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
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
the Observation of that Canon (P) Concil Constant Sess 39. p. 577. tom 29. Et Conciliis Generalibus provisione erga futura schismata quem terminum lice at summo Pontifici de fratrum suorum S. R. Ecclesiae Cardinalium Consilio ob emergentes forté casus abbreviare sed nullatenús prorogetur but how easily the Court of Rome hath eluded the force of their Decree all the World knows 2. Suppose a General Council should be called yet according to present Constitution of the Roman Church it cannot act in opposition to the Court of Rome For not to insist on the great Numbers of Monks and Friars of Canonists and such like Creatures and Vassals of the Papacy with which their Councils are filled all the Bishops who have Decisive Votes in Councils are under an Oath of as absolute Allegiance to the Pope as any Subject in Christendom is to his Natural Prince For proof hereof I appeal both to the Roman Pontifical where the Oath is to be seen (Q) Pontif. Rom. p. 59 60. and to F. Walsh himself to whom the Catholicks of the Church of Rome refer us (R) F. walsh in the Dedication of his History p. 19. All the Bishops bind themselves at their Consecration Liege-men to his Holiness by the strictest Oath that could be sworn or penn'd especially being the Pope himself is the only Interpreter thereof See also the History part 1. p. 513. In this Oath among other things they swear to defend the Roman Papacy and the Regalities of St. Peter to observe with all their might the Rules of the Holy Fathers the Apostolical Decrees and Commands by which are undoubtedly meant the Popes Canons and Commands They are bound by this Oath to observe at least all the Canons that are already set forth and enjoyned and are not many of those Canons destructive of the Rights of Princes Is there the least notice taken in this Oath of the Obedience due to them And though the Papal Usurpations have been for some Ages lamented and complained of by the better part of the Christian World yet the Church of Rome hath not used any effectual means to prevent them as she was bound both in Prudence and Conscience to do if she had no mind to let the Pope keep up their Pretensions to them Besides when it was desired that the Pope would dispence with this Oath at the Council of Trent and leave the Bishops to the freedom of their Consciences the Motion was rejected as not only F. Paul but Cardinal Pallavizine himself acknowledges (S) Pallavi Hist. Cone Trid. Tom. 2. p. 366.367 Ed. 1670. 3. If any Decrees of General Councils should chance to prove prejudicial to the Papacy they shall signifie no more than his Holiness please For if the Pope think fit to dispense with them or to interpret them according to his own mind who can help it Was not the Order of the Jesuites set up against a Decree of one of their General Councils (T) Bullar Cherub tom 1 p. 654. Paul the third in his Bull of approbation of that Order hath this expression Non obstantibus Generalis Concilii Faelicis recordationis Gregorii Papae 10. acquibusvis aliis Constitutionibus Ordinationibus Apostolicis caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque The Council to which he refers is that of Lateran under Innocent the third c. 13. De Novis Religionibus prohibitis where 't is expresly said firmiter prohibemus ne quis de caetero novam Religionem inveniat c. Are not all men by the Laws of the Church bound to resort to the Pope for the Sense of their Decrees (V) Decret par 1. dist 17. c. 4. Quoties aliqua de Universali Synodo aliquibus dubitatio nascitur ad recipiendam de eo quod non intelligant rationem aut sponte ii qui salutem animae suae desiderant ad Apostolicam sidem pro recipienda ratione conveniant aut si forté it a obstinati contumaces exteterint c. 4. To put this matter out of all doubt I add That whatever pretences there might be for this Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome before the Council of Trent yet they are utterly destroyed by that Great Oracle of the present Roman Church For the Fathers of that Council tamely gave up the Cause betrayed their own and their Churches Liberties abetted the Usurpations of the Court of Rome took away the Legality of Appeals from that Court to a General Council and the Superiority of their own Power to that of the Papacy they enjoyned all the Beneficed Clergy to take an Oath of Obedience to the Pope made him the Judge and Interpreter of all their Decrees provided that all Writers should either speak for the Court of Rome or be silent What was the Issue of this goodly Convention but the confirming the Pope in his Usurped Power the enslaving the Consciences of the Clergy and leaving the whole Christian World of that Communion under an impossibility of ever having a Free General Council (X) History of the Church of Trent by F. Paul l. 8. an 1563. Conc. Trid. Sess 25. Decret de Ref. c. 2. c. 5. c. 21. de libt prohibit reg 10. c. And Card. Pallavizine Hist. Conc. Trid. tom 2. p. 367. And now let al Wise and Impartial men judge whether the Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome be not utterly insignificant as to those purposes for which it is commonly produced Object Hereunto some Persons stick not to say That Dispensations and I know not what Indulgences and Pardons whereby to legitimate the Crimes of Lying and Forswearing when the Interest of our Church requires it are a main part of our Religion and by Consequence the Denial of our Principles is no sufficient Justification of our Innocence I have not leisure to discourse of their Dispensations Indulgences and Pardons But that Dispensations have been granted from Rome to legitimate these Horrid Crimes we are assured by Persons of unquestionable Credit Whether the Generality of the English Papists in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign had any Dispensations for the Dissembling their Religion and coming to our Churches I know not but not long after The very Dispensations were intercepted in Scotland and shewed to the King by which they were allowed to Promise Swear Subscribe and do what else should be required of them so as in Mind they continued firm and did use their Diligence to advance in secret the Roman Faith (Y) Spotswoods History of the Church of Scotland ad an 1580. p. 308. And sure it was not without Reason on the Irish Remonstrants part That they left out that Clause in their Formulary which was contained in the Oath of Allegiance viz. That the Pope cannot dispense with this Oath We know no less Person than Laynez the General of the Jesuites declared in the Council of Trent That to say the Pope cannot by Dispensations disoblige
