CHAP. I.

1 THERE is a generation of men half witted, and not so much as half learned, but wholy vicious, who persuade themselves, that the soule is a blast of wind, the other life an imaginary Vto­pia, God a Chimaera which onely hath a being in the weake braines of ignorant people; Heaven, and Hell, old wives tales, invented by States men to keepe the Subjects in awe, and pliable to the Prince his will, and pleasure, by the dreadfull no­tion of Eternity. The multitude (say they) must be cheated into its owne good, and consequent­ly into peace, and subjection; and no cheate is more plausible, or lesse suspected, then that which men call Religion; provided, that such as have least, and governe the Commonwealth, [Page 2]counterfeit most, and seeme to be more zealous for the establishment of the Church, then solici­tous for themselves, or their posterity.

2 Men are not borne Atheists, neither are their mindes possessed of these extravagant fan­cies on a suddaine; they fall by degrees, first from the love of God, and then from his knowledge. From the love of God they fall by every mortall sinne; but from his knowledge, by a custome and excesse of sinning, and by drowning them­selves in sensuall pleasures, which divert their thoughts from the consideration of spirituall things, and even from the best part of themsel­ves, the soule. Notwithstanding this distraction, and their being so bewitched, and besotted with sense, now and then they feele a certaine remor­se, and guilt of conscience; which remorse, and guilt of conscience strikes them into a terrour, or feare of divine justice; this feare degenerates into despaire of mercy: feare of justice, and de­spaire of mercy doe so trouble their soules, and understandings, that they recurre to the will to be eased, which endeavoureth to helpe them with a fond wish, or desire, that no such thing there were as God, Providence, and another world: this desire creates a fancy like unto it selfe, and that without any difficulty, because men are apt to soothe themselves with fancying what they desire; and such a fancy transformed into a reall persuasion, is that which we call Atheisme: whereof the seed is vice; remorse, and guilt of conscience, the dispositions; despaire of mercy, the matter; a fond and perverse will, the [Page 3] agent; a wish of Gods impossibility, the action; and the forme, a fantasticall opinion of his owne existence. Whereby it appeares, that Atheisme is no worke of a sound judgement, but of a de­praved will, guided not by reason, but seduced by passion. Atheists in denying God, Providence, and the next life, judge not by the understanding, but by the will, not by reason, but by inclina­tion; they believe that God doth not exist, be­cause they wish he were impossible.

3 Seeing therefore I have to doe with per­sons that measure the possibility, or impossibility of things by wishes, and inclinations, I have thought of an argument sutable to their hu­mour, waving other convincing, and ordinary demonstrations of Gods existence, grounded upon a series of causes, and effects, and upon the disposition, beauty, and order of this great Vni­verse. I intend therefore to prove the possibility of God, by a wish, or desire of his existence; against which method Atheists can have no ex­ceptions, because it is their owne, with this dif­ference onely, that my wish, or desire shall follow reason, whereas theirs goes before it, or rather against it; because they give the will not onely the precedence, but also turne it in opposition to reason.

4 To demonstrate that God is not impossi­ble, is to demonstrate his existence; because if he can be, he is; for, none but himselfe can withstand his being, as his possibility of being is from none but himselfe. Now, I prove that he is not impossible. The object of a wish, or de­sire, [Page 4]guided by evident reason, cannot be impos­sible, unlesse we will say, that betweene evident reason, and manifest foppery, there is no diffe­rence: for, what greater foppery, then to thinke, that cleare and evident reason should put us upon the wish, and desires, and consequently upon the hopes, and endeavours towards the obtaining of an impossibility? The distinction betweene evident, and obscure, or probable rea­son, is, that evident reason cannot confound truth with falshood, possibility with impossibi­lity; but obscure, or probable reason, may judge probable what is impossible. So that if evident reason doth solicite, and incline us to wish, and desire that there were a God, Providence, and another life, they must be reall objects, and not fond impossibilities.

5 There is no wish, or desire more naturall to man, nor more evidently reasonable in it self, then an absolute inclination to just satisfaction for injuries received. The more rationall men are, the more troubled they are at tyranny, and injustice; the desire of satisfaction in them, is greater then in any others, because they have greater strength of reason; which absolutely de­sireth to be rid of that paine it feeleth, when we see in others poverty oppressed, or innocency condemned. Every injustice of a Tyrant, or ma­lefactour, doth occasion in us a most rationall desire of satisfaction, not proceeding from inte­rest or passion, but from an evident dictamen of reason, which is clearly proved, because we re­sent not onely our owne, but also the injuries [Page 5]done to others of no relation to us, and wish they were punished, and redressed: which de­sire is not grounded upon sense, that seekes no more then its owne good. But if there be not a God, Providence, and another life, all these our rationall desires, and good wishes, are but so ma­ny foolish insinuations to impossibilities; for, sad experience doth demonstrate, that they who commit the greatest tyrannies, and injustices, are often most powerfull, not subject to any Law, but to their owne will, and pleasure; they are out of the reach of justice in this world. There­fore there must be another, where those that suffer wrong, may be satisfied, and those that doe it, punished by a supreme Deity of infinite power, and wisdome, whom no force can with­stand, no policy deceive. If not, evident reason is a meere foppery, because it sets us upon abso­lute desires of impossibilities, and gives us a vaine assurance of that we are not sure to obtaine.

6 I doe not see how Atheists can disprove this argument, without condemning themselves, and all mankinde, for following the dictamen of reason in any businesse. If evident reason may leade men to impossibilities, when they thinke of God, and the next life, what evidence, or assu­rance can they have in this world of not being fooled in the most rationall designes? Perhaps some man in his dreames may please himselfe in this foolish fancy, that reason by the mischiefe of wicked men is fallen into so great a misfor­tune, as to fall upon desires of what is impossible to attaine. A sad misfortune indeed, which ma­kes [Page 6]reason not onely miserable, but unreasona­ble, which in effect is, not to be reason. A change greater then God himselfe, in the opinion of any, can make, who cannot alter essences, to make a thing be, and not be what it is in his proper being. For, if reason, being reason, should ab­solutely incline us to gape, and grasp at impossi­ble Chimaeras, it would be so farre from being reason, that no greater foolery can be concei­ved.

7 Yet peradventure waking out of his dream, he may frame us yet another wiser objection, saying, that our misfortune is onely in this, not that reason becomes no reason by being turned into nonsense, but that we mistake that for rea­son, which is no reason, thinking that which seemes evident to us, to be the dictamen of true reason, whereas it may be, that our clearest thoughts are but specious, and plausible errours. But if this be so, I must make bould to demand of my witty adversary, whether he doth not want both wit, and judgement? when upon the dictamens of his seeming reason, he busies him­selfe about the compassing those designes which his said seeming reason inclines him unto. And further presse him, whethet he suspects any er­rour in these following Tenets, which all may thinke they have reason to hold? for example, That we ought to be gratefull to our friends, dutifull to our parents, Ioyall to our Soveraignes: That we ought in generall to fly evill, seeke good, to enjoy what happinesse we can with reason hope to obtaine. For, if reason be suspe­cted [Page 7]of errour, there is no reason to rely upon it with assurance in these most commonly recei­ved as rationall Tenets. Wherefore if reason in­clining us to the desire of a God, and another life, may be suspected of errour, as deluding us with a vaine hope of what is impossible, an A­theist will be obliged, to his shame, to call in que­stion the aforesaid principles, which no man not wholy devoyd of all shame, honour, and hone­sty, dare either in the presence of others, or in his owne conscience offer to bring into disputation, or doubt. Now it followeth in order that we further inquire.

CHAP. II.

1 THe foppery of an ignorant and presump­tuous person, doth not consist so much in his ignorance, as in his presumption. Wise men may be ignorant of many things; but none can be wise, who presumes to knowe what he never could learne, or is above his capacity. I doe not call Atheists fooles, because they doe not demon­strate [Page 8]the being of a God; but seeing they can have no reason to thinke the contrary, and that wiser men then they, doe confidently affirme, that God is demonstrated, its want of judgement not to believe what they doe not, or will not comprehend, especially when they runne the greatest of all hazards by not believing. He that is resolved not to take any knowledge by trust, or tradition, is rather a beast, then a rationall crea­ture he is not fit for humane society, neither can he pretend any kindred, or inheritance, there being no proofe for either, if we reject the testi­mony of lawfull witnesses. There is not a more universall, or constant tradition, or testimony of lawfull witnesses for any thing, then for the be­ing of a God, Providence, and another life; though it were never demonstrated, it ought to be credited, especially by Atheists, who are as ig­norant, as presumptuous of knowledge. We ne­ver read that any of the ancient Philosophers, or great wits of the world, contradicted the tradi­tion of Gods being: two, or three of the lowest banke, rather Philologers, then Philosophers, as Dia­goras, Lucian, and Pliny, looked that way, because they declined from vertue, and never inclined their minds to solid learning, and would faine have rid themselves of the remorse of conscien­ce, the soure sauce wherewith sensuall delights are seasoned.

2 One of the greatest fooleries a man can commit, is, to cast himselfe into a manifest dan­ger without cause; for, danger is not onely the forerunner of evill, but is an evill it selfe. To ex­pose [Page 9]a man to the hazard of loosing his life, is an evill done him, though by good fortune he should escape. And albeit Atheists fancy to them­selves, that God is but a Chimaera, and the next world, Vtopia, they cannot deny, that this fancy exposeth them to a manifest danger of damna­tion; because if the contrary prove true, as it may for all they knowe, the evidence of tor­ments will fooles undeceive them, and drive them out of their fooles paradise, when repentance will be too late. The greater appearance there is of any evill, the greater is the danger; and the ap­pearance of a God (though not the reality) be­ing evident to Atheists, in the fabrike and order of the Vniverse, as also in many supernaturall sig­nes, and prodigies: by denying him, they must of necessity incurre the danger of his indignation, in case he doth exist; from which they cannot ra­tionally expect to be freed, by the pretended pro­bability of their erroneous opinion; because though it should be as probable as they imagine, that there is not a God, yet the choice of an opi­nion more dangerous in practise, then probable in speculation, as theirs is, is so great a foppery, that onely mad men can ground upon it their sal­vation, and thinke it a sufficient satisfaction for divine Justice.

3 And though we should grant to Atheists, that its possible we may be mistaken in our be­liefe, and hopes of God, and another life; yet we suffer no great prejudice by the mistake: to ab­staine from base and transitory pleasures, cannot be any great losse. But if they will consider the [Page 10]much we have reason to hope for, and the little advantage they have of vertuous men, by fol­lowing vice; and will also reflect upon the dan­ger they runne by denying and offending God: they must cōclude, that though our hopes should come to nothing, we cannot be deprived of this satisfaction, and praise, that we did in our be­liefe, and actions, what rationall men ought to have done, all circumstances considered; whereas they, in this world, must be esteemed no better then fooles, for running so manifest a hazard of damnation: and if there be no other life, we are no worse then they, because they cannot brag of their choice made in this world, nor receive in the other any congratulations of friends, for the good fortune they had, in preferring here vice before vertue, and Atheisme before Christia­nity.

4 But now let us prove, that though Atheists had no other sinne but Atheisme, they can have no excuse to alledge, for not believing and wor­shipping God; but rather that they doe him a positive injury, and therefore are justly condem­ned. Men may have evidence of their owne obli­gation to believe a truth that is not evident.The­re is not any principle more evident then that which commands us, to deale with others as our sel­ves would be dealt withall: what Atheist is there, that would not take it for an injury, to be treated like a clowne, and a knave, if he hath the garbe, habit, and attendance of a Prince, and all the out­ward signes of morall honesty? If there be an evident obligation not to injure others, and it be [Page 11]an injury not to treate persons according to their appearance, its manifest that all men are obliged to believe, that there is a God, who ought to be honoured and adored, because there is greater appearance of his infinite power and wisdome in what is visible to our eyes, then any Atheist, or other man can shew for his owne nobility, or morality. If every person may challenge a right to be treated according to his exteriour appea­rance, though his quality be not evident, its an injury to God, and a damnable sinne, to except his Divine Majesty from so generall a rule. When­ce it doth follow, that though men had no other sinne to answer for, but Atheisme, that alone is a sufficient and just cause of their damnation.

5 The bare possibility of being mistaken in a mans quality, or dignity, is no sufficient warrant to deny him that honour and respect, which is due to others of his ranke, and doth sufficiently appeare in himselfe by evident signes, and au­thentike testimonies. Its very certaine that Im­postours have counterfeited, and abused not one­ly titles of Nobility, but also the dignity of Ma­jesty. But the fault of few ought not to prejudi­ce the right of many, and its better to runne the hazard of being mistaken, then to abuse others. If the obligation of paying the tribute of ho­nour, and respect, where it seemeth to be due, be so precise, that it must not be denyed to any who may claime it, notwithstanding the pos­sibility of impostures, and mistakes; how much more precise is our obligation not to deny re­spect, and honour to an appearance that cannot [Page 12]be counterfeited? The fabrike, order, and beau­ty of the Vniverse, together with the miracles, and supernaturall prodigies, that are visible to such, and so many, as make them credible to all, are things we may admire, but not imitate. No Im­postour will venter to counterfeit so rare a pee­ce, as the great machine of this world.

6 Seeing therefore that something there is, which seemes by these effects to be most power­full, most wise, and most perfect, we ought so to judge, and believe, and give it due honour, and respect. The right to such duties, acquired by outward appearance, and signes, doth extend it selfe even to our inward and most secret thoughts, which is the onely reason why a rash judgement is a sinne, and why men may be as in­jurious in thinking ill of others, as in backbiting. If we must not judge otherwise of men, then they seeme to be, much lesse of God. We must not be Christians in our words, and Atheists in our thoughts. Therefore the obligation of be­lieving, honouring, and loving God, is evident, though the Deity it selfe were not as evident as it is, even to the most vulgar understandings, that are not stupified by vice, and besotted with sen­suall pleasures. Now, supposing its demonstrated that there is a God, or at least that we are convin­ced of our obligation to believe there is one, we may proceed to inquire,

CHAP. III.

1 THere is not an absolute Prince, that doth not pretend as his birthright, or preroga­tive, to be served his owe way, that is, as himselfe thinks fit, and not according to his Subjects dis­cretion. If this be granted to Princes, our fellow Creatures, how can it be denyed to the Creator? Princes may erre in the conduct of affaires, God is infallible. Princes may employ unfit instru­ments, men not valued, or hated by their people: God by employing men, doth enable them, and supply their defects. Princes may looke more up­on their owne interest, then upon the common good, in their projects, and designes: God can have no designe upon his Creatures, but their owne good; his interest is their happinesse. To be briefe, Princes are men, and though no Sub­jects, yet subject to all humane frailties; but God is as free from any frailty, as from subjection. Therefore if according the maxime of Politi­cians, Princes must be served their owne way, God must not be deprived of the like preroga­tive.

2 Whether Princes ought to be served their owne Way, is not for my present purpose to exa­mine; yet I must presume to tell them, that its no part of their prerogative, to define, or declare, [Page 14]what way God hath appointed for his owne ser­vice: the politick ends are not alwayes agreable, or compatible with Gods ordinations, and in such case we must serve Princes in Gods way, not in their owne: no humane Lawes, or Kings pleasure ought to be preferred before Gods commandments. Its as evident that God may choose his owne way of being worshipped, as it is manifest that worship is due to so great a Ma­jesty. Some Rites and ceremonies of divine Wor­ship may be left to mens choice, and discretion; but before they undertake it, they must shew their commission for so great a power, and emi­nent a charge. Every one must not presume to be Master of ceremonies in Gods Church, and Court. If there were not a way setled for the worship of God before we came into the world, perhaps every man might choose his owne; but to intrude new Rites, and Lawes into a Com­monwealth, contrary to the government long established, hath beene alwayes judged in the State, dangerous, and in the Church, damnable. Master Hooker in his bookes of Ecclesiasticall Poli­cy, is much admired, and cryed up by some Pro­testants, because he proves, by Catholick argu­ments, that the Church of God may command the practise of Rites, and ceremonies: but he is farre from proving, that the new fangled English Protestant Church is the Church of God, and therefore could never conclude, that Puritans, or any others, ought to sute themselves in the new fashion of the Church of Englands formalities, because they must shew their authority, before [Page 15]they intrude their formalities, and take away realities.

