minister will be wrōg in every thing, I shall give you a most suc­cinct account of this business. Queen Mary of England in, the latter part of her Reign was in Godvv Q. M. p. 336. open war with France, and the Qu. of Scots was then Godvv Q. M. p. 336. Wife to the Dauphin. This Hostility, and the private designs of Spain, hindred all intrigues of the Queen of Scots friends to secure the Succession. Things being in this condition, our Queen dies; nor did the Dauphin make any present claim; which together with the natural coolness of Englishmen to all strangers, especially the French, moved Archbishop Heath to what he did. About some six months after this, the Dauphin takes upon him the Title and Armes of Camb. 1559. p. 43. Printed 1615. England; and immediately also by the death of his Father, the Crown of France fell to him, which gave him the na­me of Francis the Second. But by that time Q. Elizabeth was too well setled to be depo­sed without blows; and before things could be ordered for such an enterprize, the Hu­gonots lay so heavy on his shoulders, that he was necessitated to the Cam. 1560. p. 53. Treaty at Edenburgh, by which he was to relinquish his former pre­tences in relation to England: yet before these Articles were sealed, the King himself died, [Page 178] and so all things stood as they were before. The Q. of Scots being now a widow, returns with much ado to Scotland, which was all in a flame, by the seditious preaching of the new Reformists. Assoon as she arrived there, (Q. Elizabeth having often sent to her to ratifie the Treaty with her Husband) she C [...]d. 1561. p. 67. after consideration returned answer, That she was content to do so, upon condition she were by Parliament declared her Heir. This Pro­position seemed not strange to her English well-willers, because our Histories could tell them, That Maud the Empress was ne­cessitated to the like by King Stephen. But Queen Elizabeth would not harken to those terms; whereupon presently Margaret Niece to Henry the Eighth, the Earl of Lenox her husband, Arthur Pool and his Brother, Grandchildren to George Duke of Clarence, Fortescue and others, were apprehended, for intending to Cam. begin­ing 1562. p. 72. set up the Queen of Scots interest. The fact they confest; but (as all malefac­tors find something to extenuate their cri­met) hey pitcht upon the weakest excuse that ever was heard of; viz That they intended not to depose Queen Elizabeth, but to be beforehand in Arms, because Conjurers had told them she would dy that year. After this, the vigilan­cy [Page 179] of Q. Elizab. was such, and the disasters of Scotland so great, that the Catholiques were forc'd to sit quiet for a while. Instead of Peace with the Rebels, the Queen of Scots was necessitated to seek for shelter in Cam. 1568. p. 135. England, where (had she been used as the Honour of the Nation required) she would have concluded an inviolable agreement between the Queen, and those Catholiques that stood for her Title. But when this Royal Guest had once trusted her self among her Enemies, she was both denied access to the Court, and also refused the liberty of retiring into another Kingdom.

This inhumanity was quickly noised about the World; whereupon Pius V. sent Cam. 1568. p. 146. Ridulph a Florentine to consult with the Ca­tholiques about the Interest of their Queen. All Arguments were used which could pos­sibly be thought of, to persuade her Ene­mies to let her go: and when no fair means would do, Cam. 1569. p. 164. the Rising in the North hap­pened.

'Tis true, the Declaration of those great Lords that were up, mentioned no other motive but Religion; because this could not shock either the Queen or People so much, as the name of the Queen of Scots [Page 180] would have done; for that implied ipso fac­to the altering both of Religion and Go­vernment also. Who is ignorant that that Great man our General (whose memory all ages shall for ever honor) concealed at first what he had long determined? well kno­wing, that the once naming of the King would ruine that design, which his wit so well laid, and his conduct so happily exe­cuted. Besides this, Reader, you must know, before this Rebellion broke out, Leonard Dacres, second Son to the Lord Dacres of Gylsland, undertook the delivery of the Queen, being then in Darbyshire in my Lord Shrewsburie's custody. Of this design my Cam. 1 [...]69. p. 160 Lord Northumberland was com­plotter; therefore 'twas plain, he being Chief in the Northern Insurrection, intended her Title, though there was nothing of it in his Delaration. Consider therefore how notoriously false this Minister is, there ha­ving been Claims, Plots, and endeavours by the greatest of the Land before the rising in the North; and when it happened, that also was on the Queen of Scots account.

'Twere tedious, Reader, to tell you how many attempts followed this Insurrection; for there scarce passed a day, till the death [Page 181] of the Queen of Scots, but something was contrived to prevent the machinations of her unkind Kinswoman. By all this you may see, that while Queen Elizabeth used her distressed Guest with any kindness, the piety of that Princess (which moved her ra­ther to be contented with the Succession, then put England in a perpetual broyl) cau­sed her to command the English Catholiques to lie still; whom (according to the Mini­sters own confession) the prohibition of their Religion forten years had not exaspe­rated to Commotions. But assoon as their Queen was imprisoned without hopes of li­berty, and they left to the dictates of their own Loyal inclinations, they never ceased either at home or abroad to sollicite the des­truction of their Enemies. Consider also, I beseech you, the carriage of the Popes, who used all fatherly and gentle means imagi­nable, because they saw the Queen of Scots, whose right they deemed it was, of her self inclining (like another Maud) to expect, till the death of her Cozen should put an end to all pretences. These Popes were sufficient­ly urged by the Duke of Guise and others; yet upon the former considerations (being desirous of peace) they never had practices [Page 182] against Queen Elizabeth, till Mary Stuart was in prison; nor ever publisht the Excom­communication, till the Queen absolutely refused her liberty, even after the intercession of Cib. [...]0. p. 177. the French and Spanish Embassadours.

But the Minister says, the Popes owned Queen Elizabeths Title, and therefore Pa­pists ought not to have disputed it. 'Tis true he says so, and yet confesses, that Paul the IV. (who governed the Church when she came first to the Crown) would not acknow­ledge her Legitimate. But how comes the Gentleman to say, that the other cause of his Holiness's not acknowledging her, was, because she audaciously assumed the Crown without his leave? Does he find any such record in our Histories? Did Queen Mary ask his consent? Did any Pope send in this manner to Edward the Sixth? Or lastly, which of all our Kings used to entreat his favour to be Crowned? Reader, this is a pretty capricchio of the Parson, as it had been unusuall if the Pope had made such a claim. Pius the Fourth succeeding the said Paul (for the reasons aforesaid) shew­ed as much prudence and good nature as ever man did, in hope to compose things without effusion of blood: and certainly af­ter [Page 183] his death as much had been spilt, as ever was in any Reign, had not Queen Eliza­beth been the wisest woman that ever swayed Scepter. Pius V. followed the method of his Predecessors, and would have continued it, had not the barbarous usage of the Queen of Scots provok'd him to an Excommunica­tion, and all hostile endeavours. His Bull, I know, speaks not of Bastardy in plain terms; yet with our Ministers good leave, the Pope in that very Bull calls our late Queen Mary Ʋi [...] Bull. Camb. 1570. p. 180. Legitimate; which saying was as much against Q. Elizabeth, as if he had spoken in a bolder phrase. For as I urged before, my Lord Ba­con H. 7. p. 206. says, That the Legitimations of Q. Mary and Queen Elizabeth were incompatible.

In this manner the Popes acknowledged her: and for the Marriages which were offe­red her (& to very much purpose forsooth urged by the Minister) from forreign Mo­narchs, it proves no more right, then that Mrs. Cleypole had been truly our Queen, if France, Spain, or the Emperor had made love to her; and I believe no body doubts, but Suiters would have flockt, had she been unmarried, and sole Heir to her Father.

Though Gregory XIII. sent to invade Ireland, and Sixtus V. gave England to the [Page 184] Spaniards, yet I do not see, that this can touch us Catholicks in the least, though the Minister thinks it a mighty Argument. For if the French King may invade St. Christo­phers, or any part of our Dominions, with­out drawing the Name of Villain on him or his people: Why may not the Pope (being a Temporal Prince) send forces to subdue what Country he pleases? The Bishop of Munster, for his smart endeavours against the Hollanders, was never blamed, but on the contrary commended by us; and certain­ly the Pope is as absolute, and as good a man as he. Kings, you see, may fall upon their Neigbours themselves, and without breach of Morality, incite others to do the like; and while Popes are free Princes, they cannot be reproach'd for using that liberty, without great partiality and malice. This Minister foolishly handles all things, and you may see his intent is only to make a noise: for 'tis no advantage (in our present Dispute) to him to shew, what Kingdoms Popes over-run, or give away.