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
upon the first intimation of displeasure from the Internuntio De Vecchiis and their General Superiors beyond the Seas (E) History of the Irish Remonstrance p. 577 578. In England many Roman Catholiques were actually in Arms against King Charles the First His Majesty himself that had most reason to know informs us That great numbers of that Religion were entertain'd in the Army of the Rebels that others were seduced to whom he had formerly denied employment that twenty or thirty at a time of one Troop or Company had been taken Prisoners (F) See His Majesties Declaration to all his loving Subjects in his Kingdom of Scotland But were not many of the Roman Catholiques in the Kings Army They were indeed but not so many as his Enemies would make the World believe His Majesty tells us in His Declaration That sometimes in a Month together there had not been one Papist near his Court I am sure he was not much beholden to them for their Company at any time His Majesty knew it was the Policy of his Enemies to hunt them into his Camp that they might bring an Odium upon the Royal Cause and confirm the People in that groundless Jealousie of the Kings adherence to Popery which made him by His Proclamation to inhibit all men of that Religion to repair to Him Besides we are told by one of the Roman Church That 't is a Maxim of the Jesuits who have long bore the greatest sway in England in the Quarrels of Princes and great Men to have some of their Fathers on one part and some for the contrary that they may work for their own Interests on both sides (G) The Author of the Jesuits Reasons unreasonable Printed 1662. And whatever boasts they now make of their Loyalty to the late King we have not yet forgotten how they pleaded to the late Usurpers That for the Preservation of their Lives they were forced to flee into the Kings Garrisons without ever acting against the State (H) The Christian Moderator printed 1652. p. 60. That a great part of them were never in actual Arms against the Parliament but only fled to the Enemies Garrisons for Shelter c. (I) Christian Moderator p. 18 But I have so much charity as to believe that some Roman Catholiques offer'd their Lives and Fortunes to the King upon more generous Motives that they served him faithfully and suffer'd for him because as a great Man of that Religion said of himself They valued the Favour and Esteem of their Country above all Earthly things or were true English men as to this World (K) The Earl of Bristol in his Speech made July 1. 1673. We have known some tempers that have conquer'd the malignity of Poyson and some men have a greater love for their King and Country than for their Priests and Confessors some have too much honesty and some too little zeal for Religion to be intrusted with the State-Mysteries of Jesuits and Bigotted Papists A reverend and learned Person of our Church hath divers times told the World in print (L) Dr. Du. Moulin Aus to Philanax Anglicus p. 56. Ed. 1679. This certain Intelligence shall be justified whensoever Authority will require it that the year before the Kings death a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England first to Paris then to Rome with this Question in writing That seeing the state of England was in a likely posture to change Government whether it was lawful for the Catholiques to work that change for the advancing and securing the Catholique Cause in England by making away the King whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresie and p. 61. As for my being defied by the Papists I have defied them now seventeen years to call me in question before our Judges and so I do still That there was a Consult in England of the whole Faction of Jesuites about bringing his Sacred Majesty to the Block But what number of the Laity were privy to that execrable Design we are not able to learn But if ever the English Papists had any reason to boast of their Obedience to the Government it was under the late Usurped Powers For they basely flatter'd the most Infamous Rump (M) See the Petition of the Roman Catholiques to the Supream Authority of this Nation the Parliament of the Common wealth of England Christian Moderation p 59 60. p. 51. Divers Papists had taken the Oath of Abjuration and Engagement c. Part 2. p. 41. The Roman Catholiques have generally taken and punctually kept the Engagement c. Dr. Baily in the Life of B. Fisher as I find him quoted by Mr. Fowlis is very zealous in asserting the Loyalty of the Papists and yet at the same time bravely tells us what good Subjects they were to O. Cromwel Whereas saith he all other Sorts and Sects excepting those who are for all Sorts and Sects appear against the present Government like Aries Scorpio c. the Roman Catholiques like Pisces the Emblem of the Fisherman are contented to remain quiet under Foot They publiquely own'd them for the Supream Authority of the Nation and pleaded the Merit of their Fidelity to them And if generally to take and punctually to keep the Engagement if to flatter the great Tyrant if to offer that for a Toleration they would renounce the Interest of the Stuarts be Arguments of firmness of Loyalty to the Crown then I will grant That the Roman Catholiques are the Kings Most Loyal and Dutiful Subjects But I will conclude this Head with this Observation That Mr. White in the height of Olivers Tyranny set out a Book under the Title of The Grounds of Obedience and Government This moderate Roman Catholique as he is esteemed labours not only to disengage the People of England from all Obligation to his present Majesty then in Exile but his Majesty too from laying any further claim to his Crown but blessed be God the King was restored to his Government to which his Roman Catholique Subjects according to this Gentleman ought not to endeavour his Restitution CHAP. II. The Treasons and Seditions in other Countries especially the Bloody Wars in England and the Murder of King Charles the First charged upon the Protestants The Reformed Churches abroad and the Church of England vindicated from this Imputation The King brought to the Block by a prevailing Faction against the Consent of the Nobility and People of England The Romish Faction had a great Influence on the beginning and progress of the Rebellion The Troubles in Scotland fomented by Cardinal Richlieu's Agents The Letter of the Scotch Covenanters to the French King The Design of the Papists against the King discover'd Ann. 1640. What Influence they had on the War which followed in England and upon the Kings death Two Propositions added to the foregoing Discourse 1. That the Grounds on which the War against the King was justified were first laid by