3 Its as unwarrantable to reject ancient Rites, and ceremonies, as to impose new ones, without authentike testimonies, and signes of divine au­thority. If the Church that went before us, and upon whose relation we must depend for the knowledge of times past, doth testify, that such ceremonies as seeme now to fooles, ridiculous, and to the ignorant, superfluous, were invented by God, or by men, to whom he committed the care of our instruction; we must practise them, & persuade our selves, that it is not in the power of any Nags-head Convocation, The Eng­lish Prote­stant Mini­stery des­cends from a few con­secrated at the Nags-head in Cheapside, invalidly for many reasons de­duced in a late Booke of the Na­ture of Ca­tholick Faith, and Heresy. to frame a new Religion or 39. Articles, reject old ceremonies, pare, and shave of the matter and forme of Sacra­ments, and degrade the Order of Priesthood of all Ecclesiasticall ornaments, the cap, surplise, and black scarfe excepted. Puritans proceed more consequently, they retaine no Popish dregs, nor rags of Rome, (as they call them) and firmely be­lieve, that God cannot be served in spirit, if the Minister of his Word appeareth not before him in cuerpo, rid of all Aaronicall ornaments. But with their good leave, to serve and worship God in spirit, is not to reject or reforme ancient Rites and ceremonies, but rather by performing them, the spirit is raised to God with reflexion upon the mysteries in them contained. The ancient Fa­thers, and Doctors of the Catholick Church, S. Ambr. lib. 1. de Sacerd. c. 1. & de iis quae initian­tur mysteriis c. 1. practised even that, which of all is most excepted against, in the administration of Baptisme, and is lesse undecent then the making a plaster of spitle [Page 16]and dust; S. Greg. in Sacram. Tertull. lib. ad Scapulam. S. Aug. tract. 44. in Ioan. Euangel. Alcum. lib. deliv. Offic. de Sabbatho S. Paschae. Beda in 0.7. Marc. Homil. 19. a signe, that our Saviour would not Have us so nice, and squeamish as Protestants are. I am sure if we reflect upon the Israelits, we shall finde the chiefe worship they gave unto God in their sacrifices, accompanied with so noysome circumstances in their fleaing, pulling out the bowels, and frying the fat of beasts, that they would make a nice Proteshint stomach rise, al­though it be able to digest a dish of as course stuffe for a Fridays breakfast. As for the dresse wherein our S. Anacle­tus qui vixit temporibus Domitiani, Ep. 1. de oppr. Episc. Steph. Papa, & Martyr, vixit an. 250 Ep. 1. ad Hi­lar. Origen hom. 11. c. 20. Levi. S. Hieron. lib. 13. Com­ment. in cap. 44 Ezech. Bishops, and Priests celebrate their functions, antiquity called it sacred, though No­velists terme it profane, or superfluous. There is not one ceremony practised in the Roman Ca­tholick Church, which deriveth not its beginning from God, or by his authority from primitive times; all relate to divine Mysteries, as you may read in Durantius De ritibus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and in that excellent Booke, The Protestants Apology for the Church of Rome.

4 Whereas ceremonies be the object of phantasy, and ours are so decent, that no phan­tasy can except more against them, then against those of the Law of Moyses, instituted by God himselfe, and approved by Protestants, the aver­sion which they manifest against our Ceremo­nies, cannot proceed so much from their fancy, as from their understanding, dissenting from that Doctrine to which the Ceremonies relate. To kneele, is not an object ridiculous, or offensive to the fancy: the most precise practise it out of Churches, and at Court; and yet all Protestants cry abomination against kneeling to our Lord Iesus [Page 17]Christ in the Sacrament, or worshiping himselfe, or his Saints in Images; these ceremonies agree well enough with their fancy, but their under­standing cannot brooke them. A weake under­standing may occasion as great errours, as a strong fancy.

5 Some fantasticall and fanaticall fellowes, call the Roman Catholick Religion, an Apith Keli­gion, because forsooth, it hath so many odde ceremonies. But the fault is not in the Roman Religion, or ceremonies, they have Apish under­standings, they looke as Apes upon our ceremo­nies, without considering the mysteries. All the ceremonies of the Masse, relate to Christs Pas­sion, others to the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If it was lawful and laudable in the old Law, to practise ceremonies representing things that were to come, why should we Ca­tholicks be censured for ceremonies that put us in minde of past mysteries, and mercies? We ought not to be unmindfull, or ungratefull, and there is not a more efficacious way to preserve a gratefull memory of past benefits, then by repre­senting them in ceremonies to the light.

6 I must confesse that all Sectaries have as great cause to cry downe ceremonies, as we Ca­tholicks have to uphold them. Because the stron­gest pillar of the true Church, is a continuall tra­dition of Catholick Doctrine from the primitive times to this present, and this pillar of Tradition is much strengthened by the practise of ceremonies relating to that Doctrine delivered from hand to hand, which we now maintaine as Catholick, [Page 18]against Heresy, or pretended Reformation. To adore the blessed Sacrament both in Church, and Processions, is a strong argument of Christs reall presence, not onely in the act or use of Commu­nion, but also before, and after. What mervaile therefore, that they who deny Christs reall pre­sence or grant it onely in the actuall use of Com­munion, should oppose the adoration, whereby their false Doctrine is so clearly condemned by the practise of the faith full; these, and other Ca­tholick ceremonies, are not odious to Prote­stants because they are ceremonies, but because they put them in minde of the ancient Faith and Doctrine of Christs Church. To reject some of the ancient ceremonies, and retaine others (as the Nags-head Congregation doth) is to furnish their adversaries (Catholicks and Puritans) with un­answerable arguments; their choice of ceremo­nies doth prove their choice of Doctrine, and their choice of Doctrine demonstrates them He­reticks; an Heretick being he, who chooseth out of the Doctrine delivered by the Church what he fancies, rejecting what he thinkes not fit for his purpose. Our Prelaticall Protestants must, with the rest, cast away their Bishops bonnet, lawne sleeves, he white surplise, and black scarfe; if not, they may cast their cap, and despaire of answering to Catholick or Puritan objections: they must keepe all, or nothing, unlesse they can produce better evidence for their pretended Re­formation, then the fancy of 7. or 12. men in King Edward the Sixth his time, confirmed by the authority of a yong head of the Church, and a [Page 19]Parliament called by the Protector Seamour, to establish in England Zwinglian fopperies, and re­ject the Christian Doctrine, and discipline of our Catholick Ancestors; they must not rely upon Queen Elizabeths she supremacy, or their Nags-head Ordination, and Synod, with their London Assemblies, and Hampton-Court Conferences of lay Ministers. God must be served his owne way, and not by framing Religions [...]o the hu­mor of people, or interests of Kings, Queenes, Parliaments, and Protectors. But before we goe further in censuring these Protestant wayes, let us prove

CHAP. IV.

1 THe first step in the way of Gods service, is, to believe God; a step of no lesse difficul­ty, then necessity. Suppose there were a man dropt downe from the heavens, graced with this singular privilege, that the sound of his words could no sooner be at our eares, then the eviden­ce of their truth before our eyes; whatsoever he said, in the same instant we did see confirmed by the reall appearance of the objects, and our own [Page 20]experience. This singular privilege would de­prive him of another, common to all men of worth and integrity; it would make him unca­pable or being believed; all who heare him, would assent to what he said, but for their owne evidence, not for his veracity. When any thing is evident to our understanding, or to our eyes, we believe our selves, and not others, though they should tell us the same we doe experience. If God were pleased to manifest himself to men in such a manner, that they had evidence it is he who speaketh to them, he had deprived us of the me­rit of Faith, and himselfe of that duty which we are obliged to give every honest man: for, though Divine Faith doth exclude all doubts and feares of falshood, yet it supposeth in the subject a possibility of doubting, if men will be obstinate and imprudent; but there is none so ob­stinate, and imprudent, that can doubt of the truth of Gods words, if it be evident to him that God spoke them. Though we heare men speak, we doe them a courtesie in believing them, be­cause they are fallible, and we doe not read the truth in their words, though we believe them; but if we had evidence that God uttered any words, the truth of them must be as cleare, as it is, that he can neither lye, nor be mistaken: and if the truth be cleare, and evident to our understan­dings, we believe our selves, and not God, though he should speake it. To believe, is to trust, and he that hath evidence of any truth, doth as little trust the speaker, as we rely upon anothers credit for the money we have in our own coffers.

2 Seeing therefore that either God must not be believed by men, or that he must disguise himselfe, and speake to them by others, who can be so impudent as to deny, that we deserve dam­nation▪ if we doe not believe and obey God in that Church, which he hath beene pleased to in­stitute as his owne Interpreter, Quod au­tem rogant unde persua­debimur, à Deo fluxisse Scripturam, nisi ad Ec­cleisae decre­tum confu­giamus per­inde est, ac si quu roget unde disce­mus lucem discernere à tenebris, al­bum & ni­gro &c. lib. 1. Inst. Cap. 7. sect. 2. Petenda est haec per sua­sio ab arcano spiritus te­stimonto &c sect. 2. Non aliud loquor quàm quod apud se expetitur fi­deltum u­nusquisque &c. sect. 5. for our instru­ction? I cannot deny, there is great difficulty in believing, that every thing which the Church proposeth as revealed, is Gods revelation; yet this pill must be swallowed, if we resolve to believe God, who cannot be believed if he speakes in his owne voice, and tone; because it is evi­dently inseparable from truth; and we cannot be­lieve what by force of cleare evidence we can­not deny. Hence (by the way) it followeth, that no Protestant, or Puritan, doth believe God, if they ground their faith upon the evidence they pretend to have of Scriptures being Gods Word or upon that of their private spirit; both which (saith Calvin) are discerned as clearly by himselfe, and his brethren, to be Divine evidences, and not Diabolicall, as white is discerned from black, sweete from soure, and light from darknesse. Its very improbable that God deprived himselfe of his right, and was contented not to be believed, that Calvin, and his Protestant crue, might be eased of a duty, which they exact and receive from every person that hath a good opinion of their ho­nesty.

3 Supposing it is as evident that there is a Church of God upon earth, as it is reasonable he ought to be believed by men, we must endea­vour [Page 22]to finde it our. The Church is an infallible Guide to lead us to God: but who is the infalli­ble Guide to had us to the Church? Reason. But reason in obscurity may be mistaken; and what is more obscure, then the way to the true Church environed with so many false Sects? If our bel efe were limited to naturall verities, rea­son might make some shift, every man might pre­tend, that his owne wit would be a sufficient guide for himselfe: but seeing Christian Faith must stretch further then humane capacity, there must be some supernaturall helpe. In obscure matters, saith Aristotle, (with all wise men) reason must be contented with cleare signes, and not expect evidence of the truth And because the Church or God doth propose supernaturall truths, the signes must be also supernaturall. And because there is so great difference betweene hu­mane understandings God hath beene pleased to make his Church discernable by sensible and visi­ble supernaturall signes, that they who have least understanding, may not have lesse faith then the most witty and learned, if they will but open their eyes, and reflect upon what they see. This is the reason why so few can pretend ignorance of the true Church if they have any sense in them, they may easily distinguish it from all hereticall Con­gregations. The evident signes therefore where­by the true and Catholick Church is knowne, consisteth not in exteriour formalities, that may take their beginning from humane policy, or from a naturall inclination to decency, and good order. The Protestant Church of England had [Page 23]as few signes of supernaturall grace, as any other pretending Reformation, yet in the eyes of some it lookt pretily, and was more decent in the ser­vice, then other Northerne Churches of Luthe­rans; and some of their Nags-bead Ministers affe­cted a certaine Ecclesiasticall gravity in their garb and habit; notwithstanding in my opinion a secu­lar dresse would better become their meere secu­larity, and want of ordination. The Ministers in Germany looke more Protestantlike in their short cloakes, spade beards, and blew starcht ruffs, then our English Common-prayer Ministers doe in their long cloakes, and surplises, which they weare more for policy, then Religion

4 Seeing Reason must be contented with cleare signes, when the truth is not evident, and that no evident or cleare supernaturall signes ap­peare in any Congregation of men, but in the Roman Catholick; it must be concluded, that the true Church is that onely Congregation of men, which professe the Roman Catholick Faith. That no signes of grace doe appeare in any Church pretending Reformation, is as cleare, as it is, that all the world is not blind; for, as yet neither themselves, nor any other, could see in any of their Sects, one miracle, or any other thing that lookt like supernaturall; though they tell us of some Divine motions, and impulses of the priva­te spirit, they are as incredible, as it is impossible that God should oblige any man to take a Prote­stants bare word, against the tradition and testi­mony of the Christian world informer ages con­firmed with undeniable miracles, and sanctity of [Page 24]life. But some seeing the private spirit is ridicu­lous, would faine perswade us, that we may read their Reformation in Scripture so evidently de­clared, that they wonder how we can have the least doubt against it. We Catholicks have beene above a hundred yeares turning and tossing the Bible, with as great care and study, as the matter required, and yet we could never hit upon one Protestant Tenet [...]n Scripture, though we have reason to thinke that we understand it as well as our neighbours; which is very strange, if their Doctrine be evidently contained in it. But there is nothing more obscure, the evidence, wherein men equally learned, and honest, doe not agree. Nothing can make them disagree in the interpret­tation, and sense of Scripture, but the obscurity thereof, or obstinacy, or ignorance; if they be obstinate, they are not honest; if ignorant, th [...]y are not as learned as their adversaries; and its cer­tain▪ we doe Pro estants a favour in comparing or making them equall w th Catholick Doctors in either: but when men dispute, he that hath evident truth on his side, may grace his adversary with any advantage, as I doe at the present, sup­posing, not granting, that Protestant Ministers were equall with Catholick Doctors in learning and vertue, that thereby it may appeare how ob­scure the Scripture is wh re Protestants pretend it to be cleare, and the sense most manifest.

5 I will not make a long Litanies of the super­naturall and visible signes which app are in the Roman Catholick Church. Miracles have beene in all ages, and are now so frequent amongst us, [Page 25]that there is not a Countrey, or Province, where­in the Roman Religion is professed, which doth not produce testimonies so prudently credible of true and supernaturall miracles, that to deny them, were to destroy all human faith, and redu­ce men to credit nothing that is affirmed by men, however so well qualified with sound judge­ment, great learning, and knowne integrity Yet Protestants object, its strange themselves never see any miracle, being so desirous, and miracles so frequent as we pretend. Herod was also very de­sirous to see a miracle, but his curiosity excluded him from that favour: men who belive nothing but what they see, deserve not to see miracles, be­cause they are obstinate. Yet there are few Prote­stants, who doe not see miracles: what greater miracle, then that all Catholicks turne not Prote­stants? If t [...]e continuall victory over naturall and vehement inclinations doth require a miracle of supernaturall grace, we are as naturally and vehe­mently inclined to their Religion, as we are to our owne liberties and pleasures: what greater miracle, then that sober and learned men should be perswaded, that their senses are deceived in the Sacrament of the Altar, and that they should suf­fer death for the mystery of Transubstantiation? These must be effects of supernaturall grace, and Not of ignorance, or obstinacy, which cannot be laid to our charge, seeing we submit our judge­ments to every definition of the Roman Church, and our very adversaries knowe we are learned.

6 Sanctity of life is a supernaturall signe and effect of grace, and of the true Church. This san­ctity [Page 26]is evident in the Roman Church. Not to speake of Antomes, Hilarions, or Stilluas lets drawe nearer our times, and consider the lives of Saint Bernard. Saint Dominike, Saint Francis, Saint Vincent Ferrer, Saint Francis of Paula, Saint Charles Borro­meus, Saint Teresa, Saint Francis Xaverius, and many more, who were knowne Roman Catholicks, professing the same Tenets, and obedience to the Pope, which we now maintaine against pretended Reformation. And not to speake onely of the dead, let any indifferent person consider, how in all vocations of both Clergy and Layty, we have many persons eminent in vertue, farre above that degree of morality, to which some Protestants may attaine, as well as some Pagans and Philoso­phers, who were farre from Christian perfection, called sanctity of life. Let our English Protestant be pleased to weigh with himselfe, whether yong Ladies of as great quality, fortunes, and gifts of nature as England doth afford, could forsake their native Countrey kindred, and friends, contemne all pleasures of the world and themselves, by em­bracing a religious, poore, and penitent life in per­petuall end sure, submitting their wills to the obedience and humour of a woman: could this, I say, be performed by so many, so continually, and with so great alacrity and content of minde, without a miraculous and supernaturall grace of the Almighty? In my judgement its a greater mi­racle, that such persons should resolve by a vo­luntary banishiment to dye to their Countrey, and friends, and to the whole world by a religious profession, and to bury themselves alive in a [Page 27]Cloyster; then if they had restored life to others, and banisht death from graves and monuments.

7 Now after that our Protestant Gentleman hath considered our Catholick Monasteries, let him examine, whether in his owne Church there hath beene, or now is, any thing resembling so much Religion, and supernaturall vertue, as that which amongst us is not admired (though admi­rable) because so ordinary. This kinde of life is as farre from Protestants practise and Doctrine, as it is from naturall inclination. Yet I have heard, that Master Laud of Canterbury, was once incli­ned to erect some Protestant Nunneries in Eng­land. I believe it would occasion as great stirres as his Reformation did in Scotland, because no thing is more opposite to the Tenets of the re­formed Ghospel, and first Reformers, then to make vowes of poverty, chastity, and obedience, Protestancy begunne, and is founded upon the dissolving of Monasteries and religions vowes, and is not compatible with their observance, if things must be carried on by the same meanes that acquired them a being. Its very true that Cranmer of Canterbury, the first Patriarch of Pro­testancy in England, caused an enclosure of wood to be made, I meane a Chest, wherein he shut up his woman, and carryed her along with himselfe wheresoever he travailed; whereof ensued an odde accident at Gravesend, where the Chest be­ing much rccomended to those that carryed it to the Inne, as containing pretious stuffe belong­ing to my Lords grace, they severed it from the rest, and put it up end-long against the wall in [Page 28]my Lords chamber, with the womans head downward, which putting her in jeopardy to breake her necke, she was forced at length to cry out, and so the Chamberlins helpt her out of her enclosure. This is amost certaine story (saith my Author in his Examen of Fox his Calendar cap. 7. n. 27.) and testified at this day by Cranmers sons widdowe yet living The Prelates of the Catho­lick Church carry portable Altars: but the first Protestant Prelate, and reformed Apostle of Eng­land, could not travaile without his portable Monastery, farre more agreable to the Religion he planted, then Matter Lauds intended plantation of religious and chast Nunneries.

