This is the Doctrine of all the approved Writers of that Church Of their General Councils of their Publique Offices and Breviaries An Account of those persons who have appear'd against the Deposing Doctrine 2. The King-killing Doctrine It is a necessary consequent of the Deposing Doctrine The Roman Divines equivocate in this Question The Jesuites generally assert it divers of the Popes and the Canon Law approve of it 3. Of destroying mens Lives for Religion The true State of the Question The Church of Rome damns all Haeretiques All Protestants are Haeretiques in her account She enjoyns all Christians to endeavour the Extirpation of them All Bishops of her Communion sworn to destroy them The Laws of the Church deliver them up to the Secular Power to be put to death 4. Of absolving his Majesties Subjects from their Allegiance CHAP. IV. Testimonies of the Loyalty of the Roman Church and Religion considered The first from St. Math. 22.21 The second from the Decree of the General Council of Constance The third from the Annotations of the Divines of Rhemes on Rom. 13. The fourth from the Censure of the Doctors of the Faculty of Sorbon against a Book of Sanctarellus CHAP. V. The Fifth Testimony of the Loyalty of the Roman Church from a late Treatise of a Romish Priest The Principles of that Treatise examined Of the Principles and Authority of the General Councils of that Church Of licensing men to lie and forswear themselves Of the Doctrine of Aequivocation and mental Reservation with a brief Account of the Propositions lately censured at Rome Of the Simplicity and Godly Sincerity of the Roman Church Of the Design of dividing the Papists Of the Distinction between the Church and the Court of Rome the grounds of that Distinction examined and confuted Of Dispensations c. CHAP. VI. Of the late Lord Staffords Declaration and Address to the House of Peers concerning a Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants and a Toleration for the Papists 1. Of the Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants Three Propositions concerning Comprehension 'T is neither the Duty nor Interest of any Roman Catholicks continuing true to their Principles to promote a firm and lasting Vnion of Protestants What Influence the Romish Agents had on the first Separation from our Church Of the late Declaration of Indulgence 2. Of the Toleration for the Papists Of their endeavours to procure a Toleration under Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the First the late Vsurped Powers and his present Majesty What the Design of that Faction is in endeavouring to procure a Toleration They have been the worse for Favour and Indulgence as is evident from their Behaviour towards Queen Elizabeth King James King Charles the First and his present Majesty This Chapter concluded with the Protestation of King Charles the First CHAP. VII A short Reflection on the foregoing Discourse Some things offered to all such as desire to prevent the Designs of the Papists 1. Beware of Seditious Doctrines and Practises A brief Account of them This Consideration recommended to all Protestants especially to the Dissenters from the Established Church of England Of the Secluded Members and of the Solemn League and Covenant 2. Beware of being Instrumental to the weakning or subverting of the Church of England Popery can never enter into our Church so long as the Established Articles Liturgy and Government are maintained The Difference between the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and those of the Church of England Three Considerations to them that charge our Church and Episcopal Clergy with Inclining to Popery Some other things propounded to the Dissenters by way of Consideration and Advice The Conclusion of the whole CHAP. I. The Principles of the Roman Church and Religion destructive of Piety and Vertue Three Cases wherein it is possible for R. Catholiques to be better than their Religion inclines or allows them to be Of the Principles and Practises of his Majesties R. Catholique Subjects in the time of the late Rebellion Of their Rebellion in Ireland and the Advantage which the Kings Enemies in England made of it Since his Majesties Restauration they refused to give him any reasonable security of their Allegiance for the future Many Papists actually in Arms against King Charles the First in England many others did him no Service Vpon what Motives the rest adhered to him A Consult of the English Jesuits about taking away his Life Of the Principles and Behaviour of the R. Catholiques under the Usurped Powers Of Mr. White 's Book THe ensuing Treatise is not intended for those weak and credulous persons that suffer themselves to be charmed with specious Titles and flattering Prefaces and therefore without any reflection on our Author's Arts of Insinuation I shall come to the Matter of the Book called by an odd kind of Antiphrasis A Brief and Impartial Account c. So far as it falls within the Compass of my Design The former Part of the Book is for the most part made up of Allegations in proof of the Plot in general and Reflections on the Depositions The Process against the late Lord Stafford in particular with the Evidence against him and his Lordships Exceptions the Observations of the Managers of the Tryal and the Papists Answers to them the Consideration of all which I leave to others But that I may not seem to pass over any thing which looks like a Proof of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of the Roman Church or of his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects I shall fairly set down all such Passages as are material to that purpose Staffords Memoires p. 2. His Lordship was ever held to be of a generous disposition very Charitable Devout addicted to Sobriety inoffensive in his Words and a Lover of Justice During the time of the last bloody Rebellion he