they are vowed liegemen. But I have greater reason to believe them united in this doctrine, than is the greatness of this probability. For 1. There was an apology printed in Italy, permissu superiorum,' in the year 1610, that says, "They were all enemies of that holy name of Jesus, that condemned Mariana for any such doctrine." I understand not why, but sure I am that the Jesuits do, or did think his doctrine innocent: for in their apology put forth in the name of the whole society against the accusations of Anticoton, they deny that the assassin of Henry IV., I mean Ravaillac, was moved to kill the king by reason of Mariana, and are not ashamed to wish that he had read him.* Perhaps they mean it might have wrought the same effect upon him, which the sight of a drunkard did upon the youth of Lacedæmon; else I am sure it is not very likely he should have been dissuaded from his purpose by reading in Mariana, that it was lawful to do what he intended. 3. I add, they not only thought it innocent, and without positive hurt, but good and commendable; so that it is apparent that it was not the opinion of Mariana alone, but that the Moors of Spain had more disciples than Mariana. 1. He says it himself; for, commending the young monk that killed Henry III., he says that he did it having been informed, by several divines, that a tyrant might lawfully be killed."+ 2. The thing itself speaks it, for his book was highly commended by Gretser‡ and Bonarscius,§ both for style and matter,-higher yet by Petrus de Onna, provincial of Toledo, who was so highly pleased with it, he was sorry he wanted leisure to read it the second and third time over, and, with this censure prefixed, was licensed to the press. Further yet, for Stephen Hoyeda, visitor of the Jesuits for the same province, approved it not only from his own judgment, but as being before approved by grave and learned men of the Jesuits' order,¶ and so with a special commission from Claudius Aquaviva, their general, with these approbations, and other solemn privileges, it was printed at " * Quodammodo optandum esse ut ille Alastor Marianam legisset. † Cum cognito à theologis quos erat sciscitatus, tyrannum jure interimi posse. Cap. 6. Chauvesaurit polit. § Amphith. Honoris, lib. i. c. 12. Iterum et tertio facturus, si per otium et tempus licuisset. Toledo* and Mentz;† and lastly, inserted into the catalogues of the books of their order by Petrus Ribadineira. What negligence is sufficient that such a doctrine as this should pass so great supervisors, if in their hearts they disavow it? The children of this world are not such fools in their generation. The fathers of the society cannot but know, how apt these things of themselves are to public mischief, how invidious to the Christian world, how scandalous to their order; and yet they rather excuse, than condemn, Mariana: speaking of him, at the hardest, but very gently, as if his only fault had been his speaking a truth in tempore non opportuno,'' something out of season;' or as if they were forced to yield to the current of the times, and durst not profess openly of what, in their hearts, they were persuaded. I speak of some of them, for others, you see, are of the same opinion. But I would fain learn why they are so sedulous and careful to procure the decrees of the rector and deputies of Paris, rescripts of the bishop, revocation of arrest of the parliament which had been against them, and all to acquit the fathers of the society from these scandalous opinions; as if these laborious devices could make what they have said and done, to be unspoken and undone, or could change their opinions from what indeed they are; whereas they never went ex animo' to refute these theorems, never spake against them in the real and serious dialect of an adversary, never condemned them as heretical, but what they have done they have been shamed to, or forced upon, as Père Coton by the king of France, and Servin to a confutation of Mariana (from which he desired to be excused, and after the king's death, wrote his declaratory letter to no purpose ;) the apologists of Paris, by the outcries of Christendom against them; and when it is done, done so coldly in their reprehensions with a greater readiness to excuse all, than condemn any. I say, these things, to a considering man, do increase the suspicion, if at least that may be called suspicion, for which we have had so plain testimonies of their own. I add this more, to put the business past all question; that when some things of this nature were objected to them by Arnald, the French king's advocate, they were so far from * By Petrus Rhodriques, 1599. By Balth. Lippius, 1605. denying them, or excusing them, that they maintained them in spite of opposition, putting forth a book, entitled, Veritas defensa contra actionem Antonii Arnaldi.' What the things were, for which they stood up patrons, hear themselves speaking,*Tum enim id non solum potest papa, sed etiam debet, se ostendere superiorem illis principibus. Exceptio hæc stomachum tibi commovet, facit ut ringaris, sed oportet haurias, et de cætero fatearis tibi nec rationem esse, nec conscientiam.' Hard words these! The advocate is affirmed to be void both of reason and honesty, for denying the pope's dominion over kings. The reason follows, "The pope could not keep them to their duties, unless he kept them in awe with threatening them the loss of their kingdoms." But this is but the least part of it. They add, "If the subjects had been but disposed as they should have been, there was no time but it might have been profitable to have exercised the sword upon the persons of kings."