8. The conversion of Nations to Christianity, is not onely a signe of the true Church, but also the end of its institution. This is so proper to the Roman Catholick, even at this present, that none who heard the names of America, Angola, China, Monomotappa, India, or Iaponia, can be ignorant of our pious endeavours, and miraculous successe, in preaching the Ghospel to so remote Nations, where nothing that is coveted in this world, could be aymed at, or expected by our Apostoli­call Preachers. I will not say any more concern­ing the signes of the true Church, these being sus­ficient to convince any person that desires to be saved, that out or the Roman Church there is no salvation, seeing it alone hath supernaturall and visible signes, whereby God doth declare suffi­ciently that it is an infallible guide, to informe men of his mysteries, and direct them in the way he hath prescribed for his Divine service, com­manding [Page 29]all mortalls to heare and obey it, as they would heare and obey himselfe. Whosoever doth the contrary, injures God, and calleth his Divi­ne veracity in question.

9 God is as much injured by Protestants, and all others who deny, or doubt of what the Ro­man Catholick Church proposeth in his name, as any man can be injured, by not being believed when he speakes. The injury done to men when they are not believed, consists in not trusting them, or in not taking their word for the truth, though the truth doth not appeare. If we doe not trust God, and take his Word, as it is uttered by the Roman Catholick Church, for truth, we are resolved not to trust him at all, because when any truth is evident to us, we cannot receive it by trust from another; and if God should speake im­mediatly to us, and declare that himselfe speak­eth, the truth of his words is as evident to us, as it is that he cannot lye; and by consequence there is no roome left for trust. Therefore either we must trust him, and take his Word for truth, when he speakes by that Church which hath su­pernatural signes, or not at all; and that Church is onely the Roman Catholick. That God doth not speake to us immediatly by himselfe, as men doe, but by the Church, doth not diminish the injury, but makes it possible. It doth not diminish the in­jury clone to God, because it doth appeare as clearly and suffiently, by the testimony and su­pernaturall signes of the Roman Catholick Church, that what is by it proposed, is Gods Word, as it doth appeare by any mans owne testi­mony [Page 30]and signes of integrity and sincerity, that he speaketh truth. To be solicitous to knowe evi­dently who is the Author of any words, when he disguiseth himselfe, and desires to be incognito, is too much curiosity, and ill manners. But a resolu­tion not to believe any words proposed as Divine revelation by the Church, because it is not evi­dent that God is the Author of them, is hereticall obstinacy. For, its unreasonable to exact a clearer knowledge of the Author, then of the truth of the words: if we are bound to believe the truth, though it be not evident, we can have no reason to exact evidence of the Author, especially when the truth of his words must be evident, if he be knowne, and consequently our resolution doth extend it selfe to this, that we will not believe, untill the truth be evident, which is not onely obstinacy, but manifest foppery, because it is as much as to say, We will believe nothing at all. Its therefore as evident an injury to God to deny the Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church, though it be not evident that God is the Author thereof, as it is, to deny the truth of any mens words when they speake themselves, though the truth be not evident; unlesse perhaps we thinke it reasonable to exact of God what we cannot of men, to wit, whensoever he speakes, not to be­lieve his words unlesse we have evidence of their truth: for, if God be truth, and we are resolved not to believe his words unlesse he manifests himselfe, we are resolved not to believe them, untill their truth be manifest, seeing God is the truth of his owne words, because he is truth by [Page 31] essence. Of men we exact not so much, we believe their words, though the truth be obscure.

10 This injury which is done to God, con­sists in calling in question his veracity, which is an inclination to speake truth. Gods veracity is called in question whensoever any thing is suffi­ciently proposed as his Word, and yet it is not be­lieved that it is his Word, or revelation. Whe­ther the matter sufficiently proposed by the Church as Gods Word, and consequently as truth, be great or small, absolutely necessary or not, it matters not, as to the deniall or doubt of Gods veracity; because he is as necessarily incli­ned to speake truth in a matter of little concern­ment, as in the greatest. Seeing therefore that the deniall or doubt of mens veracity, consists in que­stioning what is sufficiently proposed as their sense and meaning; and that the Doctrine and sen­se of Scripture, embraced by the Roman Catho­lick Church, is sufficiently proposed by its testi­mony, and evident supernaturall signes, to be the sense, revelation, and meaning of God; his vera­city must be as much questioned by calling in question the least Doctrine of the Roman Church, as the veracity of men is called in que­stion, by doubting of their words, whereby their thoughts and meaning are sufficiently proposed.

11 From what hitherto hath beene said, its as evidently concluded, that the Roman Catholick Church is infallible in all matters, great and small, proposed by it as Divine revelation, as it is cleare, that God would have men believe him, or that he hath a regard to his owne honour and veraci­ty [Page 32]he is not concerned in either, if he permits any one falihood in the least matter, necessary for sal­vation, or not necessary, to be sufficiently propo­sed by the Church, as his Word, or sense; seeing he may so easily prevent it, and not permit the Roman Catholick Church to erre in any propo­sall. How can God exact, or expect from us an undoubted or infallible beliefe, when he speaketh and d [...]clareth his minde by men, if those very men be not infallible in declaring his minde? What injury can it be to God, that we doubt of his veracity▪ if in his owne hearing and presence, his owne Interpreter, the Church, is by himselfe permitted to erre, and abuse his name and autho­rity? We may lawfully suspect his sincerity in greater matters, seeing the least blemish is as much as the greatest inconsistent with the infinite per­fection of his Nature. Therefore either God is contented not to be believed, and to forfeit his honour and the esteeme of his veracity, or that Church which hath evident and supernaturall signes of being his Interpreter, (which is the Ro­man Catholick alone) is infallible in all matters, great and small, proposed as Divine revelation.

12. Hence you may gather to what great fop­peries hereticall obstinacy doth lead some of the most learned Ministers of the English Church, when they print, that God is satisfied with an exteriour acquiescence to the definitions of a ge­nerall Councell, and of that Church which alone hath the signes and markes of being the true Ca­tholick, though there remaineth an inward doubt of the controversy defined. This is as [Page 33]much as to say, that God is content you give him the lye, or afront him in private, so you be plea­sed to say nothing of it in publick. God is as much injured by thoughts, as by words, and an exteriour acquiescence is no satisfaction to him, without interiour submission of judgement. Its true, some of these Hereticks grant, that when all the Patriarchs, and Christian Churches of the world conferre notes, and are assembled together in a Councell, (which is not likely to be as farre as the present state of the world doth promise, untill we all meete in the Valley of Iosaphat) then is the time to submit our judgements, which in plaine termes, is to put of all Christian beliefe, and obedience to God in his Church, and remaine ob­stinate in heresie, untill the day of judgement. But of this more when we speake in particular of the English Church in King Iames and his sonnes reigne. As for that other shame full shift of theirs, to make all Christians the Catholick Church, and every reformed Sect, part thereof, and the same. with us in fundamentall articles; I remit my Rea­der to a Treatise lately printed concernig the Na­ture of Catholick Faith and Heresy, with refle­xion upon the nullity of the English Protestant Church, and Clergy; and will now shew in par­ticular

CHAP. V.

1 PRotestancy, or Reformation in generall, is a text of Scripture corrupted, or fondly ap­plied by the first Reformer to his owne fancy, dreames, or pleasure; by Princes and Polititians, to worldly interest; and by the vulgar sort, to li­berty of life, and rebellion against their Sove­raignes. Let the most zealous Protestant have so much patience as to read over this Chapter, and I am confident, he will be convinced by the very history, without disputing, that his Religion is not injured by this caracter, or definition. And as for our Polititian, he may learne in this histo­ricall part of his Cathechisme, as many necessary precepts for his instruction, as there are examples of Divine Providence against the Authors and Protectors of pretended Reformation. That all may appeare without confusion, I will divide this Chapter into Sections, and in first place re­count the beginning and progresse

CHAP. VI.

1 WHat a great hand Policy had in destroying Religion, and setting up Reformation, hath beene demonstrated in the former Chapter and Sections. I doubt not but the most vulgar appre­hensions that did see the change, might easily perceive the difference which was betweene the old and new Religion. I am also confident, all sober men of the last age did looke upon Lu­ther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, and all their Reforma­dos, just as we doe upon Iames Naylor, and his [Page 117] Quakers; though now many silly soules doe reve­rence their memories, because distance of time makes things looke as unlike themselves, as di­stance of place. A brute beast, at a distance, may be taken for a rationall creature; and a beastly re­formation may, by the helpe of time and policy, gaine the credit of a rationall Religion amongst misinformed and weake understandings; but it can never looke like supernaturall Faith, to any rationall person, that will examine the grounds and fundation of it, notwithstanding that wic­ked Clergy and Polititians have endeavoured to dabe it over with the private spirit, and their owne interpretation of Scripture.

2 There is the same proportion betweene Catholick Religion and Reformation, as is be­tweene ancient Gentry and upstarts. Kings, out of policy, or favour, may bestowe titles of ho­nour; but all the policy upon earth, cannot make a man an ancient Gentleman, if he be not one by descent. A Nobleman that derives his pedigree from Citizens, cannot compare in quality with men, whose Ancestors have beene, time out of memory, knowne Gentlemen. Its just so in Re­ligions. Men may give to their Reformations very glorious titles, as Mount Sion, Assembly of Saints, Beauteous discipline, and what they please; but all will not doe. The ancient name of Catho­lick comes by descent, and continuall succession, not by policy, to the Roman Church, and not to any other, pretending Reformation. These new Religions may well become upstarts, and new fa­milies raised by heresy: but methinks the ancient [Page 118]Nobility and Gentry looke odly in this new fa­shioned faith, and seeme to staine their bloud, by renouncing and persecuting that Religion, which their noble Progenitors for so many ages did constantly professe, and gloriously maintaine, both at home and abroad.

3 Catholick Religion doth not onely sym­pathise with ancient Gentry in descent and suc­cession, but also in their Coates of armes. The armes of the Catholick Religion, are the super­naturall signes of the true Church, visible to the world. Put case that a Cheate, or Mountebanck dis­guised like a Gentleman, should intrude himselfe into the company of persons of quality in White­hall, and brag much of his Gentry; but when he is desired to prove it he should ingenuously con­fesse, that he hath no other evidence for his ex­traction, but certaine interiour motions and im­pulses to heroike actions; questionlesse this Mountebank would be laught at by the whole company. This is the case of all reformed Chur­ches, that pretend to be the true one, or part thereof, without any further proofe or evidence for their Religion, and interpretation of Scriptu­re, then their owne word for a private spirit, as invisible in it selfe, as in any effect that lookes li­ke supernaturall. Its true, that many noble fami­lies, whose Ancestors have beene lions (as their Coates of armes testify even to this day) have by degrees degenerated into lambes; yet they prove by tradition and records, that they descend from warlike lions. Though the Roman Catholick Church had no miracles, nor persons of eminent [Page 119]sanctity of life at the present, to shew for their Religion; that onely of their Ancestors in for­mer ages, would be proofe enough, that they professe the right Faith; because they have evi­dence of tradition, and records, that it is the same with the Faith of those, who worked miracles, and were Saints: but reformed Churches want all such evidences; and though records may be for­ged by Master Mason, and others of the English Church; neither they, nor any private spirit can, by all their politick devises, counterfeit tradition, which must goe further up into antiquity, then they can reach by all humane industry. But (the Lord be praised for it) the Roman Catholick Church hath now, and had in every age evident miracles, and eminent sanctity of life, much re­sembling that of the Apostles, and our primitive Fathers, whereby our spirit and faith is confir­med to be truly Catholick. These armes and signes of Gods Church cannot be counterfeited by Re­formers, because they are supernaturall, and above the spheare of hypocrisy and policy. A Puritan may shew the white of his eyes, by lifting them up to the Lord, and looke very demurely and de­voutly: a Nags-head Minister may walke in roba longa, and weare his suplise, black scarfe, and square cap: but none of them can attaine to an eminent degree of supernaturall sanctity, or wor­ke a miracle, untill they forsake the Reforma­tion, and become Roman Catholicks.

4 The pretended evidence of Scripture, in favour of Reformation, is not lesse ridiculous then the private spirit. Let us track our Mounte­bank [Page 120]Gentleman, and follow him to the Courts of Westminster, after his being repulsed, and laught at in Whitehall, for proving his Nobility onely by interiour impulses. Suppose he should in the open Court lay claime to some ancient Gentlemans inheritance, descended from father to sonne, for many ages; and should produce no other eviden­ce, or proofe, for this pretended right, but his ad­versaries owne patent, in vertue whereof the an­cient Gentlemans Ancestors and himselfe pos­sessed the estate; but because some words in the patent may be interpreted by the Mountebanks ambition and coveteousnesse in a different sense, then ever they were before that time understood by the learned Judges of the Land; our Mounte­bank must needs be the right heire, and disposses­se the Gentleman of his ancient inheritance, by misinterpreting the words of the patent absurd­ly, and contrary to their knowne sense, and to sentences and practise of the Court, since ever Law was of force in England. This is the case of all Protestants, who pretend that there are cleare texts of Scripture against Catholick Tenets and practises. The sense of Scripture which we Ro­man Catholicks follow, either for Transubstan­tiation, communion of the layty under one kinde, worship of images, &c. was never contradicted by any, that were not knowne, and judged Here­ticks by the Catholick Church of those times wherein our Tenets were questioned: this our sense of Scripture hath miracles to confirme it, and other supernaturall signes; theirs is backt onely by hereticall obstinacy and impudence, [Page 121]pretending evidence of Scripture in obscurity, and light in darknesse. If all Roman Catholicks had beene in times past, and were at this present idiots, or naturall fooles, Protestants might perswade them, that they doe not see what is cleare and evident in Scripture, in behalfe of Protestancy: but untill Reformers prove, that we are all idi­ots, or resolved to be damned by contradicting Gods cleare Word, they cannot ground their Reformation upon the clearnesse of Scripture, nor reject that sense of it, which Catholicks we­re in possession of, before their Sects were heard of in the world.

5 That Scripture is not cleare for Protestants, is evident, because Catholicks who understand it as well as they, differ from them in the inter­pretation. And in case it be obscure to both, its cleare that the tradition and practise of the an­cient Catholick Church, is a better Interpreter of Gods meaning, then any Protestant pleasure, policy, or fancy. Its as unreasonable therefore to dispossesse Catholicks of their ancient Tenets, and sense of Scripture, upon the score of a Pro­testant interpretation, as it is to dispossesse a Gentleman of his ancient inheritance, at the suite of a coveteous and impudent Mountebank, that can produce no other evidence for his pretence, then his fond interpretation of the very wri­tings, in vertue whereof the Gentleman and his Ancestors have beene confirmed in the peacea­ble possession of their estate, by the sentence of all Courts in former ages; and never opposed, but by such as were convinced and condemned [Page 122]of manifest knavery. Here I need not mention, how many times Protestant Judges condemne their Religion in their owne Courts, by just sen­tences: whensoever they judge according to the Lawes of the Land, interpreted by the ancient and continuall practise of the Courts, and con­trary to the fancy of ignorant and absurd plea­ders, they give sentence against Protestancy for the Roman Catholick Religion, though in a dif­ferent subject; whereby it is evident, how little beholding Protestancy is to that Policy, which is not able to defend reformed Churches in the ve­ry Protestant Courts. That Religion is farre from supernaturall appearance, which hath not the least colour of naturall equity. But now let us see, how little beholding Policy is to Protestancy, and prove

CHAP. VII.

1 POlicy without Religion is a body without a soule. The motions of a politike body must have their beginning from Religion, because without it, the Princes and Magistrates are too weak for the managing of so great a machine as a Commonwealth. The power of the people must [Page 123]be employed against themselves, and the multitu­de must be subdued, and kept in subjection by their owne forces: all the difficulty and policy consists in persuading men to a thing so much a­gainst their naturall inclinations. Some greater power must be inculcated; and because that is not visible, the very Pagans thought it necessary, to create a beliefe in their Subjects of invisible Dei­ties, to which both Prince and Subjects profes­sed obedience; being convinced in their judge­ments, that all policy is weake without power, either reall or imagined, to back it, and that the best States-man is he, who can persuade the peo­ple, that he is more powerfull then themselves. This is the reason why Polititians, though Athe­ists, persecute Atheisme; because if the multitude thinke, that there is no such thing as God, or an­other life, they will soone discover their owne strength, and apply it against Princes and Magi­strates, without feare of being overpowerd by the invisible hand of God in whom they doe not believe, but fancy to be impossible.

2 Atheists and Protestants (being sworne brothers, and judging of others by themselves) are of opinion, that the Roman Catholick Reli­gion is but a politick invention, to set up the Pope, and enrich the Roman Clergy, by Purgatory, In­dulgences, Masse, and pilgrimages to Images. If the Roman Catholick Laity were as apt to be chea­ted, as Protestants thinke the Roman Clergy apt and inclined to cheate, their opinion would be more plausible: but whosoever will reflect upon the manifest miracles and supernaturall signes, [Page 124]whereby these and all Catholick Tenets have beene in former ages, and even in this present, confirmed; and moreover will consider, how ma­turely many Roman Catholicks of the Layty (most prudent and politick men) have examined the grounds of our Religion, and how impossi­ble it is, that so many former ages, different inte­rests, and opposite Nations and families, should all concurre and conspire, to maintaine for Head of the Catholick Church a man they never knew nor expect any benefit by: whosoever, I say, will reflect upon these things, will clearly see, and be convinced, that no humane policy can reach so farre, nor secrecy be so well kept, that amongst so many millions of persons, the cheate and my­stery should not breake out, and never hitherto be discovered to Protestants, that are no lesse cu­rious to knowe it, then vaine in imagining so ri­diculous a foppery. But in case they are resolved to be as obstinate in this mad fancy, as in their other heresies, they must grant, that we have better successe in our politick ends, then them­selves; and if they will needs call us knaves, they cannot thinke we are fooles; whereas they may to their owne first Reformers, without injury, attribute both denominations; because they shewed so little wit in framing their new Reli­gions, that they made them as inconsistent with government, as inseparable from Atheisme, de­stroying the very interest they intended to pro­mote by reformation.