the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church This Proposition proved from Gregory 1. Zachary Gregory the 7th c. From Parsons Creswel Suarez Bellarmine Bouchier Mariana Fr. de Verone Reynolds They which have written in defence of the War or of the Kings death go upon the same Principles 2. That in the Reign of King Charles the First the Pope animated his Subjects to rebel and sent over divers Bulls to that purpose STaffords Memoires p. 12 13 To the Instances given of Popish Malice and Bloodiness (A) This resers to the printed Tryal of the late Lord Stafford P. 9. from former Examples he answers That by the same reason and to as good purpose the traiterous Seditions and Outrages in Germany France Bohemia and Holland authorized and fomented by Calvin Zuinglius Beza and other Reformers the late bloody Wars in England the almost yesterdays Remonstrances and Practises in Scotland but above all that never to be paralell'd hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed our Glorious Soveraign Charles the First in cold blood by outward form of Justice on pretence of Reformation might be imputed to the Protestant Religion for all these horrid Villanies were committed by Protestants Protestants who gloried in being more than ordinarily refined from Popish Errors and Superstitions If it be said as most justly it may the Churth of England never taught such Practises the same say and protest the Papists in behalf of their Church Let this Author bestow as hard names as he pleases upon the Contrivers and Actors in these horrid Villanies and let that Religion if so wicked a thing must be called Religion which gave encouragement to them go as it deserves for Infidelity and Irreligion I am sure there are no greater Enemies to the Christian Religion than those which endeavour to pretend to promote it by such ways as are contrary to the very Nature and Design of all true Religion Indeed our Adversaries of the Roman Communion lay as bad things to the charge of the Protestants as we can do to their Church and Religion and as often as we put them in mind of the Fifth of November they are ready to reproach us with the Thirtieth of January And that I may not make any cause or persons look either better or worse than they are I shall make a faithful representation of the Doctrines and Practises of both sides so far as they are pertinent to the present Debate viz. Whether the traiterous Seditions and Outrages in England and other Parts of Christendom may be imputed to the Protestant Religion with as much reason as the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodyness from former Examples may be to the Roman Church and Religion Some years ago was published a Seditious Libel under the Title of Philanax Anglicus wherein the Author taxes not only some Protestant Reformers but the very Reformation it self with Rebellion charges the English Reformers with Treason against Queen Mary and with a Roman boldness asserts That the Seditious Doctrines are allow'd by the generality of them that call themselves Protestants But this Book having had a solid and substantial Answer by Dr. Du Moulin I will not trouble my self or the Reader with any thing which he hath written in vindication of the Protestant Religion and the Reformed Churches and Divines abroad But I cannot but take notice of the ignorance or rather the Malice of the Author of the Controversial Letters out of whom the substance of the present imputation is taken who tells us He doth not know that the Church of England hath proceeded so far as the Roman Church hath done in the Council of Constance or condemned those Errors by any Authentick Censures And our Author is not afraid or ashamed to say that some Roman Catholiques are most remarkable peradventure of all others for firmness of Loyalty I shall endeavour therefore with as much brevity as the Subject will allow to vindicate the Honour of the Reformation of our own Church and Nation from this unjust and malicious Charge 1. The Confessions of the several Reformed Churches abroad are so full and clear in asserting the Obedience of Subjects to their Princes that I do not find our Adversaries of Rome have much to say against them (B) V. Corpus Syntagma Confessionum c. Aurei Allob. 1662 V.G. The Bohemian the Helvetian the French the Augustine the Saxon the â—…gick Confessions in the Articles concerning the Civil Powers We are told that the Protestants of France had towards the beginning of the War resolved upon a Declaration against the Parliament and Subjects of England taking Arms against the King and hâ—… published it if it had not been dasht by Cardinal Richlieu 〈◊〉 Englands Complaint by L. Gatford Printed 1648. pag 10. And 't is observable That upon the reprinting of all the Confessions of the Reformed Churches at Geneva An. 1654. it was moved That instead of the 39 Articles of the Church of England which do with the greatest plainness and sincerity assert the Duty of Subjects to Princes they would insert the Confession of the Assembly of Divines but the motion was utterly rejected by the University Senate and Church of Geneva and the 39 Articles put in as before (C) Durell vind Eccles-Angl c. 2. As to the Sayings of particular Doctors of the Reformation I cannot indeed I need not defend them they are no Pillars of our Faith nor do their Writings bear the stamp of publick Authority And since none of our Adversaries have proved that any of the Reformed Churches have by any Authentick Act approved of Seditions and treasonable Principles as I shall prove the Roman Church doth they cannot be imputed to the Protestant Religion with the same reason that we charge them upon the Roman Church Let the Papists say and Protest that their Church never taught any Seditious Practises yet I shall sooner trust my own Senses than such men as by the Principles of their Religion are under no Obligation of speaking Truth 2. No Church under Heaven did ever more expresly declare against all Seditious and Disloyal Practises than the Church of England Our Reformation was begun and carried on in a peaceable and legal manner and our Reformers proposed to themselves that excellent Rule of our Saviour They restored to God the things that were Gods and to the Kings the full exercise of their lawful Power We are Members of a Church whose just Glory it is not only to have constantly taught the Duty of Subjects to their Princes but suffered for her Loyalty to them Our Kings and the Church of England have always rejoyced and wept together and none ever forsook the Royal Cause in its Distress which had not first forsaken the Church or at least lost all their Zeal and Affection to her In Fine our late Royal Martyr declared That he died for maintaining the true Protestant Religion he acquitted not only the Church of England but all the true Sons of the Church from
Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. Praeterea principatus c. The Cognizance of Church Matters belongs not to Secular Princes they have no judgment in Ecclesiastical Matters because Civil Peace and Tranquility is the proper object of their Care If they do not their duty they are to be brought under the Lash and be compelled to it by Excommunication The Ecclesiastical Power is to the Secular as the Spirit is to the flesh which rules moderates and sometimes restrains it but the Flesh hath no command over the Spirit neither can it direct or judge or restrain it in any thing (A) L. 1. c. 7. tit Quod non sit Ecclesiasticum regimen penes Principes Seculares Vid.l. 5. c. 7. de Clericis l. 1. c. 29. Sect. Alterum Argumentum c. Et Bellar. contra Barclaium 6. Though the Cardinal hath not in express Terms asserted the lawfulness of putting Kings to death and I know very few of any Perswasion that have expresly asserted it yet he hath furnished the Regicides both with Precedents for their practice and Warrants for their Doctrine For he teaches That the Church may exercise a Coercive power over Kings and Princes by any ways and methods that are necessary for the good of the Church That Kings may be Deposed and there is no great difference as I shall shew afterwards between Deposing and putting them to death He proves his Doctrine from the practice of Jehoiada the High Priest that commanded the Souldiers to put Athaliah to death not only for Tyranny but for adhering to a false Religion (B) Id. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 7 8. In his Book against King James he commends the Murther committed by J. Clement on Henry the Third of France calls the Regicide a Sacred Person and admires the miraculous Providence of God in bringing him to death (C) Bell. in Torto p. 71. Ed. 1608. Deus ultus est Christum suum dum per alium sacratum virum alioqui militiae imperitum inermem Regem tundem non sine manifesto divinae Providentiae miraculo intersecit But what if Heaven will not work a Miracle for them The Cardinal is so well skilled in the Art of King-killing that he can dispatch a Prince with less hazard to his own Party He would not have Ecclesiastical Men put them to death with their own hands but the Pope must first admonish them then deprive them of the Sacraments next absolve their Subjects from the Oaths of Allegiance and if need be deprive them of their Royal authority The Execution belongs to others (D) Id. contra Barclaium Thus I have given a short account of the Antimonarchical Principles of this great Man that was first Reader of Controversial Divinity at Rome afterwards sent by Pope Sextus the Fifth into France with his Legate Cardinal Cajetan where he stir'd up the People to a Rebellion against their Sovereign (E) Qui Lutetiae egit per illos annos publici furoris totius conjurationis Ligam vocant approbator fautor fax perpetua Is Casauboni ad Fr. Duc. Epistola p. 21. and was advanced to the dignity of a Cardinal by Clement the Eighth (F) Alegambe Bibl. Script Soc. Jes p. 410 411. I might now shew that these are the common Principles of the Society but this would afford matter enough for an entire Discourse (G) See Parsons under the counterfeit name of Doleman in his Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England part 1. Creswel under the name of Philopater and Reynolds under the name of Rossary De justa Christianae reipublicae in Reges impios haereticos autoritate He was no Jesuite but of the same Principles Suarez Def. fid Cath. c. A Book written against King James Bouchier de justa Hen. 3. abd è Francorum Regno A small Book but almost every page is full of Treasonable Principles Mariana de Rege Regis Institutione or as some call it Institutio principum occidendorum Fr. de Verone Apol. pro J. Chasiello A Book that if it be possible outstrip Mariana's in Villany To which I could add Endem Johannes Molina Lessius Em. Sa Greg. de Valentia Tolet. c. Whether Junius Brutus was a Protestant or no is not certain I find King James suspects the Book was set out by a Papist The Positions of Knox and Buchanan are summed up by B. Bancroft in his dangerous Positions l. 1. c. 4. The later Patrons of these Principles are well known These are the Men that furnish'd the leading Faction amongst us with Principles and precedents with Arguments and Texts of Scripture as will appear to any one that compares the Books cited in the Margent with the Speeches Declarations and Pamphlets of the late Times Out of them they either did or might have derived the grounds of the War against the King of erecting an High Court of Justice and of bringing him to the Block Out of them I could easily deduce all the Materials of that Bloody Ordinance to erect an High Court of Justice for the Trial of the King the Impeachment against his Majesty in the name of the Commons of England the Speech of Bradshaw President of that Mock-court of Justice and Milton's Vindication of the Proceedings against the King But because Bellarmine did not in express terms justifie the putting of Kings to Death I will add That Mariana doth not only defend the lawfulness of a formal and aggressive War against a Soveraign Prince but also sets down a Method of destroying him either with or without the Formality of Justice His Book was written An. 1599. which was divers years after he had read Tho. Aquinas in the University of Paris (H) Alegambe p. 258. It was approved by Aquaviva the General of the Jesuites by Hoyeda Visitor of the Society in the Province of Toledo by divers other grave and Learned Jesuites It was commended or justified by Ribadeneira Scribanius Gretser and Becanus of the same Society It was ordered to be burnt by the Parliament of Paris but F. Cotton could never be induced to write against it The Authors of the Apology publish'd at Paris in the name of the Society soon after the Murder of Henry the Fourth durst not plainly and honestly condemn it and whatever some credulous People are now made to believe neither the Pope nor Superiours of the Jesuites ever passed any publick Censure upon this most pestilent and Treasonable Book But to return 1. Suppose there be a competent Strength and interest then the readiest and safest way (F) Mariana Edit Moguntie 1605. p. 58 59 c. is for the People to meet in a publick Assembly to deliberate by publick Consent what is to be done and then to keep inviolably that which is agreed upon by Common consent The Prince must first be admonished and exhorted to amend but if he refuse the Remedy and there be no hopes of his amendment the Sentence being
