PART with no other intent, than, . . . . by reconciling in confession, I. to absolve every one in particular from all oaths of allegiance

[3. The treasons of Papists in

Queen Elizabeth's time.]

and obedience to the Queen"." Judge how such emissaries deserved to be welcomed into a kingdom. More might be added, but this itself is enough or too much.

Lastly, view all the treasons and rebellions that were in Queen Elizabeth's time, and see from what source they did spring. Parsons proposed to Papists the deposing of the Queen, so far forth that some of them thought to have delivered him into the magistrates' hands"; and wrote a book, under the name of Doleman, to entitle the Infanta of Spain to the crown of England. Of Sanders I have spoken formerly. Only let me add this, that when he was found dead, they found in his pouch "orations and epistles to confirm the rebels, with promise of assistance from the Bishop of Rome and others." Parre confessed, that that which finally settled him in his treasonable purpose, to kill the Queen, was the reading of Allen's book, that princes excommunicated for heresy were to be deprived of life. Ballard was himself a priest of the seminary of Rheims : see his conspiracy. I pass by the commotions raised in Scotland by Bruce, Creighton, and Hayes. Squire accused Walpole for putting him upon it to poison the Queen". I speak not of the confession of John Nicholas, nor the testimony of Eliot, mentioned in their own Apology, because they are not of undoubted faith. This is most certain, that when Campian was interrogated before his death, "whether Queen Elizabeth were a lawful and rightful queen, he refused to answer;" and being asked, "if the Pope should send forces against the Queen, whether he would take part with the Queen or the Pope, he openly professed and testified under his hand, that

III.

he would stand for the Popek." The same author addeth, Discourse that his fellows, being examined in like manner, either refused to answer, or gave such "ambiguous" and "prevaricatory" answers, "that some ingenuous Catholics began to suspect that they fostered some treachery1."

Lay all these together, their disloyal answers, their seditious tenets, so many treacherous attempts, so many open rebellions, so many depositions and deprivations and exclusions, so many books brim-full of prodigious treason; at such a time when the seditious opinions of that party were in their zenith; when seditious persons crowded over daily in such numbers; when the heir apparent of the crown of England was a Roman-Catholic: and let any reasonable man judge, whether the kingdom of England had not just cause of fear; whether they were not necessitated to provide “ne quid detrimenti caperet respublica”—“ that the commonwealth should sustain no loss;" whether our statesmen who did then sit at the stern, were not obliged to their prince and to their country, to provide by all means possible for the security of their prince and tranquillity of their country, which could not be done at that time without the exclusion of such bigots and boutefeus from among them, nor they be possibly excluded but by such severe laws.

These are the very reasons given in the edict itself,-that "it did plainly appear to her Majesty and her Council, by many examinations, by their own letters and confessions, and by the actual conspiracies of the like persons sent into Ireland by the Pope, that the end and scope of sending them into her Majesty's dominions was to prepare the subjects to assist foreign invaders, to excite the people to rebellion, and to deprive her Majesty of her crown and dignity and life itself m."

Yet may we not accuse all for the faults of some. Though many of them who were bred in those seminaries, were pensioners of the Pope, the king of Spain, or the duke of

* Camd., Annal. Eliz., lib. iii. p. 11. [P. iii. p. 347. in an. 1581.]

[Id., ibid., p. 348.]

["Edict. Regin., quo Jesuitæ et alii Sacerdotes denunciantur perduelles," anno] 23 Eliz., April 1, ex

Apol. Martyr. [It is prefixed to Card.
Allen's Apol. (p. 12.) which seems to
have been published in the same vol.
with the Apol. Martyr., Aug. Trev.
1583.]

I.

Guise, all which at that time were in open hostility with the
crown of England-(is it not lawful to forbid subjects to be
bred in an enemy's country, or to turn their pensioners? or,
if they do go out of themselves, to exclude them from their
native soil?)—yet in other places, and it may be in those
colleges also, many others preserved their principles of
loyalty. At the same time Dr. Bishop, one of the Roman
communion, writ a book to prove, that the constitution
obtruded upon the world under the name of the Lateran
Council, upon which the Pope's authority of deposing princes
and absolving subjects from their allegiance is founded, was 185
not decreed by the Fathers, nor ever admitted in England,
but was a private decree of Pope Innocent the Third". If all
his fellows had held the same moderation, there had been no
need of such laws; but it is a remediless misery of societies,
that, when distinction cannot be made between the guilty and
the innocent, public justice (which seeks to prevent the com-
mon danger) looks upon the whole society with one eye.
And if any innocent persons suffer, they must not blame the
law, but their own fellows, who gave just occasion for the
making of such severe laws.