5 Atheists and Protestants doe agree in rebel­lion against God, and in being refractory against [Page 125]supreme authority; but with this difference, that the Atheist declares against God himselfe, the Protestant against his Church, which is Gods Liutenant upon earth. He that rebells against the Kings Liutenant, will soone declare against him­selfe; and this is the reason we see so many Pro­testants become Atheists, and of no Religion. As rebellions growe to a height by degrees, first they point at evill Counsellours, then at the Fa­vorite, at length at the Kings person; so Atheisme possesseth mens mindes, first by vice, then by Protestancy, and at last by no Religion. The ground of all Religion, and of obedience both to God and men, is the appearance of a lawfull au­thority and soveraignty, adhearing to the person that pretends it. If the signes of his superiority and jurisdiction be evident, he may challenge an evi­dent right to our obedience and beliefe; we are obliged to honour him according to his appea­rance. This ground of Religion and obedience, is equally destroyed by Atheisme and Protestancy. Though the signes of a supreme Deity be as evi­dent and visible to the eyes of Atheists, as this world and all its creatures, yet they deny obe­dience to that supreme Deity; and though super­naturall signes, as miracles and sanctity of life, be as evident to the eyes of Protestants, in the Ro­man Church, and no other, as any thing can be, yet they deny obedience to the said Church: both agree in destroying that principle, upon which the obligation of beliefe and obedience is groun­ded. Policy and civill government can as little stand without this principle, as a house can with­out [Page 126]out a foundation. Atheists and Protestants doe agree in undermining not onely Religion, but al­so the authority of Princes and Commonwealths; and therefore both doctrines ought to be equal­ly prohibited and suppressed.

4 In one respect Protestancy is more dange­rous to civill government, then Atheisme. An A­theist expects not any invisible power provi­dence to support him, because he believeth none: a Protestant persuades himselfe, that God will second his zeale for the Ghospel, and conse­quently is more resolute and daring; if God (to punish the sinnes of others) permits a Protestant to have good successe in his first attempts, he thinks that successe is a new engagement to pro­ceed further, looking upon himselfe as an instru­ment of providence, to carry on the imaginary worke or the Lord. The Atheist thinks of no such providence or engagement, but attributeth his successe to his owne industry, and is not so fierce, constant, and dangerous an enemy to the civill government, as a Protestant. Though all this had not beene evident by reason as necessa­rily following out of Protestant principles, yet its manifest by experience and history, as we have seene in this Treatise Chap. 7. but because in the next I am to treate of the tyranny and rebellions of Protestancy, I will end this with onely assu­ring my Reader, that Polititians were never more unhappy, or more grosely mistaken, then in the beginning and promoting a pretended Reforma­tion, that doth not onely lead men to Atheisme, but makes them incapable of being governed, af­ter [Page 127]they have shaken of the yoke of obedience to divine Authority, appearing more sufficiently and evidently in the Roman Catholick Church, then any Kings authority doth appeare in his Lieute­nant, or subordinate Officers. But now let us proceed, and descend to particulars by shewing

CHAP. VIII.

1 PRinces may be Tyrants, though the Reli­gion they professe be good; but that Reli­gion cannot be good which inclines Princes to tyranny. A Tyrant is he who rules either with­out or against Law, making his owne will and pleasure the modell of his government. To rule against the knowne and practised sense of the Law, is to rule against Law, because the essence of a Law consists in the sense, not in the letter. The fundamentall Lawes of a Christian Com­monwealth, are the holy Scriptures: to rule a­gainst the knowne and practised sense of these Lawes, is the greatest tyranny, because it is to rule without and against Law: it is to rule with­out Law, because Gods sense is left out, and the Reformers fancy, or the Prince his pleasure is thrust into its place; and Scripture is not Gods Law without Gods sense. It is also to rule against Law, because the Protestant sense of Scripture is contrary to the knowne and practised sense of [Page 128]Gods Word, whereby the Church hath beene governed since the time of the Apostles. This proves nothing lesse then I supposed in the title of the Chapter: it demonstrates clearly, that when Protestant Princes are not Tyrants, we may thanke themselves, and not their Religion, which is directly opposite to the Law of God, and inconsistent with the duty Princes owe to divine Majesty; whence also it followed, that it is an inclination to Tyranny against the Lawes and liberties of the Land; because he that go­verneth without and against the Law or God, is in a faire way (and at least inclined) to governe without and against the Lawes of men.

2 I heare, some Doctors of the English Pro­testant Church seeme to be much scandalized at Master Hobbes his Leriathan, because he attributes so much to a Soveraigne, and saith that Chri­stian Subjects may, in the exteriour profession of their Faith, accommodate themselves with the Prince, whether Turke or Jew. I cannot answer for Master Hobbes his Christianity, but this much I will say in his behalfe, that I have not seene Pro­testancy better expressed, nor more consequently deduced out of its principles, then in this Au­thors Leviathan: he is a good Protestant, and an ill Christian. How can any Protestant sinde fault with Master Hobbes, See the 39. articles of the Prote­stant Reli­gion, con­firmed by K. Charles; an. 1642. for making the Prince Head of the Church, and sole Interpreter of Scripture? Why should 12. or 7. men in King Edward the VI. time, or a few Ministers in Queene Elizabeth and King Iames his reigne, assume to themselves a power of framing a new Religion, and coyning [Page 129]a new sense of Scripture, contrary to antiquity and the knowne practise of all Christian Chur­ches, and in particular that of England? Why should they, I say, assume this unlimited power to themselves, and deny it to their Soveraigne, 3. Ed. 6.12. 5. Ed. 6.1. and his Counsell? If they examine well, they will finde Master Hobbes doth no more. And if they acknowledge this great power in spirituall affai­res, to be inherent to the Soveraignes person (as they doe, 8. Eliz. 1. even by their Acts of Parliament) how can they deny him in the temporall, as absolute and unlimited a power, as Master Hobbes is forced to grant, by the foundation and principles of Pro­testant Religion? Doe not the Doctors of the English Church averre, that from the Popes Pri­macy, and Headship of the Church, must evi­dently follow an Antichristian Tyranny, incon­sistent with the prerogative, dominion, and se­curity of Kings, and the liberty of Subjects; why doe they not inferre die same consequence from the Soveraignes supremacy? I am sure they attri­bute greater power to their Kings, Queenes, and petty Doctors, then Catholicks doe to the Pope, or generall Councells, who according to our Te­nets, cannot pare of any thing from the matter and forme of Sacraments, nor alter the ancient sense of Scripture, contrary to tradition and the practise of the Catholicks Church: but Prote­stancy acknowledgeth all this power to be inse­parable from the Kings and Queenes of England, and yet doth confesse, that both King and Prote­stant Church may erre against Christian Faith in their Reformations: no Subject notwithstanding [Page 130]must speake a word against those errours, he must accommodate himselfe to them in all his exte­riour actions, though he be convinced in judge­ment, that they are against Catholick Religion. I would faine knowe in what doth this doctrine of theirs differre from Master Hobbes? Both agree in the substance, both grant that men may dis­semble their Faith, and deny Christianity, either altogether, or by halfe. Hobbes saith, Subjects may renounce all Christian Religion by words, so they believe in their heart: our Doctors of the English Church say, Subjects may deny such points of Christian Religion, as have beene re­nounced by their Soveraignes. And when the Soveraigne will (if ever that should happen) de­ny all Christianity, and believe no more then Turkes, or Jewes, it evidently followeth out of their principles (though hitherto they durst not say it) that the Subject may doe the same by an exteriour acquiescence, untill the contrary be de­creed in an imaginary generall Councell of their owne making, and morally impossible to come together, as hath beene said in the 7. Chapt. sect. 8. for, what reason can they have to accommodate themselves to their Prince and Church, in deny­ing some articles of Christian Religion, and not all? They have none, I am sure, to be angry with Master Hobbes, who sayes nothing, but what they also must say, if they will sticke and be conse­quent to Protestant principles, and particularly to the doctrine of the Church of England.

3 That Protestancy doth incline the Subject to rebellion against his law full Prince, is more evi­dent [Page 131]then I wish it were by so many woefull ex­periences. Their Reformation begunne in all places with rebellion, and is like so to continue, notwithstanding the vigilant care of wise Prin­ces and Counsellours. The reason is manifest, be­cause its morally impossible that the conveniency of the Court should alwayes agree with the inte­rest of the people; and many times the Lawes of the Land (being made to favour both) are not so cleare in the behalfe of either. The contrary be­ing railed, who must decide it? Not the people (saith the Prince) because they are Subjects. Not the Prince (say the people) because he is a part, and Subject to Gods Law. Both appeale to Scri­pture, the sole Judge of Protestants controver­sies. If the Scripture could speake, and pronounce the sentence without an Interpreter, all might end in peace and quiet: but amongst Protestants, eve­ry Subject speakes for Scripture, and consequent­ly for himselfe. If every man be naturally incli­ned to favour himselfe, and looke with a partiall eye upon his owne interest, its more then proba­ble, that Scripture interpreted by the Subjects, will second their owne inclination and conve­niency against that of Prince, and Court; neither is it lesse evident, that the Prince, and his adhe­rents, will not submit their judgements and wills to the finall and scripturall sentence of every Sub­ject; so that the sword and rebellion must end the controversy in that Religion, where all men are supreme Judges and Interpreters of Scripture.

4 And though the Prince may endeavour to incorporate the legistative power, and [Page 132]the interpretation of the Lawes of the Land, in­to his owne prerogative; the Protestant Subjects will oppose it, not onely as unreasonable, but al­so as Antichristian pride and tyranny, inconsistent with their Euangelicall liberty. They will in­ferre this consequence. If God hath made us In­terpreters of his divine Law, how can a Creature exclude us from interpreting the Lawes of the Land, wherein we are so much concerned, and which ought to be subordinate to Scripture? Truly seeing no Protestant Prince, or Church, doth pretend to be infallible in declaring the true sense of Gods Word, they can hardly condemne the Subjects private interpretation, as contrary to Gods meaning; all their Synodicall Decrees, and legall Declarations against the Subjects fancy, or pretended inspiration in favour of the Prince, will be lookt upon by them who oppose his de­signes, as suggestions of obsequious Courtiours and flattering Clergy, and the people will stick to their owne interpretation of Scripture, back­ing it with the words of the Apostles Act. 5. God ought to be more obeyed then men. And if the Prince should declare that their text is but a pretext of rebellion, they will retort his argument, and say, that his texts are but pretexts of tyranny, and proclaime him a Rebell against God: for, the meanest of Protestant Subjects with a Bible in his hand, is as absolute as his King with a Scepter, nay more, because he lookes upon the Scepter as subordinate to his Bible. Thus you see, how the liberty of interpreting Scripture is no lesse the ground of rebellion, then of Protestant Faith; [Page 133]and how politick Princes by undermining the ancient Catholick sense of Scripture with new fancies and interpretations, have plotted their owne ruine and their posterities destruction. And that this may appeare yet more evidently, I will endeavour to prove

Chap. IX.

1 PRotestant Princes looke upon their Sub­jects with as jealous an eye, as Spaniards or Italians doe looke to their wives. The word for­reigne jurisdiction (though onely spirituall) sounds to them as harshly, and troubles them no lesse, then the most injurious terme doth a suspicious husband. This jealousy of Protestant Princes is no lesse fomented by the stupidity of some of their Writers, then by the ambition of others. Some (as Master Hobbes for one) looketh so dul­ly upon man, Leviathan part. 3. ch. 39. and government, that he maketh no distinction betweene Spiritualists and Tempora­lists, [Page 134]betweene the Church and State, betweene the sword of Iustice and the shield of Faith, betweene Christian and Man; and is of opinion, that out of such distinctions must needs follow faction and civill warre in the Commonwealth. But other Protestant Writers admit these distinctions, be­cause they hope by them to reape some benefit, or benefice. Doctor Bramhall in his re­plication pag. 163. Nay of late some have printed, that the King (notwithstanding his supremacy) is subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury in spiri­tuall affaires, and under the jurisdiction of his or­dinary Ecclesiasticall Pastors; but by no meanes under that of the Pope, thinking it to be more for their Soveraignes honour, to obey his Sub­jects, then Saint Peters successor.

2 That God should commit the charge of soules, or any spirituall jurisdiction to temporall Princes, is as incredible, as it is evident that he did foresee what an ill accompt they would give of their Subjects Religion, if they had the mana­gement of their owne consciences. If they be so jealous of the Pope, that notwithstanding he be­ing a stranger▪ and so farre of, yet they feare he may reduce all temporall matters to his spirituall jurisdiction; how doe they thinke it possible, that God should not he jealous of trusting them with the soules of their owne Subjects, seeing they may reduce all spirituall matters to tempo­rall, and abuse their power with much more ease and successe, then the Pope can misapply his spi­rituall jurisdiction? I am sure they ought to be more jealous of any of their owne Subjects su­premacy, then of the Popes spirituall jurisdiction [Page 135]and authority, because it is more easy for an Arch­bishop of Canterbury, or any other in the Realme, to make ill use of his supreme spirituall jurisdi­ction in England, then it is for the Po­pe, at so great a distance, and with so little ac­quaintance. Experience doth demonstrate, that the Popes spirituall jurisdiction over all Christen­dome, is not so dangerous as Protestant Lawes and petty Preachers doe pretend. Histories doe testify, that Popes have restored twenty Kings for one that they are said to depose; neither did they ever pretend to depose any King, untill his owne Subjects were weary of his tyrannicall go­vernment, or all the world scandalized at his wicked heresies; and in those very cases, the Po­pes never tooke the Kingdome to themselves: an evident argument, that Religion, not interest, moved them to take so rigourous wayes; whe­ther warrantable, or not, let others dispute, I cannot. Yet this much I can assure Protestant Princes, that Popes have exhorted their Subjects to obedience and patience, when they were most persecuted. In case any of his Ministers should be misinformed, indiscrete, or exceed his commis­sion, that fault cannot be attributed to his Ma­ster, nor to the Religion of Catholick Subjects, but rather to the ignorance of Catholick Tenets, and of Canonicall Doctrine, which commands Subjects to obey, though their Soveraignes be not of their owne Religion.

3 Kings and Princes by denying obedience to the Pope, teach their Subjects to rebell against themselves, and doe dispense with oath of allea­geance. [Page 136]The ground of fidelity and obedience due to hereditary Soveraignes, is a constant tra­dition, that he who actually resignes, is lawfull successour to one, whose right and jurisdiction was undoubtedly acknowledged; and indeed there cannot be a more rationall and secure ground of obedience, then tradition, and a con­tinuall succession of lawfull witnesses from one age to another. Writings may be counterfeited, Tradition cannot, because its impossible to stop so many mouthes as deliver it to posterity, or to contradict: the testimony of whole Provinces and Nations. This is the reason why Hereticks can­not gainesay the tradition of the Popes supre­macy: though they deny the supremacy it selfe, and the truth of that Doctrine; yet they are not so madly impudent, as to deny what is evident to all Christendome▪ to wit, that there was a con­stant tradition when Luther revolted from the Church, that the Bishop of Rome is Christs Vicar upon earth. They onely pretend that this tradi­tion is not a sufficient ground to oblige men to believe what it delivered, or to acknowledge the Popes supremacy. If it be not, how can the tra­dition of one onely Nation be a sufficient ground to oblige Subjects to believe, that their Sove­raigne is lawfull King of France, or Spaine; or that they are bound in conscience to obey him. There is not any King or Prince in Europe, that hath so universall and constant a tradition for his tem­porall soveraignty, as the Bishop of Rome hath to be Saint Peters lawfull successour, and of Saint Pe­ters being head of the Church under Christ, by [Page 137]divine institution. Pasce oves meas, Feed my sheepe, Joan. 21. and many other texts of Scripture, have never beene otherwise understood in the Church by any, but by declared Hereticks, whose contra­dicting the tradition and ancient sense of Gods Word, can as little prejudice the Popes right and supremacy, as a declared Rebell can prejudice his Soveraigns right, by calling in question his dis­cent or royall authority. When Saint Peters chaire is shaken by Protestant Princes, their owne thro­nes must fall; because it is not onely the funda­tion of the Catholick Church, but the support of Christian Monarchy.