suffered much for his Loyalty to the King Of the Popish Plot he saith p. 8. This Plot must be managed by persons of Quality most remarkable peradventure of all others for firmness of Loyalty Again The whole Body of Roman Catholiques men before this hour of known worth vertue integrity and unblemished Reputation must all be involved by Vows and Sacraments in a Design so black and execrable that God and Nature abhor to think on p. 52. Certain I am Catholiques Roman Catholiques he means both taught and practised Principles of Loyalty at a time when the King and Kingdom felt the dire Effects of contrary Persuasions That I may proceed with all possible clearness in my Answer to these bold Assertions I shall reduce what I have to say to two Debates I. Concerning the Piety and Vertue of Roman Catholiques II. Concerning their Principles and Practices in the time of the late Rebellion I. I begin with the Piety and Vertue of Roman Catholiques That the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion do naturally tend to make men wicked and disloyal I shall prove in the following Discourse And yet I freely grant That some men of that
and yet after he had been some weeks at Constance the poor Man is contrary to his safe Conduct cast into Prison This being done in the Emperours absence he comes to the Council argues the case with them upon which they pass that In famous Decree contained in the 19th Session from which it is plain that in the case of Heresie no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any persons whatsoever And this Act of the Council so fully satisfied the Emperours Conscience that he looked on himself as discharged from his obligation and not only concurred in the Sentence against the Prisoner but gave order for his Execution J. of Prague was trepann'd by a safe Conduct granted by that Council and being unacquainted with their Arts and Treachery ventures to Conftance where understanding the Jugglings of his Adversaries he thought to shift for himself by flight but being taken was burnt to death Again The Council of Constance Excommunicates and deprives of all Secular honour and dignity all that should presume to hinder Sigismund from meeting with the King of Arragon whether they be Kings Dukes Princes c. as all men know which have been conversant in the Acts of that Council But I come to the Decree produced by his Lordship a Decree which some Roman Catholicks of these Kingdoms know how to make their advantage of when others of greater Authority and Eminency in the Roman Church that dare speak their minds freely acquaint us with the true Catholick meaning of it Tell them of the Council of Constance It meddles not saith one (D) Suartz def fid Cath. l. 6. c. 4. p. 417. with Heretical Princes Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope or by the Commonwealth and States of the Kingdom A Lawful King ruling in a Tyrannical manner may be punished only by publick Authority saith a Second (E) Greg. de Valentia Tom. 3. disp 5. qu. 8. punct 3. In his resolution of this Question utrùm liceat privato cuilibet civi occidere Tyrannum that is by the Commonwealth as himself expounds it This Decree extends not to Tyrants which conspire against the Publick good or against the Roman Catholick Religion saith a Third (F) Verone Apol. par 2. c. 13. A Commonwealth that is oppressed by a Prince ruling Tyrannically may and ought to have recourse to a Superiour Prince as the Pope of Emperour for the punishment of him but if this remedy cannot be had without danger the Commonwealth may by her own Power pass Judgment on such a Prince and if he be incorrigible either depose him or put him to death saith a Fourth (G) Dom. Bannes Scholast Comment Tom. 4. p. 174. Ed. 1614. qu. 64. Act. 3. Another wrote a Book in the time of the French League (H) I mean Bouchier the French Jesuite in that Treasonable Book which I quoted before in the compiling whereof as he tells us in the Preface he was assisted by many Lawyers and Divines In this Book he asserts the lawfulness of putting a King to death after he is condemned by Publick Authority Lastly our Country-man Parsons justifies the Doctrine of Bouchier and because Mr. Morton is charged with misrepresenting his sense let us take Parson's Account of Bouchier's meaning (I) Parsons in his quiet and sober reckoning c. p. 318 319 321. He holdeth That a Private man may not kill a Tyrant which is not first judged and declared to be a Publick Enemy by the Commonwealth and he proveth the same by the Decree of the Council of Constance But Bouchier grants saith Mr. Morton That when the Commonwealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publick Enemy he may be slain by a private Man Whereunto I Answer That then he is no Private man for that he doth it by the publick Authority of the Commonwealth as doth the Executioner that cutteth off a Noble-mans Head by Order and Authority of the Publick Magistrate These are not the Opinions of private Doctors their Books are Licensed according to the Order of the Roman Church and approved by Divines of great Learning and Authority they prove the Orthodoxy of their Doctrine from this very Decree of the Council of Constance which is now alledged as an Argument of Roman Catholick Loyalty And are not Kings and Princes wonderfully beholden to this Council They must be put to death with a little more solemnity than other Mortals and fall by the Sentence of a Papal Consistory or of an High Court of Justice 'T is not lawful for a common Parricide to Stab or Pistol the Lord 's Anointed of his own head No but his Holiness may hire Souldiers against him with Mony or with Indulgences He may invade his Country with his own Armies or with the Forces of Catholick Princes he may stir up a Rebellion within his Dominions or Authorize his own standing Army of Jesuites Monks and Friars to kill him with the approved Catholick Weapons with Pistol or Poyson Lastly the Common-wealth by its own or the Popes Authority may try and pass sentence upon him These things considered I cannot but conclude that it was a poor Security which the Irish Remonstrants offered to his Majesty since his Restauration by declaring against the killing of Kings by any private Subjects (L) We do hold it impious and against the Word of God to maintain That any private Subject may kill or murder the Anointed of God his Prince though of a different Belief and Religion from his And we abhor and derest the practise thereof as damnable and wicked Irish Remonstrance in F. Walsh his History p. 8. 