+ Let them construe their meaning, those are their words. But see further. The damned act of Jacques Clément, the monk, upon the life of Henry III. of France, of Jean Chastel and Ravaillac upon Henry IV., are notorious in the Christian world, and yet the first of these was commended by F. Guignard, in a discourse of purpose, and by Mariana, as I before cited him. The second had two apologies made for him, the one by Constantinus Veruna,§ the other, without a name indeed, but with the mark and cognizance of the Jesuits' order, and the last was publicly commended, in a sermon by a monk of Cologne, as it is reported by the excellent Thuanus. Not much less than this is that of Baronius, just, I am sure, of the same spirit with James and John, for he calls for a ruin upon the Venetians, for opposing of his Holiness. "Arise, Peter, not to feed these wandering sheep, but to destroy them; throw away thy pastoral staff, and take thy sword." I confess here is some more ingenuity, to oppose murdering to feeding than to make them all one, as Sanders¶ doth, but yet the same fiery spirit inflames them both, as if * Page 7, 1st edit. † Page 67, 1st edit. Voyez le Procès du Parlem. de Paris contre le père Guignard prêtre Jésuite. § Vid. cap. 3. || Lugduni, de justa abdicatione Hen. III. 1610. De clave David, c. 14. Vid. page 7. all Rome were on fire, and would put the world in a combustion. Further yet. Guignard, a Jesuit of Clerimont college in Paris, was executed, by the command of the parliament,* for some conclusions he had written, which were of a high nature treasonable; and yet, as if, either there were an infallibility in every person of the society, or as if the parliament had done injustice in condemning Guignard, or lastly, as if they approved his doctrine, he was apologized for by Lewes Richeome,+ and Bonarscius. I know they will not say, that every Jesuit is infallible, they are not come to that yet; it is plain, then, they are of the same mind with Guignard, or else (which I think they dare not say) the parliament was unjust in the condemnation of him; but if they do, they thus proclaim their approbation of these doctrines he was hanged for; for that he had such, was under his own hand, by his own confession, and of itself evident, as is to be seen in the arrest of the parliament against him. Lastly, more pertinent to the day is the fact of Garnet,— who, because a Jesuit, could have done nothing for which he should not have found an apologist, for even for this his last act of high treason he was apologized for, by Bellarmine,§ Gretser, and Eudæmon Johannes.¶ Thus far we have found out persons fit enough to match any malice; Boanerges all, and more than a pareil for James and John: but I shall anon discover the disease to be more epidemical, and the pest of a more catholic infection; and yet if we sum up our accounts, we shall already find the doctrine to be too catholic. For we have already met with Emanuel Sà, a Portuguese; Mariana and Ribadineira, Spaniards; Bonarscius, a bas Almain; Gretser, a German; Eudæmon Johannes, a false Greek; Guignard, Richeome and the apologists for Chastel, Frenchmen; Bellarmine and Baronius, Italians; Garnet and Sanders, English. The doctrine, you see, they would fain make catholic; now, if it prove to be but apostolic too, then we have found out an exact parallel for James and John, great disciples and * Arrest. de Parliam. 7. de Tanv. 1595. + Expostul. Apologet. pro Societ. Jes. § Apol. adv. R. Angliæ. Apol. pro. Garnetto. Amphith. Honor. lib. i. || Stigm. Miseric. 6 apostles; and whether or no the see apostolic may not sometime be of a fiery and consuming spirit, we have so strange examples even in our own home, that we need seek no farther for resolution of the Quære.' In the bull of excommunication put forth by Pius Quintus, against queen Elizabeth, of blessed memory, there is more than a naked encouragement, as much as comes to a "Volumus et jubemus ut adversus Elizabetham, Angliæ reginam, subditi arma capessant." "Bone Jesu! in quæ nos reservasti tempora?" Here is a command to turn rebels, a necessity of being traitors. "Quid eo infelicius, cui jam esse malum necesse est." The business is put something further home by Catena and Gabutius, who wrote the life of Pius Quintus, were resident at Rome, one of them an advocate in the Roman court; their books both printed at Rome, con licenza,' and 'con privilegio.'* And now hear their testimonies of the whole business between the queen and his holiness. "Pius Quintus published a bull against queen Elizabeth, declared her a heretic, and deprived her of her kingdom, absolved her subjects from their oaths of allegiance, excommunicated her, and gave power to any one to rebel against her, &c." This was but the first step; he, therefore, thus proceeds; "He procures a gentleman of Florence, to move her subjects to a rebellion against her for her destruction."+ Further yet; he thought this would be such a real benefit to Christendom to have her "destroyed, that the pope was ready to aid in person, to spend the whole revenue of the see apostolic, all the chalices and crosses of the church, and even his very clothes, to promote so pious a business as was the destruction of queen Elizabeth."§ The same The witnesses of truth usually agree in one. story is told by Antonius Gabutius,|| and some more circumstances added. First, he names the end of the pope's design, * 1588, et 1605. † Pio publicò una bolla e sentezza contra Elisabetta, dichiarandola heretica, e priva del regno, in tal forma concedendo, che ciascuno andar contra le potesse, &c. Girolamo Catena, p. 114. .. Il quale.... muovesse gli animi al sollevamento per distruttione d'Elisabetta, p. 113. § L'andare in persona, impegna e tutte le sostanze della sede apostolica, e calici, e i proprj vestimenti, p. 117. De Vitâ et Gestis Pii V., lib. iii. c. 9. |