4 Here I cannot omit to advertise my Rea­der, what poore shifts some of the most learned Protestants are brought to: they renew that so often and solidly refuted errour, of making the Pope Patriarch onely of the West, by misapply­ing the words of the Nicen Councell, Baron an. 325. Sir­mondus, & Guther. Card. Per­ron▪ my r [...]sp. ad Object. Reg. Brit. lib. 1 c. 32. & 33. and con­cealing the true translation of the Canon, as eve­ry man may see in the Authors cited in the mar­gen. The title of Patriarch of the West doth no more exclude the Popes supreme dignity of head of the Church under Christ, then the title of Ear­le of Flanders doth exclude that of King of Spaine. If the Bishops of Rome were not universall Pa­triarchs, but Patriarchs onely of the West, why did Saint Victor Pope, in the second age of Chri­stianity, excommunicate all the Churches of Asia, Euseb. 5. hist. 24. & cap. 25. Spond. 198. upon the difference of celebrating Easter, for not accommodating themselves to the Roman Sea? And though Saint Iretaeus did not approve of so great severity, yet neither he, nor any other, cal­led [Page 138]in question his authority. They are also plea­sed to make the Pope Speaker in the generall Councells, but not President; they allowe him the place of first Bishop, and call him exordium u­nitatis, with Saint Cyprian; but by no meanes will they grant him the title of infallible and supreme Pastor. These are but weake and pittifull shifts, whereunto Protestants are driven, by the eviden­ce of Councells, Fathers, Tradition, and Catho­lick arguments, contrary to the Tenets and Do­ctrine of their brethren of the late Church of England. If the Pope be exordium unitatis, he must be infallible in deciding the controversy propo­sed, otherwise he will be exordium divisionis, be­cause no learned persons will submit their judge­ments in matters of Faith to a Judge that may be mistaken; they will be as farre from his sentence and thoughts, as from any other; and the unity of Faith (whereof Saint Cyprian speakes) consists more in an unity of thoughts of judgements, then of speech, or exteriour acquiescence. Such a dumb unity of Faith hath its beginning from Po­licy, not Religion.

5 They excuse themselves from the guilt and crime of Schisme, as ridiculously as they impugne the Popes supremacy. They accuse us Catholicks for the fault themselves committed, because for­sooth they left not our communion, untill we thrust them out of doores. It may be as well said, that the Judge, and not the thiefe, is the malefa­ctour, because the Judge pronounced sentence a­gainst the thiefe. The Roman Catholick Church had no more part in the Schisme of England, [Page 139]then to declare Henry the VIII. and Queene Eli­zabeth Schismaticks, and Hereticks. They com­mitted the crime, and the Pope pronounced the sentence. Therefore the Roman Church, or Court, is guilty of Schisme, is an excellent Protestant conse­quence! But such fopperies we must expect from obstinate Hereticks, that with a perverse will oppose no lesse their owne understandings, then Catholick verities. The Pope (say they) impo­sed new articles of Faith upon their tender con­sciences, he made a new Creed, and declared it was necessary to believe the same. Therefore he was cause of the Schisme. The same argument that the Arrians made against the Councell of Nice, and Saint Athanasius his Creed, doe these Hereticks now object against the Councell of Trent, and Pope Pius V. his profession of Faith. Declarations against new heresies, are no new Creeds; they are but explanations of the old, not new articles of Faith. One article of Faith may be divided into many branches: how many doth Saint Athanasius set downe in his Symbol of the Trinity and In­carnation? The Catholick Church did alwayes practise this way, when it was necessary to con­fute heresies. If it was lawfull for the Church of the fourth age, to command all Christians to pro­fesse and believe the Symbol of Saint Athanasius, which was but an explanation of particulars con­tained in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarna­tion; why cannot the Church now explaine more particularly the Apostles Creed, and any part of Scripture, impugned by Hereticks, and command all Christians to believe the same? All the pre­tended [Page 140]new articles are contained in the Apostles Creed implicitely, as in that of the Communion of Saints, Remission of sinnes, Catholick Church, &c. or at least in some text of Scripture, as Transubstan­tiation in Christs words, This is my Body. The petty Ministers of the English Nags-head Church pre­sume to make a new Creed of 39. articles, prote­sting against the ancient Faith of Christendome, and they admire that the Vicar of Christ, and a ge­nerall Councell, should warne all Catholicks to beware of their heresies, and to that end declare in a Symbol of Faith more particularly the recei­ved Doctrine of the Church of God. Away with these shamefull shifts of Hereticks, whose last excuse for their Schisme is, that they who be­gunne it, were Roman Catholicks. So were Re­bells once loyall Subjects, and yet that doth not excuse themselves, or their adherents, from the guilt of rebellion. With these hereticall devises are many poore idiots misled by ungodly and wicked Preachers, who gaine their living and credit by the damnation of soules, that Christ our Saviour purchased at so deare a rate.

6 The last thing I proposed in the title of this Chapter was, that its a greater foppery in Prote­stants, then in Catholicks, to deny the Popes in­fallibily in deciding controversies of Christian Religion. That it is a foppery in both, must be evi­dent to all persons, that will reflect upon the na­ture of Christian Faith, and the Bookes of holy Scripture. When men believe as Christians, they must exclude all manner of doubts and feares of being mistaken, from the act wherewith they be­lieve; [Page 141]they cannot defend themselves from a new heresy by onely protesting against it by word of mouth, they must detest it with their heart and understanding, and believe the quite contrary truth. There was never Heretick so simple as to broach an errour upon his owne score; he al­wayes pretends Gods Word for its fundation, and backs it with as many texts of Scripture, as Catholicks oppose against his heresy. This was the practise of Arrians, Nestorians, and all other an­cient Hereticks, which Protestants doe now a­dayes imitate. If the true meaning of Scripture were as visible to us, as it is infallible in it selfe, no Heretick would make use of the words of holy Writ, because his fancy or interpretation would be easily discerned from the sense which God in­tended, at least by combining and comparing one text with another: but experience demonstrates, that notwithstanding all combinations of one place of Scripture with another, the controver­sy remaines, and cannot be decided by Scripture alone. To imagine that all which cannot be de­cided by Scripture alone, is superfluous, and the beliefe thereof not necessary for salvation, is to dispense with the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation; seeing the Councell of Nice, Soz. lib. 1. c. 16. A­than. Apol. 2. and Saint Athanasius that great Champion of the Ca­tholick Church confuted and condemned the Ar­rians, not by Scripture alone, but by tradition, and adhearing not onely to the words, but also to that sense of Scripture, which that present Church had received from the former.

7 Seeing therefore that controversies of Chri­stian [Page 142]Religion must be decided by the sense, as well as by the words of Scripture; and that the said sense is more clearly delivered to us by tradi­tion, and the testimony of the Church, then by the words themselves in controverted texts; and that Hereticks may endeavour to confound their owne tradition with that of the true Catholick Church (as the Quartadecimans did in the cele­brating Easter;) and that they may invent new heresies, never thought of in former ages: sup­posing, I say, that all this is possible, the remedy of these evills in the Church, cannot be impossi­ble; and truly the remedy is impossible (at least at all times, to wit, when generall Councells are not assembled) if the Pope be not infallible in decla­ring what is heresy, divine Faith, and Catholick tradition. Such few Catholicks as called in que­stion the Popes infallibity, excused their errour not onely with the infallibility, but also with the morall possibility of a generall Councell, when­soever a new heresy would be invented: but they were grossely mistaken, as experience doth de­monstrate; and a perpetuall generall Councell was never intended by God, who commandeth the Bishops and Prelates to have a care of the par­ticular Churches which he committed to their charge; a thing not compatible with their conti­nuall assistance in Constantinople, Trent, or any o­ther one City, where the Councell is assembled. But Protestants hitherto have denyed (even the English Church in the 21. of their 39. articles) that generall Councells arc infallible, and conse­quently must say, that God commanded an im­possibility, [Page 143]bidding us beware of new heresies, Act. 20. and not believe false Prophets, when he left us no infallible Judge, or Pastour, to declare unto us what doctrine is heresy, and who are the false Prophets. No Catholick was ever so unreasona­ble, as to defend such a foppery.

8 And though of late some of our Nags-head Doctours (contrary to the 21. article of their Creed, and English Church) acknowledge that generall Councells are infallible in deciding con­troversies of Faith, and (to their eternall shame, and the infamy of their venerable Mother the Protestant Church of England) are now forced to call the 39. Articles of their Religion by the name of onely probable opinions; yet such a definition or description they give in their printed bookes of a generall Councell, with so many odde conditions, and so insuperable difficulties, that onely mad men may hope to see such a Christian Assembly meete, and much lesse agree in condemning any heresy, or declaring what is Catholick Doctrine. This new definition of a generall Councell is but a meere put of, to gaine time, that Nags-head er­rours may last as long as their Ministers; but they are evidently convinced, and condemned by the absurdity of their poore shift: its a greater fop­pery to admit of infallibility in an impossible Councell, then to admit of a possible Councell without infallibility. The first is an absolute Chimaera, contrary to the evident light of naturall reason: the second seemeth onely impossible to Christians, that grant there is a Church of God upon earth, and that be hath left meanes in it, to [Page 144]end controversies of Religion with peace and u­nity of Catholick Faith.

9 There cannot be a greater foppery, then to thinke that God instituted his Church without possibility of obtaining the end or its institution. The end of the Catholick Church is our salva­tion by one, and the same supernaturall and un­doubted Faith, communicated by preaching and hearing: Rom. 10. this one and undoubted Faith in this manner is impossible, If there be not at least one infallible Pastour (when there are no generall Councells) who may by his definition declare what is Catholick Faith, what heresy, whenso­ever the Church is troubled with diversity of o­pinions: its as evident therefore, that the Popes infallibility is not superfluous, as it is cleare that God did not deprive his Church of meanes, without which its impossible to compasse the end he aymed at in its institution. If Profestants themselves judge it a most absurd and destructive Tenet in any Commonwealth, See the late Kings an­swer to the Remon­strance of the Lords and Commons as­sembled in Parliament 26. May 1642. in an­swer to the businesse of Hull. that a murtherer or felon cannot be apprehended, condemned, or punished by any other authority, then that of Parliament, even when it actually sits; how much more absurd and destructive must they grant it would be in the Church, that a murtherer of soules, and an Heretick, cannot be declared and condemned by any other authority, or infallibi­lity, then that of a generall Councell not actual­ly sitting, nor likely to be assembled in a long time? Doe they imagine that God would insti­tute a Church more absurdly, then themselves would order a Commonwealth? As in all well [Page 145]ordered Commonwealths there must be meanes to suppresse sedition at any time, before it comes to be rebellion; so in the Church of God, there must be meanes to condemne dangerous opi­nions and growing heresies, before they come to spread and infect Christian soules. If there be no infallible and visible Judge of controversies besi­des a generall Councell, none will alter his opi­nion untill the generall Councell be gathered, and then it will be too late to apply the remedy. An exteriour acquiescence doth not change mēs opinions, nor free their minds, and thoughts from heretical errours: none thinkes himselfe ob­liged to forsake his owne opinion, for that of other men, If theirs be noe more then probable. Therefore some infallible authority there must bee at all times in the Church, whereby men may bee obliged, to condemne even their owne opinions, and errours; and none doth as much as pretend to it, but the Roman Bishop.

10 The infallibility of some visible Judge of Controversies alwayes at hand, especially when generall Councells can not meete conveniently, is soe agreable to evident reason, and soe necessa­ry for the unity of Faith and peace, not onely of the Catholick Church, but also of the Christi­an Commonwealth, that the Protestants who were most against it, are now most for it, and wish that the Pope, if hee bee not, were as in­fallible as wee pretend. If their wish bee rationall (as without doubt it is) wee are to presume, that God the Author of reason, was as rationall in this particular, as they can wish. And though [Page 146]it bee strange, how they can imagine, that God can bee unreasonable in any matter and in one that soe much concerned his Church; yet they are convinced by wofull experience, that our belief of the Popes infallibility is as beneficial to Catholicks, as their obstinacy against it, hath beene prejudiciall to Protestants, who make Scripture the ground, and warrant of all attempts, and rebellions against their Soveraignes; where­as wee submit our judgements to the ancient, and setled interpretation of Gods Word, and when that is not cleare, we conforme our selves to the sentence of the Pope, a very indifferent person, and supreme Judge in matters of Christi­an Religion; at least he is more unpartiall to Prin­ces, then their owne subjects interpreting Scrip­ture by fancy, interest, or passion.

Why should wee Catholicks believe, that the Bishop of Rome is infallible, and Christs Vi­car, upon earth, rather then hee of Constantinople, or any other; is as much as to demand, why doe wee rather believe that Philip the 4. or Lewis the 14. are lawfull Kings of Spaine, and France, then other men that never could pretend right to tho­se Kingdomes? See the Protestants Apology for the Church of Rome tr. 1. see. 3. subd. 10. & see. 7. subd. 5. & 9. & tr. 2 see [...]. & 3 subd: 10. There is not any man upon earth who can pretend right be bee infallible in deter­mining controversies of Religion, but the Bishop of Rome. Hee hath a more constant, and univer­sal tradition for his spiritual jurisdiction, and in­fallible authority, then any King hath for his temporal superiority. Why should wee deny to the Pope, what all antiquity acknowledged, and all men must grant, if it bee not out of animosity [Page 147]against his person, or obstinacy against his prero­gative; which wee ought not to measure by his personal merits, but by Gods providence, and the publike good, and necessity of the Catholick Church. If wee looke upon the greatnesse of the prerogative, its more probable that one man may deserve it better, and bee more capable of it, then every one of them who concurre to the infallible definition of a generall Councell: neither ought it to seeme soe strange, that God should bee plea­sed to make one Pope infallible in S Peters chaire, if wee believe that every Bishop is infallible in a Councell, who concurres to a definition, when all Christendome is assembled together in an uni­versal Synod. Noe Catholick doth believe that the Pope is infallible in all his words and actions, or as a particular Doctor, but onely when he proposeth or speaketh any thing in Gods name, and as his Interpreter, to the Catholick Church.

CHAP. X.

1 THe foundation of Justice and Judicature, is evidence of lawfull witnesses, against whose testimony the accused person can have no rationall exception. As the judge must have evi­dence [Page 148]of witnesses for the sentence he pronoun­ceth, so must the witnesses have some evidence for the testimony they give. There is a great dif­ference betweene the evidence of witnesses, re­quired against persons accused for Religion, and for other crimes. Eye-witnesses have best evi­dence against malefactours apprehended for ci­vill crimes; but in matters of Faith, and religion, all goeth by heare-say; Rom. 10. he is the best witnesse, who relyes least upon his owne knowledge; his best evidence is the testimony of others dead before he was borne, and though their bodies lye rot­ten in graves, their Faith and Doctrine must be fresh in the memory and testimony of the present Catholick Church, and Christian posterity.

2 As the Judge must have evidence for his sentence, and the witnesse for his testimony, so must the Legislatour have evidence that his Law or Statute doth not contradict the Law of God; his legislative power must be subordinate to Christian Religion. Henry the VIII. Edward the VI. and Queene Elizabeths penall Statutes, are evi­dently against the Law of God and Christian Religion, if we may credit antiquity, and stick to the Faith and practise of the Church, and Catho­lick Princes, that went before them, not onely in England, but in all other Christian Kingdo­mes. No persons living have any other evidence for the Law of God, and Catholick Religion, but the test mony of the immediatly precedent age, confirmed with supernaturall signes: all for­mer ages speake to us by the mouth of the last with which we conversed; we must cake their [Page 149]word for all the rest, and for the sense, as well as for the letter of Scripture. The 14. age delivered to the 15. the Roman Catholick Faith, which we now professe; assuring that it was the true sense of Scripture, which they had learned from the 13. age, and so forth to the Apostles. What evi­dence had Henry the VIII. or his daughter Queen Elizabeth, to oppose against the testimony of all former ages, confirmed with so many miracles, and to make Statutes against the knowne and pra­ctised Law of God and Christianity? His luxu­ry, and his daughters bastardy, are the onely evi­dence which Protestants can produce for the ground of penall Lawes against the Popes supre­macy, and other points of the Roman Catholick Religion: an excellent foundation of Protestant Lawes, Justice, and Judicature.

3 To pronounce sentence of death, losse of goods, or banishment, against persons without any proose, is rather tyranny then injustice. The greatest crimes (even that of treason) require at least one lawfull witnesse: let Protestant produ­ce but one lawfull witnesse against the Religion of Catholicks, and their sense of Scripture, and we will not murmure against their penall Lawes, and rigourous proceedings: Antiquity affords them none, because, though in divers ages, some odde men did testify sometimes one errour of theirs, sometimes another; they were in those very times contradicted by the whole Catholick Church, and declared infamous Impostours and Hereticks. In this present age no Protestants can be lawfull witnesses for their owne Religion, or [Page 150]against ours, because their testimony cannot be valid against so constant and universall a tradi­tion, as we Catholicks have for our Doctrine and sense of Scripture. Its as ridiculous and unjust in a Judge, to pronounce sentence against Ro­man Catholicks for their Religion, upon the evi­dence and testimony of Protestancy, as if he had in open Court condemned men to forfeit their estates, and ancient inheritance, upon the word of a mad fellow, that produceth no other evi­dence to confirme his claime, but interiour mo­tions of the spirit of coveteousnesse and ambi­tion, or some obscure text of the Law appliable to all cases and subjects; for, all the Protestant evidence is reduced to the private spirit, and the pretended clearnesse of Scripture. If this be not to destroy the foundation of Justice, and the forme of Judicature. Protestants have a different way of proceeding from all other Nations, and have altered the stile of naturall reason, humane nature, and the practice of all antiquity.