3. P. 45. My Lords third Testimony was taken from the Annotations upon Rom. 13. in the English Catholick Edition of the New Testament set forth by the Colledge of Divines at Rhemes The words are these upon the Text He that resisteth c. ver 2. Whosoever resisteth or obeyeth not his lawful Superior in those Causes wherein he is subject to him resisteth Gods Appointment and sinneth deadly and is worthy to be punished both in this World by his Superiour and by God in the next life for in Temporal Government and Causes the Christians were bound in Conscience to obey even the Heathen Emperours And upon v. 4. some Protestants of our time care neither for the one the Prince nor for the other the Prelate though they extol only Secular Power when it maketh for them The Catholicks only most humbly obey both according to Gods Ordinance the one in Temporal Causes and the other in Spiritual In the Rhemish Testament it is the not some Protestants of our time c. A mighty Testimony of Roman Catholique Loyalty You are not to resist your Lawful Superior But if a Prince be lawfully deposed then he is no longer your Lawful Superior If you be Clergymen then he is none of your Soveraign and you are none of his Subjects In those Causes wherein you are Subject to him But what if a King challenge as
by the Word of God he may the Supream Government in all causes Ecclesiastical and Civil In those Causes you are not Subject to him for doth not the Pope claim the Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical and even in Temporal Causes at least in ordine ad Spiritualia Let the Rhemists complain that the Protestants extol only the Secular Power We acknowledge the King to be Supream Governour in all Causes and over all Persons within his Majesties Dominions for this is all that we attribute to the Secular Power and 't is the Glory of our Church to have taught and suffered for this Doctrine But for the Loyalty of the Rhemish Divines I refer the Reader to some of their Annotations as they are cited in the Margent (M) The Rhemish Testament was see forth by that Traiterous Seminary of English Papists and printed at Rhemes An. 1582. See the former part of their Annotations on ver 4. of this 13th Chapter to the Romans where they complain That now all is given to the Secular Power and nothing to the Spiritual which expresly is ordained by Christ and the Holy Ghost The exemption of the Clergy is asserted Annot. on S. Matth. 17.26 The Popes Infallibility Annot. on S. Luke 22.31 And in the Margent they say Popes may err personally not judicially or definitively The Popes Supremacy Annot. on S. John 21.17 And on 1 Pet. 2.12 They say Although all Power be of God and Kings Rule by him yet this is no otherwise than by his ordinary Concurrence and Providence He that desires to see a true Character of the English Seminaries may consult a Treatise penn'd by the direction of one of the greatest Statesmen and wisest men of his Age under this Title The Execution of Justice in England c. Reprinted An. 1675. My Lords 4th Testimony was taken from the Censure of the Doctors of the Famous Faculty of Sorbon against a Book of Sanctarellus particularly against the 30th and 31th Chapters In those two Chapters these Propositions are contained That the Pope can punish Kings and Princes with Temporal Penalties and depose and deprive them of their Kingdoms for the Crime of Haeresis and free their Subjects from their Obedience and that is hath been always the Custom in the Church and for other Causes also as for Faults if it be Expedient if the Princes be Negligent for the insufficiency and unprofitableness of their Persons Likewise That the Pope hath Right and Power over Spirituals and all Temporals also and that both the Powers Temporal and Spiritual are in him by Divine Right That it was to be believed that Power was granted to the Church and its Chief Pastors to punish with Temporal Penalties Princes the Transgressours of Divine and Humane Laws especially if the Crime be Haeresie Likewise that the Apostles were subject to Secular Princes de facto non de jure by Fact not by Right Moreover that as soon as the Pope is installed all Princes begin to be subject to him Lastly That he expounded the Words of Christ Whatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth c. to be understood not only of the Spiritual but of the Temporal Power c. The Faculty after mature deliberation disapproved and condemned the Doctrine contained in these Propositions and other like Expressions in the same Chapters as new false erroneous and contrary to the Word of God Given in the Sorbon Apr. 4. 