Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	france_n	king_n	mary_n	3,628	5	8.8826	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26001	Some generall observations upon Dr. Stillingfleet's book, and way of wrighting with a vindication of St. Ignatius Loyola, and his followers the Iesuits, from the foul aspersions he has lately cast upon them, in his discourse concerning the idolatry, &c. : in four letters, written to A.B.	Ashby, Richard, 1614-1680.	1672 (1672)	Wing A3942; ESTC R7040	65,474	73

whole Herd of Iesuits as the miscalls them had taught it and no body in the world but they Beleive it Sir there is no man that has a grain of judgement but will acknowledge that the Jesuits of all others can be the least charged with it not only because it was the common doctrine before they came into the world but also because whatsoever others have done they have taught it nor writ one word of that subject these fifty or sixty years For no sooner was the doctrine cryed down and condemn'd in France but their General Cladius Aquaviva to take away all occasion of complaint forbad it to be taught any more and his Successor Mutius Vitelleschi A. D. 1626. not content with a bare prohibition commanded all his Subjects in vertue of obedience that is under pain of damnation never to treat more of the Popes power of deposing Princes either in word or in writing And this precept was afterwards confirmed by the whole Order in the 8 general Congregation and runs thus We ordain in vertue of holy obedience that no body hereafter treat the question of the Popes power over Princes to depose them c. in any publick or private writings disputations or School lessons that all occasion of offence and complaint may be quite cut off This decree has been ever since inviolably observed by the Jesuits let the Dr. either name the persons that has transgressed or let him forbear hereafter to make the Jesuits odious for a doctrine which they have so solemnly renounced He would take it ill to have all the Protestant Ministers Tenets layd at his door Henry the 4th said well in his speech to the Parliament I am certain that in averring and defending the Popes authority the Fathers of the Society differ not from other Catholick Divines 6. A third and yet more dangerous and desperate Principle which the Dr. fathers on the Jesuits is the lawfulness to kill Kings I cannot name the person that ever taught it in these termes I know Dominious Soto a Dominican Charles 5 Confessor taught it lawful to take away the lifo of a Tyrant l. 1. de jure just and Mariana followed him in a book dedicated to Philip the second King of Spain and neither of those Princes took themselves to be concern'd in the opinion or shew'd their displeasure against the book no more than the Royalists were offended at Killing no Murther But it seems Marcan's book gave great offence in France And all the Jesuits sinned in him as we all did in Adam otherwise his doctrine which they disown would not be imputed to them The French Fathers were the first that discovered it in Mariana's book and condemn'd it in their Provintial Congregation four years before the Sorbon censure was passed against it And their General Claudius Aquaviva gave order to suppress the book till that place were corrected and more than this forbad all those of the Society under pain of excommunication and other penalties as is to be seen in the 8 Congregation Tit. censurae not to write or teach in publick or private or advise that it is lawful to kill Kings or imagine their death upon pretence of Tyranny so that very probably this extravagant opinion of Mariana by the Jesuits industry would have been so smothered in its first birth as not to be revived had it not been for the covetousness or malice of the Protestant Heirs of Wechel who reprinted the Book at their own charges I owe this Observation to Father Cotton who in his Letter to the Queen Regent of France brings in a whole Jury of Jesuits who in their Writings have all rejected the opinion and practise of attempting any thing against the Life of a Prince though he should abuse His Princely Power These are all grave Writers Tolet Bellarmin Valentia Salmeron Delrio Heissius Becanus Gretser Lessius Serarius Azor Richcome All other Jesuits side with these and are ready to seal it with their Blood that the Decree of the Council of Sess 15. Constance ought to be received by all and maintained inviolably This being the constant judgement of the whole Society what prejudice can one roving Pen bring to the whole Order Iohn Wicklef is a rubricated St. in Foxe's Protestant Calendar and yet the said Council condemn'd him for teaching that every Tyrant ought to be kill'd and that it was both lawful and meritorious for any of his Vassals or Subjects to kill him and that by any fraud or deceit notwithstanding any Oath or Agreement made to the contrary and that without any Sentence of Iudgement Luther Calvin Beza Buchanan did not only teach the same Propositions but most impudently applied them to Princes then living namely to Charles the 9th King of France Queen Mother with all her Whelps as they call'd her Children Queen Mary of England c. and yet the Dr. with Reason would think himself much injured if these mad Propositions of Wicklef and others were lay'd to his Church of England for all they were Protestants and some of them cannonized for Saints by Mr. Fox with what Face then can he lay the fault of one Jesuit to the whole Order as if it were an original Sin which were to descend to all Jesuits though their wills were so far from being united with his that they have expresly renounced and condemned his rash assertion According to this method it were no hard matter to ruin the reputation of the best Families and Communities in the World by making them guilty of their misdemeanours of some one of their Body contrary to the judgement of Almighty God Ezek. 18. 