4 They cannot excuse their persecution a­gainst Catholicks, with the example of Christian Emperours and Kings, that both for zeale of Re­ligion and humane Policy (to avoid the danger of rebellion) made Lawes and Statutes against Hereticks, and Innovatours of the ancient Faith and sense of Scripture, which descended to them by tradition from the Apostles. Protestants take the quite contrary way; they make Lawes and Statutes against: the ancient Religion, and know­ne sense of Gods Word, and persecute Catho­licks for professing it; whereas their Predeces­sours, [Page 151]Emperours and Kings, punished new Re­ligions and Novelists. This last was lawfull in se­cular Princes, but the practise of Protestants is unjust and wicked, because it destroyes Justice and the true Religion, confirmed by the publike testimony and practise of the Christian world, since the Apostles time to this present. If the Ro­man Catholick Religion were not the true A­postolicall Faith, but as new as Protestants pre­tend, how is it possible that in history there should be no mention made of any person that suffered as an Heretick, for broaching or main­taining any one point which we now professe? If any Doctrine of ours were judged an heresy, or a novelty by antiquity, without doubt we had not all escaped the rigour of penall Lawes made against Hereticks and Novelists. I am sure Protestants cannot brag, nor say so much for their owne Doctrine, many if not all the points whereof have beene condemned as heresy by the Church in ancient times, and punished as novel­ties by Christian Kings and Emperours; which was the onely reason that moved the first English Protestants to cause the young child Edward the VI. (when he knew not what he did) to repeale all the Lawes and Statutes that any Christian King of England and the Kingdome had made against Hereticks, being convinced that themsel­ves, and not Catholicks, were comprehended in that number. All who suffered persecution or death for any point of the Roman Religion, we­re looked upon by the Catholick Church in all ages, as glorious Confessours, and renowned [Page 152]Martyrs. Amongst the most pretious jewells of the Easterne Church were accompted such as were put to death for defending the worship of Images against the Iconuclasts, Baron. an. 723. Conc. Ni­caen. 2. Act. 5. who were the first that persecuted Christians for that Doctrine, at the instance of one Serantapicus a Magician and a Jew, that promised to Gizedo Prince of the Sa­racens, he should live 30. yeares, if he would command all Images to be taken away, and not worshipped in his Dominions by the Catholicks. But Gizedo dying within a yeare and a halfe, his sonne Vlidus condemned the Jew to death, as a perfidious lmpostour; and the Images were wor­shipt as formerly, untill three yeares afterwards Leo Isaurus the heretick Emperour, at the instance also of Jewes, Concil. Ni­caen. 2. Baron. an. 726. raised that most terrible persecu­tion against the Catholick Church, for practising so pious a custome, which had continued a­mongst Christians, without the least danger of idolatry, since the time of the Apostles to that present, and twill not be interrupted untill the day of judgement, not [...]ithstanding the clamours, endeavours, and vaine pretended feares of Prote­stant zealots, in behalfe of Serantapicus their Pa­triarch, and his Hebrew tribe their loving bre­thren.

5 Their persecution against Catholicks can be no more excused by the proceedings of the Spanish and Italian Inquisition, Of the In­quisition. then their penall Statutes have beene by the Lawes of ancient Kings and Emperours against Hereticks, 1. Be­cause the Inquisition proceeds according to the rules and forme of Justice; none is declared an [Page 153]Heretick, or guilty by a new Law, or oath, made onely to the end that by them men may be in­trapped both in soule, body, and estate: it was no crime in England to be a Catholick, before the penall Lawes were enacted, but it was a crime to be an Heretick, or Apostata, before the ancient Emperours and Kings made penall Lawes against heresy. The Law supposed, and did not make the crime, as penall Statutes doe in England, making a crime of Christian Religion. 2. Hereticks are never condemned by the Inquisition without the testimony of many lawfull witnesses, both living and dead: all the ancient Fathers, Councells, and the whole Catholick Church of former ages te­stify, that their errours are new, and contrary to the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles. no Re­bell was ever more evidently convicted of rebel­lion against his Prince, then Hereticks are by the Inquisition of heresy against God and the Apo­stolicall Church. We Catholicks cannot obtaine so faire play at their hands; we are condemned by a new Law, because we are not Hereticks, and our Judges are convicted of the crime they lay to our charge. Surely this is to turne upside downe Justice and Judicature. 3. The Inquisi­tion medleth not with those who never were Catholicks; but the penall Lawes comprehend them who never were of their Church, or com­munion. 4. The Inquisition condemns no He­reticks to death, but onely declares their heresy, to the end the faithfull may avoid their conversa­tion: its true the secular power executeth the se­cular against them, notwitstanding that the In­quisition [Page 154]doth protest against that rigour, and de­sireth that Hereticks may not be punished with death, or effusion of bloud: this protestation and petition is now, and hath alwayes beene the continuall practise of the Roman Church; but the penall Lawes of Protestants are written with bloudy caracters, all their Courts are stained with the innocent and noble bloud of many lear­ned and loyall Subjects, onely because they would not take an oath against their conscience, and abjure the Faith of their Christian Ance­stours. 5. Though the Inquisition were as un­just, and rigorous, as some of the ignorant Pro­testants pretend, it could be no blemish to the Catholick Religion, because it is not an univer­sall practise, but limited to Spaine and Italy, at the instance of secular Princes, who looke upon it as a necessary meanes to keepe their Subjects of those Nations in the feare of God, and in awe of their Soveraignes. But the penall Lawes of England are spread as farre as their Protestant Church and communion. 6. The Inquisition doth seriously wish and endeavour the conver­sion amendment of Hereticks, employing lear­ned Divines to convince them of their errours, and instruct them in the way of salvation: but the penall Lawes, and the oathes of supremacy, allea­geance, and abjuration, are like so many nets cast out by Protestants, to fish estates in troubled consciences; a farre different method from that of the Apostles, who were fishers of men, and not of estates: Protestants fish for estates, though not alwayes with successe. In King Iames his [Page 155]reigne, a Scot begged of his Majesty an English Catholicks estate, to whom he procured that the oath of supremacy might be tendered, never ima­gining that the Gentleman would take it, or goe to Church, and damne his soule to save his estate: the Gentleman offered the Scot a faire composi­tion, but nothing would satisfy this beggar; if he had not made the Catholick also a beggar; who at length resolved to shew himselfe in the Church; whereupon the Scot made him a most devout and learned exhortation, dissuading him from all Protestant assemblies, often repeating and explaining the words of our Saviour, What doth it availe a man, if he games all the world by the losse of his sale? Yet the English man remained ob­stinate, and resolved rather to give his soule to the Devill, then his estate to a Scot. I believe there are many such beggarly Preachers now adayes in England; if they consider well the text of the Scots Sermon, they may apply it better to them­selves, then to Roman Catholicks.

6 The last pretext for persecuting of English Catholicks, is the massacre and murther of Pro­testants in Ireland, in the beginning of the late troubles; and this must be a preamble to all Pro­clamations and Oathes of abjuration. What hath an English Catholick to doe with an lrish massa­cre? I am sure he doth not thirst by nature after the bloud of his owne Nation; and his Religion doth neither incline him to murther, or rebel­lion. That is a privilege of Protestancy: we ha­ve a setled sense of Scripture, which none can al­ter without breach of Catholick Faith; and we [Page 156]are not Judges of our owne Controversies, but must submit to a third and indifferent person. But as for the murthers and massacres of Ireland, so much and so often exaggerated in Protestant Pamphlets and Pulpits, I onely say, that Protestan­cy had a greater hand in them, then Catholick Religion, because our Tenets arc contrary to cruelty, and bloudshead; and though Catholicks may be as guilty of murther as other men, the Religion cannot. Is it not notorious that the Pro­testants in Ireland signed a bloudy Petition, offe­red to the Parliament of England, that all Irish who would not goe to Church, might be extir­pated, or banished? This was done before the Irish Catholicks did stirre. But suppose that in Vlster some of the rascality or kernes (being ex­asperated by so many and continuall injuries done to them by Protestants) had murthered some persons; must that reflect upon the English Ca­tholicks, and all the Irish Nation? It is most cer­taine and evident, that the murthers and massacres done in Ireland by Protestants, exceeded without comparison those committed by Catholicks, as well in respect of their brutishnesse, as nume­rousnesse. Witnesse their marches about Dublin, where the Inhabitants were all of English extra­ction, and spoke no other language but the an­cient Saxon. There are very few of that popu­lous Countrey called Fingale left alive, all perished, by fire and sword, being a most innocent people, and having nothing I rishlike in them, but Catho­lick Religion. In the march of the Protestant Ar­my to the County of Wicklo, man, woman, and [Page 157]child was killed; a Gentle woman big with child was hanged at an arch of a bridge, and the poore Catholick that guided the Army, for reward of his service at parting, being commanded to blow into a pistol, was shot therewith into the mouth, though there had beene no murther committed on the Protestants in that County. In another march into the same shire, one Master Comain an aged Gentleman, who never bore armes, was roasted alive by one Captaine Gines; yea they murthered all that came in their way from within two miles of Dublin.

In a march into the County of Kildare, in, or a­bout February 1641. some of the Officers going into M ^rs. Eustate of Cradogstons house, a sister to Sir William Talbot of eighty yeares of age, who being unable to shunne, entertained them with meate and drinke; after dinner, her selfe and ano­ther old Gentlewoman, and a girle of eight yeares of age, were murthered by the said Protestant Officers.

Walter Evers Esquire, aged and sickly, and of a long time before the warre bed-ridden, being carried by his servants in a litter to shunne the fu­ry of the Army, was taken and hanged. In West­meath Master Gauley a Gentleman of a good esta­te, having a protection and shewing it, hoping thereby to save his goods, lost his life, having his protection laid on his brest, & was shot through it, to try whether it was proofe. Master Thomas Talbot a Gentleman of 90. yeares of age, and a great serviture in Queene Elizabeths warres in Ire­land, having a protection also, was murthered.

Seven or eight hundred women and children, ploughmen and labourers, were burned and mur­thered in a day in the Kings land (a tract within seven miles or Dublin) where neither murther, nor pillage had beene committed on the Prote­stants Whensoever the Army went abroad, the poore Countrey people did betake themselves to the firres, where the Protestant Officers did be­siege them, and set the firres on fire; such as shun­ned and escaped that element, were killed by the besieging Army, and this they termed a [...]unting, sporting thenselves with the bloud of innocents, These barbarous and savage cruelties were ordi­nary not onely neare Dublin, but in all other parts of the Kingdome, wheresoever the Prote­stants were, and may be read in divers Remon­strances and Relations published in the beginning of the late troubles.

But why doe we detaine our selves in particu­lars, when all the world seeth how the whole Irish Nation is murthered by the Transplanta­tion into Conaght, and by transporting them into the plantations of America? Not content to star­ve them in those places, Protestants are resolved also to damne them, forcing them to an oath of abjuration against their consciences, and the pub­lick Faith, given not onely by printed Declara­tions in the name of the English Parliament to the Irish Catholicks an. 1649 and 1652. That the oath of abjuration shall not be administred to any in Ireland; but also by an expresse article granted in a Treaty to the Catholicks of Ireland at Kilkenny, the 12. of May 1652. in confidence whereof, and [Page 159]of much more to the same effect, the Irish sub­mitted, and laid downe their armes, being assured that they should enjoy the freedome and liberty of their consciences, and not be molested for not going to Church, or any Protestant worship of God, who in due time will comfort his peo­ple, confound his enemies, destroy Protestancy the murtherer of soules and Catholick Nations.

Doe not divers in these very times prove their constant affection to the Parliament, by shewing their names subscribed to this cruell Petition? Doth not the Mayor, who then was of London­derry, an Englishman and a Protestant, with many others, testify, that there was not a drop of En­glish bloud drawne in the North of Ireland (where the warre begunne) untill the daughter of O Hara, an Irish Lord, was most barbarously murthered by Protestants? But whosoever de­sires to be satisfied in this particular of Ireland, let him read, amongst all others, the printed Re­monstrance of the Irish Confederate Catholicks, delivered by their Commissioners the Lord Vis­count Preston, and Sir Robert Talbot, the 17. of March 1642. to his Majesties Commissioners at Trim, and there he will see at large, how the Ca­tholicks desired that the murthers on both sides might be punished, and how they were forced to take armes by the wicked practises of Sir Wil­lium Persons, Sir Charles Coote, and other Prote­stants, who then governed that Kingdome: the best newes you could give the Councell at Du­blin, was, that such a Gentleman, or Nobleman, had retired (for feare of being murthered) from [Page 160]his house: this was evidence enough to declare him a Rebell, and confiscate his estate; their phrase was, They had another estate to divide a­mongst themselves and their friends; and seemed to rejoyce more at the taking armes of one esta­ted man, then if all the Kingdome had laid downe armes and submitted. Whatsoever men may say in passion of the Irish warre, its evident that Pro­testancy had a greater influence upon it, then the Roman Catholick Religion, and therefore ought not to be made the preface, or pretext or perse­cution, or oathes of abjuration.

7 By what hath beene said in this Chapter, it appeareth, that penall Lawes and Oathes against the Catholick Roman Religion, destroy the ground of Justice, and the forme of Judicature, because the witnesses have no evidence for their testimony, the Judges not any for their senten­ce, and the Legislatour as little for the Law. They are blocks laid in the way for Catholicks to stumble at, and occasions of scandall, whereby they must damne their soules, or loose their live­lyhood. How is it possible that any Christian men can drive others into such streights and ne­cessities? What Judge can finde in his heart to condemne a man to death and losse of goods, be­cause he will not of his owne accord forfeit his share of happinesse in the other life? But let them who pronounce sentences against Catholicks for conscience, remember, that a day will come, when themselves must stand at the barre, and heare their dreadfull doome without hopes of repri­vall. Gods Justice hath fallen visibly upon some [Page 161]of them even in this world, to the astonishment of many and repentance of very few. The me­mory of Justice Glanviles strange wound and death, by an iuvisible hand, is yet fresh in Lin­colne, where in the end of Queene Elizabeths reigne, he condemned two Priests, Sprat and Hunt, for refusing the oath of supremacy; and not long after, was suddenly strucken from his horse, and killed by such another blowe as we read of Iulian the Apostata. Spondanus an. 1579. Cambden in his Annals relates the death of Drury, but not the oc­casion. Drury Lord Deputy of Ireland was cited to appeare before the throne of Gods judgement within the space of 15. dayes, by the venerable Bishop and Marly Fr. Pathrike Ochely of the order of Saint Francis, whom he commanded to be put to death for not taking the oath of supremacy: and so it happened; for the 14. day Drury dyed of so intolerable a disease, that he cryed aloud, he was tormented with all the paines of hell.

8 Many other remarkable things might be set downe for the comfort of Catholicks, and ter­rour of their persecutours; these may suffise to prove, that God doth not approve of penall Sta­tutes and oathes against the Roman Catholick Religion, and that the sword of divine Justice will alwayes hang over the English Nation, untill they modell their Lawes to the Law of God, na­ture, and equity. And though weake and cove­teous Polititians be of a contrary opinion, I am confident they will in time learne by experience, that malicious policy must not give the Law to divine Providence, nor their injustice prevaile against Gods mercies; to whose divine Majesty [Page 162]we Catholicks continuall pray for the conver­sion of our most cruell persecutors, and hope they will be reduced to the way of reason and salvation, sooner then they deserve. But in case the Lord be pleased to permit them carry on their barbarous persecution, Catholicks must not de­spaire, but assure themselves, that then they are most favoured by God, when they are most op­pressed by Hereticks; and that even in this life, he will, in due time, provide for those who suffer for his sake, and persevere constantly in his Faith and service. But if they will, by taking the oath of objuration, or dissembling the Catholick Reli­gion, matriculate themselves in the devils bookes, and blot their names out of the booke of life, they may both in this, and the next, expect to be dealt withall according to their perjury and per­fidious policy; whereby though they may thrive for few and uncertaine dayes, they may be sure that, even in this world, God will be revenged of their posterity, and deprive them of that poore inheritance, which their fond and damned pa­rents purchased for them with the oath of abju­ration, and the losse of their soules for all eter­nity.

9 Hitherto I have spent much time and paper with Polititians, who are either Atheists or Pro­testants by profession. Now I must in the fol­lowing Chapters instruct not onely them, but others also of whatsoever Religion they seeme to be, and exhort them to morall honesty, with­out which there can be no solid wisdome, or policy. Therefore that Princes may be perswa­ded [Page 163]how contrary it is, even to their designes and interest, to countenance vice, and contemne ver­tue; I will persume to put them in minde of some grosse and dangerous errours, mistaken in these later and abortive ages by Polititians. The salva­tion of soules depends much upon Princes, who­se greatest obligation is, to governe their Sub­jects by men that have soules, and are not void of all truth, honesty, and honour. My designe is, ei­ther to convert Machiavilians, or at least to per­swade, that it is not their interest to pervert o­thers by ill example and unconscionable proceed­ings. And because Princes cannot treate all bu­sinesses with their equalls, or with their owne Subjects, immediatly by themselves, but of neces­sicy must make use of Ambassadours, Ministers, and Councellours of State, I will briefly treate of what vices such persons must shunne, and de­monstrate that truth and morall honesty is the foundation and prop of Policy: which Doctrine is no lesse true, then contrary to that definition of an Ambassadour, Homo peregre missus ad mention­dum Reipublicae causa, so much applanded and pra­ctised by men that understand not how prejudi­ciall untruths are, not onely to their businesses, but to humane society. Therefore in first place I will endeavour to prove

CHAP. XI.