1626. In Answer to all which I have many things to say but that I may not exceed my intended brevity I shall reduce them to the following Heads 1. That this Book of Sanctarellus was revised and approved by persons of greater Authority in the Roman Church than the Divines of Sorbon (N) Alegambe Bibl. script soc Jes in the life of Sanctarellus gives us this Character of him Vir moribus apprimé religiosis modestissima mansuetudine The Title of the Book is A. Sanctarelli soc Jes Tract de Haeres c. Ed. Romae 1625. In the License of the Master of the Sacred-Palace are these words In eo omnia religioni consona atque utilia adinvenerim In another of the Licenses In quo nihil reperi quod Sanctae Fidei aut bonis moribus adversetur It was printed at Rome permissu Superiorum approved by three Divines of the Society licensed by the General of the Order by the Master of the Sacred Palace and several other Divines By which we see what kind of Divinity was then in request at Rome But it may be the Divines of the Roman Church have one Conscience at Rome and another at Paris as was once said of the Jesuites 2. Since the breaking out of the Popish Plot in England when so many of that Religion were in danger of their Lives the Pope thought fit to condemn 65 Propositions as I shewed before but did not speak one word against the Power of deposing Princes though it was asserted in the same Divines and Casuists with the 65 Propositions And whether the Judgment of his Holiness or of the Divines of Sorbon be of greater value with Roman Catholiques let all men judge 3. Why do the Church and Court of Rome suffer an hundred as bad Books as this of Sanctarellus in which the same or worse Propositions are maintained to pass not only without Censure but with publique Anthority and Approbation 4. There are no Propositions in the places censured by the Sorbonists which he might not justifie by the Principles of the Bishops of Rome the most correct Editions of the Canon Law and in the Sentence of Excommunication and Deprivation of Frederick the Emperor with the Approbation of a General Council the Pope expounds the words of Christ as Sancturellus since did not only of the Spiritual but of the Temporal Power also (O) In the General Council of Lyons Concil tom 28. ut supra Innocent the 4th with the consent of the Council denounces Sentence of Deprivation against Frederick the Emperor Nobisque in B. Petri Apostoli persona sit dictum quodcunque ligaveris c. S. Marth 16. Also M. Paris ad An. 1245. p. 672. 5. What hath Sanctarellus said more than the Doctors of the Famous Faculty of Sorbon did both before and since the Publishing of his Book I know that Ancient College of Sorbon did for many years keep up a great reputation and was esteemed the Bulwark of Regal Authority but ever since the rise of the Jesuites many of their Determinations have been carried by Interest and Faction An. 1589 a little before the Murder of Henry the third of France the People of that Kingdom proposed these two queries to the Divines of Sorbon 1. Whether the People of France may not be discharged and set free from their Oaths of Allegiance made to Henry the Third 2. Whether they may not with a safe Conscience Arm and Vnite themselves collect and raise Money for the Defence and Preservation of the Roman Catholiques in that Realm against the wicked
words Hoc est Corpus meum are in their Bibles If mens Senses are not to be trusted in plain sensible Matters he will hardly prove any of these things but if they are then it is evident that such Principles are asserted in some of their General Councils What follows p. 47. shall be considered afterwards P. 47 48. Paragraph 1. Of the Catholique Faith and Church in General Which Paragraph doth not fall within the compass of my present Design Paragraph 2. Of Spiritual and Temporal Authority P. 48 c. General Councils which are the Church of God Representative have no Commission from Christ to frame new matters of Faith but only to explain and ascertain unto us what anciently was and is received and retained as of Faith in the Church upon arising Debates and Controversies about them The definitions of which General Councils in matters of Faith only and proposed as such oblige under pain of Heresie all the Faithful to a submission of Judgment It is no Article of Faith to believe that General Councils cannot err either in matters of Fact or Discipline c. Hence it is deduced If a General Council much less a Papal Consistory should undertake to depose a King and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance no Catholique as Catholick is bound to submit to such a Decree Hence also it followeth The Subjects of the King of England lawfully may without the least breach of any Catholick Principle renounce even upon Oath the Doctrine of Deposing Kings Excommunicate for Heresie c. General Councils are the Church of God Representative And hath the Church of God diffusive intrusted them with a Power of concluding in some things and not in others or of obliging particular persons so far and no further Where hath the Church of Rome warranted any such distinction as this Author makes between matters of Faith and Practise or confined the whole Power of General Councils to matters of Faith only Lastly suppose there were as indeed there is not some ground for such a distinction yet why must Transubstantiation be a matter of Faith and the deposing of Princes be none when both came out of the same Forge the General Council of Lateran How doth it appear that the Council did not propose this as matter of Faith as well as the other But I will appeal to the General Council of Constance both because the Author of the Controversial Letters urges a Decree of that Council to prove That the Church of Rome teaches the Duty to Princes to be a direct point of Faith (B) Controvers Let. Ed. 2. 