once pronounced it will be lawful for the Commonwealth to deny Obedience to him And because a War must necessarily follow the Counsels how to maintain it must be sit down Arms must be quickly provided and Taxes laid upon the People to defray the Expences of the War And if it be requisite and the Commonwealth cannot otherwise maintain it self it will be lawful both by the right of Defence and more by the Authority proper to the People to declare publiquely the King to be the common Enemy and then to kill him with the Sword The Commonwealth from which the Royal Power hath its Original may when the case requires it bring the King to Judgment and deprive him of his Soveraignty for the Commonwealth hath not so transferr'd the Right of Power to the Prince but it hath reserved a greater Power to it self 2. But if there be no opportunity for the States of the Kingdom to assemble in this case of necessity they may dispense with the Formalities of Law any man may do that which the Commonwealth is supposed to desire should be done the common voice of the People shall be his Warrant that cuts of the Kings Head 3. But what if this be like to endanger the Traytors Neck Then he may take away the King by conveying a strong and subtile Poyson into 〈◊〉 Garment or Saddle as the Moors have kill'd their Enemies with poysoned Presents But 't is time to draw to a conclusion of this Head J. Goodwin in one of his Pamphlets hath this remarkable expression As for offering violence to the person of a King or attempting to take away his Life we leave the proof of the lawfulness of it to those profound Disputers the Jesuites c. And one of his Adversaries in a Letter to him declares that J. Goodwin is for ought he knows the first and only Minister of any Reformed Church that ever was of that Jesuitical Opinion as himself stiles it (L) Nethersole in a Letter to J. Goodwin Printed Jan. 8 1648. And though I will not undertake to make good that Assertion yet to the Positions of any of our Sectaries I can oppose the Authorities of a whole Herd of Jesuites and other Divines of the Roman Church But to all these Observations I will only add one more That as a Preparative to the Murder of King Charles the First a Book was printed An. 1648. licensed by G. Mabbot bearing this Title Several Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliaments to proceed against their King for Misgovernment The Heads upon which these Speeches are pretended to be made and the very Matter and Expressions excepting only some few not material Passages are wholly taken out of the Book of Parsons an English Jesuit the great Design of which was to baffle the Title of King James to the Crown of England animate the People to Rebellion and introduce the Roman Catholique Religion All the difference is Parsons published his Book by way of Dialogue these turned it into Speeches This Parsons was Rector of the English College at Rome missed very narrowly of a Cardinals Cap of how great esteem he was at Rome may be gather'd from that famous Inscription on his Monument (M) Aligambe p. 413 414. And he hath furnished the Seditious Spirits amongst us with Arguments and Precedents for their Practises against the King This false new Title they are the words of Mr. Prinne ' published at this Season intimated to the World that this Discourse of a Jesuit for which he was condemned of High Treason was nothing else but Speeches made by some Members of the Commons House at a Conference with the Lords of which Book though himself and divers others complained there was nothing done to vindicate the Houses from this gross Imputation (N) Prinne's Speech in the House of Commons Decemb. 4. 1648. p. â—00 By all which we see that the Popes and Jesuites though at a distance contributed very much to the late Bloody Wars in England and the dismal consequences of them All the difference I can find between the Heads of both Factions is only this Whether the Power of Deposing and Chastising Kings belongs to the People or to the Pope The Fanatique Sectaries allow the People by their Representatives to resume the Power into their own hands whereas some of the Popish Fanatiques reserve this Power to the Pope as the Common Father of Christendom Some I say for the greater part of them invest the Commonwealth with this Authority And so much of the first Proposition 2. In the Reign of King Charles the First the Pope stirr'd up his Subjects of the Roman Communion to Rebel forbad them to take the Oath of Allegiance and absolved them from their Obedience In the beginning of his Majesties Reign the Pope by his Bull strictly forbids the taking the Oath of Allegiance (O) Urban 8. Dilectis filiis Catholicis Angliae Romae Maii 30. 1126. An. 1642. The Pope persuades Eugenius Oneal to give proofs of his Valour in joyning with the Irish Catholiques against the Haeretiques grants to him and all his Adherents the Apostolical Benediction and Plenary Indulgence (P) In a Bull dated Octob. 8. 1642 to Eugegenius Oneal An. 1643. he grants a Bull of Plenary Indulgence to all the Roman Catholiques of Ireland who had joyned in the Rebellion began in the year 1641. (Q) This Bull is dated May 25 1643. all which Bulls are extant in the Histories of those times and therefore need not be transcribed When the Irish Papists submitted to the King subscribed and swore to the observation of the Articles agreed upon the Pope absolved them from their Oath took upon himself to be their General in the person of his Nuntio assumed the exercise of the Regal Power imprisoned those Roman Catholiques and threatned to take away their Lives who had promoted the Peace and desired to return to their Allegiance to his Majesty And 't is observable That soon after the most Infamous Rump had crowned all their Wickedness with the Murder of his Sacred Majesty they nulled the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and so made themselves as Innocent as the Child unborn (R) Feb. 9. The House voted that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy should be Null and Void Memorie 's of the English Affairs ad an 1648. Thus I have proved with as much brevity as a Discourse of this consequence would admit That neither the Reformed Churches abroad nor the Church of England gave any encouragement to the late Bloody Wars in England or the Murder of the Lords Anointed and I have shewed what Influence the Principles and Practises of the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church had upon them I have omitted nothing that deserves our Consideration except the Gunpowder Treason which having been the Subject of many Sermons and Books I shall pass it over only with these two Observations 1. The late Lord Stafford at his Tryal
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