1 THe principall part of Policy consists in wedding other mens interests to our own, by making appeare, that there is a necessity, or great conveniency in their conjunction. And be­cause the interests of Princes are seldome so uni­ted, but some contrariety may be discovered, there is great danger, that Ambassadours, or Mi­nisters of State, may endeavour to set forth their Masters cause, not as it is, but as they wish it were, and supply with untruths what in reality is wan­ting. There are some men who tell lyes with so ill a grace, and garb, that you may easily perceive how little their thoughts doe agree with their words, and how farre themselves are from cre­diting what they would have others believe; their language is so stuffed with affectation, that you may see its rather a piece of artificiall memo­ry, then a sinceare and hearty expression. Others are more cunning, and give so good a colour to untruths, that they may deceive the wisest men the first or second time. This cheating art and eloquence is soone learnt, because it requireth little wit, lesse judgement, and no conscience; and [Page 165]this is the reason why it is so common. But it can­not be long concealed, it will be very soone dis­covered either by the incoherency of the Ora­tours speech, or by some evidence contradicting his relation, or not compatible with his vaine un­dertaking. They must be very simple men who are over-reached by the faculty of lying; their first credulity may be attributed to want of judgement, but the second argues want of me­mory, with which even fooles abound, and may serve their turne, by putting them in minde of the former cheate, and defend them from being fooled the second time by the same impostour.

2 If Polititians who make untruths the foun­dation of their businesses, were to deale with the greatest fooles, the most they might expect, would be to be credited in their first or second audience; in the third they may with reason feare an afront, or at least that all businesses will be at a stand: for, how can a wise Prince, or prudent Minister of State, build a designe upon a mans in­formation, whose custome and passetime is to cheate others. He that is given to lyes, regards not honour, or conscience, and consequently will make no scruple to embarke his Masters in­terest in a rotten bottome, provided himselfe may be assured to gaine any thing by the naufrage or miscarriage of the designe. This at least will be the suspicion of those with whom he is in treaty, and though they may heare with patience his harangues, they will suspend their judgements un­till their doubts be taken away by some other information, and confirmation. And though his [Page 166]intelligence should prove true, it will not be jud­ged sincere, neither will his credit be any thing encreased in their opinions, because cunning lyers tell truth sometimes, that they may seeme to speake it alwayes: therefore the maxime of great Statesmen is, rather to delay businesses, and ha­zard the losse of opportunities, then undertake any upon the word and relation of an impostour. Its as impossible to profit the Prince or Com­monwealth by untruths, as it is to foole the wisest men of the world, with whom businesses are dealt: yet this caracter of Mentiri pro Republica, hath made the world so suspicious of Statesmens ingenuity, that few of them are believed in ordi­nary discourse. Henry the IV. of France assured the Hollanders, that Spinola would not besiege a certain Towne of theirs that campana, because Spinola told him he would, and was as good as his word, contrary to the King and States expecta­tion, and gained the Towne more by speaking truth, then by fighting. Ministers of State may conceale the truth, and not speake it to curious and impertinent persons, but they ought not to conceale it by speaking untruths.

3 Vaine men are most given to lyes of any, be­cause they tell untruths not onely to others, but to themselves; to others by words, and to them­selves by their fond conceits of their owne abili­ties and parts: whence it proceeds, that they re­flect not upon the incoherency of their words, because having deceived themselves by an extra­ordinary opinion of themselves and of their own judgement, they are confident of deceiving with­out [Page 167]out the least hazard of being caught in a lye, the onely thing that makes a lyar circumspect. A vaine man doth imagine, that wise and sober men are as much taken with flatteries, as he is with flattering himself; and therefore in all occasions doth practise his parasiticall art so plainly and ab­surdly, that they who are least concerned, can­not forbeare to blush, and wish themselves farre enough from so ungratefull and injurious an O­ratour; yet he apprehends non injury done, be­cause he doth to others, what he would have done to himselfe.

4 A man who mistakes himselfe so grossely, must needs be mistaken in others, and in busines­ses, for which he is as unfit, as he imagineth him­selfe proper. Designes upon others must be first applyed to our selves; we must consider what our selves would doe to prevent or quash them, in case they had come to our knowledge, and ac­cordingly judge of our enemies; not contemne their wit, or valour, as vaine men doe all others compared with themselves. The onely way the­refore to effect a designe, is to keepe it secret, and a vaine man is as little master of his thoughts and of a secrecy, as of his tongue. He must pro­claime to all the world, how much he is trusted, and to the end none may doubt of it, he will be­tray his trust, and reveale the secrecy (which is the life of businesses) to any that will heare him, and seeme to congratulate and applaude his inti­macy with his Prince, or others, to whom he is employed. But if himselfe doth undertake to set a designe afoot, he will be so set upon vaine spe­culations, [Page 168]that there will be as little roome for the practicall part, as there was for Archimedes to stand in, when he undertooke to demonstrate, that he could move the earth. Vaine men are great un­dertakers, and promise to move both heaven and earth, make stirres and revolutions upon Sea and Land; but when it comes to the push, they are as farre from performance, as Archimedes was from turning the earth upside downe.

5 By this it appeares how necessary it is for Princes to make choice of stayed, sober, and sin­cere men to doe their businesses: the best letter of credence is the employed persons, truth, and integrity; without which nothing will be effe­cted; nothing being more odious, then a pre­sumptuous, lying, and vaine man; to crosse him, his Masters businesse may be crossed; silence and delayes will be his answer, which is a significant language in wise and civill Courts; though vaine men are not capable of understanding any ex­pression however so cleare that may seeme to call in question their owne favour and successe, and will rather strive against the Courts inclination, then acknowledge that themselves can be ungra­tefull or mistrusted. Wise men will be loath to taxe the Minister of another Prince of any fault, though the proofe were evident: therefore the Prince who employed him, must not take for granted, that others are satisfied of his truth & in­genuity, because they do not declare their mindes in words: there is no language better understood amongst Statesmen, then the progresse of the bu­sinesse you propose; if it goeth on roundly, they [Page 169]understand you; if there be rubs & stops, you may understand them if you please, and may assure your selfe, that there is something amisse either in the businesse, or in the person that followeth it: and if the businesse be as advantagious to the Court as is pretended, and yet is not advanced; the person who treateth it, cannot be gratefull to the Ministers: and this is the practise and lan­guage of wise Statesmen and civill Conrtiours, as you may see in Antonio Perez his Letters, who af­ter his escape into France, became a Mediatour in that Court for a Friend; but by the delayes and civill language of the Ministers, understood their meaning, as one who had practised the same art in the Court of Spaine. Wherefore let Polititians perswade thcmselves, that truth and plaine dealing is not so contrary to policy and businesses, as so­me Sir Politicks would be, doe vainly imagine. But from their words let us passe to their deeds, and prove

CHAP. XII.

1 KNavery now adayes hath gained so much credit in Courts, and amongst weake Poli­titians, [Page 170]that you doe a man an injury (in their o­pinion) if you call him an honest man: they thinke that to be honest, or to be a foole, are synonimas, or the same thing. A dishonest man can neither be trusted at home nor abroad, and by conse­quence can be no Statesman; forreigne Princes will have nothing to doe with him, and the Sub­jects lesse, if they can have accesse to their Prince without him. Its impossible for him to counter­feit honesty; if he be not really honest, it will be soone discovered, because honesty consists more in deeds, then in words, and though wicked thoughts may be concealed by good language, actions cannot, seeing they must appeare and be censured by all the world according to their me­rit. The best part of Policy consists in perswading others to what you ayme at; and eloquence of words will not doe, when deeds are contrary. So that it is as impossible for one to be a wise Po­lititian without morall honesty, as it is to con­ceale the wickednesse of visible actions, that ad­mit of no good interpretation; or to perswade men that nothing is intended by dishonest and destructive wayes, but honest and plaine dealing. If all the rest of the world were blinde fooles, dishonest men might passe amongst them for wi­se Polititians.

2 What prejudice such men drawes upon Princes that follow their advice, though not their example, is obvious to every Christian that will consider, how much Gods Providence is enga­ged in crossing wicked counsels and designes. But because we are to deale now with persons that [Page 171]laugh at God and his Providence, as at skarcrowes, whereby simple folkes are frighted out of their wits and interest, we must wave that argument, and speake to fooles in their owne language, that is, onely of temporall motives and humane re­spects. A dishonest man is alwayes busied with wicked plots, and employes his creatures (who are as pernicious as himselfe) in all places of gaine, trust, and honour: all men of parts and merits are excluded, because they scorne to be spyes, pimps, or slaves to dishonest Councellours, or to such as are raised from the durt by their favour, and go­verne the Commonwealth. There is nothing that the multitude doth more resent, then to see worthy and vertuous men neglected, because though men hate vertue in themselves, they love it in others; besides, worth and virtue are the two wings wherewith persons of lowe discent hope to be raised to any height and preferment, which if they see clipt in others, they will despaire to be supported by them, and will declare to all men with whom they converse, how little they are to expect from those, whose interest is grounded upon vice, and dishonest proceedings. From this common discontent, managed by some factious and politick head, the Subjects come many times to rebel against his Prince, for not punishing or banishing his evill Councellours; and these, who looke more upon their owne preservation, then the Prince his safety or honour, engage him more and more in their quarell, by perswading him, that to Rebells nothing must be granted; who at length get all by force, with the ruine of their [Page 172]Soveraigne and his posterity. All this you may see verified in the life of Edward the Second King of England.

3 But in case the quite contrary way be taken, and that the Subjects (to comply with perverse inclinations, and those who are in power) strive who shall be most wicked, from thence must greater danger arise to the Prince, then from any other emulation, or discontent. Vertuous men are few, and consequently the Prince may with­out great difficulty finde them employments: but if vice be rewarded, he will not finde in his King­dome wherewith to content half the number of dishonest pretenders; and to satisfie some few of them, is to disgust all the rest, who being men of as little honour as conscience, will make use of their number and power, to obtaine what they could not by favour, and will clime up to the height of their ambition by force and wicked de­vices. This is the reason why Princes ought to esteeme and reward vertue, and discountenance vice, and why none ought to be of his Coun­cell, whose integrity is not notorious to his Sub­jects; for, how can a Prince discountenance vice, if his Favourits be vicious and dishonest persons? Their ill example may be his ruine, because all men who desire to be preferred, will prostitute their consciences to the Favourits will and plea­sure, and neglect his Master; and when the Fa­vourit hath gained the greatest part of the Sub­jects to his owne devotion, perhaps he will plot something against the Soveraignes person, and promote to the royall Throne some of his owne [Page 173]relations. A Prince cannot be too suspicious and jealous of dishonest Councellours; the greatest tye of fidelity being conscience, they who have none must prove disloyall, whensoever it stands with their conveniency. Therefore its most dan­gerous, and want of true Policy in Princes, to trust themselves or their affaires in the hands of such men: for, though it be their interest this day to be faithfull to their King, it may be the contra­ry to morrowe; I am sure it can never be his in­terest to stick to them, or owne their dishonest proceedings. The interest of Kings lyeth in the affection of his Subjects, and its impossible they should affect a King, who not onely protects, but ownes manifest injustices. Subjects are men, and as apt to resent and revenge injuries, as the Sove­raigne. He must handle them very gently, and not expose them to the contempt or tyranny of wic­ked Ministers; for, though they may have patience for a time, at length they may growe furious, and he will finde himselfe mistaken in their temper, when it is too late to dismisse or punish those who occasioned their distempers.

4 Amongst all Princes ruined by the wicked­nesse of Ministers, none is more to be pittied then Edward the VI. of England, because he could as little depose as choose his Counsellours, being al­wayes in his minority. It is the opinion of most Writers, that Dudley Duque of Northumberland, after beheading Seamour the Protectour, did poy­son the King, to the end his sonne Guilford, who married the Lady Iane Gray, might, in her right, be King, and himselfe in the right and reigne of [Page 174]his sonne, governe England, excluding Queene Mary, and the Queene of Scots. I doe not thinke that any history can give testimony of more dis­honest Counsellours in one time, and in one Kingdome, then we read of in this poore childs reigne. Seamour himselfe violated his oath and promise given to Henry the VIII. that no new Re­ligion should be brought into England during the Kings minority. Afterwards he caused his owne brother to be beheaded. The Duque of Northumberland plotted the Kings death, dissem­bled his Faith, which at length upon the scaffold he professed, dying a Roman Catholick, and ex­horting the Nation to sticke to that Religion. But what I desire Princes should reflect upon, is, how dangerous it is for them, to have Counsel­lours void of all Religion and conscience. A man would thinke that Dudley could have no other interest, but that of King Edward, whom he ruled together with the Kingdome; and yet we see how farre he went to fetch a contrary interest, and by what wicked and dishonest wayes. There is no interest remote, or too farre from one of a large conscience, if he be perswaded its more for his purpose, then the present which he mana­geth. Let Princes therefore countenance vertue, and banish vice from their Courts and Counsells, if they have any care of their owne interest and security. But now let us see

CHAP. XIII.

1 ALl Statesmen must be Gentlemen in their actions. They must shunne as much meane wayes in themselves, as they must seeme not to dislike of them in other meane persons, whom they employe or entertaine as necessary and base instruments. They must countenance spyes, but scorne to be spyes themselves. The maxime of a Statesman must be, not to betray any man that confides in him; for, the food of Policy is infor­mation and knowledge of businesses, which none will give that is afraid of being betrayed. A man may be faithfull to his Prince, without being a Traitour to his Subjects, or any other; and the favour of a Minister with his Prince, must not be grounded upon information of other mens de­fects, but upon his owne services, strength of judgement, and dexterity of managing affaires. He who creeps into favour by telling tales, and such meane wayes, is rather a petty spy and infor­mer, then a wise Statesman. I have knowne a great Minister of State, who told a Gentleman that desired to be advised by him, he would helpe him in what he could, but warned him before [Page 176]hand, that he would make use of any thing he heard for his Masters service; and therefore bid him consider, whether it was for his purpose to communicate unto him any secrecy. This was honourable and plaine dealing; he would serve his King, and not betray others: and yet this Mini­ster of State is knowne to be as faithfull to his Master, as ever Subject was to Prince, having lost for his service as great an estate, as any Subject in our parts of Christendome doth possesse.

2 There are some persons that place the es­sence of a Polititian, in being a Favourite of that faction which actually beareth sway: they thinke it wisdome (though not worth) to change their friends as often as these doe their fortune, and (which is worse) to become enemies or those who raised them from nothing, because its so necessary to humour the present power. Such cut-purses and cut-throates are the infamy of Courts, and the dregs of Commonwealths. No wise Sta­tesman can trust them, because if the Prince doth but frowne at him, he may be sure to receive a kick from so mercenary and ungratefull fellowes, who may be called crafty companions, but no wise Polititians. Beasts may be crafty, but not wise or politick: craft, even in men, requires but little wit, or policy: there is a great difference be­tweene a crafty foole, and a wise Polititian. These crafty fooles, or Court spyes, have no lesse worth in them, then many brute beasts, that preserve a gratefull memory to their benefactours; and shew as little judgement as honour, in accommodating themselves to the times in so shamelesse a manner. [Page 177]A man is not bound in conscience, or honour, to strive obstinatly for his Friend against the torrent of a Court, and the violence of a wilfull Prince, but he is obliged not to side with his enemies. It is no rash judgement to thinke, that he who becomes an enemy to his Friend onely upon the score of the present power, or prevailing faction, will doe the same to his Prince, if ever he be over­powerd by any that will admit of such infamous Parasits into his favour. Such meane Creatures are more fit for goales then Courts, for footmen then friends, for spies then servants, and for in­famous pimps, then for wise Statesmen.

3 Policy and Craft doe not onely differ by rea­son of the diversity of the judgements and capa­cities of the persons, but also doe require diffe­rent objects; policy being ordained for great and weighty affaires, and craft onely for petty tricks and poore devices. Its as absurd to see a Statesman busy himselfe about meane and little matters as it is to see an Ape sit amongst Counsellours of Sta­te, or a crafty foole debate matters of great con­cernment. Though the Lacedemonians did pardon cutpurses and thieves, when they committed the crime with exquisite craft, yet they never thought fit to make them Counsellours of the Commonwealth, knowing full well the diffe­rence that there is betweene craft and Policy: a man may be wary and circumspect as to his own particular concerns, and yet be very unfit to go­verne a Kingdome or Commonwealth, the first proceeds from selfelove; the second requires great judgement; and though no man of great [Page 178]judgement hates himselfe, yet many love them­selves that have but little judgement, and conse­quently may be fit to have a care of their owne interest, but not to direct the affaires of Princes and Kingdomes.

4 A Statesman must also be a man of his word, that is, he must performe whatsoever he promi­sed, either in publike or private. To be a man of word, is more then not to speake untruths, or tell lyes; for, one may not performe what he pro­mised, and yet not tell a lye, because when he pro­mised, he intended to performe, and spoke not a­gainst his minde, which he afterwards changed. But a Statesman must stand as much upon pun­ctuall performance of his promise, as a Merchant upon punctuall payment of his bills; both live and traffike upon credit, if that be lost, none will deale with either. The best way to keepe a mans word, is, not to engage it in any thing, which he is not sure to performe, and consequently not to promise what depends upon the will and pleasure of the Prince, without acquainting him not one­ly with the matter, but also with the circumstan­ces, because one circumstance may alter the case, and give occasion to dislike the whole businesse. It is a poore come of, in a Minister of State, to say, Its true I promised such a thing, but I cannot command my Master, nor performe without his allowance. This lookes like a cheate, and must be farre from the mouth and thoughts of a States­man, whose profession is to deale warily, but not to cozen. He ought to have acquainted his Ma­ster with the businesse, before it was concluded, [Page 179]and not bring his honour in question, by conclu­ding him a pupill, seeing his Minister durst con­clude such matters without his cons [...]nt and ap­probation. The Prince his word is engaged in the promise of his chiefe Minister, at least his honour is tainted by the nonperformance, he must either make good his Ministers word, or acknowledge that himselfe was but a cifer when his Minister concluded the businesse; so that not onely for his owne, but for for his Masters sake, the States­man must be a man of his word, and punctuall in performing.