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
not seem to conceal any thing which our Adversaries have to say for themselves I do acknowledge that three plausible exceptions are made to these testimonies 1. They say the forecited Canon is not an Act of the Fourth Council of Lateran but of the Pope only But if we may value the Judgment of the Council of Trent or of a Synod of our own Nation above the opinion of some private men we must conclude that this Decree was the Act of the greatest Council which the Church of Rome hath to boast of For the Council of Trent divers times refers to the Capitula in question as the Acts of the General Council of Lateran (P) Conc. Trid. de Ref. Sess 5. c. 2. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 10. Sess 13. c. 9. to Conc. Lat. c. 21. Sess 24. c. 1. to Conc. Lat. c. 51. Sess 25. c. 8. to Conc. Lat. c. 12. Concil Oxon. an 1222. Conciliorum tom 28. c. 24. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 20. c 28. to Conc. Lat. c. 47. c. 29. to Conc Lat. c. 66. c. 33. to Conc. Lat. c. 15 16 17. And so doth the Council of Oxford held a few years after that of Lateran 2. Others allowing this to be the Act of the Council pretend it is to be understood of inferiour Feudatory Lords not of Soveraign Princes I would not affix a more odious sense oâ—… the Fathers of that Great Council that their Decrees do import but when I consider by what Spirit they were acted what Antimonarchical Doctrines they taught I cannot easily be induced to a belief of their honesty in this matter For they strictly forbid all Clergymen not possessing Temporalties or Secular honours to swear Allegiance to Secular Powers (Q) Conc Lat. 4. c. 43. p. 125. tom 28. They denounce the terrible sentence of Excommunication against such Magistrates as demand any Tribute of Churchmen (R) Conc. Lat. 4. c. 46. p. 197 198. They make another Decree wherein the Approbation of the Council is expressed equally destructive of the Rights of Princes which must either extend to Soveraign Princes or else it was made to no purpose I mean the Decree in which all the Princes of Christendom are required to be at peace with one another for four years under pain of Excommunication and loss of their Dominions (S) p. 119 c. In the beginning of the Decree are these words Sacro approbante Concilio definimus c. Et qui acquiescere forte contempserint per Excommunicationem in personas interdictum in terras arctissimé compellantur c. Quod si forte censuram Ecclesiaticam vilipenderint poterunt noniimmeritó formidare ne per authoritatem Ecclesiae circa eos tanquam perturbatores negotii Crucifixi saecularis potentia inducatur But to come to the matter in question If the temporal Governour being required and admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Country from Haeresie and we know the meaning of that Word let this be signified to the Pope that from henceforth he may declare his Subjects free from their Allegiance and give away his Land to be possessed by Catholiques c. Saving the Right of the Principal Governour if he gives no hindrance and impediment in the matter but nevertheless let the same Law be observed towards them who have no Principal Governours over them Thus the Council of Lateran If this Canon be not to be understood of Soveraign Princes as well as subordinate Lords and Deputy Governours what doth the Council mean by that expression ' Nevertheless let the same Law be observed ' towards them who have no Principal Governours over them Do not those words plainly import thus much Let their Dominions be given away in the same manner What doth the Council mean by that other Expression Saving the Right of the Principal Governour if he gives no Impediment If he do it seems his Countries are to be given away too Did not the Popes challenge and execute a power of Deposing Soveraign Princes as well as Subordinate Lords before the Sitting of this Council And would any man of common Sense have given at least so fair a pretence for the continuance of this Power if they were not well enough pleased with it 3. It is pretended that the deposing of Frederick the Emperor in the Council of Lyons was no Act of the Council Against which I have these things to say 1. This Assertion is wholly precarious for I do not find so much as one plain and positive Testimony in favour of it 2. The Decree for the recovery of the Holy Land wherein Princes are enjoyned to keep the Peace under pain of Excommunication and Interdicting their Kingdoms is expresly said to be made with the approbation of the Council (T) Concil Lugdun tom 28. p. 445. Sacro approbante Concilio 3. The Emperor was deposed after mature deliberation had with the Council (V) Nos super premissis cum fratribus nostris Sancto concilio deliberatione praehabita diligenti c. In the History of the Council The same words are in the Popes Constitution Bullar Cherub tom 1. p. 64. In M. Paris Ed. Lond. 1640 p. 772. An. 1245. Platina p. 220. Omnium consensu Imperio Regnis privatur And Bellar. Tract de pot sum Pont. adversus Barclaium in opuse p. 845. haec sententia est summi Pontificis toto approbante Concilio hoc est tota consintiente laudante Christianorum Praesulum Universitate 4. If the Council had favoured the Emperor there can be no reason why he should appeal from that to another General Council and not rather from the Pope to that Council (X) History of the Conncil p. 458 459. in the 28th Tome of the Council 3. But it is time to proceed to the last Proof which is from the Publique Offices and Breviaries of the Roman Church St. Peters Universal Monarchy which is the Foundation of the Popes Power over Princes is expresly taught in the Roman Breviaries (Y) V. Briviarium Rom. ex Decreto S.S. Concil Trid. ristitutum Pii 5. jussu editum Et Clementis 8. auctaritate recognitisni Ed. Ant. 1614. In Fisto Petri Pauli Jun. 29. p. 710. Tu es Pastor Oviun Princeps Apostoloruni tibi tradidit Deus omnia regna mundi ideo tibi tradite sunt claves regni celorum In Festo Petri ad Vincula Aug. 1. p. 741 Tibi tradidit Deus omnia regna mundi Sihneron Ed. Col. Agrip. 1602 tom 4. p. 410. Expounds these words of the Breviary in the same sense viz. Of the Popes Temporal Power And how can any man be a true Son of that Church which doth not joyn in her publick Offices How can he say Amen to those Prayers which he believes do contain any false Doctrine in them And now let it be considered That this Doctrine hath been taught by all the approved Writers of the Roman Church and by the Authentique Canon-Law by the