be imputed to Religion which proceed either from the Ignorance or the Want of it The True Reformed i. e. Christian Reiigion is the strongest Bond of Humane Society the best Friend in the World to Civil Government 't is a better Security to the Throne of a King than all his Treasures and Magazines all his Guards and Armies It never licensed any Treasons or Murders any Insurrections or Massacres though it were for the best Ends for God and Religion and why should such a Religion suffer in our esteem for the Doctrines or Actions of men which under the disguise of Zeal against Popery have weakned the Reformation Of the Church of England I will only say It hath established the Righth of Kings upon such sure and unalterable Foundations that it is the Interest as well as the Duty of the Civil Power to support and defend it But I cannot dismiss this Subject without offering some things by way of Consideration and Advice to all such as out of a just regard to the Honour of God and the Tranquillity of this Church and Kingdom desire to prevent the Designs of our Enemies and transmit the True Religion to Posterity I speak to Men that have seen or heard of the Ways and Means by which the Monarchy and Church of England were once overthrown to men that have felt both the Calamities of an Intestine War and the Happiness of a long Peace and therefore I need not trouble the Reader or my self with those things which are fresh in our Memories We have of late been alarm'd with the Apprehensions of Popery and we are loth to put our Necks under that Yoak which our Fathers were not able to bare But do we detest Popery for the sake of the Church and Kingdom as well as our own Estates and Liberties Do we hate Popery for the Immorality as well as the Destructiveness of its Principles Are we Zealous for the Reformed Religion because it teaches us to fear God and honour the King to be just and merciful to our Brethren humble and obedient to our Lawful Governours If these be not the Motives of our preferring the Protestant before the Romish Religion we better deserve the name of Hobbists than of Protestants Protestants and no Christians Protestants only because 't is against our Humour or Interest to be Papists But if we have indeed a greater regard to our Souls than our Fortunes if we value the honour and security of our Religion above our temporal Concernments and the common cause of the Reformation above our private Fancies and Passions then we shall be infinitely fearful of giving any Advantages to our Enemies of Rome of serving the Designs of the Papists really and eventually to use the words of a late reverend Author though not designedly and intentionally 1. Then let us beware of those Seditious Doctrines and Principles which were first set on foot and have been since kept up by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church What Doctrines were taught by some of the Popes before the breaking out of an avowed Design for an Universal Monarchy I have shewed already But for the last six hundred years all things have been contrived and carried on for the setting up a Kingdom in the Church to which all the Princes of the Earth are to submit The Bishops of Rome have usurped upon the Crowns of Kings and Emperors under the pretence of a direct or indirect Supremacy over them Excommunicated and deposed them for Tyranny and Heresie absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance and animated them to take up Arms against them The General Councils of that Church have established Treason by a Law their Decrees are entred into the Body of the Canon Law alledged by their Schoolmen justified by their Divines and Casuists refined and improved by the Jesuites And 't is said that Buchanan transplanted those Antimonarchical Doctrines which he had learnt of one of these Masters from the Church into the State but with this difference only that he invested the People with that Authority over Princes which the other had placed in the Pope But to omit many particulars of lesser moment these are properly Popish Principles and Jesuitical Tenents and they have been the main Pillars to support the Papal Interest That the Original of all Civil Power is from the People and derived from them to the Prince by way of Mutual Compact That a King is the Peoples Trustee and their duty to him only Conditional That his Person and Authority are separable and that the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Matters belongs not to him That the Church hath Power to Excommunicate the King and in certain Cases to denounce Sentence of Deprivation against him that it is lawful for Subjects to enter into Confederacies and take up Arms against him for their Religion and Liberties and that the Commonwealth may curb and restrain him bring him to Tryal and Condign Punishment I can hardly meet with any Seditious Antimonarchical Doctrines or any specious Arguments to maintain them in the Pamphlets of the last Forty years but they are either expresly contained in the Writings of the Popes and Jesuites or at least may be parallell'd in the approved Divines and Canonists of the Roman Church Certainly the Enemy hath sown these Tares in the Field (A) St. Math. 13.28 The implacable restless Enemy of Rome hath cunningly sown these Principles of Sedition amongst us and industriously fomented such Practises as are consonant to them And now let all men which call themselves Protestants consider That it was not the least part of the Design of our Reformers to assert and retrieve the Ancient Rights of the Crown and how can it be for the Honour of the Reformation to maintain such Doctrines as naturally tend to the weakning or subverting that Authority which they Established They have left us a more holy and peaceable Religion than that of the Papists and if we would shew our selves true Protestants our Doctrines and Practises must protest against Popery and prove us better Christians and better Subjects than they If you are Protestants of the Church of England as it is established amongst us I need only put you in mind that you have been Educated in a Faith of Loyalty and Obedience and you can never be tempted by any the most plausible pretences to desert it without either forsaking or being false to that Church whereof you are Members If you are Dissenters from the Church of England I know not how it can consist with your Zeal against Popery to contribute any thing towards the breaking in pieces that Government which you acknowledge the present as well as former Designs of the Papists are levelled against You glory in the Name of Protestants but where do you find any one Protestant Church in the World that hath by any publick Act asserted any of these Doctrines I speak not either to Hobbists and Libertines or to furious and wild Fanaticks but only to men of Conscience
out a Postern-Gate After his Speech was ended the King produced the Original Letter which he intercepted as it was going to the French King and ordered it to be read (F) Impartial Collections p. 309 c. As to the later Insurrections in Scotland I will only observel That besides the Information of some Romish Priests being sent thither to prepare them for a Rebellion their very Declaration shews they were acted by a Popish Spirit for the Act of Supremacy was condemned and the Kings Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs call'd an Vsurping Power But to return So true were the Romish Emissaries to their good Old Cause that having set the factious Party to work in Scotland they took advantage from that conjuncture to stir up a National Rebellion and barbarous Massacre in Ireland of which I have spoken already I cannot pass over the Conspiracy against the King in the Year 1640 because it gives some further light into the Designs of Cardinal Richilieu and the Jesuites Whilst his Majesty resided at York he was acquainted by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Information he had received from Sir W. Boswel his Majesty's Ambassadour at the Hague By the discovery of this Plot it is evident that the Jesuitical Party exasperated the King