That which he ought to prove was, That it is Article of Faith amongst us, to assist the Pope in every such invasion, or Gift. That this is not so you may plainly see; for [Page 185] one fifth of the Turks Army are of his Chris­tian Subjects, and yet none of them are ever blamed as heritiques for defending the grād Seigniors Territories. In the next place, whē was it heard that any English Catholick was fain to do pennance like an accurst persō for assisting the Queen against the Spanish Invasion? for there was no [...] Papist then in En­gland for the Hist. Mem. Q. Eliz. p. 28. Spaniard. Or who in Ireland in her Reign, thought himself given to the Divel, for fighting against San Joseph, who came for the Kingdom upon his Holi­ness account? For the San­ders. K. C. p. 68. Bishop of Armath confesses, The English Papists in Ireland were faithfull in all the invasions by Spaine or Pope. Now whether Pope or Spaniard intended after Conquest to restore the Kingdom to the Queen of Scots or her Heirs, I know not; but this I am sure of, that 'twas as pro­bable, as that the Hollanders (who were assisted by the Arms of some Caualiers, and the good wishes of us all) would have given King Charles the Second possession of En­gland, had they got it from the Rump.

If Clement the Eighth earnestly strove that Queen Elizabeths Successours should be Ca­tholiques, I suppose no body can blame him for it; but I would fain have it shewed [Page 186] me, that King James's admission to the Crown (a Protestant from his Childhood) was opposed by the Catholiks of this King­dom. If they stickled not after his Mothers death for him as they did for her, this ans­wer is sufficient, That he was not used li­ke her, nor did he (for fear of prejudicing his future admittance) ever desire any bo­dy to stir in his behalf.

I suppose, Reader, you wonder why I should challenge any man to shew me how the English Catholicks opposed King Ja­mes his Succession, when as this Minister tells us out of Cambden, That the Papists negotiated the Spanish Invasion; That afterwards they perswaded the Earl of Darby to pretend to the Crown; That Doleman alias Parsons writ in the behalf of the Infanta's Title; and to con­clude his Accusation, de declares, That the Catholicks of Scotland (Huntly and others) raised a powerful Rebellion against this Prince.

First, Concerning the Invasion, the Mi­nister says more then the Author himself whom he quotes; Cābd. 1588. p. 476. for Cambden only says, that some English Fugitives did promote it; and who knows not that Fugitives in all a­ges, and in all Religions, machinate against those whom they call their Oppressors? and [Page 187] on the other side, who is ignorant, that ma­ny Papists, more considerable far then a few fugitive Priests (for most of the chiefest we­re so) assisted the Kingdom in that War, and in all its other contests abroad?

Secondly, If some of these Fugitives did perswade my Lord of Darby, it was, I say a­gain, done like Fugitives, nor had they ever the consent of the Catholiques for it. It was certainly a very rediculous Plot in them to make a Protestant Nobleman (that had so poor a Title) their Soveraign; and if it were really designed, It must, I am sure, have been performed by the Protestants them­selves; for the Papists had no power, not being able so much as to set up the Qu. of Scots, who had so plausible a right, though they wanted not the assistance of the Pope, Spaniard and all the Guisard Faction. And by the way this Earle was not poison'd ( as the Minister would have it) for Stow has a Diary and the Particulars of his sicknesse and say's St. 2. Eliz. p. 1275. The causes of all his deseases were thought by Phisitians, partly a surfet, and partly distempering himselfe with vehement ex­cercise 4. days togeather in Easter weeke.

Thirdly, For Dolemans Book, who writ it, God knows, Parsons denied it at [Page 188] his death; and I believe he was not the Au­thour, because in some of his works he speaks so much to the advantage of Epist. to his Convers. of En­gland. K. James. Moreover, he was a man of far more wit then to write so foolish a thing: for was not that man strangely simple, that would dedi­cate his Book to my L. of Essex (as the Mi­nister would have it, to prick forward an ambitious man) and yet the whole matter of the Treatise is to prefer the Infanta's Tit­le before all persons whatsoever. But Rea­der, if this kind of arguing be lawful, that the errours of some unknown men, must be laid to a whole Party, how miserable would the Protestants themselves be, when we co­me to try them by the same Touchstone! I will not stoop to so mean and insignificant a Topick, but tell you what Protestants still alive can testifie, viz That in the latter end of the Queens Reing, My Lord of Hertfords Title was often cried up to Tumult in the streets: Nor had that a slight impression (he being esteemed next to the Stuarts in blood) on many a wellmeaning man, because the English have a reluctancy at first to the thoughts of a stranger. Nay some Hist. Mem. p. 105. Members of Parliament (after his admission said openly in the House, Th [...]t no people endued [Page 189] with Natural desire of Preservation would admit a Prince of a beggerly Nation to Reign over them, how just soever his claim were, for fear of loosing their propriety, as dear as life it self, and as vigorously to be defended. By this therefore, Reader, may be seen the rancour of the Reformed against the Kings coming in, since they durst say such things even af­ter his reception: and had not the last Earl of Pembrook wisely pocketted up Ramsey's switching at Newmarket (when the people cried, Let us break-fast with the Scots here, and dine with the rest at London) 'twas fea­red that day would have been as fatal to the King as the fifth of November might have proved. Papists therefore it seems were not his only Enemies.

Concerning Huntly's Rebellion, I am sure the man is doubly mad in mentioning it, for first (according to Ann. 1 [...]89. Cambden whom he cites) The rising was to help the Spaniards against Queen Elizabeth, who had put to death their Queen: nor was there ever a formed insurrectiō so gently punisht by a King; which argues they had no malice against him. Nay, his Ma­jesty is pleased to say in his Epist to the Read Basilicon Doron, That the Puritans had put out many Libel­lous Invectives against all Christian Princes, [Page 190] and that no body answered them, but the Papists; by which he said the scandal was doubled; for they were the Reformed who calumniated, and the Catholiques were the only Vindica­tors. Secondly, If the Rebellion (suppose it as bad as may be) of these Lords of ano­ther Country, of another age, must touch us the present Catholicks of England, what a blow would this be to the Reformed Re­ligion, should I repeat the Scots unparallel'd actions against their Queen; The protecting of Bothwel (who would have destroy'd King James) by the Camb. 1581. & 1592. English: And lastly, (omit­ting the continual slavery he was in) the downright Conspiracie of the Sāders K I am. 1599. p. 225. and 342. Gowries a­gainst his life!

Having thus gone through the Paragraph, I must come to the nicest Question of all; and nice, I may call it, because it is conjectu­ral only. The proposal by the Minister is this: Whether if the Queen of Scots had been a Protestant, we should have stickled for her? and if Queen Elizabeth had not been thought illegitimate, whether nevertheless we had not rebelled against her? To the first, I say, viz. We had sided with the Q. of Scots, had she been Protestant. To the second, No, That the Papists would not have opposed Queen [Page 191] Elizabeth, had they thought her legitimate: and of the Ministers own assertions, I will make this plainly appear. For if according to him, the Papists would have set up two Protestants (the Lords Darby and Essex) who in reality had no right, then I say, 'tis certain they would willingly have embraced the Title of the Stuarts, that carried so fair a shew. To the second, I answer, That they would never have opposed Queen Elizabeth had she been thought Legitimate: For if (as the Minister urged in the beginning) they obeyed her whom they thought an Usurper for ten years, though she had utterly des­troyed their Religion, 'tis then more then probable, had her Title been good in their opinion, they had submitted, let her Faith have been what it would. These doubts being thus resolved by the very Gentleman that proposed them (who cares not, if he can wound us for the present, into what contradictions at last he runs himself) I may, I hope [since he hath shewed me the example) propose a Query also; and I shall thank him, if out of my Reply he gives the Solution.