5 There is not any thing that puts a Prince or Minister of State in greater danger and necessi­ties, then nonperformance; because it is a resi­gnation of the right they have to be performed withall by others: it is the ground of a confede­racy against their credit and reputation, which is the greatest treasure and best support of Princes, who cannot alwayes be furnished with money for their Armies, Navies, and other occasions; therefore they must borrowe it from their Sub­jects or friends, who will looke upon the grea­test Monarch as upon a Bankropt, if he be not punctuall in making good his word and promise. And truly when Princes doe not performe, it is to be supposed they are not able, because onely an impossibility can force them to omit a thing so necessary for their preservation and reputation, the losse of which is the greatest blow that a Monarchy or Commonwealth can receive. But from this danger let us passe to another, and prove

CHAP. XIV.

1 KIngdomes and Commonwealths are rui­ned by civill warres, a forreigne Enemy may easi [...]y be kept of, if all be united at home; but if there be division amongst themselves, a forreigne Enemy is superfluous, the worke will be done and the Kingdome undone without him. A Prince that maketh use of odious Mini­sters of State, doth declare warre against his owne Subjects, or at least giveth them occasion to declare warre against himselfe. The greatest difficulty that Subjects finde in their subjection, is to obey the Kings Ministers: when himselfe commands, they take it for an honour; but when a fellow Subject commands, though he doth it in the Kings name and by his authority, they can hardly digest that pill, because that which should temper and sweeten it, makes it more ungratefull, to wit, the Kings authority, which in a Subject is as bitter as gale, though in himself it be most plea­sing: the more Kingly a Subject lookes, the more are the people offended with his sight and com­mands; he is an object of envy, not of love.

2 And the reason of this antipathy is, because he who represents the Kings person, doth not command with the Kings mouth, nor with the Kings will, but with his owne; in reality its he that commands, not the King, though he tells you the contrary, and that his Majesty doth morally speake and command in him: few Subjects un­derstand this distinction and morality; they see the King is not present & that one of their owne Camerades commands them as absolutely as their Soveraigne; this is all they see and feele: other formalities and moralities are but fictions of the Law, whereby we are commanded to imagine that the King speaketh, when his Minister utte­reth any thing in his Majesties name: men are slow in feigning or imagining any thing to their owne disadvantage, or contrary to their inclina­tion; and nothing is more contrary to humane nature, then to acknowledge superiority in our equalls; wherefore there is great difficulty in o­beying a Subject, because we are evidently con­vinced that he is our equall, and a Subject, though he commands like our King and Superiour; and we are more inclined to feigne and imagine, that he is unworthy of the Kings authority, then that he ought to be endowed with so great a prero­gative; at least we wish he were not, and our wishes are the best interpreters of our inclina­tions. And though many times the person that commands us be capable of the greatest trust, yet they who are commanded, are apter to imagine, that he betrayeth it, or at least exceedeth his com­mission or instructions, then they are to obey or [Page 182]to imagine that the King hath as great a hand in the command as is pretended.

3 Men being so apt of their owne nature to take fire of sedition, when they are commanded of their equalls, against whom they have no other aversion, or quarell, but his authority, and the Prince his favour; into what flames of rebel­lion may we presume will they breake forth, when their naturall inclinations are fomented by the passions of contempt and hatred against the Prince his Officer or Counsellour, for his vices or misfortunes? They will imagine that he is as mindfull, as themselves are fearfull of revenge, and will attribute his commands more to passion, then to any zeale of his Masters service, or good of the Commonwealth. And in case it be evident that nothing is done without the Prince his pri­vity and warrant, they will perswade themselves that the ground of the Prince his warrant, is their Enemies information, if not his importunity to annihilate all those who are not his Creatures. When he promotes any of his owne relations, however so well deserving, he is looked upon as partiall, unjust, and unfit for the government. If he keepes a great traine, he is proud; if given to hospitality or civill conversation, he strives to make himselfe popular, and is a dangerous man; all his words and actions are misinterpreted, or not understood, because he is hated by the gene­rality of the people, who are the supreme Judges, or rather Creatours of a good and ill fame; and good fame is as necessary for a Minister of State, as policy; the want of it in a Counsellour is more [Page 183]dangerous to the Prince, then the want of wis­dome, or experience: this may be supplied by the Prince his owne judgement, and application to businesses; but the ill name and reputation of a Minister cannot be helped by the Prince his good­nesse, nay rather his owne fame and judgement will be called in question, for putting his affaires into the hands of a person infamous in the opi­nion of his people, or at least unfortunate in his designes.

4 Sometimes it may happen, that really the Prince his Minister, or Counsellour, is injured by the opinion of the world, and that the people have no other crime to lay to his charge, but their owne hatred: therefore Princes doe often strive against the multitude, to maintaine the in­nocency of their Officers against so unreasonable a passion. This argues in the Prince a very good nature and an inclination to Justice, and is much to be commended, if what he desires can be ef­fected: yet its a very hard taske, because the grea­test innocency once condemned by the verdict of the people, will hardly have the sentence re­called, though never so unjust: the same passion of hatred that prevailed against so cleare inno­cency, doth make men obstinate in adhearing to the false judgements they have once given of a good Ministers abilities or actions. The multi­tude is compared to a beast, it may be tamed, but never by reason perswaded to alter their fancy, or opinion once conceived and grounded upon passion, whereby the major part are led. The wisdome of a politick Prince doth not consist in [Page 184]making the multitude wise, that being a thing im­possible, it consisteth in applying his owne wis­dome to direct their humours by reason, in due times and occasions. The art of riding the great horse, requires wit and judgement in the horse­man, but not in the horse; it doth not consist in communicating wit or judgement to the horse, but in applying with dexterity his owne art to the beasts humour. A wise Prince must humour the multitude, as men humour beasts which they teach or tame, he must not strive to make them wise and reasonable, though they must be mana­ged by wisdom & reason. They are as uncapable of altering a popular errour and common hatred against a Counsellour or Minister of State, as old mules are of leaving of their jadish tricks. The Prince must have patience, and dissemble with this humorsome beast, the multitude, and governe them by Ministers that are not odious, but grate­full to them; if not, they may play him a jadish trick, and kick at him, for the hatred they beare to his Minister. The onely way for the Prince to he rid of this danger and trouble, is, to make choice of so good and vertuous Ministers, that no calumny can prejudice their fame, nor hatred finde matter to carp at in their actions. So that when all comes to all, we see that honesty and integrity is the ground of policy, and that wis­dome without vertue in a Minister of State, is of most dangerous consequence to his Prince. The­refore in my opinion its an evident proofe of wisdome, and a laudable custome in Princes, to make use of Bishops and Clergymen in their [Page 185]Counsells, because its presumed they are more then ordinarily vertuous. But seeing many are of a contrary sense, I will examine it, and prove

CHAP. XV.

1 THat it hath beene the continuall practise amongst the Jewes, to let the Priests share in the government of the Commonwealth, is evident by many examples in Scripture▪ and a­mongst Christians, you will not read of one age, wherein the Clergy have not had their heads and hands in politick affaires, by order of their Prin­ces, and consent of the people. To exclude them from this custome and practise, because some of them made not as good use thereof as they ought, is an argument more familiar to seculars, then advantagious; fewer Churchmen then se­culars have abused their power, or betrayed their trust; nay it hath beene as rare amongst them, as ordinary amongst seculars, to make ill use of their Kings favour and interest, and yet se­culars doe not thinke it reasonable, that all them­selves should be excluded by the Princes, or peo­ple, from the government of the Common­wealth, though some of them have beene more mistaken, and are more subject to erre in that art, then the Clergy: their argument therefore [Page 186]may be with more force retorted against them­selves.

3 Polititians are Joyners by their trade, their art consists in joyning the common good with the interest of the Prince. It must be a cleare judgement that will not confound these two things, and he must be no lesse vertuous, then wary, that will not incline more to one side, then to the other. Seculars are pleased to acknow­ledge more vertue in Churchmen, then in them­selves, but they doubt much of their judgements. If study of sciences and knowledge of what pas­sed in former ages, doth perfect mans under­standing, Churchmen have the advantage of se­culars in judging of affaires, who have not so much time to spare from their passetimes, nor so great an inclination and obligation to learne, as the Clergy. But seculars, though they were as learned as Churchmen, cannot apply themselves so seriously to the study of the common good, because they have much more to consider in par­ticular and domestick affaires; they must provide for their wife, and dispose of their children. Yet in case they should spend but little time in so neare a concernment, they cannot deny, that the Prin­ce and Commonwealth runne a hazard in trust­ing them with publick offices and revenues, out of which they will be very apt to provide por­tions for their daughters, and employments for their sonnes: Clergymen are neither troubled themselves, nor trouble the Commonwealth with such burthen, and consequently are more fit then seculars to manage the publick affaires. A [Page 187]Churchman perhaps may endeavour to promote his Nephew, but there is great difference be­tweene the affection of a Father and of an Uncle.

3 The obligation and custome which Church­men have, to spend more houres in their devo­tions then seculars, doth give more advantage by perfecting their mindes, then it doth prejudice by taking up their time; not ouely because with God no time is lost, who recompenseth aboun­dantly by his grace and illustrations, other studies and thoughts; but also because true policy must direct all things with subordination to Gods Law, and the more we meditate therein, the bet­ter Polititians we are. Yet Churchmen after complying with their devotions, haue more time to consider of affaires, then seculars, who are more in the Taverne then in the Church, and frequent other passetimes when Churchmen are in their studies.

4 All mankinde is so much concerned in the government of Commonwealths, that it is not improper for the most retired of the Clergy so­metimes to appeare in publick affaires. We read of Monks that came along from Egypt to Constan­tinople, to treate with Emperours about matters of great concernment: Hermits have returned to the world from the desarts, when they judged it necessary for the common good. Suppose a man were buried alive in a grot under the walls of a Towne, to the end he might shunne humane conversation; if he doth heare the Enemy un­dermining the wall, he is bound in conscience to leave his retirement, and give notice of the com­mon [Page 188]danger. When a house is a fire, they who are next, must runne to quench it. There is no profession so retired, or so contrary to the mana­gement of State affaires that can excuse men from appearing in publick, when they are concerned in the good of a Nation, or Religion, especially if they be next in trust of a Treaty, or knowledge of a danger. Much less [...]n men separated from the world, deny accesse to others, who demand their advice in doubtfull and intricate matters of State, wherein conscience may runne a hazard. Princes and Counsellours consult their Confessours in Cloisters, and thinke them more apt to judge of worldly affaires, then others that live and nego­tiate in the world. It is no disparagement for that grave and sage Counsell of Spaine, that the Kings Confessour hath a place and vote amongst them; he may be a witnesse that nothing is resolved, which is not agreable to Christian and Catholick principles; his profession is not contrary to an office out of which so much good may be deri­ved to others. Bishops are Counsellours in Fran­ce, and all other Catholick Countries, and Abbots, who professe a most retired life, came from their Cloisters and Cells to sit in Parliament, when Re­ligion did flourish most in England; and the same is practised to this day in other Nations, with as great satisfaction of the Prince, as benefit to the Commonwealth.

5 There is nothing more necessary for a Sta­tesman, then secrecy, whereof Churchmen give continually evident proofes in hearing Confes­sions. Seculars may be secret, but the world hath [Page 189]not so much reason to believe it, seeing so many designes and great businesses miscarry for want of secrecy, which I never heard laid to the charge of a Clergyman that was trusted in a businesse of State. Its a received maxime amongst seculars, that women are best informers, and that they are made acquainted with whatsoever is debated in Counsells or Assemblies. Fond husbands thinke they doe not love their wives, if they conceale any thing from their knowledge, and consequent­ly from that of their Gossips. Its thought the En­glish Nation is more inclined to be advised by women, then any other; but without doubt it is of late, since women ruled the Church, and were made Popes, dispensed with invalid Ordinations, and by imposition of hands made Archbishops of Canterbury. But seeing no man will trust his wife with his owne conscience and confession, me­thinks he ought not to impart to her the secre­cies of others. At least the Catholick Clergy can­not be suspected to consult with their wives the secrecy of Princes, because they have none: but for the Protestant Ministers behaviour in this particular, I will not sweare, being (as I heare) more fond of their wives, then any others, and having notoriously betrayed secrets communica­ted to them in confession, as you may read of Scory the Minister, who betrayed the Earle of Essex in Queene Elizabeths time; and in our dayes the case of poore Captain Hinde was much lamen­ted, who some few yeares since being accused of murther, Captain Hindes la­mentable case. denyed it confidently, there being no legall proofe. But perswaded by a Minister of the [Page 190]English Protestant Church, that the Judge was resolved to hang him, and that he had aboundant proofe, he exhorted the poore man to confes­sion, according to the custome or Common-prayer men, and Church or England, whereof both were Members. Master Hinde told the Mi­nister in confession, that he had killed one of his owne Camerades, and he promised to visit and comfort his penitent the next day; but feigning himselfe sick, he sent another Minister of the En­glish Church also, and desired Master Hinde to deale as confidently with him, as he had done the day before with himselfe; which the poore Gentleman did, imparting likewise to him in con­fession what he had told the day before to his Brother in the Lord: and these two Ministers were the onely witnesses that proved Master Hindes murther, whereof they had no other knowledge, but what he told them in cofession: whereupon sentence of death was pronounced against him by Judge Nicholas, and executed at Worcester. He reflected upon the Religion of his Confessours and witnesses, and resolved to chan­ge his owne, concluding, that it could not be the true one which alloweth such treacherous dea­lings, and obligeth men to reveale Sacramentall confessions, making it Gunpouder treason, not to betray God and the trust which he reposeth in the Ministers of his holy Sacraments, as was de­clared in Garnets case. Master Hinde therefore sent for a Priest, and was reconciled to the Roman Catholick Church; and I hope is saved, not by virtue, but by the occasion of his Protestant con­fession; [Page 191]whereof I trust in God himselfe will not be the last that will make good use for the salva­tion of soules, by forsaking so false a Church and so treacherous Clergy, whereby mens lives are entrapt, and their sinnes not absolved. By this and other examples its manifest, that Protestant Mi­nisters are as unfit to be Counsellours as Confes­sours, and that the Catholick Priests, who will rather dye then betray a secrecy, have a great ad­vantage of seculars as to this so necessary a part of a Statesman.

6 We see also how men besotted with drink, and bewitched by bribes, are subject to betray their trust in greatest secrecies; and I believe it will not be hard to finde (at least in this our Nor­therne Climat, where this kinde of debauch is ta­ken not onely for a remedy of melancholy, but a point of gallantry) Lay Polititians proceed now and then to such excesse, as to ease not onely their stomachs, but hearts, to the great distemper of the Commonwealth. As for bribes, those who have most expenses, and most to provide for, and suffer lesse infamy, if discovered, and ordinarily are lesse provided with grace to resist, cannot choose but be more lyable to the danger of this temptation, as it appeares by these circumstances, and much more by too frequent and knowne ex­periences.

7 These, amongst many others, are the rea­sons why Catholick Princes make so frequent use of the Roman Clergy. And though Here­ticks and Polititians should misinterpret their good zeale, they must have patience, and not de­sist [Page 192]from their godly endeavour, assuring them­selves, that though bad Christians carp and re­pine at the confidence and re [...]pect which Catho­lick Princes and Ministers of State shew to their Clergy, by trusting them with their consciences and affaires, that will not diminish, but rather en­crease their credit. A Prince may erre in making choice of a Churchmans person, but he cannot be mistaken in choosing one of that function, which hath more advantages over a secular voca­tion (as to the management and trust or busines­ses) then I have set downe in this Chapter; though I am confident enough is said to vindicate the State of the Catholick Clergy from any incapaci­ty in State affaires, and to commend the judge­ment of the Princes by whom they are employed, with no lesse evidence of their talents, then satis­faction of their services.

8 Now is it time to put an end to this Cathe­chisme, and exhort my Polititian 1. to resolve up­on some Religion, if he hath none. 2. To consi­der how all Religions pretending to reforme the Roman, are but humane and fond inventions, grounded upon false interest, transitory pleasure, and mad fancies, contrary to the rules of sound Policy. 3. How the Roman Catholick Religion cannot be an invention of men, having so many evidences of supernaturall signes and power, to confirme its Doctrine. 4. In case our Polititian will neither believe in God nor Catholick Church, let him consider, that the greatest and most effectuall engine to worke his owne inte­rest, is truth, morall vertue, and honour. In the [Page 193]last place I must desire my Reader not to be of­fended with me, if I am more bitter against the Protestant Clergy, then by nature or custome I am enclined: whosoever will reflect upon the prejudice and misery they have drawne upon the three Nations, since they planted heresy, and how by meere impostures they endeavour to main­taine those errours which have beene the cause of all our misfortunes▪ will easily perceive, that our English Ministers ought to be beaten, not courted out of their destructive Tenets and pra­ctises. I b seech almighty God to convert them and others misled by their example and doctrine, and grant to all Polititians light to see this mani­fest truth, that a man without Religion is void of rea­son, and Policy without honesty is but a base, wicked, and witlesse knavery.