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
Soveraign Princes in that Decree or not is not material for since the Rights of Inferiour Princes are properly their Soveraigns to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance without asking the Soveraigns leave is to deprive the Soveraigns of their due That this Power hath been challenged and executed by divers Popes upon Soveraign Princes as well as Subordinate Lords and particularly upon Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth is notorious to all the World and they did no more than the Laws of the Roman Church allow (E) Decret par 2. caus 15. qu. 6. c. 4. Nos Sanctorum c. Decret Greg. l. 5. tit 7. c. 16. I know not why the Roman Catholiques should call this an Usurpation of the Popes when they are entrusted by the General Councils with the Interpretation and Execution of all their Decrees But what need I insist on the proof of this Proposition When his Lordship in the printed Tryal declared He could not say the Church of Rome does not hold it only he never beard it did And a learned Author of that Church in Answer to this Charge saith ' As to the Popes Power of absolving Subjects I beg leave is wave such curious Controversies (F) See Dr. Stilling fleets Answer to several late Treatises 1674 in the Preface where his words are cited Thus I have endeavoured to give a clear and satisfactory Account of these four great Questions and proved my Assertions by as good Law as any is in the Roman Church at this day I know nothing that can invalidate the Testimonies which I have produced unless they can shew either that I have misquoted any of the Laws or mistaken the Sense of them that they have been condemned or abrogated by some publique Act of the Church binding to all persons of that Communion or else that the same Principles which oblige the Roman Catholiques to receive the other Articles of Faith wherein we differ from them do not also oblige them to receive these Canons and Decrees But if none of these things can be proved then let all men judge Whether the Treasons and Seditions in other Countries especially the late bloody Wars in England and Hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed may by the same reason be imputed to the Protestant Religion as Queen Mary's Cruelties the Powder Plot the Irish Barbarism the French Massacre and many other Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness from former Examples may be charged on the Roman Church and Religion 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 LEst this might seem a meerly extorted Profession of a despairing Man p. 44. My Lord endeavoured to prove by several convincing Testimonies he had ever been Instructed and Educated in the same Sentiments as the established Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church 1. His first Testimony was taken from places of Holy Scripture particularly that of St. Math. 22.21 Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars c from the plain and clear sense of which and other Texts of Holy Writ nothing he said in this World was able to remove him That we are bound to render to all Men their dues and to Caesar the things that are Caesars is not disputed among any sort of Men that I know But how shall a Roman Catholick understand which are the Rights of Caesar or by a just and equal distribution give to God what is Gods and to the King what is the Kings The Holy Scriptures indeed have told us with all plainess and sincerity what we are to give to Caesar but the lusts and interests of Men have perverted the clearest Texts and made them serve their own Pride and Covetousness I believe his Majesty will hardly stand to the determination of the Rhemish Divines by whom his Lordship saith he was instructed in the Principles of Faith and Loyalty For our Blessed Savior commands us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and his own practice was a Comment on his Precept But the Rhemists in their Annotations outhat Text are afraid to speak plain as Men that mean honestly should do They are more afraid of giving too much than too little to Caesar (A) See the Rhemists Annotations on St. Math. 22.21 In their Annotations on St. Math. 17. they roundly tell us that Caesar hath no right to any payments from the Clergy (B) Rhem. Annot 8. St. Mat. 17.26 Though Christ tò avoid scandal paid Tribute yet indeed he sheweth that himself ought to be free from such payments as also his Apostles and in them the whole Clergy c. Which Exemption and Priviledge being grounded upon the very Law of Nature it self c. And in Hebrews 5.1 in all Matters touching God his Service and Rellgion the Priest hath only Charge and Authority as the Priest Temporal is the Peoples Governour Guide and Sovereign in the things touching their worldly Affairs And one of the Holy General Councils of the Roman Church tells us and pretends to prove it from Scripture too that Secular Princes ought not to require any Tribute from the Clergy (C) Conc. Lat. 3. c. 19. p. 455 456. Ne Laici imponant Ecclesiis onera And in the Margent we have Gen. 47. quoted 2. His second Testimony was taken from the Authority of the General Council of Constance to which all Roman Catholicks are bound to submit the 15th Canon and definition of which Council is Quilibet Tyrannus potest debet licitè meritorie occidi c. Every Tyrant lawfully and meritoriously may and ought to be killed by any Vassal or Subject whatsoever even by hidden Treacheries and subtle Flatteries or Adulations notwithstanding any Oath given or confederation made with him without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge whatsoever Which Clause is added in regard of the right of Supream Temporal Monarchs over Inferiour Princes subordinate to them This Doctrine the Synod declares to be erronious in Faith and Manners and the same as Heretical condemns c. The Council condemned this Proposition And would not an Assembly of the old Heathen Philosophers have done as much Had the same Proposition been brought before them and upon the same occasion I am confident as far as we can judge by their Writings they would have made a better provision for the security of Princes than the Fathers at Constance did But since it is acknowledged That all Roman Catholicks are bound to submit to this Council of Constance I will fairly represent some of the Doctrines of it That damnable Doctrine of breaking Faith with Hereticks was notoriously Patronized and put in practice by this Council For the Emperour had granted a safe Conduct to J. Husse