I will not urge my Question so far as to suppose the Queen of Scots had been a Pro­testant, but my demand shall be singly this, [Page 192] Whether the Reformed in those days would have quietly obeyed Queen Elizabeth, had she stood up for the Catholick Religion? Reader, because the Parson is not ready to give his determination, I will tell you my opinion, which is, that I think they would not, and doubtless this cōjecture is not rash, when we consider what has been done here, and recorded by our Protestant Historians themselves. Have we not seen that (for the safety of Religion) Edward the Sixth gave away by the advice of his Councel the Kingdom to Jane Gray? and what Bees could be so busie as Cranmer and Ridley, with many thousands more, to set up (a­gainst their lawful Queen Mary) that poor Lady, who had not right enough by blood, and much less if she depended wholly upon the Will, for that was void from the be­ginning, according to the known Laws of the Land? How many treasonable Books were written against this Queen after she came to the Crown, by Mr. Goodman and others, asserting, That she ought to be put to death as a Tyrant, Monster and cruel Beast? Will Thomas also conspired to murther her; and when he was to be hanged for his Trea­son, he said, he died for his Stovv. Q. M. p. 1056. Countrey. By all [Page 193] which may be gathered (the Duke of Suffolke also with many more protestants being ready, and Wiat actually in an open and dangerous rebel­lion,) how dangerous it was then in England for a Prince to be a Papist; though to that day there had never sat but one through Prote­stant upon the Throne, and he a Child about sixteen when he died.

But now I must descend to a far more tra­gical example, even to the death of the so often mentioned Qu. of Scots, who lost her life barely upon the account of her Religion. 'Tis true Queen Elizabeth considered her own safety, but the fury of the Nobility and people, (without whose incitement she durst not have been beheaded) was purely for fear she might have survived Queen Elizabeth, and being then the undoubted Successour, might have changed Religion as the for­mer Queen Mary had done before. If I should urge this barely upon my own word, I might be mistrusted; therefore what I say shall be out of Cambden, who was not only a Protestant, but the acknowledged true Annalist of those times. He will tell you, that after Babingtons Conspiracy, in the consultation what should be done with the Royal Prisoner, some were for holding [Page 194] her in safe custody, but others ( out of care of Cam. 1586. p. 413. Religion) would have her tried and ex­executed. In pursuance then of this advice, she was condemned, and the next Parlia­ment the House petitioned for the execution of her Sentence. The first reason in their supplicate was, for the preservation of the true Cam. 1586. p. 432, Religion of Christ; and after they had told Queen Elizabeth also of her own dan­ger, they harpt again upō the former string, desiring her to remēber Gods fearful judg­ments upon Saul and Ahab, for their sparing Benhadad and Agag, two wicked and pro­fane Idolaters. In fine, when the fatal day came, though they were so very severe as to deny her (being a Guest, and a free Prin­cess) what all Embassadours have, viz. a Preist to assist her at her death, she was again recomforted, when she knew by the Earl of Kent, that she died for her Faith: for he told her, that her life would be the destruc­tion of their Cam. 1587. p. 455. Religion.

Reader, I must now here end, and cannot but ask this Question, If the Reformed have for defence of their Religion effected the death of their Queen, or at least undoubted Heir; and if they have set up Jane Gray, that had no title, because their lawful Prince [Page 195] was Catholick; who have been I would fain know in England more faulty in this case, they or we? Pray what advantage has this Minister got by loading us with crimes, of which we are innocent? And if, as he urges in the beginning, we obey'd Q. Eliza­beth ten years without stir, it then shows that Papists can be obedient to a Prince of a­nother Religion, though they doubt their right; whenas the former Protestants would do any thing rather then permit a Catholick to govern, let the Title be never so just. Judge now, Reader whether it be not super­lative injustice to incense the World against us, as if our Religion taught nothing but blood, and theirs all gentleness imaginable. I must invoke both Angels and Men to consider our wrong, who are termed trayte­rous in our Principles, even to this day. We in our own persons have shewed all the duty that men can fancy, and for our Ancestors you have seen what their Plea is; if it be bad, they have justly suffred; if other wise, let them then feel your anger, who would deceive you thus with lies; and remember that 'tis not possible a Religion which go­verned England with glory so many years, can teach a Doctrine destructive to Princes, [Page 196] or infuse Maxims that will breed commo­tions among the people.

REP. to ANSW. XXIV.

Reader, If the Character do agree better with many heads of our Church, then, I say, in Gods name let it be given them. But I much admire how Thuanus comes to be esteemed a better historian in English affairs [Page 198] then Sir Walter Raleigh, or my Lord Cherbu­ry, whom we poor English-men think very excellent. But why do I trouble you wi [...] the extravagancies of this strange man, w [...] when he finds (as he fancies) a present ex­pedient, cares not though he be forc'd to de­ny it again in the next page. What I have said of Henry the Eighth, these two famous men have said it, and a Ʋide Pref. to the Hist of the World. thousand times worse, though they were Protestants, and the first of them the great admirer of his Mrs. the daughter of this very Prince. Nay (omitting the unexpressable foul Language of the Reformed at home and abroad, espe­cially of Luther himself) the Bishop of H. [...]. p. 142. He­reford (a Member of the Church of England) calls him, unsatiable glutted with one, and out of variety seeking to enjoy another. I shall speak no more to this, nor any thing separately to the next four Paragraphs, for they all con­cern the Powder-Treason. You shall see what he says to each of them, and then my Answer shall follow in one intire discourse.

REPLY to ANSW. XXVIII.

'Twas never in my heart (and so will all that know me testifie) to think that the Con­spirators [Page 203] in this Treason were not Tray­tors in the highest degree, or that any punishment could equal the blackness of their offence. In the Apology I am sure the­re are no words that can be rackt to this; for my intent there was only to shew in short that the Catholick body was inno­cent, knowing nothing of the entreprize: That the Plot (for which these were executed) was made, or at least fomented by the Po­licy of a great Statesman. And lastly, though the design had been suggested by Papists a­lone, and unanimously approved by all, yet we that live now are guilty of no sin, and the­refore 'twere severe to be punisht for it.

That the Catholick Body had no hand in the Treason, most plainly appears by the quality of the Actors, and by the number of them. I know there were four or five Gent­lemen of Ancient blood engaged; but I look upon that as no wonder: for out of the first twenty Catholicks accidentally met I'll lay a considerable wager to find as great Families as any were there, unless that of the Percies: yet this Percy was a man of no fortune, nor am I certain (though I well know my Lord Northumberlands Relations) whether really he was a kinsman, or only for names sake [Page 204] called his Cozen.

A Plot is lookt upon as general, when a good number of the Chief of a Party are in­trigued in the design. The Catholick No­blemen were then not only as considerable as any, but also the considerablest of the Na­tion: for at that time there being no Du­ke, but the late King, the first Marquess, the first Earl, the first Viscount, and the first Baron were of our Profession; and I believe 'twill be granted, that the Lords Winchester, Arundel, Mentacute, and Abergavenny, (and so proportionably the rest of the Papal Nobility) had Estates able to be Partizans, if they thought fit, in any conjuration. Now none of these Noblemen, nay, not one of all the Peers, nor any more of the Gentry then the Traytors, whom I will by and by mention, had a hand in the design: therefore to call this, as the Minister and others do, an universal Popish Plot, is in it self a contradiction, or at least a riddle be­yond my capacity to unfold.

For the number of these Gunpowder Traytors, they were but thirteen Laymen in all: whereof four, viz. Catesby, Percy, and the two Wrights were killed in the apprehen­ding. Back. p. 593. Tresham died in the Tower. And [Page 205] eight suffered, as Faun, Keys, Ba [...]e [...], Graunt, Rookwood, the two Winters, and Digby; and 't is evident there were no more of the Cō ­spiracy, seeing that in all their examinations no Gentleman was discovered; which could not happ [...] out of design to save their friends, because several secret particulars they Ʋid. their printed Confes­sions. re­vealed; and Baldwin, Hammond, Tesmond, and Gerard, being Jesuites, were (as the Minister says) found Actors in the Plot. If then the Malefactors did accuse their Con­fessors, (as our Adversarys calls them) cer­tainly they would never have spared others, had there been any more guilty.