and his Subjects one against another labouring to incense his Majesty against them as conspiring against his Crown and Government and them against their Soveraign as aiming at the subversion of their Laws Liberties and Religion That they stirred up the Scots to rebel hindred all accommodation between the King and them and endeavoured to bring his Majesty under a necessity of craving the Assistance of the Papists which he should neither obtain without yielding to their own terms nor refuse without the hazard of his life That for the compassing of their Ends Cardinal Barbarino was engaged fifty Scotch Jesuites were maintain'd in London Cuneus in quality of the Popes Legate Chamberlain Chaplain and Almoner to Cardinal Richlieu Sir T. Matthew a Jesuited Priest Captain Read a Secular Jesuite and that all the Papists in England did contribute to the carrying on the design Here was a Plot against the King and Kingdom and Protestant Religion of which he that desires a full account may consult Mr. H. Lestrange and Mr. Sanderson in their Histories Prinn's Romes Master-piece and others of later time What great numbers of Priests Jesuites and other Romish Agents afterwards flocked into England what various shapes they assumed how they insinuated into the Councils and Armies of the Kings Enemies Mr. Gatford Prinn Dr. du Moulin and others informs us to whom I refer the Reader And even some of the Members in the Long Parliament were sensible how active our Enemies of Rome had been in raising and fomenting the War as we learn from a late Writer who sate in that Assembly I will barely relate what he saith without making any Collections or Inferences from his words The Parliament Vote That which was done at York for a Guard to the King to be a preparation for War against the Parliament a breach of the Trust reposed in him by his People contrary to his Oath and tending to the dissolution of his Government and all such as serve him there to be Traytors to the Laws of the Kingdom Upon the debate for raising an Army one of the Members declared his sense Our Enemies of the Popish Church have left no Evil Arts unessayed to bring us to our present posture and will yet leave none unattempted to make our breaches wider well knowing that nothing will more advance their Empire than our Divisions Our Misery whom they account Hereticks is their Joy and our Distractions will be their Glory and all Evil arts and ways to bring Calamities upon us they will esteem Meritorious (A) Memorials of the English Affairs ad An. 1642. Sanderus de Schism Angl. 1585 p. 188. Quo Haereticorum ut fit bello Catholici indies plures constantioresque in fide fiunt Campanella de Mon. Misp Amst 1641. p. 204. Jam verò ad enervandos Anglos nihil tam conducit quam dissensio discordia inter illos excitata perpetuóque nutrita quod citò occasiones meliores suppeditabit P. 207. Verum ab alia parte instiget primores Comitiorum aut Parliamenti ut Angliam in formam reipublicae reducant Nor did the design of Cardinal Richlieu die with him it was vigorously pursued by Mazarine to whom he left his Instructions at his death and what an intimate Correspondence was maintain'd between him and the Grandees of Derby House we are told by the Author of the History of Independency (B) Hist of Indep p. 114 115. His words are these To negotiate which the detaining of the Prince in France the Grandees of Derby House and the Army have an Agent lying Lieger with Cardinal Mazarine the great French Instrument of State who is so well supplied with Money and so open handed that it hath been heard from Mazarines own Mouth That all the Money the Queen and Prince have cost the Crown of France hath come out of the Parliaments Purse with a good advantage It is likewise said Mazarine hath an Agent here to drive on the Interests of France in England To all which we may add That the King having assented in the Isle of Wight to pass five strict Bills against Popery the Jesuites in France at a General Meeting there resolved to bring him to Justice by the power of their Friends in the Army And this resolution of the Fathers was agreeable to the sense of the Roman Conclave For the Question being sent to Rome from the whole Party of Jesuites in England the year before the Kings death whether considering the present posture of Affairs it was lawful for the Catholicks to work a change in the Government by making away the King whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresie It was answered affirmatively (C) Answer to Philanax Anglicus p. 59 65. To what I have said upon this Argument I will add these two Propositions 1. That the grounds on which the War against the King was maintain'd so far as it was maintained under a colour of Religion were laid by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church and the most dreadful effects of Fanaticism which were the consequents of it may be justified by their Principles And here I could make it evident That the same Maxims of Political Divinity the same Arguments and many times the same Phrases and Expressions are to be found in the heads of both Factions I know it is disputed whether the Ring-leaders of Sedition amongst us poysoned the Jesuites or the Jesuites them but I do not envy the Bishops of Rome the honour of having first poysoned them both with Antimonarchical Doctrines If Milton the great Oracle of one of the Factions had owned himself to be a Papist there had been no reason to wonder at the Impiety of his Doctrines which he
common Christianity is such a Religion I will not here insist on the Gunpowder Treason the horrour of Queen Maries dayes the dreadful stories of the Inquisition the Parisian and Irish Massacres the infinite slaughters of the poor Albigenses and Waldenses the more than Heathenish barbarities exercised on millions of the Americans upon the account of Religion these would afford matter for an entire History and therefore I shall summ up what I have to say under four heads 1. The Church of Rome doth as much as in her lies damn all Heretiques make them the members of the Devil I speak their own words whilest they live and send them to hell when they die The fourth General Council of Lateran damns all Heretiques and what doth that Council mean by Heretiques but all such as do not submit to the Roman Faith as it is there set down and particularly all which do not own the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation which that Council makes an Article of Faith (X) Conc. Lat. 4. c. de fide Catholica et c. 3. de Haretlcis Besides the general Anathemaes of the Councils all Heretiques are solemnly cursed every Maundy Thursday Good God! that any thing which is called Religion should teach or allow men to damn their Brethren even whilst they are commemorating our blessed Saviour who died for them But I do not wonder that they should condemn our bodies to be burnt who condemn our souls to everlasting fire (Y) Decret Greg. l. 5. tit 7. de Haereticis c. 3. Nullatenús dubites omnem haereticum vel Schismaticum cum diabolo angelis ejus aeterni ignis incendio participadum nisi ante finem vitae Catholicae fuerit incorporatus redintegratus Ecclisiae c. And what the Canon Law understands by Hereticks you may see c. 9. 