1674. p. 36. And because we are told That all Roman Catholiques are bound to submit to the Decrees of the Council of Constance (C) Staffords Memoirs p. 44. And doth not this Council challenge a Power immediately from Christ which all persons of whatever state and dignity are bound to obey both in things pertaining to Faith and the extirpation of Schism and the General Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members (D) Concil Const Concil tom 29. p. 257. Ipsa Synodus in spiritu Sancto congregata legitimé Generale Concilium faciens Ecclesiam Catholicam militantem repraesentans potestatem a Christo immediaté habet cui quilibet cujuscunque status vel dignitatis etiamsi papalis existat obedire tenetur in his quae pertinent ad fidem extirpationem dicti Schismatis Reformationem generalem Ecclesiae dei in Capite Membris Did not this Council define against an Error in Practise 't is their own expression challenge a Power of dispensing with the Institution of Christ and even of Excommunicating all such Presbyters as should presume to obey his Institution rather than their Decree (E) Conc. Const Sess 13. p. 372 373. Hot Generale Concilium declarat decernit definit contra hune errorem viz. Of the peoples receiving the Sacrament in both kinds and after Supper quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit suis discipulis adminiftraverit sub utraque specie panis vini boc venerabile sacramentum tament hoc non obstante c. praecipit sub poena Excommunicationis quod nullus Presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini And now to bring this whole matter to a short Issue By whatever Arguments this Author can prove that Roman Catholicks as such are bound to receive the Sacrament in one kind only by the same it may be proved 1. That if a General Council or a Papal Consistory by Authority derived from a General Council should depose a King and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance all Roman Catholiques as such are bound to submit to such a Decree 2. That the Subjects of the King of England may not without breach of a Roman Catholique Principle renounce the Doctrine of deposing Kings Excommunicated for Heresie I confess there is a Roman Catholique Principle of Aequivocation and Mental Reservation by the benefit of which they may renounce the deposing of Kings but so they may the receiving the Sacrament in one kind also P. 49. Nor do Catholiques as Catholiques beleive that the Pope hath any direct or indirect Authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes c. This he asserts with his usual considence gives Bellarmine the lie and out-faces all the Arguments and Authorities of the Cardinal and others without offering at the least proof of his Position It is an Article of Catholick Faith that no Power on Earth can license men to lie to forswear and perjure themselves c. on pretence of promoting the Catholick Cause or Religion But let him prove if he will prove any thing to the purpose That it is an Article of Roman Catholick Faith to believe Either that there are no Venial Sins such as do not put a man out of the Favour of God and hazard his Salvation Or that an Officious Lie is a Mortal Sin in their account Or that that which otherwise would be a Lie or Perjury may not in some cases be excused by a Mental Reservation or Equivocation The Doctrine of Equivocation however wrong fully imposed on the Catholick Religion is neither taught nor approved by the Church as any part of her Belief But if this be not a part of the Practical Divinity of the Roman Church either she hath none at all or else hath not let the World know where to find it Indeed it is not taught in their General Councils for they do not use to descend to particular Rules of Conscience and Practise but it is taught by the generality of those Divines whom the Church hath entrusted with the Souls of men Are either the Books censured or the Authors punished Are not the Books published with Approbation and those Authors most countenanced which maintain this Doctrine Hath the Church given any Caution or made any Declaration against it And if after all this the Church doth not approve of it what must
General Councils 22d Of Purgatory 24th Of speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understand not 25th Of the Sacraments 28th Of the Supper of the Lord. 29th Of the Wicked c. 30th Of both Kinds 31st of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross 32d Of the Marriage of Priests 34th Of the Traditions of the Church 36th Of the Consecration of Bishops and Ministers 37th Of the Civil Magistrate And Sancta Clara that went about to reconcile our Articles with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome might as well have attempted to reconcile the Masse-Book with the Alcoran 2. As to the Liturgy How many uncertain Stories and Legends Responds Verses vain Repetitions Commemorations c. have our Reformers cast out How many Anthems and Invitatories have they cut off which did break the continual course of reading the Scriptures How many of the principal points of Popery are countervened in our Liturgy (L) V. G. The Cup in the Holy Eucharist restored to the Laity The Mediation of the blessed Virgin Mary the Holy Apostles and Saints departed the Merit of our good Works the Sacrifice of the Masse Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host five of the Romish Sacraments Prayer for the Dead and the Superstitious Ceremonies of Baptism expresly excluded But they that make this Objection I suppose to say no worse never read either the Popish or our Service-Book (M) See the former part of the Morning Prayer the Liturgy Communion Service c. 3. To come to the Episcopal Government of the Church of England It is very well known saith B. Sanderson in the Preface to his Sermons to many what rejoycing the Vote for pulling down of Episcopacy brought to the Romish Party how even in Rome it self they sung their Io Paeans upon the Tidings thereof and said triumphantly Now the Day is Ours now is the Fatal Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England A thing little considered by them that were for Reforming the Church by the Extirpation of Popery and Prelacy and opposed the Roman Cause by the Abolition of that Government which the Strength and Policy of Rome have been so long employed against Do not all Historians agree That as the Monks and Friars were found to be more serviceable to the Papacy than the Prelates so the Popes enlarged their Priviledges granted them Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction and all the Opposition of the Bishops against them have signified little in the Court of Rome so long as their Interest and Grandeur were maintain'd by those Creatures and Vassals of the Roman See V.G. Gregory the 9th published two Bulls forbidding all Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them (N) Greg. Dicret l. 5. tit 31. c. 16.17 Greg. 9. Universis Ecclesiaâ—am Praelatis The following Popes confirmed their Priviledges and though some of them wearied with the Complaints of the Bishops confined them within certain Limits yet others revoked their Constitutions granted them new and more ample Charters nulled all former Bulls of Restriction and Decreed that they were immediately Subject to the Pope and to none else This Design was all along aimed at in the Institutions of the Regular Clergy and the Popes and Court of Rome always appear'd in it as much as they durst But the Complaints of the Bishops and Secular Clergy became so Universal that at length they fixed upon a new project set up the Order of the Jesuites or Spiritual Janizaries by whom they have ever since exercised an absolute Tyranny over the Bishops as well as the Parochial Clergy and People The Immunities and Privileges conferr'd upon them are such as these To Preach hear Confessions open their Schools without License of the Bishops or Vniversities to administer Sacraments and instruct Youth to Correct Interpret Expunge and Burn such Books as they dislike c. (O) V. Bullar Cherub tom 1. p. 653 154. Where the several Bulls or Charters of Priviledges are enumerated Thus were the Bishops in the Roman Church stript of their Authority the Government of the People committed to mere Priests and a Jesuite by Delegation from the Pope may ordain Priests too as well as the Bishops We see the Pope and Court of Rome are no great Friends to a Popish and do you think they have more kindness for a Protestant Episcopacy By whose means did Cranmer and Ridley Hooper Farrar and Latimer suffer Martyrdom Did not those Holy Men exercise the same Power and Jurisdiction then which our Bishops do at this day Is the same kind of Episcopacy Popish in our Times that was Heretical in theirs Were they esteemed by the Papists their most formidable Enemies and are their Successors become their Secret Friends In Fine How can you give credit to the Popish Plot and at the same time brand those very persons with the Infamous Names of Papists and Popishly affected which were to be made Examples of Popish Cruelty Hath not the first Discoverer of the Plot acquainted you with the Names of them which were to be put into their Places But I cannot pass over that memorable Passage of B. Hall in his Speech to the House of Peers Speaking of the base and scurrilous Libels and Pamphlets wherewith the Governours of the Church had been over-born and in which Papists and Prelates like Oxen in a Yoke were matched together O my Lords I beseech you to be sensible of this great Indignity do but look on these Reverend Persons do not your Lordships see here sitting on these Benches those that have spent their time their Strength their Bodies and Lives in preaching down and writing down Popery and which would be ready if occasion were offered to sacrifice all their old Blood that remains to the maintenance of that Truth of God which they have taught and written And shall we be thus â—…spightfully ranged with them whom we do thus professedly oppose (P) B. Halls â—…eech quoted â—…late Book â—…led The 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 art 1682. p. 4 5. But the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are Popish and Superstitious And yet we have no Adorations of Saints Angels or any other created Beings no Superstitious Consecrations of Bells Candles Salt Water c. Hath not our Church put a manifest Difference between Naked Ceremonies and Superstitious Parts of Divine Worship Don't She reject all Opinion of Merit and Spiritual Efficacy and expresly declare that they are Things in their own Nature Indifferent and Alterable In short Would those men which make this Objection apply their Minds to the Study of the Popish and Protestant Doctrine I believe we should hear no more of this Groundless Calumny But to them which fasten this Odious Imputation upon our Church and Church-men I will only say these three Things 1. It is the highest Injustice and Uncharitableness For did ever any Order of men write with more Learning and Judgment with more Zeal and Vigour against Popery than the Episcopal Clergy
might add Paul the 4th and Sixtus the 5th Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. quotes some others of this Opinion For the latter see the Authors quoted by Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. and ad versus Barclaeium in his Opuscula Salmeron Tom. 4. p. 413. Fr. Romulus Resp ad Apol. Ed. 1591. p. 41 42 43. Cardinal Perron in his Oration to the third Estate at Paris tells us That unless this Doctrine were approved it follows that the Church of Rome for many ages hath been the Kingdom of Antichrist and Synagogue of Satan And to let you see that his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects are no Honester than the rest of the World I appeal to two very late Writers of our own Country Some years since three Treatises were published under the Title of The Jesuites Loyalty The Author of the first roundly asserts what the other two slily insinuate this Deposing Doctrine and proves it by as great Authority as they can bring for any Article of the present Roman Faith The other is an English Jesuite too and he without any mincing of the matter tells us this Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions Seculars Regulars (B) See D. Stilling fleets Answer serveral late Treatises in the Preface And whether they teach the Popes Power to be direct or