Besides this of their accusing no-body, the Commons, Lords, and Privy Councel were so vigilant, that they left no stone unturn'd to find the depth of the Plot: and to shew how nice they were in all manner of suspi­tions, the Lords Baker. p. 595. Sturton and Mordant, two Catholicks, were fined, only because absent from the House that day; by which 'tis plain they were so far from finding positive proof, that there was not the least glimpse of any thing, otherwise they would never have de­scended to so slight a possibility; for there is not a day wherein the Parliament sits, but there may be found more Catholicks out [Page 206] of the House, then were then. Nay, the circumspection was so great, that my Baker. p 565. Lord Northumberland a protestant was imprisoned for many years, as thought perchance to know somewhat, because being Captain, he had admitted Percy into the Band of Pen­sioners. Thus, Reader, you see how impos­sible it is, that the Catholick Party were in­volved here in; and for the fourscore that ap­peared with them in Rebellion, they were only Servants and Horse-boys, who (as K I am p. 37 [...]. Sanderson says) were watcht hourly, for fear of quitting their Masters: and this also King. I. p. 920 Speed confirms, affirming, that these were ever ready to steal from the Conspirators; and that more care was in keeping them, then trust reposed either in their faith or defence. Nor can any thing make this truth more evident, then that none but the thirteen aforefaid suffered either for the Plot or rising.

Concerning the Plot it self, Reader, those that set it a working were the disco­veres of it: for you must know it was a piece of wit in Queen Elizabeths days, to draw men into such devices; nor were any more excellent in the Art then Burleigh and Wal­singham, to the first of whom, this Cecil men­tioned by the Minister, was son, and suc­cessor [Page 207] to the other in the very Secretariship. Making and [...]omenting Plots was then, I say, in fashion; for when Gifford discovered to Walsingham that Babington had a desing in the behalf of the Q. of Scots, the Secretary writ to Sir A. Pawlet her keeper, to let some of his Servants be Cam. 1586. p. 408. corrupted; and thereupon the Brewer was considered as the fittest man; by which means the Queen receiving and sending Letters, Walsingham had the perusal of them: and thus when many were drawn in (as most loose people may, if Statesmen lay gins) they were all at last taken and han­ged. The same trap caught the Queen also; for they first kept her in prison to make her earnest for liberty; then opened her, as you see, a way for correspondency at home & abroad to procure her freedom; and because of this she was condemned to die, there being a Law a year before on purpose prepa­red against her, on hopes of such and the like Camb 1586. p. 419. so the Queen [...]. Conspirations. But this Statute had been too weak, as Lawyers well know, to put a free Princess to death, had she not been a Papist, and not otherwise to be hindred from the Crown after the decease of Queen Elizabeth. Such a trick as this for our des­truction was again invented by the States­man, [Page 208] who bore as every body kn [...]w a parti­cular hatred to all of our Profession; and this increased to see the new King not only to receive into his Councel Henry Earl of Wil. King [...]. pag. 3. Northampton, a [...] eminent Catholick, but al­so to hear his Majesty speak to the two Hou­ses a little against Persecution of Wil. King [...]. p. 19. Papists, when as there had been nothing within those Walls but invectives against them for above forty years together.

What could now destroy our hopes with this gratious Prince, but a seming Plot against his Life and Line? Nor was it any hard thing for a Secretary to know turbulēt and ambitious spirits, who perchance had had designs in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 'Tis not possible to discover the whole trās­action of a great Minister that died in pros­perity: but 'tis argument enough to assert this, that if a Person (a famed Professor in Mem. K. I. p. 37. and [...]8. tricks, hating and envying us, as I said be­fore) contrived a most material part, he cō ­trived also the rest: and certainly (with some few considerations upon it) this miracu­lous Letter which discovered the Gun­powder-Plot, will discover our Statesman to be the Author of it. The Baker K. I. p. [...]93. Letter is thus.

Reader, I doubt not, but you have often heard in the Pulpit, as wel as from the Mi­nisters relation, how the Papists plac'd 36. barrels of Powder under the Parliament-House, and that Faux with his dark-lanthorn was to set them on fire, and so at one clap blow up King, Lords and all. This you know was discovered by the Letter afore­said, sent to my Lord Monteagle, and by it t [...]e whole design was found out the night The search vvas made the Night before the ses­sion▪ [...]. 879. before the Parliament sat; for great Ad­ventures do always come to light just as they are to be executed. Now, Reader, let me en­treat [Page 211] you seriously to consider, and tell me whether it could be a Popish Plotter that writ this Letter. For is it possible that any mans hould be so distracted (after they had brought their Plot to that perfection, had so solemnly sworn, even Speed p. 917, by the Trinity and Sacrament, never to disclose it directly or in­directly, by word or Circumstance, and resol­ved also to blow up all the Catholique Lords and the rest of their friends in both houses) I say all this Considered, is it possible that a man should be soe distracted as to write a Letter, that had more in it of disclosing some Plot, then the bare saving of a friend. 'Twas reported that Percy writ it; but no body ever found there were such superlative endearments between those two, or between any other of the Conspirators and Monteagle, as that they could stumble at this Noblemans destructiō, and yet dispence with killing so many of their own Religion, and Relations; for Speed p. 916. Speed says, Father, Brother, Friend, Ally, Papist, &c. were to have been blown up by these Traytors. But suppose that little inti­macies between my Lord and Percy ( Wil. K. I. p. 31 as Wilson says these were) had produced so mighty a concern for his life, whereas my Lord Nor­thumberland [Page 212] (Percies Patron and only sup­port) was to be sacrificed without pity; I say, suppose this, what need was there to write, That God and man would punish the Parliament, and this by a blow, and that they should not know who hurt them, and a hundred suspitious things to no purpose? If it were out of a desire (being an extraordinary friend) to keep this Nobleman from the House that day, the Epistle-sender should have written in his own name and Charac­ter. That out of love to his preservation, he desired him to forbear the Parliament that day, because some were resolved to kill him: that as yet being under Oath, he could not tell him the particulars, but that shortly his promise would be void, and then he should know all things from him by word of mouth. Such a Letter as this would have certainly kept my Lord at home, when as the other must confound him and every bo­dy else, coming from an unknown person: nor could any thing in the world (in the opinion of any fool) more naturally have endangered a discovery then such needless circumstances, and notice also given so long before the execution. For, Reader, you must know, that the Letter was sent to Mount­eagle [Page 213] Sand. King I. p. 323. ten days before the fifth of November; which no real Plotter would have done, since my Lord might have beē better keep't at home, by advising him the night before. Nay, this long warning was so far from an appearance of advantage, that on the con­trary it was quite opposite to all▪ the designs of a Conspirator; for 'twas certain, either it would make my Lord carelesly contemn the admonition, since it came from an idle fellow in the street; or else if he were appre­hensive, he would necessarily shew it to friends, by which (as I said) there might be no little hazard to have all found out. Now on the other side, this interval was benecifial to a Machivilian, because he knew 'twould not only be more grateful to the Privy-Councel to have time to consider on difficul­ties, but also foresaw, if the King and Lords (through surprize or otherwise) should not hit on the Plot, he must be forc'd to start hints (the execution being so neer at hand) which might easily have made him sus­pected for contriver; and how ungrateful sulch a wickedness would have been to an upright Prince, he him self could not but well imagine.

Thus, Reader, you see the intention of [Page 213] the Letter was to have the thing discover'd, and thus could he ruine his Enemies, and make his own vigilance appear; for without such and the like remembrances, the wit of great Ministers is soon forgotten both by their Prince and People. Nor did Cecil miss of another reward also, for (as K. I. p. 32 [...]. Sanderson says) he was made Earl for his service in this business.