2. All Christians are enjoyned by the Church to endeavour the extirpation of Heretiques to the uttermost of their power as they desire to be accounted Christians About the latter end of the Twelfth and beginning of the Thirteenth Century Dominick and his brethren persuaded the Civil Magistrates in France to burn all such as were condemned for Heresie and that their cruelties might be acted by a Law the Holy General Councils promised their blessing and protection to them that should root them out Decreed that all Heretiques should be delivered up to the Secular Magistrate who if he refused to do his duty should be compelled to it by Ecclesiastical Censures by absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance and by giving away his Dominions to other Princes (Z) Conc. Lat. 3. Concil tom 27 c. 27. de haereticis this was an 1180. Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. de baereticis an 1215. And even that sober piece of Popery as the Council of Constance is called invited J. Husse and Jerome of Prague two good and learned men thither to dispute with them for their Religion whom they quickly silenced with the Catholick Arguments of fire and fagot Thus a Romish General Council and that none of the worst of them owned the most inhuman cruelty and breach of publick Faith in the sight of the Sun From whence we learn these two points of R. Catholique Divinity 1. That no Secular Prince hath any right to promise safety to Hereticks 2. If he do the Church may declare his promise null and void and demand justice against them notwithstanding the most solemn promise to the contrary And what greater honour can be done a Soveraign Prince than to be made the Churches Executioner 3. All the Bishops in the Roman Church are bound under pain of perjury to destroy their Christian brethren (A) In the Oath before cited which every Bishop takes at his Consecration Is this clause Haereticos Schismaticos et rebelles Domino nostro vâ—… Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar impugnabo A very fit employment for Spiritual Fathers 4. By the Laws of the Roman Church all men condemned for Haeresie are to be put to death (B) Haeretiques condemned by the Church are to be dellvered up to the Civil Power Animadversione debita puniendi pro viribus extirminare c Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. But what the Punishment is all men know which have read the History of the Council of Constance In iâ—…is persistens J. Husse apatribus de baeresi damnatus vivus exastus est In the History of the Council Council tom 29. p. 238. Vid. Decret Greg. 9. l. 5. tit 7. de Haereticis Sexti Decretal l. 5. tit 2. de Haereticis Extrav Com. l. 5. tit 3. de Hersticis Indeed the Church could only damn the Souls the burning the Bodies of Haeretiques belongs to the Civil Power for if they refused to abjure or were relapsed they were to be delivered to the Secular Arm and the Magistrates were to burn them in some publique place In the Second year of Henry the Fourth King of England a Law was made whereby if any Haeretiques being convict did refuse to abjure or after Abjuration did fall into relapse they were to be left to the Secular Court according to the Holy Canons and the Major Sheriffs or Bayliffs after the Sentence were to receive and cause them to be burnt in an high place before the People But the common course of the Law was to certifie into the Chancery the conviction of an Haeretique upon which the Writ De Haeretico comburendo was issued out for the burning of him Afterwards all Civil Officers were sworn to use their utmost diligence and power for the destroying of Errors and Haeresies and to assist the Ordinaries and their Commissaries in their Proceedings against them In Queen Mary's Reign hundreds of the Clergy and Laity were burnt alive upon no other account but their Religion there was nothing else either in their Accusation or in their Sentence (C) See Statut. â—…n 2. Hen 4. c. 15. An. 25. Hen. 8. c. 14. Also the History of the Reformation c. An. 1679. part 1. lit 1. The Writ for burning of Archbishop Cranmer may be seen in the second part of the same History l. 2. In the Collection of R. cords Numb 27. 4thly and Lastly I consider his Lordships Declaration That he acknowledged the King his lawful Soveraign and knew no Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance That the General Councils of the Roman Church have arrogated to themselves a Power of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to Soveraign Princes is so evident from the forecited Testimonies that I need not trouble either the Reader or my self with transcribing the Decrees of those Councils but to the former authorities I will only add that of the third Council of Lateran which did expresly absolve the Subjects of Princes from their Oaths of Allegiance (D) Conc. Lat. 3. c. 27 de Haereticis Council tom 27. p. 461. Relaxatos autemse noverint a debito fidelitatis hominii c. Whether that Council did include
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
Counsels and Practises of the said King and all other his Adherents and against the breach of Publique Faith committed by him at Bloys to the prejudice of the said Roman Religion and Edict of Holy Vnion and the natunal Liberty of the Assembly of the three Estates of that Kingdom After mature deliberation upon the said Articles it was concluded nemine refragante That the said People were discharged from the said Oath of Allegiance and that they may with asase Conscience unite and Arm themselves against the King Moreover the said Faculty thought fit to send their Decree to the Pope that it might be ratified and confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Apostolick See (P) Davila l. 10. And Fowlis History of Romish Treasons Ed. 1671. p. 530 551. In the same year the Loyal Doctors of Sorbon declared their Approbation of the damnable Doctrine of King-killing For a short Paper was drawn up containing the Reasons of taking up Arms against the King in the Conclusion of which it is said That because Childerick King of France had caused one Bodille to be publiquely whipped the said Bodille took occasion thence to kill the King for which he is commended by Historians and therefore may not the injury done to a better than Bodille viz. to a brave Prince Guise be also avenged The Doctors of Sorbon having read over the Tract approved it affirming that nothing was in it contrary to the Roman Church About the same time it was Decreed by the Sorbonists That the Name of Heary the third should be dashed out of all publique Prayers and that if any of the Faculty of Paris agree not to it they should be Excommunicated Accordingly instead of those Prayers for the King others were drawn up for the Catholique Leaguing Princes (Q) Fowlis p. 537. An. 1590. The Royalists had spread abroad such Propositions as these That Henry of Bourbon the lawful Heir of the Crown might or ought to be King that the People might with a safe Conscience adhere to him and pay him Tribute That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate the King That an Haretique though relapst and put out of the Communion of the Church may have right to the Crown of France All which Propositions were presently condemned by the Faculty of Sorbon (R) Spondani Contin Baronii tom 2. ad An. 1590. p. 860. par 3. Sorbonici Theologi in publicis turbis ad rerum instantium statum vota sua accommodare coacti rogatu Faederatorum Cajetani impulsu nec non Cardinalis Montalti ipsiusquemet Pontificis literis ad fidem religionem tuendam unionem confirmandam incitati partes suas interponentts congregati sanxerunt propositiones