"elec

So we see how many things here were of their own tion." First, they were warned by an edict not to study in those seminaries, which were founded and maintained by such as were at that time in public hostility with the crown of England. Nevertheless they would not do it. They were commanded to return home by a prefixed time. They would not do it. This alone had been sufficient to punish them as traitors by the ancient laws of the land. Yet further, they were commanded upon pain of death not to return into England nor to exercise their priestly functions there. Yet they did it. And one of them writ a letter to the Lords of the Council, that "he was come over, and would not desist until he had either turned them to be Roman-Catholics, or died upon their lances "."

n

[This book was published after the author's death, and is entitled "A Courteous Conference with the Engl. Catholickes Romaine," &c. "wherein it is proved," ... "that the Pope cannot depose her majesty or release her subjects of their allegiance to her; and

finally that the Bull of Pius V. is of no force." By John Bishop, a recusant Papist. Lond. 1598.]

Edm. Campian., Epist. ad Consil. Reginæ Angl., [§ 8, prefixed to the Concert. Eccl. Angl., p. 21.]

To conclude, if we view the particular laws, we shall find DISCOURSE

III.

more than

of Rome. ]

that they looked more upon the Court of Rome than the [Those Church of Rome. The Act and oath of supremacy were laws against framed in the days of Henry the Eighth, by Roman-Catholics the Court, themselves P. The first penal laws of this nature, that I find the Church made by Queen Elizabeth, were in the sixth year of her reign, against those who should maintain the authority of the Pope thrice by word or writing, or refuse the oath of supremacy twice. The second, in the fourteenth year of her reign, against those who should pronounce the Queen to be an heretic, schismatic, or infidel; and likewise those who brought over Bulls from the Bishop of Rome, to reconcile any of the Queen's subjects, or indulgences, or Agnus Dei, or the like '. Yet was this never put in execution for six years, until the execution of it was extorted". All this either concerned the Court of Rome, or such acts as were not necessary to a Roman-Catholic for the enjoyment of his conscience. A man might believe freely what his conscience dictated to him, or practise his own religion, so he prated not too much, nor meddled with others. Afterwards, in the twenty-third year of her reign, issued out the proclamation against the English seminaries, wherein her subjects were bred pensioners to the enemies of her crown. The last laws of this kind were made in the twenty-fourth year of her reign, against those "who should dissuade English subjects from their obedience to their prince or from the religion established, or should reconcile them to the Church of Rome."

In all these laws, though extorted from the Queen by so many rebellions and treasons and deprivations and extremest necessity, there was nothing that did reflect upon an old quiet Queen Mary's priest, or any that were ordained within. the land by the Romish Bishops then surviving, so they were not over busy and meddled with others. These might have

I.

PART sufficed for officiating to Roman-Catholics, if the Pope had pleased; but he preferred his own ends before their safety.

[R. C's. arguments

"Non his juventus orta parentibus

"Infecit æquor sanguine ";"

these were not principled for his purpose, nor of that temper that his affairs required. And therefore he erected new seminaries, and placed new readers according to his own mind; and, in conclusion, forced the Queen to use necessary remedies to save herself and the kingdom.

These things being premised, it will not be difficult to answered.] answer to all which R. C. saith.

First, he saith, "that in all the pretended cases of treason" there is no "election" but "of matters of religion," and that they suffer merely for matters of religion without any "shew of true treason." I confess, that treason is complicated with religion in it. But I deny, that they suffer merely for religion; any more than he, that poisoned an emperor or a prior in the Sacrament, could have been said to suffer for administering the Sacrament, and not rather for mixing poison with the Sacrament; or than he, who out of blind obedience to his superior kills a man, can be said to suffer death for his 186 conscience; or he, who being infected with the plague and seeking to infect others, if he be shot dead in the attempt, can be said to suffer for his sickness. In so many designs to take away the Queen's life, in so many rebellions, in so many seditious tenets, in so many traitorous books, and, lastly, in adhering unto, and turning pensioner to, a public professed enemy of their prince and native country, can he see no treason? nothing but "matters of religion?" If he cannot, or will not, yet they, who were more nearly concerned in it, had reason to look better about them.

ous y?"

He asks, "how I can term that political supremacy, which is supremacy'in all causes,' to wit, ecclesiastical or religiI answer, very well; as the king is the keeper of both Tables, to see that every one of his subjects do his duty in his place, whether clergyman or layman, and to inflict