That which I assert here, does not lessen the quickness of the Kings judgment; for his insight as much appears, whether the Letter were writ by a Statesman or a Con­spirator. Neither does this strike at the Fes­tival enacted, because the Parliamēt finding by the prisoners taken there was such a Plot, could not but thank God, that theyr tray­terous intention was discovered. And truly, if a score of wicked Christians had conspired against Nero himself, I would not gain say the remembrance of the delivery, in what Countrey soever it were observed. All that I here shew is, that the Catholique Party had no hand in the Treason, there being but thirteen Laymen in all, as you see plainly proved; and these very thirteen were doubt­less drawn in by their mortal Enemy; for the Letter came by his contrivance, beeing (as Osborn ^b [...] Mem. K. l. p. 36. confesses) a neate devise of the [Page 214] Treasurer's, nor was he ignorant from time to time of all their actions.

He that lived in our times has seen the Reign-of Queen Elizabeth reacted. For in those twelve years, from 1646. to 1658. you may remembrer the establisht Religion of the Nation altered; an absolute Soveraign exe­cuted with formalities and pretences of Law, The French fond of our amity; the Spaniard beaten; and lastly, the zealous youth drawn in­to Plots with all ease imaginable. His Majesty had those about him that had learnt this Art in their old Mistress's Service; and this the all-knowing King at last found out; for 'twas impossible that ever he would have been favourable to the Catholikes again, had he not in length of time, been assured thad they were innocent of all machinations against him. Reader, he was a constant Pro­testant, and yet so Wil. K. I. in several places. p. 196. &c. kind to us the last half of his Reign (of which Wilson complains) that neither the Spanish Match, nor any other worldly hopes could have obtained this, had he not been convinc'd we never had a design of destroying him and His. Nay, the King in his own Declaration a­bout it, says, That the generality of his Catho­lique Subjects did abhor such a detestable Con­spiracy, [Page 215] no less then him self.

Having thus replied to his Answer in the four last Paragraphs, there rests now a little to be said to some short jerks of his, which he loocks upon as witty and home.

First, he is troubled that I call the Powder-Treason, Misdemeanor, Fifth of November, Conjuration, all of them being soft words. To this I say, I am very sorry I have offended him, and in my next Apology (if that will content him) I'll speak in the longest sen­tence of the Cōmon Prayer about the matter: but my past errour grew from this, because significant brevity is aimed at by most; and therefore when we speak of, or to the King, we say Sir, or your Majesty, and not at every word, Charles the Second by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France & Ire­land, Defender of the Faith, &c. so in hand­ling this affair I use those short words that express the whole matter to the full; for I think Treason is a Misdemeanor; when more then one are in it, 'tis a Conjuration; and the Fifth of November, is the common phra­se of the Kingdom.

2. ^ly He says, that K Iames's Male-Line were to have been all destroyed. Now K. I. p. 59 [...]. Speed says the same p. 918. Baker says, That the late King then D. of York was only to [Page 216] have been suprized by Percy. But the matter is not material; and I cite these Protestant Authors, only to shew that the malice of the Minister will make him erre in every thing.

Thirdly, He thinks that my comparing of Cromwels drawing in the Cavaliers with this of Cecils, is very odd, and unequal: For the Cavaliers, he sayes, were cheated into a lawful Action, but the Powder-Tray­tors were out-witted into Treason. To this, I say, that my comparison was never in­tended (as you may see if you look into the Apology) to make an equality of Justice or Honour in their sufferings; but to remem­ber you how easie it is for Trapanners to draw people into Plots, and from thence to the Gallows.

Fourthly, Concerning his desire to know who was Cecils setter to decoy in the rest; I answer, I cannot tell: Nor should we ever have known who was Cromwels Instrument, had not Sir S. Morland most Loyally disco­vered him. There were three or four the Minister names discovered by the Conspi­rators, who knew of the Plot, and after­wards died obscurely abroad. Even so died Gifford the Priest ( Walsingham's—setter) ne­ver visibly rewarded, who corrupted the [Page 217] Brewer, and so drew the Queen of Scots in­to the trap that ruined her, as has been al­ready mentioned.

Fifthly, Because he is angry with the word Desperadoes, I have altered it in this Edition, and put in lieu Ambitious men. I am sure the word in it self is proper enough, for most were poor; and King James in his Procla­mation against Percy Ʋid. Procl. Non. 7. call's them men for the most part of desperate estates. But had they been never so rich, or in esteem, it would well have fitted with them also; for my Lord of Essex and Marshal Byron were really Desperadoes, and yet wanted nothing, had they known their own happiness.

Lastly, He says, few knew the manner, but most knew there was a design on foot, and prayed for the success of it. Suppose, Reader, this were true, that a design was recommended to the prayers of the Catho­licks, what were they guilty of by it? for at that time the Chief of them were solliciting at Court to get some little ease after their long misery; and therefore the rest might well think their prayers were fit to be desi­red. But all this is a fiction.

Thus, Reader, I have now left nothing unanswered that he has urged: and thus you [Page 218] see the Reasons I have to believe the Plot it self a Trick; and besides, 'tis plain the Body of the Catholicks had no hand, or inclina­tion to the thing, which the wi [...]e K. James at last (as I said) well knew, & therefore was gratiously pleased to let the beams of his mercy shine again upon them.

REP. to ANSW. XXIX.

Pray, Reader, what is in this Answer that confutes the Apology? for what man of our Party did not faithfully serve the King to his power? and who of us in his Majesties absence had not estimation among the rest of the Cavaliers, according to his ranck and quality? was there any Party in England more deprest then we? Were not Priests of all Orders hanged? were not others imprisoned during life? Had not we three times more Estates sold then any peo­ple else? and were not the Laws put in force, so that to those that had something, two parts of it were also swept away? Cromwel by is Maxims kept us poor, because we should [Page 220] not be service able to the King; and now our Gratious Monarch being returned, this Godly Minister thinks fit to advise our res­traint, as he calls it (which in plain English is to desire we should beused as that Tyrant used us) for fear we should do like our pre­decessors, i. e. assist his Majesty; for I am su­re all of them did so, and many confirmed that duty with their Blood. Can therefore be on Earth greater wickedness then this, not only to be forgetful in prosperity, but thus with calumny to asperse those, who were faithful fellow-sufferers with the Royall Party in the height of all theire misfortunes? Reader, the hopes of this pitiless man is, that rigour and despair may stagger us in our Loyalty: but herin I defie him: for nothing can move them to contend, whom cōscience and Love have obliged to be obedient.

REPLY to ANS. XXXII.

Reader, you see he will divide a Para­graph, and answer to each division (as he hath done in these three last) though it be gibbrish, and nothing to purpose. The rin­ging of a Mass-Bell in Lancashire, the affron­ting a Constable, and some other such things, were Accusations brought to London against us. But how impudent is the Minister, to say, we were never in trouble, as he knows, for this? when as every body knows what a do there has been ever since these com­plaints were alleadged by the known Ene­mies of the Kingdom.

REPLY. XXIII.

If my respects to the Prelats of En­gland have offended this Minister, I am sorry for it. We and the whole World know how zealous they are for Monarchy, and therefore I wish they had no greater Ene­mies then Papists: But if there be an ambush laid for them, Judge, Reader, whether we or the Cobler of Glocester have done it. 'Tis an usual phrase among Catholicks when they shew the wickedness of Lyars, to say they are so abominable that they will not stick to calumniate the Church it self; there­fore [Page 224] I think kind expressions ought to have had a better requital. For Donna Olympia's Bishops, I suppose those of our Kingdom take them selves to be of the same make; for hers received their Orders from Rome, and from the same Fountain, as I have read, the Church of England pretends to derive all Ordination whatsoever. The Mi­nister needed not to have told me, that the Commons cannot administer Oaths, for I know the Orders of that House better then his Worship. I was not troubled that no Oath was given; but seeing that no Oath could be given, 'twas hard me thought, that the whole Town should take all things as unquestionable truths, though the Accusers were (as I said) profest enemies to us, and lately to the very Kingdom also. But now, I thank God, men understand themselves much better: for Lies can never long endure.

REPLY to ANSW. XXXIV.

Many Accusations, Reader, were of two or three yaers standing and more, and no one thing amounted to a real Publick nuissance: let a man then cōsider this soberly, and he will find it no little wonder, that so many Catholiques of all Ranks, Sexes, Ages, and humours should for above six years together never so far indulge to their [Page 226] Passions, as to commit a fault fit to trouble Parliament with, though from all Countries the violentest of their Enemies came to offer up their complaints against them. For my part I do greatly admire at it, and must ac­knowledge a particular Providēce assisting; nor can I but thank the Publisher of the Accusations, who malitiously intending us harm, has done us all the right imaginable.