indirect 't is all one for if Princes may be deposed in some cases if there be no standing Court Independent on that at Rome which is to Judge when it is necessary to depose them they had as good tell us in plain terms that no Prince is to wear his Crown any longer than the Pope and other Princes or his own Subjects will give him leave that the Pope never wants Authority to depose a King but when he wants strength or courage a fair excuse or a fit opportunity (C) Bellar. recognit lib. 5. de Pont. c. 8. Ecclesia non semper privat Principes dominio vel qui a vires non habet vel qui a non judicat expedire And therefore there is no reason why they should have the reputation of moderate men that seem to restrain and qualifie the abuse of the Popes direct temporal power or to write against it with some pomp and vanity when indeed they do but abuse the world with a distinction which serves only to veil the impiety of the former assertion and make Princes secure and inapprehensive of their danger Again the assertors of the Pope's indirect Power are not agreed whether a Prince may forfeit his Crown for misgovernment or unfitness to govern or whether only for Apostacy or Heresie The Doctrine of deposing Kings for misgovernment is approved by the Authentick Canon Law of the Roman Church (D) Decret par 2. Can. Alius Caus 15. qu. 6. Zacharias Regem Francorum non tam pro suis iniquitatibus quam pro eo quod tantae potestati crat inutilis à regno deposuit If a Prince become a manifest Apostate he falls from all power and dignity in the Judgment of all their approved Divines and Canonists (E) Parsons or Creswel or both under the name of Philopater Sect. 2. n. 157. That a Prince may be deposed for Heresie is so generally received that those very persons of the Roman Church which have written against it in other cases do except the case of Heresie And 't is observable that in their General Council of Lyons wherein Frederick the Emperor was deposed for Heresie his Advocate endeavoured to vindicate him from the guilt of that crime but neither the Emperor nor he excepted against the power of the Church to depose him in the case of Heresie 3. This is the Doctrine of the General Councils and lawful Representatives of the Roman Church as the Reader may find in the Margent (F) Conc. Lat. 4 c. 3 an 1215. de haereticis tom 28. p. 161 162. Conc. Lugdun an 1245. tom 28. p. 424 c. Conc. Constant tom 29. an 1414 p. 458. I know the Council of Trent made no express Decree about the deposing of Princes but he that considers the State of Christendom at that time how many Princes had been already driven out of the Roman Church and how many more were ready to follow them will rather wonder they said so much than that they durst say no more For though it was no time for them to speak their minds yet so true were the Fathers of that Council to their Master at Rome as to keep up his claim to a temporal power over Princes For did they not make bold to Excommunicate and deprive Emperors Kings and Princes of all their Dominions held in Fee of the Church (G) Concil Trident tom 35. Sess 25. c. 19. in the Decree against Duels By this Canon saith a Royal Author the Kingdom of Naples had need look well to it self (H) K. James his works p. 449. For one Duel it may fall into the Exchequer of the Roman Church because that Kingdom payeth a relief to the Church as a Royalty or Seignorie that holdeth in Fee of the said Church And had not the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland need look well to themselves too For if we believe the Popes and their dependents they are the Dominions of the Church the Pope is our Soveraign Lord the King is but his Vassal and did not King John grant to Pope Innocent and his Successors the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and receive them back again upon paying yearly a relief to the Church Did not Innocent the Third and Innocent the Fourth call the Kings of England their Vassals (I) Mat. Paris Ed. Lon. 1640. ad an 1216. p. 280. ad an 125. p. 272. Did not the Pope declare to Queen Elizabeths Resident that England was held in Fee of the Papacy (S) History of the Reformation part 2. P. 374. Since his Majesties restauration the Lovaine Divines insisted on this title of the Pope to the Kings Dominions and it seems his Holiness was well enough pleased with it (M) History of the Irish Remonstrance p. 117. and p. 101. placuit Pontifici reservat in sua tempora Baronius endeavours to make out the Popes title Tom. 12. ad an 1159. ad an 1172. And Spondanii Continuat Baronii Paris 1658. tom 1. p. 327. ad an 1299. Bellarmine Apol. pro resp c. ed. 1610. p. 33 34 35. That the Kingdoms of England and Ireland are Tributary to the Pope Again did not the Fathers of Trent confirm all the Canons of Popes and Councils in favour of Ecclesiastical persons and liberties and against the insringers of them (N) Concil Bid. Sess 25 de Ref. c. 20. Did they not take care to preserve the Authority of the Roman See in all things (O) Conc. Trid. Sess 25. de Ref. c. 21. And confirm the Capitula of the Council of Lateran in which the deposing Power is asserted But that I may