quae passim a pluribus seminabantur viz. Henricum Borbonium regis titulo infigniri posse aut debere tuta conscientia es adbarere ac decimas vectigalia persolvere debere c. Has tjusmodi enuntiationes damnantes c. An. 1629. They publish a Decree That for the Future the Ancient and Laudable Practise be revived that every Batchelour of Divinity swear to observe the Decrees of the Popes of Rome (S) Spondani Contin Baronii Tom. 2. p. 982. ad Ann. 1629. par 10. An. 1647. The Sorbonists in Answer to a Question sent to them in Writing from the Jesuites in England resolved that it was Lawful for the Roman Catholiques to work the Change in the Government by making away the King (T) Du Moulin Answ to Philanax p. 59. I know P. Walsh hath printed from the Originals six Declarations of the Divines of Sorbon presented to the French King An. 1663. which seem more worthy of that Society than these which I have produced But however significative they might be of their Loyalty to the French King they do not reach the Case of his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects For in France the King is of the same Religion His Kingdoms are under no Ecclesiastical Censures the Pope challenges no direct Temporal Right to them But I need say no more of them than F. Walsh himself doth These Declarations of Sorbon did neither protest against Equivocation nor descend to the particular Cases either of Excommunication or the pretended Exemption of Clergymen or Condemnation of the Contrary Doctrines c. (V) Hist of the Irish Remonstrance p. 662 663 and 678. And now let all men judge whether the Doctors of Sorbon were not as good at irritating the People of France as the most Seditious Preachers and Pamphleteers were at Animating those of England against their King 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 for swear 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. P. 46. MY Lords Fifth Testimony was taken from a little Treatise writ as my Lord said by a Priest of the Church of Rome and entituled Roman Catholique Principles in reference to God and the King (A) In the printed Tryal p. 53. There is lately come out a Book written by a Priest of the Church of Rome tried for his life for being in the Plot but acquitted c. The chief Contents of which Treatise because it in short explains the above-named Principles and clears the Objections usually made on this Subject I shall here insert in the Authors own Words In answer to which I shall briefly examine all the Passages of this little Treatise which may seem to vindicate the Romish Faith and Religion from the imputation of Disloyalty In the beginning he tells us We abhor we renounce we abominate such Principles Of Treason Rebellion Murder c. But of this I shall speak in its proper place That a Priest of the Church of Rome should before God and the World deny the plainest matters of Fact is an Argument either of the grosseft Ignorance of his own Religion or which I rather suspect of the most exact skill in the Arts of Prevarication V. G. I have been instructed saith he in the Articles of my Faith and I acknowledge the lawful Authority of General Councils yet I profess I never learnt or sound asserted in any of them any such Principles A Speech of so much assurance that were it not for dis-believing my own Senses I might be apt to give credit to it But I would fain know how he proves that there are any such things in the world as the Decrees and Canons of Councils Or that Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind were ever taught in any of them Or that these
Margent (I) Greg. 7. Ep. l. 8. Ep. 21. Itant dignitas à secularibus etiam Deum ignorantibus inventa non subjicietur ti dignitati quam omnipotentis Dei providentia c. quis nescit Reges Duces ab iis habuisse Principium qui Deum ignorantes superbia rapinis perfidia homicidiis postremo universis paené sceleribus mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante super pares scilicet homines dominari caeca cupiditate intolerabili praesumptione affectaverint V. l. 2. Ep. 5. Ep. 13. Ep. 18. l. 3. Ep. 10. Also his famous Dictares published in a council at Rome are to be seen in Baronius Annal Eccles Tom. 11. ad An. 1076. sect 31 32 33. V. Baron ad An. 1080. sect 62 63 64 65. ad an 1073. sect 73 24. Kingly Government in his Judgment is nothing else but the contrivance of evil Spirits to abridge men of that Liberty which God and Nature have given them and if so what we call Rebellion is a very harmless if not a meritorious thing For why should not the People endeavour to recover their ancient Rights and Liberties which were so unjustly taken from them Miltons Inference from such Premisses is this If it were my happiness to set free the Minds of Englishmen from longing to return under the Captivity of Kings from which the Strength and Supream Sword of Justice hath delivered them I shall have done a Work not much inferiour from that of Zorobabel (L) Iconoclastes towards the latter end And now I cannot shew without exceeding my intended brevity how true the other Popes have been to these Principles V. G. in the 9th Century Adrian the Second salutes the Pious and Orthodox Basilius that 's the Roman Catholique Title for Traytors and congratulates the Murder of his Soveraign Prince About the 1090th year Vrban the second sate in the Holy See of whom I need say no more than that he was the Author of that Impious Decree That an Oath made to an Excommunicate Person is not to be kept His Successor Paschal the Second commanded the Son of Henry the 4th to take up Arms against his Father Alexander the Third which lived in the same Century trod upon the Neck of the Emperor The Decrees of Innocent the Third and Fourth are well known But I am not writing an History of the Bishops of Rome Since the rise of Jesuites the Roman Catholiques in France entred into a clandestine Combination the Holy League they call'd it without their Kings Consent under a colour of opposing the Progress of Heresie but in truth to reduce the Catholique Forces into one Body and strip the King of his Royalty And how specious soever the Design of it might appear to some men of more Zeal than Judgment yet in its very Nature and Tendency it was of most fatal Consequence to the King and Government and being prosecuted with Force and Armes against Henry the Third and Fourth it cost one of them his Life and the other his Religion The Principal Instrument of the League was Mathew a Jesuite and the Fathers of that Order would give no Absolution to the Gentry of France unless they would vow and promise to band themselves against their Soveraign The secret Counsels and Conspiracies were holden in the Jesuites College Where did the Agents and Ambassadors of Spain the two Cardinals that termed themselves Legates in France assemble their Counsels but among the Jesuites Was not the Provincial of the Jesuites sent to Rome and Father Sammier into Spain where they acquitted themselves so well that both Gregory the 13th and the King of Spain promised large Sums of Money for carrying on the War In Fine the Holy League and the War of Subjects against their Kings in prosecution of it were promoted by Pope Gregory the 13th Sixtus the 5th Gregory the 14th Innocent the 9th c. by the Jesuites and most of the Preachers and Confessors of all Orders who soon drew in the main Body of the Papists into this Combination against Henry the Third a King of their own Religion but