REPLY to ANSW. XXXV.

Concerning this Hubert a Frenchman that pretended to burn the City, you must know, He was son to a Protestant, a Protestant himself in France, had been of the French Church in England; to the Committee, and to the Judge at the Bar, he profest then he was a Protestant, and died so at the Gallows. Certain­ly it was no Argument he was no Protestant, because he (as the Minister says) esteemed of Confession; for I know many Protestants that have used it, some Divines have writ [Page 228] in behalf of it, and I remember Dr. Will was mightily for it, whem he governed his flock in Fleerstreet. An Ave Mary is Scripture, and whosoever reads the Salatation of the Angel and St. Elizab. does at that time actual­ly say one, Besides, if no body is a Protestant that holds peculiar opinions, then I must conclude there are very few Protestants in the World: for Protestants in Religion agree only in Negatives, that is, they ge­nerally deny thé Pope, Purgatory, &c. but when they come to Positives, they jar, and then divide, and subdivide (as we by ex­perience see) into a million of Sects and Factions.

Reader, before I go farther, I must tell you who this Harvey is: by Nation he is a Low-Countryman, but admitted among the English Jesuites, as many Aliens are. He is an antient; quiet, and pious man; 'tis late­ly I knew him, but found him to be of a ve­ry Angelical conversation. Many Priests being frō time to time imprisoned, brought him acquainted with Newgate, where some­times he assisted those that went to die. This I call high charity in any man of any Sect, to take pains to make another of that Religion, which his Conscience tells him is [Page 229] most agreeable to God. Nor is there any humane interest or Policy in thus assisting Malefactours, for they are poor of them­selves, and sure to die the next execution­day. By this occasion Mr. Harvey met with the French Hugonot [the pretended firer of London) with whom he had discourse about Religion; and after he had instructed him in the Catholique Doctrine, he went to ad­minister the Communion to the Company; and then demanding of them, whether they received according to the Roman Catho­lick faith, Hubert said, He had nothing to do with Roman, and therefore the Sacrament was refused him; nor did Mr. Harvey ever se him after. This is the truth of the Story. But, pray, what is the Frenchman to us, had he been Papist? though (as it happened) he lived and died otherwise. For my part, I believe there are few Fren­chmen now in London, but would be glad to see it afire again, either for an opportuni­ty to steal, or for the advantage of their Prince, were he at War with us; the like would the English wish at Paris, I dare say.

Consider therefore, Reader▪ I beseech you, my Answerer; and though 'tis at no time my humour to give foul language, yet [Page 230] I must say, I challenge all Englād to find out one that shall excel him in ill. He has accused us for the Murther of King Charles; the cau­se of the English, Irish, and Scotish War; the triumphing at ourmis fortunes at Sea; the rejoy­cing for the Enemies being upon our Coast; and then lastly the burning of Londō it self: yet all this urged without any manner of proof, no not so much as the least probability.

Is one detraction against one onely man a sin, and punishable at the Judgment-seat of God hereafter; and shall so various asper­sions against so many of the best account in England pass for a toy? I am sure, it is my be­lief, to think they shall die eternally (if they repent not) who defamed and did wrong even to those that crucified Christ. If then a woe be pronounc'd against such, what will become of them that asperse his Members? and therefore if this Minister be a Christian be must know that without satis-factiō there is no forgive­ness. Nay, the effects of his crimes have risen to this, to encourage other men to do the like; for not long after, there was pu­blisht (as I just now mentioned) a libell call'd the Committee of Parliaments enquiry about the firing the City; and at last the wic­kedness [Page 231] of the Author laid it at the doors of the King, Duke, General, L. Craven, Chief Justice, and others of the chiefest account in the Nation.

All that he said against Papists, was in truth to justifie them; for no better Accusa­tion could be found, then that several Frēch­men were busie about the fire: that a supposed Jesuite with a Bishop-sattin Suit (over which was a frock) came and firied a House (the fire it self being, as the Libeller confesses, within six doors of it) and when he was apprehended, he spake Latine without any necessity. Then he tells, that one Carpenter (who is an Apo­state Priest) spoke for the Pope; & that one or tws poor women were sollicited to be Papists, and told, Now was the time, for if they neg­lected this opportunity they should not be re­garded hereafter. Nay, when nothing could be found against Papists, the Author cites Verses (only found as he confesses in Westminster-Hal) to threaten Protestants into Popery. And another Paper (writ by a Pa­pist, as he says, newly turned Protestant, and found in a Pew by a Templer) in which he desired all Protestants to pursue Papists, for they had a design to cut their throats. This is the effect of the Pamphlet, which I would [Page 232] have every body read, for nothing can be a greater Vindication to us, then such in­considerable and senceless Lies.

And truly, when I consider these with the Stories against Papists in the Answer to Philanax, and how both are exactly made in the same mode and figure, I should not doubt but that Sieur du Moulin was the Au­thor, were not the Libel so severe against his Countrymen the French. And pray Reader, consider here the Justice of God, who is a God of retaliation always: for as the Dr. strove to incite the people by his malitious falsities, which have not the least probabili­ty of truth, and which would involve all the Loyal Catholiques of England with one or two guilty men, if there had been any such; so now there are spread such a number of Lies about our danger from the French, that people are ready to stone all they meet; and should the rabble run into a sudden fury (as God knows but they may) Mr. du Moulin and his Family may perchance also go sharers with his Countrymen; for his be­ing a free Denizon would be thought a weak Argument by the outragious and overheated multitude.

Concerning the Fire it self, Reader, I [Page 233] could never, as I said, think it a design, not­withstanding a Protestant Hugonot confest the fact; and my reason was, because no bo­dy in his Senses would be so foolish with deliberation to venture his life, when 'twas not only odds he should be found out, but the fire would be stopt before it came to the third house. How often have we seen it in the narrow places of London? how often in the ill-building of Kings-street? how often in the Paper-houses of Charing Cross, the Strand? &c. and yet for all this (whether it happened by night or by day) it was quencht with­out any remarkable spoil. Besides, 'tis impossible, if either Protestants, Papists, Presbyterians, or Phanatiques had effected so great a work but we should have seen so­me prosecution of their design, as either to be in Arms, or inviting in our forreing E­nemies, or at leastwise raising tumults in the hurry. But on the contrary, there has not been since any preparation for a rising in England; nay, which is more, for all that thirteen thousand Families were to seek new habitations, and all the rest of the Town disordered, yet there was not the least riot, though the accident it self might have occa­sioned a sedition, without being animated [Page 234] by Conspirators. In short, after a strict enquiry by the Parliament of England (that Supream Court) of the occasion of this dis­mal fire, 'twas concluded to be the hand of God alone: and therefore I shall never think otherwise of it, though Hubert the Hugonot acknowledged himself the Author, and Ʋid▪ Trigg's Alma­nack fo 1666. and re­peated in that of 1668. Trig a Protestant brag's that he foretold it in his Almanack printed almost a whole year be­fore.

Now because the Minister hath men­tioned Garnet, I shall desire you, Reader, to peruse his Hovv. p. 882. last words and confession, as you shall find them in How, who continued Stows History. He acknowledged his foul of­fence in concealing the Treason; was sorry for it, asking God forgiveness for the same, besee­ching a blessing for the King and his Issue; and then exhorted all Catholiques never to attempt Rebellion, Treason or violent practises against his Majesty, for all such courses were utterly against the Catholick Faith. If then, Reader, a Jesuite known to be learned, and therefore not ignorant of the Doctrine of our Reli­gion; if also a Jesuite on the point of death, and so necessitated to speak truth, hath pub­liquely owned (as a Protestant records) that Rebellion is incompatible with Catholique Doc­trine; [Page 235] to affirm this still to be our Principle, is certainly a very high injustice: and if the practice of some few shall yet be urged a­gainst me as a Proof, then I must affirm, that the Church of England teaches Theft, because so many of their Members are monthly hanged for it at Tyborn.