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
conscientious persons is only this That we may hope they do not yet know their Churches Sense in this matter at present they do not know the repugnancy between their Duty to Princes and the Principles of their Communion And if so how we shall discover whether these men think themselves more obliged to their Duty to their King and Country than to the Judgment and Interest of their Church I am yet to learn But I cannot without too great a digression enter upon this Debate which would afford matter enough for an entire Discourse And yet I cannot pass by a very plausible pretence which some Roman Catholiques of late have very much insisted upon to vindicate themselves and their Religion A Roman Catholique Peer maintain'd a Distinction some years ago in the House of Lords between the Catholiques of the Church and those of the Court of Rome part of whose Speech I will here transcribe My Lords Give me leave to remind you what kind of Catholick I am that is a Catholick of the Church of Rome not a Catholick of the Court of Rome A distinction if I am not much deceived worthy of your memory and reflexion whenever any severe Proceedings against those whom you call Papists shall come in question since Catholicks of the Court of Rome do only deserve that Name (H) E. of Bristols Speech in the House of Peers March 15. 1673. The Publisher of his Lordships Speech refers us to the Dedication of Peter Walsh his History for a Proof of the Reasonableness of this Distinction And if this Distinction be just and reasonable as they say it is then it must be acknowledged that a man may be a true Son of the Roman Church that he may understand and act according to the Principles of that Religion and yet abhor the Abominations of the Court of Rome of its Adherents and Flatterers I am therefore obliged to examine the Grounds of this Distinction because it is inconsistent with the Principles laid down in the beginning of this Treatise For though I do not involve every person of the Romish Religion in the guilt of those horrid Doctrines and practises yet I charge them on the Roman Church and all such as both understand and act in conformity to her Principles I have perused and considered the Dedication of F. Walsh his Book and yet I cannot see that we are beholden to that Church for the Goodness and Loyalty of any Roman Catholicks but either to their Lukewarmness in Religion or to their Ignorance of the natural Tendency of its Principles either to the prevalence of common Reason and Christianity or of their natural Dispositions above their Religion Nor can I understand what they mean by the Church of Rome distinct from the Court where this Church is to be found What Judge of Controversies she hath established what Judicatory she hath erected to which an Appeal may be made from the Court of Rome or how they can maintain an external Communion with the Church if they lye under the Censures of the Court of Rome I speak of such times when no General Council is to be had and according to the present constitution of the Roman Church we are not like to see another so long as the World endures But waving these difficulties I shall endeavour to make the whole Matter obvious to a common Understanding Let us therefore put that very Case which we find in the Dedication of F. Walsh his History It is too evident from the Dedication and History of his Remonstrance that they which offer his Majesty the least Pledge of their Duty and Allegiance are in danger of being Censured and as much as lies in the Court of Rome cast out of the Communion of the Church The Irish Remonstrance was condemned in formal Terms as Vnlawful Detestable Sacrilegious yea in effect as Schismatical and Heretical by the publick Letters of the Internuntioâ—'s and of the Roman Cardinals de propaganda Fide They have not ceased for many years last past to persecute and defame the few remaining constant Ecclesiastical Subscribers they have kept them in continual châ—ce with Monitories Citations Depositions Excommunications and even publick affixion or Posting of them Of all which there was no Cause pretended but a manifest Design to force them to renounce their Allegiance (I) F. walsâ—… Ep. Ded. p 2 3. And though some Romanists in Ireland continued Loyal to the King during the late Rebellion in these Kingdoms yet they were all Excommunicated for their Honesty by the Popes Nuntio and his Irish Clergy (L) The Popes Bull against the Loyal Irish Catholâ—… was dated Rome Augâ—… 1665. by which they are required to do publique Penance their Obedience to the King Walsh Ep. Ded. p. 31.32 And that Sentence being judicially ratified at Rome we were very lately assur'd that many of them then continued under it (M) Considerations touching the true way to suppress P c. Ed. 1677. p. 44. Besides The Author of the Controversial Letters in his 8th Letter acknowledges That the Court of Rome and its Dependents are so diligent in suppressing all Books written against the Popes Power that a private man cannot write without hazard of a Censure on his Book and possibly on his Person Were not Barclay and Widdrington formerly condemned at Rome for opposing the Popes Power of Deposing Princes And have not those few English and Irish Writers which have since had the boldness to speak the Truth been branded and censured for that unpardonable Crime And now I shall bring this whole Matter to a short Issue 1. The Church Diffusive is no Body Politick nor can do any Act as such It can neither judge of Persons or Causes but as assembled in a Council and what if a General Council after all the Complaints of the injured Parties be hindred or deferred for many years and for many more sometimes assembled sometimes dissolved as the Council of Trent was During the Intervals of Councils there is no Authority that doth or can act in contradiction to the Court of Rome for neither the Church Representative nor the Authentick Laws of the Church have entrusted any Judicatory Independent on that Court with the Exposition or Execution of the Canons and Decrees of the Church No Council can be called but by the Popes Authority (N) Decret par 1. dist 17. c. 5. The Title is Non est Concilium sed Conventiculum quod sine sedis Apostolicae auctoritate celebratur And in the Intervals of Councils all matters of Importance are to be referred to the Papacy by the Laws of the Roman Church (O) Decret par 1. Dist. 17. c. 5. Majores vero difficiliores quaestiones ut sancta Synodus statuit beata consuetudo exigit ad sedem Apostolicam semper referantur I know the Council of Constance decreed That General Councils should for ever be held once in ten years and made as they thought a sufficient Provision for