unjustly suspected to be Haeretically affected The Design of this Holy League may be seen in Thuanus l. 63. Ed. Genevae p. 164. c. more largely in Davila's History of the Civil Wars of France ad An. 1576. c. out of whom I will transcribe part of it Art 2. For preservation of the King and his Successors in the State Honour Authority Duty Due to them by their Subjects as it is contained in those Articles which shall be presented to him in the Assembly of the States c. Art 4 and 5. If there be any Impediment Opposition or Rebellion be it from whom it will or from whencesoever it may c. In case any of the Covenanters be molested oppressed or questioned for this Cause be it by whom it will the King himself is not excepted they shall employ their persons and goods estates and lives to take revenge on them either by Justice or Force without any exception of persons whatsoever Art 6. If any of the Confederates shall wilfully break this Promise and Oath they shall be punished in Bodies and Goods by all means that can be thought of c. Art 7. They shall swear to yield ready Obedience to the Head of the League to the ruin of all Opposers of it without partiality or respect of persons Art 8. All the Catholiques of all places shall be secretly advertised by their particular Governours to enter into this League and to concur in providing of Men Arms and other Necessaries Art 10. All to be held as Enemies that will not enter into this Covenant It would be too large a digression to enter upon a Discourse concerning the Solemn League and Covenant in these Kingdomes and therefore I will only subjoyn the two following Observations as a further Proof of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of the Reformed Churches abroad 1. The first is that of his Majesty in his Excellent Manifesto or late Declaration concerning the late Tumults in Scotland by the King An. 1639. p. 74. This Covenant was resented abroad by Papists with infinite joy in hopes it might oblige the King and his Successors to hate the Protestant Religion for the sake of those Seditious Zealots and the Priests and Jesuites from Doway and other Seminaries came over in great numbers upon that Encouragement But by Foreign Protestants the Covenant was received with most offensive scandal and grief as his Majesties Publick Ministers abroad gave him an account for they were afraid it should bring an indelible Scandal upon the Reformation and alienate the minds of Princes from it Thus it became Joy and Triumph to our Enemies Grief and Scandal to our Friends 2. We are told That the English Divines and Scotch Commissioners sent a Copy of their Covenant with a solemn Invitation to Seventeen Reformed Churches beyond the Seas but notwithstanding all the unjust Calumnies cast upon his Majesty we never heard
declared That he never heard any of the Church of Rome speak a good word of it (S) In the printed Tryal p. 53. The truth is there is nothing to defend such a Master-piece of Villany but the Sword what the English Papists speak of it concerns not me to enquire but was not the rise of that Horrid Treason from the Breves of Pope Clement the 8th in which he required the Roman Catholiques not to admit any but a Catholique to the Crown Did not the same Pope by a Bull sent to the Superiors of the Regulars for bid them to make use of any thing revealed in confession to the benefit of the Secular Government and is it not at least highly probable that the said Bull had a particular respect to the Gun-powder Treason (T) See The Case put by Delrio the Jesuit Disqu Mag. c. I. sect 2. Did not Sir E. Digby call it the best Cause Was not Garnett's name inserted into the English Martyrology Was not one of the Conspirators made the Popes Paenitentiary and another a Confessor in St. Peters at Rome 2. He saith That the Plot was owned by the Traytors themselves at their death But did not Garnette and Tresham deny it with the most bitter Imprecations make the most solemn Protestations of their own Innocency and avow the Lawfulness of denying and forswearing any thing whereof they were guilty in case either the Judges be incompetent or the Proofs against them defective And 't is observable that Garnette never owned any thing which was laid to his Charge till as himself confessed the clearness and unexpectedness of the Proofs made him ashamed to persist any longer in his Denial (V) If. Casauâ—…ni Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum p. 117 118 120 121 122 c I have now done with the Court of Rome and its Adherents Of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and General Councils I shall speak in the next Chapter by which it will appear whether the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness are Justifiable by the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion CHAP. III. Doctrines and Principles of the Roman Church 1. The Doctrine of Deposing Princes 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 I come now to his Lordships Principles of Faith and Loyalty as they are called p. 44. But first he declares As to the damnable Doctrine of King-killing if he were of any Church whatsoever and found that to be its Principle he would leave it Doubtless saith our Author the thing which most weighed to my Lords Prejudice c. was a prepossest Opinion of wicked Principles supposed to be held and practised by my Lord as the matter of his Faith and Religion It is by many taken for granted the Papists hold it an Article of Faith that to depose and murder Kings to Massacre their Neighbours and destroy their native Country by Fire and Sword when the interest of their Religion requires it are Acts dispensable by the Pope and meritorious of Heaven Now what thing so wicked however slenderly proved will not easily be believed against men so principled My Lord therefore to clear himself and his Religion from this heavy and as the Papists say injurious Aspersion pretested and declared in the presence of God and their Lordships his hatred and detestation of such Principles That he acknowledged the King his lawful Soveraign and knew no Person or Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance From hence I shall take occasion to discourse on the following Heads 1. Concerning the Doctrine of Deposing Kings 2. Concerning the Moctrine of King-killing 3. Concerning the Massacring of their Neighbours and destroying their Native Country when the Interest of their Religion requires it 4. Concerning his Lordships acknowledging the King to be his Lawful Soveraign and that he knew no Person or Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance And here I shall fairly represent the Doctrines of the Roman Church and then leave all men to judge of the natural Tendency of them 1. I begin with the Doctrine of Deposing Kings Where I shall prove these three things 1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church 2. That it is the Doctrine of their General Councils and lawful Representatives of the Roman Church 3. That this Doctrine is taught in the Breviaries and publique Offices of the Church 1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church And here to do our Adversaries right I acknowledge that there are some things wherein they agree and some wherein they differ That Soveraign Princes may in some cases be deprived of their Crowns and Dignities is a Doctrine wherein their Divines are so universally agreed that I do not know any Book published according to the Order of the Roman Church which hath plainly and honestly condemned it But they are not agreed whether by vertue of a direct temporal Power over all at least Christian Princes the Pope may depose them at his pleasure or whether he hath only an indirect power whereby he may depose them when it is necessary for the good of the Church The former Doctrine is current at Rome and hath been avowed by many Popes and their Creatures The latter is Matter of Faith as many of their own Writers prove by as good Arguments and Authority as any man can produce for Transubstantiation it self (A) Of the former l. sacr Caeremon Aed Romae 1560. p. 36 col 1. Figurat Pontifical is hic gladius potestatem summan tomporalem a Christo ejus Vicario collatam And this Power was challenged by Pope Gregory the 7th as of Divine right Platina de vitis Pontificum Colon. 