Reader, from hence to the end I shall still continue my first method of setting down the Ministers Answer to every Section of the Apology; but I shall seldome Reply, be­cause the poorness of the matter carries a cō ­futation in it self, and therefore it would be a needless trouble both to you and me, if I should say something to each Para­graph.

REPLY XXXVI.

I have sufficiently treated the Irish Re­bellion in the first Reply; neither have I bin wanting to shew you, that a Protestāt Author, viz. Vid. Rep. 13. Heath, lays the cause of it on the En­glish [Page 237] Long-Parliament, which occasioned so many mischeifes, & by their wicked begi­nings against that good Prince encouraged the designes of the rest of his seditious subjects: Nor had the Scots themselves bin then wan­ting (by their actuall levying warr against their King, & corresponding with his for­rain Enemies) to prick forward (seeing they were successefull) all those who studied com­motions & disorders. Judge then whither they were the Papists of England, or the Re­formed in both Kingdomes of Great Brittain that farthered the Irish Rebellion. But now that the Irish never treated Protestants bet­ter then the yeare before they curt theire throats, is a foolish invention of this shame­lesse Minister, & nonsense in it selfe; Nor was it practicable, unlesse the English had (like the Israelites in Egypt) bin sojour­nours at will, & had nothing to doe with the Government. For would it not be a mad ex­pression to say that the Hugonots of France better treated this yeare the Papists there, then they had done before; or that the Round­heads treated the Cavaliers more kindly then they had done since the Kings Restaura­tion. But this is un Coup d'esprit, a peice of witt of the Worthy Minister, & truely so [Page 238] great a one that I admire it, & should doe it much more, were it not soe common.

REPLY. XXXVII.

How childishly rediculous is this Mini­sters Allegation, That none of us suffered but by known Laws? What does he mean? Did we ever (when we governed England) put any to death but by the known Laws esta­blished many hundred years before the Malefactors were born, and which are still on foot, and used to this day by Protestants against Hereticks? But fully to reply to this [Page 240] Answer, I cannot better do it, then by beseeching you to read over this short Sec­tion of the Apology again, and then tell me, whether any request can be more reasonable and Christian; or whether this way of in­volving the whole in the crimes of a few, be not exactly the Procedure of Cromwel.

REPLY to ANS. XXXIX.

Good Mr. Parson, 'tis more then you know but that I am a Lord; yet whether I am or no, the Catholick Lords and I are of the same Loyal Principles, and what they did, any other Catholick would have done had he been Member of their House.

REP. to ANSW. XL.

I think I have been as lately at Lucca, [Page 242] Genoa, and Venice, and know the places as well as the Minister. 'Twas not therefore my meaning, that there were no Popish States, but that generally Popery tends to Monarchy; and on the contraty, Calvinism (from which the Church of England differs only in Bishops) leans altogether to a De­mocratical Government. Heretofore ( in the Civil Wars of our Country) there was never the least mention of a Commonwealth; but still the Rebels would have a King, and ra­ther then fail, one of another Kingdom. I beseech God, that the present Principles ha­ve no other tendency but to Monarchy; for, Reader, you must know that Principles may blindly lead men to a thing, which not only their judgments, but their inclinations loath: as for example, the Reformed both in judgment and inclination desire unitie; but their Principles in spite of all endea­vours will draw them (as we see by a hund­red years experience) into perpetual con­fusion and discord.

REPLY to ANSW. XXXXII.

Pray, Reader, consider the wicked folly [Page 245] of this man, for here he denies us a part in the good actions of the Irish; and yet all a­long he has laid their ill actions at our door; nay, in this very Paragraph he twits us with it, when he says, I was conscious it was a blot on our cause: but I will pass by this as usual, and go on.

Truly, Reader, the case of the Irish in Arms, toucht me as neer as my own con­cerns; and pray see the strange Hypocrisie also of this Minister, that says God forbid these poor Souldiers should not be considered, and that he is neither good Christian, nor Subject, that would not contribute to it; and yet in the same exhortation, endeavours all he can to have the Laws executed, which must needs force these forlorn men either to beg or steal. By this we may find what his contribution is, and therefore God deliver all honest men from such a merciless creature: and was ever man so abominable (knowing many of the Kings Judges were pardoned) to reproach my assertion, that the worst of this Nation be but intentionally so wicked as the acted villany of many English, whom the cle­mencie of the Parliament pardoned? Is not this in plain terms, to say, that the bu­siness of Ireland was greater then the Rebel­lion [Page 246] of England, and horrid Murther of our Gratious King, which has drawn an eternal disgrace upon the whole Nation in general? If this man, who uses the word US at eve­ry turn, (ranking himself thereby among the Royallists) be a Royallist, then I'll here­after say, that Bradshaw was one also.

REP. to ANS. XLIII.

The Minister is here just as he uses to be; for many were upon this account disbanded before he put out his Answer; and since, all the rest of the Catholiques have been cashie­red, as 'twas expected by every body when he writ.

REPLY to ANSW. XLVII.

For our necessity (other then our Duty) to engage for his Maiestie, I have answered it at large in the Preface. For the loss of our [Page 152] Estates, I say here is an excelent encourage­ment for Subjects, according to this mans Doctrine. But I see by the whole manner of his writing, that he is some inconsiderable man, whose name would be as little known if prefixt, as it is now being concealed; and therefore there is no wonder if what he writ be inconsiderable also.

Concerning the Catalogue of those bra­ve Catholicks that laid their lives down for their King, the Minister saith thus.

REPLY to ANSW. XLVIII.

For my Lord Carnarvan, Reader, you must know, he was a Ward taken by my Lord Pembroke from his Catholique Mother, and [Page 252] then married to his Daughter. In the Army my Lord never marched without a Priest; whē he was wounded to death, he sent for his Brother in law the Lord Herbert, late M. of Worster, and desired him to go tell the King, That he could do no more then die in his Quar­rel; and if he would grant him but this request, he would think his Majesty sufficiently recom­penced him for his life. His petition was, That his Mother might have the breeding up of his Son; and the end of this he said was, That the Child might be educated in the Catholick Religion. After this he received all the rites of the Roman Church, and died in the arms of a Priest now alive, that belonged to ma­ny of my Lords Relations. Concerning my Catalogue in general, you must know, Rea­der, I have been often chid at London for omitting so many considerable Catholicks; but this I could not help, for the Catalogue was collected by Mr. Blunt (as I take it) who is to be much commended for his pains. When I printed the Apology, I was in such hast that I had not time to examine it nicely among my friends: I am now, Reader, also a great way from London, and therefore am forc'd to print it again without amendmēts; all that I can do at present is, to desire a leaf [Page 253] or two of white paper be added, in which we may write down (as we shall from time to time be informed) the names of those Heroick men, that died in defence of their King and Country.

I wonder very much that this Minister is not ashamed to urge such a foolish thing, viz. That more Protestants dyed in this War then of our Religion. This no body doubts of, and may well be, seeing we are not the hundredth part of the Nation, and yet by my imperfect List it appears, that there were killed 190. Catholiques of Quali­ty; when as ( by the List called the Royal-Martyr, and printed by Thomas Newcomb 1660.) there died in the War but 212. Pro­testants, the rest there named being Papists, as you may see, if you compare their names with my Catologue. Let the Word then judge, whether we ought not to have some compassion shewed us, and not to be thus calumniated by every impertinent Scribler.

Reader, those that follow are the Ministers exhortations, which are so like the Pedantry of his pulpit, that they alone without the rest would have assured me of the Authors cal­ling. That you may see what they are, I have divided them into eight several Advices or [Page 254] Desires, for so he is pleased to call them.

First Sect. He desires us to be content with our condition, and not under value the Liberty we now enjoy, if it exceed what was granted our Fathers. To this I say, Reader, that we are contented with any favour; yet 'twould be no arrogance if we require more them our Fathers had, because it seems the Minister counts them all Traytors, when as we (as all the World knows) have shewn the utmost duty that Subjects can do.

