When we hear Papists say (as divers such sayings have been of late observed) that they would make no more to kill a Protestant Man, or Child, than to kill a Dog hWe look upon them as wild expressions, which proceed rather from the wickedness of the persons than of their Principles; whereas indeed they have ground enough from the Writings of their chief Authors. One of their greatest Divines proving that they may justly kill us, being Heretics, makes use of this Argument among others, Christ calls Heretics Thieves and Robbers; but sure Thieves and Robbers are worthy of Death; also he calls them Ravenous Wolves, Matth. 7. Luke. 20 But Wolves are not only to be driven from the Flock, but also to be killed, if it be possible. So Suarez iargues, and his Argument seems less tolerable, than the other Villainous expression, for it seems more meritorious to kill a Wolf than a Dog. Cardinal* Baronius tells the Pope (though his Holiness might know so evident a truth before) that Peter had a double Ministry, to feed, and to kill; according to that Text, Feed my sheep: and according to that too, Kill and eat: For, saith he, when the Pope hath to do with refractory opposers, then Peter is commanded to kill, and slay, and devour. Much according to this Cardinals Doctrine is the saying of Singleton kthe Priest, That he would make no more to Stab Forty Parliament men, than to eat his Dinner. And who can discern b•t the Priest; expression is as agreeable to the Cardinals Comment, as that is to his Text? Girald and Kelly, the two Priest; that were chief ⟨p. 18⟩in the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, that they might draw Mr. Prance into that barbarous action, told him,l That it was no Murder, no Sin (and Girald said, Nothing was to be made of killing Twenty Heretics in such a case,) that it was an act of Charity, and a meritorious work. We may easily conceive, how they will have it to be an Act of Justice; for they are taught, that the Killing of Heretics Justa est quia Vindicativa; and so withal, how it may be meritorious; every act of virtue being so, by their Doctrine: but how it can be an act of Charity, is not so easy to discern. We shall hardly be persuaded, that to kill us, is an act of Charity; but if they will have it so, so it must be.
When we hear Papists say (as divers such sayings have been of late observed) that they would make no more to kill a Protestant Man, or Child, than to kill a Dog hWe look upon them as wild expressions, which proceed rather from the wickedness of the persons than of their Principles; whereas indeed they have ground enough from the Writings of their chief Authors. One of their greatest Divines proving that they may justly kill us, being Hereticks, makes use of this Argument among others, Christ calls Hereticks Thieves and Robbers; but sure Thieves and Robbers are worthy of Death; also he calls them Ravenous Wolves, Matth. 7. Luke. 20 But Wolves are not only to be driven from the Flock, but also to be kill'd, if it be possible. So Suarez iargues, and his Argument seems less toletarable, than the other Villanous expression, for it seems more meritorious to kill a Wolf than a Dog. Cardinal* Baronius tells the Pope (though his Holiness might know so evident a truth before) that Peter had a double Ministry, to feed, and to kill; according to that Text, Feed my sheep: and according to that too, Kill and eat: For, saith he, when the Pope hath to do with refractory opposers, then Peter is commanded to kill, and slay, and devour. Much according to this Cardinals Doctrine is the saying of Singlcton kthe Priest, That he would make no more to Stah Forty Parliament men, than to eat his Dinner. And who can discern b•t the Priest; expression is as agreeable to the Cardinals Comment, as that is to his Text? Girald and Kelly, the two Priest; that were chief ⟨p. 18⟩in the Murder of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey, that they might draw Mr. Prance into that barbarous action, told him,l That it was no Murder, no Sin (and Girald said, Nothing was to be made of killing Twenty Hereticks in such a case,) that it was an act of Charity, and a meritorious work. We may easily conceive, how they will have it to be an Act of Justice; for they are taught, that the Killing of Hereticks Justa est quia Vindicativa; and so withal, how it may be meritorious; every act of vertue being so, by their Doctrine: but how it can be an act of Charity, is not so easie to discern. We shall hardly be perswaded, that to kill us, is an act of Charity; but if they will have it so, so it must be.
- hBradshaw in Prances Narrative, page 23. Giffard in Hist. Plot. pag. 213.
- iDe Fide. Disp. 23. se•l. 1. n. 3. Zanard. Ibid. cap. 7. pag. 119.
- *Epil. contra Venetas.
- kPrances Narrative, pag. 4.
- lIbid page 10.