1568. p. 176. By Boniface the 8th id p. 247. By Paul the Third in his Damnatory Bull against Henry the 8th King of England Bullarium Cherubinis Tom. 1. p. 619. Ed. Romae 1632. By Pius the 5th in his Damnatory Bull against Queen Elizabeth Tom. 2. p. 304. Both which Bulls begin thus Regnans in excelsis c. bunc unum super omnes gentes omnia Regna Principem constituit qui evellat deftruat dissipet c. To which I
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
General Councils and by the Publique Breviaries And this is no mere Speculative Doctrine but a kind of State-Engine fitted to raise and support the Papal Monarchy Have not the Bishops of Rome made use of it as often as it was in their Power and served their Interest Have they not trampled on the Necks of Princes and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance Disposed of their Crowns and Dominions animated their own Subjects and other Princes to take up Arms against them Cast them out of the Church and out of their Kingdoms Yea so true have they been to this Principle that not only such as were very Prodigies of Pride and Tyranny but even the more prudent and moderate Popes have so often put it in practise that the troubles and Confusions the Wars and Treasons which have followed in Christendom make up a great part of the History of some Ages (Z) See the Catalogues of Princes excommunicated and deposed by Popes in their own Authors V.G. Bellar. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 8. Bzovius de Pont. Rom. c. 46. p. 613. to 620. Paul the third Excommunicated and deposed our Henry the Eighth Bullarium tom 1. p. 619. Pius the Fifth Excommunicated and Deposed Queen Elizabeth tom 2. p. 305. Clement the Eighth sent two Breves into England to debar King James from succeeding to the Crown See King James his Works p. 257. And yet after all the Complaints and Sufferings of Princes under this Usurped Power not the least care is taken either by the Church or Court of Rome to secure their Rights Why did not the Council of Trent make a plain and Honest Explication of the Popes Power and the Rights of Princes when they had so fair an opportunity to vindicate themselves and their Religion And in what request this Doctrine is at Rome may appear from hence that since the breaking out of the Popish Plot in England the present Pope was pleased to condemn sixty five Propositions but as great a Scandal as their Religion lay under amongst us could not find in his heart to speak one unkind word of this Doctrine (A) A Decree made at Rome March 2. 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuites and other Casuists I know some private persons and some Assemblies of Church-men of the Roman Communion have at some times taught the contrary Doctrine but it concerns them not me to reconcile their Determinations with the Doctrine of their Church However I will say these three things 1. They have been such as were over-awed by Princes or in expectation of Favours and Preferments from them 2. They have been censured and excommunicated by the Teaching Governing part of the Church and as much as in them lay shut out of her Communion 3. Where Princes Excommunicated and deposed for other real or pretended Crimes have procured any Advocates to plead for them yet they have either excepted the case of Haeresie or not undertaken to prove the Unlawfulness of deposing Princes for it 2. The next thing to be considered is the Doctrine of King-killing Concerning which the late Lord Stafford did indeed declare That if he were of any Church whatsoever and found that to be its Principle he would leave it But this Patron of the Roman Cause did not think fit to acquaint us with that expression of his Lordship in the printed Tryal p. 53. As to the Doctrine of King-Killing and absolving Persons from their Allegiance I cannot say the Church of Rome does not hold it I never heard it did hold it it may be it does it may be not I say not one thing or other From which words we may learn these two things 1. That his Lordship knew not that the Church of Rome had any where condemn'd this wicked Doctrine 2. That the English Priests and Confessors do not plainly and honestly difavow and condemn it or instruct their Proselites in the Principles of Loyalty Indeed the Church of Rome hath not in express terms asserted the Lawfulness of putting Kings to death but there is so little difference between the deposing and putting Kings to death that whosoever allows of the one can be no Enemy to the other if he understand the Consequences of his own Doctrine For when a King is deposed by any lawful Authority he is a King no longer If he take up Arms to recover his Dominions you may fight against him with as good a Conscience as against an Usurper And will a King be so tame as to lay down his Crown at the Popes or his Peoples Feet Will he suffer himself to be stript of his Royal Dignity without striking a stroke or solliciting the Assistance of other Princes I would not imitate the uncharitable Spirit of the Roman Church whilst I am writing against it nor dare I charge all men with the Consequences of their own Doctrines but I am sure many of the greatest Divines and Casuists of that Church have both seen and vindicated them and I do not find that the rest are able to confute them But saith Cardinal Perron in his forecited Orations a King deposed being once Reformed and become a new Man may be restored to the lawful use and practise of his Regality And what if he will not reform what if he be more hardned in disobedience than Childerick was and prefer his own Honour and Conscience above the Bull of a Pope or the Act of a Rebellious Faction in his own Kingdom truly then he may lose his Head as well as his Crown notwithstanding any care the Church of Rome hath taken of him If he take the Field so may his Enemies it may be they have been before hand with him But suppose the poor disarmed man a King you cannot call him if he have no right to the Crown be not able to raise Forces and therefore resolves to trudge to his Holiness and there bare-headed bare-footed as we know who did humbly beg Absolution of the Pope Perhaps he may be in a good Humour grant him Absolution upon such terms as he did Henry the 4th that he submit himself to the Judgment of an Assembly of the States But what if it be now too late to reforme It may be his Kingdoms are already given away to another for the Popes are free enough in giving what is none of their own or perhaps the Estates of the Kingdom have turned it into a Commonwealth In Fine Princes deposed from their Soveraignty are liable to so many hazards that they have seldom survived their deprivation unless it were in exile or in a Prison But I must pass over the Jugglings and Equivocations of men of King-killing Principles Ask them if it be lawful to kill a King They tell you no and many of them call God to Witness the Integrity of their Hearts and Loyalty of thier Practises But if a King fall from the Faith and become an Enemy to Gods Church and People If he do regis personam exuere turn Tyrant and