Second Sect. Not to proclaim about the World for the paring of our nayls that we are persecuted. To this I will give a larger Ans­wer in the Postscript; and will only say here, that I defie any man, to shew me in Christen­dome a Party that bears their misfortunes with more submission then we.

Third Sect. To abhor them that wish distur­bances or Invasions to settle Popery. To this I say, I think that nothing can make it more manifest that we do abhor such men, then to see that all catholicks detested the French, evē then when we were forsakē by our friends, and they (as most thought) upō the point of landing.

Fourth Sect. To keep our Religiō to our selves, and not expect such harvests as we had in the late confusions. I say, Truly we are like to [Page 255] keep it to our selves, for 'tis too severe to be embraced by Worldlings: and if care be not taken, the same times will come again; for I am sure, crying against Papists was then the former Prologue; and though the aim of wicked people be still the same, I hope the Epilogue will be far different.

Fifth Sect. Not to abuse the weakness of dying persons, nor convert the condemned Pri­soners with drink, or by hopes of an easier way of salvation. To this I answer, The Minister ought not to call the condition of dying per­sons weak, because he and his brethren have always found them strong; for I think no man ever heard that a Catholick was con­verted by them at his death; and all have been able to resist that in their Agony, to which worldly ends made some in their healths yeild. But now, if Catholicks have reconciled dying persons, it must be wholly attributed to the truth of their Doctrine, for then all hopes of life being taken away, men will hearken to that reason, which du­ring health (through temporal advantages) they earnestly opposed: Nay, few of these, if they recover, start back, but on the con­trary persevere. I say, these Conversions must needs proceed from the conviction of [Page 256] the Truth, and not from hopes of any easier way of salvation, because the Protestant way is far easier, and naturally more sutable to the inclinatiōs of dying men; For an ordi­nary trust in the merits of Christ, and an ordi­nary contrition (usual to all people that are said not to die ill) will, according to the Reformed Hypothesis, carry a man presently to Heaven: when as this, in the opinion of any Catho­licks, and of the Agonising party himself, will bring him at farthest but to Purgatory. The entrance into Heaven is not so easie a passage with us; for it must be obtained with long Mortifications, conflicts, and labours, far greater then those of Hercules; or else in men of ill lives, by some unexpressible ener­gy at the last gasp, like that of the Thief on the Cross. Vain therefore is the imagination of Protestants, for we have no other means to convert men, but, as I said, the force of truth on their Consciences, which truth in that state they can discern (as men fallen in­to miserie, do oftentimes the vanities of the World) when as in strength of body (through humane designs) like the adder, they stop their ears, let the Charmer charm never so sweetly. Many advantages more (were it not time ho have done with the [Page 257] Minister) could I shew, that the Protestants have naturally over Catholicks, in conver­ting of dying people, but they never con­verted one (as I heard of) yet he confesses many have been by us.

Besides this, I beseech you, Reader, to look upon the lives of those that leave the Protestant Religion to come to us, and then shew me any one of them, that lives worse then he did before. Some perchance there b [...] (and those almost as rare as black swans them­selves) that mend not the depravity of their first manners, though none, as I said, fall to worse: but for the rest, they apparently cast off the old man, and shew the wonderful fruits of Grace by their holy life and conversation. On the other side, good Protestant Reader, name me that man amongst you, who left the Catholique Church, and fell not immediately into all licentiousness and vice; call but to mind Gage, Cary, Rookwood, Carpenter, Macedo the late converted Portugeze, or any other whom you please, and see, if they had one unclean spirit in them when they were Pa­pists, whether seven Divels, each worse then the former, afterward entered not into them.

Truly, this is no wonder, because they, [Page 258] forsook their Religion for liberty, and follo­wed the pattern of Luther their first Master and Teacher. For, he while he was a Monk pu­nisht his body with watching and fasting, as Catal. Doct▪ p. 180. S. Voyon a Protestant cōfesses. But afterwards he lived otherwise, as another [...]. Mot de Eccl. p. 221. Protestant affirms: for he says, That when Protestants would indulge their appetite, they would not be ashamed to use these words; Let us live Lu­ther- like to day.

Sixth Sect. Not to hinder the course of Ju­stice on Criminals because they are Papists. To this I say, I understand not what he means; but if any Papist has sollicited for another of his Religion which was to die, I think 'tis not unlawful: No man of any Religion being denied to use their endeavours to save their Friends and Relations, that fall by chance into these misfortunes. But herein we shall obey his advice, for (unless it be by some unphappy duells) the Catholicks come seldome within the the reach of Crimi­nal Laws.

Seventh Sect. That Priests disguize not themselves like Hectors, and poyson Clubs and Coffee houses with Phanatick discourses. To this I answer, that if Phanaticism be the discourse of a Priest, I doubt this Minister [Page 259] is one also; for never did Jacob Behmen, Sti­fler, or any of the Fraternity write more ma­litious, self contradicting things then he; or that have in them more inferences of con­fusion and disorder. In the next place, if Priests disguize themselves, I think 'tis not their faults; and if the Minister will get them liberty to wear their habit, I will be bound they shall never go more in Mascara­de. Besides, being thus known by every body, we then shall plainly see, who they be that at Taverns and Meeting-places corrupt the Youth. And truly, Reader, I am very mo­rally certain, that this Answerer is a haunter of them, for the old Proverb tells us who calls Whore first.

Eighth Sect. That Priests and Iesuites fill not the World with Pamphlets, Philanaxes, Exhor­tations, Apologies, &c. which ser [...] ( [...]e says) only to fermēt mens passiōs, and not to convince their Reasons. If we come into the fair field of Contro­versie, we shal not be declined; and the Minister thinks his party not indebted to us upon that ac­count. Good Mr. Parson, you very well know that the Philanaxes, Exhortations, Apologies, &c. were writ by Lay-m [...]n, and therefore you might have spared this last advice, since 'twas as needless as the rest of your [Page 260] false and malitious writing.

And by the way remember how you have perverted and falsely commented on a Loyal mans learned work, this very Exhor­tation which you mention. His words, Rea­der, are these: As for the Roman Pastors indi­rect power over Kings in ordine ad Spiritualia, by which the Sea Apostolical in some rare Cases hath (at the request of all Christians) procee­ded to censure, and deprive Kings (a thing so much talkt of, and so little understood by the Reformed Divines) I leave that Question to be decided by the two Supream Powers when occa­sion shall be for it' which may not happen to the end of the World: It being a very rare Case, in which it were not better that such matters were wholly left till the day of Judgment. Now the sum of this is, as the Minister says, that if the Pope should deprive our King, this Catholick would not meddle between them. When as his true meaning was, That this case between Popes and Kings will happē seldome, if ever; and should it happen, he will not as to the right (or, via juris) determine the nice pretensions of each party; yet this does not argue, but that he would side, as to action (or, via facti) with his Prince against any person whatsoever. And thus we daily see the [Page 261] French do, who swear they cannot tell whe­ther the Law called Salique be forged; or whe­ther in Justice the now Male-Line, or the English (because descended from the Heirs general) ought to have the Kingdom; but still they declare, they will fight for their present Monarch against all Mankind. This, I say, is the sense of the Author of the Exhortation, and this I dare ingage he shall subscribe to.

Now concerning Philanax, how poorly it is answered, I believe the Minister would be ashamed to confess: and yet (how poorly soever) he has made use of it; Nay of the most contemptible and groundless follies in the whole Book. I am sure, the man needed not to have challenged us into the fair field of Contro­versie, having there-in been more then Combatants, ever since the breaking out of Luther. Nor can there be any Argument of more generous bravery then this, That though our Priests in England have been hunted from hole to hole, their Papers of­ten seized, some in the midst of their works hanged, no Library, no Press, and if to day well settled, perchance forc'd on the morrow to flie; yet for all these disavantages (which no Protestant feels) they never omitted to [Page 262] write things of use, or to answer all sorts of Books, that durst appear against our Reli­gion or manners. Fear not therefore, good Minister, that either Clergy or Laity will be behindhand with you in this affair; and I think Dr. Pierce will tell you he found it to some purpose from both Nor shall you, Sir, whilst I live (be ready again, as soon as you please) want an humble Servant to shew you your many willful errors and mistakes.