abuse his Power to the hurt of the Church and Commonwealth If he be deposed for his Sins against God and man by the Pope or the Estates of his Kingdom Then he ceases to be a King any longer he is to be used as a publique Enemy the Tyrant the man of Blood the Apostate the Haeretique may be put to death without killing the King And to do them Justice I confess some of them are so kind to a King that they will not allow any private person to put him to death but he that is Commissionated by the Pope or Subordinate Magistrates is no private person in the sense of these men This is the Divinity of those Politicians and Divines which either promoted the hellish Murder of the late King or afterwards wrote in Vindication of it And there are scarce any Treasonable Positions or Distinctions Presidents or Arguments to be found in their Books or Pamphlets which are not either expresly contain'd or at least to be parallel'd in the Works of the Jesuites and other Romish Doctors They are not for killing a King but before they put him to death they will be sure to Un-King him and he shall suffer not as a King but as a Malefactor They will not resist the Authority of a King but if he betray the Trust reposed in him the wicked Person placed in Authority may be punished not as a King but as a Tyrant To look for an express determination of this Point in the General Councils of the Roman Church is to seek it where there can be no reason to expect it but the General Councils have taught the World the distinction between the Kings Person and Authority and according to their Principles a lawful Prince doth by his Wickedness or Misgovernment fall from his Authority and cease to be a King (B) Concil Gen. Ludg. Conciliorum Tom. 28. p. 431. Memoratum Principem Fredericum qui se imperio regnis omnique honore ac dignitate reddidit tam indigaum quique propter suas iniquitates à Deo ne regnet vel imparet est abjectus c. And Milton speaks not only the sense but the very words of the Jesuites Pro pop Angl. def p. 103. Jus Populi communi ab injusto Regum dominatu assererem non id quidem Regum odio sed Tyrannorum c. P. 104. Evincere potestis non vos amentia aut furore percitos Regem trucidasse sed amore libertatis religionis justitiae honestatis patriae Charitate accensos Tyrannum punisse If the Councils speak doubtfully or in general terms Whom should the People resort unto for Instruction but their Confessors What Books should they consult but such as are published with Authority and approbation of the Governing part of the Church And as the Roman Church hath left the particular Directions for Conscience and Practise to the Practical Divines and Casuists so above all others the Jesuites have for many years been entrusted with the conduct of Mens Souls and bore the greatest sway in his Majesties Dominions At their first coming over which was about an hundred years ago they quickly insinuated themselves into the Affections of some of the prime Nobility and of multitudes of the Common People (C) Sanders de Schism Angl. p. 188. Within twenty years after they had almost devoured all the Secular Clergy (D) See the Important Considerations by the Secular Priests An. 1601. And since his Majesties happy Restauration they made their boasts That many of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry were Penitents of the Society (E) See the Jesuites Paper presented to divers Persons of Honour and printed 1662. I know one of the Jesuites not long since Executed for High Treason did with his dying breath declare That the King-killing Doctrine was falsly charged upon the Jesuites In Answer to which bold Assertion I will only say these two things 1. That most of the Divines of that Order which have had occasion to treat of this Argument do expresly teach That a lawful Soveraign Prince may in some cases be put to death i. e. If he fall from the Faith and endeavour to pervert his Subjects If he abuse his Power and Rule in a Tyrannical manner If he be Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope or declared a publick Enemy and deprived by the Estates of his Kingdom 2. That amongst a great number of Books written by Jesuites and Licensed according to the Rules of the Society I could never meet with one which hath freely and sincerely condemn'd this Doctrine But saith Cardinal Perron never any Pope went so far as to give consent or Counsel for the desperate Murdring of Princes 1. And yet the first Christian Bishop that ever approved of the Murder of a lawful Soveraign Prince was Gregory the first 2. The Fundamental Principles of Treason against Kings and Princes were laid by Zachary Gregory the Seventh c. 3. The Rebellion against Henry the Third and Fourth of France was encouraged and abetted by the Bishops of Rome (F) Cambden Eliz. par 2. p. 13. ed. Lond. 1627. Cum Rex problem non haberet nec habiturum spes ulla esset regnum Navarro post Condeo Reformatae religionis propugnatoribus jure deberetur Pontificii Principes Pontifice Hispano consciis conjurationem pernitiosam oecultè inierunt sub Religionis Catholicae tuendae velo nomine S. Unionis sive Ligae ad Regem pissundandum publicam in illum invidiam accendendo ad Reformatam religionum funditùs extirpandam praevertendo legitimam in regno successionem For the Leaguers in that Kingdom under a pretence of Zeal for the Roman Catholick Religion entred into a wicked Combination against their Soveraign And Gregory the 13th hearkned to their Proposals with much reaediness (G) Davila An. 1576 P. 452. But Sixtus the Fifth Excommunicates the next Heir of the Crown declares him uncapable of the Succession absolves his Vassals from their Oaths and Excommunicates all such as adhered to him This Declaration of the Pope pierced Henry the Third very deeply without whose Privity it had been propounded in the Consistory subscribed by the Cardinals posted up and published (H) Davila l. 7. p. 574 575. Three years after his Holiness writes Letters to the Duke of Guise the Head of the League full of infinite Praises compares him to the holy Macchabees the Defenders of Israel exhorts him to fight for the advancement of the Church and total extirpation of the Hugonots (I) Davila l. 9 An. 1588 p. 715. Afterwards the Pope publishes a Monitory against the King (L) L. 10 p. 811. And that infamous Regicide which embrued his hands in the Royal Blood Murdered Henry the Third without killing the King which was now un-King'd by the Pope Upon the News of the Kings Murder the Pope makes a Panegyrick Oration and solemn Thanksgiving in the Consistory and in his Canting Sermon perverts the Holy Scriptures admires the