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-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
and Sobriety to such as I believe have a real tho misguided Zeal for the protestant Religion for their King and Country To such as have not forgotten that a War was raised for the Preservation of Religion and Liberty but ended in the ruin of them both That an Army turned their Arms against them from whom they received their Commission (B) Prinnes Epistle before his Speech of Decemb. 4. 1648. It is clear that the very Officers and the Army being not our Masters but Servants particularly raised waged and engaged by Solemn League and Covenant among other things to protect and defend the Parliaments and Members Rights Priviledges and Persons from all force and violence whatsoever in such manner as both Houses and the Committee of both Kingdoms should approve cannot pretend the least shadow of Reason or Authority from the Law of God or Man thus traiterously to seize imprison and seclude 〈◊〉 without the Houses License before any particular Charge against â—… That a Covenant was first entred into for the Defence of the King and afterwards to the astonishment of many that had taken it made use of by others against his Person and Authority (C) See the Declaration of the Army at St. Albans Novemb. 16. 1648. presented to the House by the Army Officers wherein they demand the bringing the King to a speedy Tryal In this Remonstrance they say Whereas It might be objected that by the Covenant they were obliged to the Preservation of his Majesties Person and Authority it was with this Restriction In the Preservation of the True Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom So that considering Religion and the Publick Interest were to be understood the Principal and Supream Matters engaged for and the Kings Person and Authority as Inferior and Subordinate thereto And whereas the Preservation of his Person and Authority was not consistent with the Preservation of Religion and the Publick Interest they were therefore by the Covenant obliged against it The Clause in the Covenant to which they refer is Art 3. On the other side the Secluded Members remind the Army Officers of the Solemn League and Covenant by which they say they were obliged to preserve the Kings Person and Dignity from violence and give this among other Reasons for their Voting the Kings Answer Satisfactory c. I know 't is unreasonable to charge men with all the Consequences of their Principles when they not only declare against those Consequences which are charged upon them but also protest against them by their Practise as many Gentlemen did especially after they were surprised with the Votes of No further Addresses to the King And therefore I shall not here enquire into the Nature and Tendency of the Covenant Declaration Remonstrances c. of those times which have been so often quoted both for and against adhering to the King However all men of Conscience and Loyalty may from hence learn how easie it is for a Leading and Potent Faction to strein the Consequences of things and how little all Arguments signifie to them them that have gotten the Sword into their Hands (D) Mr. Baxter in his Preface to the Cure of Church-Divisions I have seen how confidently the Killing of the King the Rebellious demolishing of the Government of the Land the killing of many thousands of their Brethren the turnings and overturnings of all kinds of Rule even that which they themselves set up have been committed and justified and prophanely Fathered upon God To conclude this Head Let it be the peculiar honour of Papists and Turks to propagate their Religion with Sword and Bloodshed Let us regulate our Zeal with Prudence Obedience and Charity which make up the truly Christian Temper of English Protestants Let no private Passion or Interest transport us beyond the bounds of our Duty to God and our Allegiance to our Soveraign For if they do we shall convince all Impartial men that we have as little sense of True Religion as ous Adversaries of Rome You have seen the Operation of these Principles in the inciting and animating the People to Tumults and Commotions Evil Principles brought forth Seditious Words and they were quickly followed with Seditious Practises against the Government But those Holy Scriptures which blessed be God you have in your own Language forbid you To curse the King in your thought (E) Eccles 10.20 To despise Dominion and speak evil of Dignities (F) St. Jude ver 8. They command you to pray for the King and for all that are in Authority (G) 1 Tim. 2.1 and to be Subject not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake (H) Rom. 13.5 2. As we desire to keep out Popery and strengthen the Interest of the Reformation let us beware of contributing any thing towards the subverting of the Church of England A Church which is the most Impregnable Bulwark of the Protestant Cause A Church which hath the Support of Scripture and Antiquity of purity of Doctrine and Piety of Devotion and therefore the busie Factors for the Roman Religion have made use of more Arts and Instruments for destroying this than any other Church in Christendom But whether will the misguided Zeal of some men transport them Whilst one Faction labours to break it in pieces as the most probable means of introducing Popery the other strives to overthrow the Constitution of it out of Zeal against Popery Our Liturgy for they have not much to say against our Articles of Doctrine is but the Masse-Book translated into English Our Church-Government Antichristian and our Ceremonies but Popish Trumpery And yet the Compilers of our Liturgy the Bishops and Episcopal Divines suffered Martyrdom by the hands of the Papists they had the Substance of our Liturgy the same kind of Episcopacy the same Rites and Ceremonies with us I do not say That no Constitutions of our Church are capable of being explained or amended for what Church under Heaven is perfect in all matters of Doctrine and Worship of Order and Discipline But did we lay aside all Prejudices and groundless Disaffections did we allow to them the same Favour shall I say or Common Equity which is allowed to all other things of Humane Composure we should not only be freed from the loud clamours of Antichristianism and Popery but we might assure our selves that Popery can never enter into our Church whilst the Established Doctrine and Liturgy Government and Order are preserved For 1. Doth the Church of England impose any other Doctrines as necessary to Salvation besides That Faith which was once delivered to the Saints Is our Creed swelled of late by the Addition of any of the new Articles of the Roman Church (I) See Article the 6th Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation 9th Of Original Sin 11th Of the Justification of Man 14th Of works of Supererogation 15th Of Christ alone without Sin 19th and 20th Of the Church 21st Of the Authority of