him who is Obliged before God is to teach men to prefer their own Conscience before the Authority of the Church (Z) History of the Council of Trent l. 8. And Laynez was so far from being call'd to an Account for that bold Assertion that he was Honoured and highly complimented by the Fathers of that Council In short The Bishops of Rome have presumed to alter the Nature of Things to absolve in some Cases from the Obedience of God himself to grant Pardons for the greatest Sins against the Divine Majesty and to License Incestuous Marriages against the Law of God and Nature But the High-Priest did not use to let out Goliahs Sword but upon Extraordi-Occasions It may be these Dispensations are not very commonly and frequently sent over hither for many Papists do not need them some are not fit to be trusted with them and 't is not always for the Interest of the Roman Church and Religion to grant them 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 P. 52 53. MY Lords Declaration before the House of Lords after his Condemnation That there had been at divers times endeavours used and Overtures made to obtain an Abrogation or at least a Mitigation of Severities against Catholicks but this to be procured no otherwise than by Legal and Parliamentary means That he himself went to Breda whilst the King was there and propounded 100000 l. in behalf of the Catholicks to take off the Penal Laws That after the King came in there was a Bill brought into the House in Favour of Catholicks but it was opposed by my Lord Chancellor Hide With some later Proposals and Expedients c. These he avouched were the chief and only Designs he ever had or knew of amongst Catholicks for promoting their Religion In his former Address to the Court p. 41. he declared That it was ever indeed his Opinion that an Act of Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants and a Toleration for Roman Catholicks yet so as not to admit them into any Offices of Profit or Dignity would much conduce to the Happiness of the Nation but this not otherwise to be procured or desired than by a free Consent of the King Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That he never read or knew of Coleman 's Letters or Consultations for Tolerations till he saw the Letters themselves in the Printed Tryal In the Printed Tryal p. 201. My Lords I believe that after that all of all Religions had Meetings amongst themselves to endeavour to get that Toleration which they proposed humbly to your Lordships there I will never deny that my Opinion was and is That this Kingdom can never be happy till an Act of Parliament pass to this effect It was my Opinion then and I did endeavour it all I could that the Dissenting Protestants might have a Comprehension and the other those of the Church of Rome a Toleration But how comes a zealous Papist to have so much kindness for Dissenting Protestants Were I a Dissenting Protestant I should very hardly be persuaded That those men which ever since the Reformation have endeavour'd to undermine the Foundations of our Religion are now become Friends to the Protestant Interest I should call to mind Coleman's Declaration after Sentence given against him That possibly he might be of an Opinion that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted I should be afraid of helping to break in pieces the established Religion and Government lest when they have gotten the Power into their Hands they should betake themselves to their old Arguments of Fire and Fagot But to return I shall take occasion from his Lordships Declaration to give a brief Account of the Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants and the Toleration for the Roman Catholicks so far as they of the Romish Party are concerned in them 1. I begin with the Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants If by Comprehension be meant such a Settlement as tendeth to a firm and lasting Union of Protestants and is consistent with the Security of the Reformed Religion the Honour of our first Reformers and the establishment of the Church of England in short such a Settlement as may shew that the present Terms of Communion with our Church are not unlawful I say if this be the meaning of Comprehension let it be considered 1. That Private Persons of how great Eminency soever can only make Proposals to their Lawful Superiors for the Laws are still in force and cannot be altered by any Authority less than that by which they were Enacted 2. That divers very Eminent Persons of the Church of England have made the most fair and equal Proposals for the Satisfaction of all wise and peaceable men which are consistent with the Honour and Safety of the best established Church in Christendom 3. Since the Alteration of the Established Laws concerning the Preservation of our Church and Religion is one of the weightiest Considerations in the World since it is impossible to gain all Parties without receding too far from the first Principles of the Reformation there is something to be done by the Dissenters before they can reasonably hope for an Alteration of the present Constitutions I mean it should be known what kind of Alteration is desired and for whom what sort of men will be gained by it and what number of them When they which make such loud outcries and passionate Expostulations for Vnion have gone thus far then may our Governours understand what Measures are fittest to be taken i. e. Whether it be expedient to make any Alterations and if it be how far to Alter for the sake of Peace and a firm Vnion of Protestants Private Persons may judge of the Lawfulness of things imposed by Authority but it is an Argument of Pride and Immodesty for private persons to think themselves Competent Judges of the necessity or expediency of Laws But this is not the Design of the leading Faction of the Roman Church I grant they may be for promoting a seeming Union among
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
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