20. The Soul that shall sin the same shall die the Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father 7. The Jesuites practises are conformable to the Doctrine and Practise of the Catholick Church but the Dr. supposes them guilty of most abominable crimes I say supposes for he brings nothing to prove it besides his Ipse dixit or bare assertion which as you have seen is not only fallible but has been often found tripping First he supposes them to have had a hand in the massacre at Paris and Rebellion in Ireland which is as true as that they were the Plotters and Contrivers of the late Rebellion in England where their penitents and best Freinds lost their Goods or their Lives in the defence of His Majesties Power and just Rights The Massacre at Paris was an intrigne of State or Cabinet plot as appears by all the Transactions faithfully Recorded by D. Avila and never was laid to the Jesuites charge who hate such unchristian like Proceedings They are as innocent of the Irish Rebellion for what Jesuit can the Dr. name that appeared in it certainly they had not play'd their Cards well to raise a Rebellion in Ireland and at the same time promote to their uttermost His Majesty's interest in England I confess Catholicks in that Kingdom were highly to blame but they stirr'd not before

by heart but this engin faild them for to their great shame and confusion it was found upon due examination that Ravillac knew not a word of Latin in which the book is written nor so much as Mariana's name And soon after the Queen Regent with the Princes and counsel in the Kings name issued out a Decree which cleared the Jesuits from all suspicion of having had any thing to do in that wicked Fact And because four dayes before the Parliament had condemned Cardinal Bellarmins book de potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus in the same decree they revoked and annulled that Act. 12. His last fling at the Jesuits practise is to make Father Henry Garnet guilty of the Gunpowder Treason But it is manifest that mild man detested from his very heart all such bloody practises and laboured all he could to prevent them by suing to Rome for an excommunication against all those that should use any violent proceedings upon the account of Religion as is to be seen more at large in the History of the English Province Mar. l. 7. an 27. The main thing objected against him was his concealing the plot but you must know all the knowledge he had of it was in the Sacrament of Confession and all he could do there was to exhort and conjure his penitent to terrifie the Plotters from so wicked an attempt and he was not at all wanting in this point of duty but for revealing the plot it was more than he could do for Protestants must give us leave to beleive what all Catholick Princes and States allow to be of no prejudice but rather an advantage to their safety that the Sacred Seal of Confession is inviolable nor is this only the Jesuits doctrine but the known opinion of all Catholick Divines there is not that Priest amongst us that will not rather chuse to dye than reveal a Confession and if they dye for it Protestants must not think it strange that we honour them This was Father Garnets case who was condemned for not revealing Confessions and for being a Priest and Jesuit No wonder then if St. Arnour saw his picture in a Catholick countrey But I dare say he never saw Guerets or Guignards as the Dr. insinuates for though they dyed innocently yet they dyed not for the Faith as Father Garnet did Let St. Arnour say what he will he never acknowledged himself guilty of the Treason that 's a meer calumny and it is something strange the Dr. should travail into France to know what passed in London All he confessed was that having an inckling of suspicion out of confession that Catesby was bruing mischief though he knew not what it was he used all his power to perswade him to be quiet and not to run himself upon desperate courses which were neither pleasing to God nor man and that finding him to his thinking resolved to follow his counsel he did not take himself obliged to give informations against him as not judgeing it the part of a christian much less of a Priest to accuse his brother of a crime whereof he verily beleived he had repented After his death it pleased God in a wonderful manner to confirme his innocency ibid. n. 34. 35. by imprinting his picture upon a husk of straw where some of his blood had light King Iames himself and some other Protestants as well as many Catholicks were witnesses of it and although much endeavour was used to find out a Painter that would undertake to make such another picture by it none could be found all concluding it was beyond the art of man to contrive such a rare peice in so narrow a compass The Baron of Hobocque who was then Embassador from the Crown of Spain offered six hundred Crowns for the straw and his testimony is yet to be seen witnessing that he saw the picture upon it though he could not say it was like Father Garnet because he had never seen him There is also extant a large narrative which one Iohn Wilkinson signed at his death who was the very man that took up the Straw at the Execution and was also present when Father Garnets picture was first discovered upon the straw 13. One thing more I cannot omit in this place that if Jesuits were such desperate King-haters as the Dr. paints them Kings would not be such sooles as to build them Colledges and trust them with the education of youth and with their own Consciences too as we see most Catholick Kings and Princes do to this very day the Emperour the Kings of France and Poland the Queen of England Queen and Prince Regent of Portugal Dutchess of Orleans though but a late convert Dukes of Bavary Newburg and many other Princes of Germany and else where It is their nearest concern to look well to their own preservation and safety and not to have dangerous Persons about them Had not the Queen Regent of Spain taken Jesuits to be honest men She would never have preferred Father Nithard her Confessour to the first Ecclesiastical dignity in all Spain She would never have made him her first Minister of State Her extraordinary and now lately her ordinary Embassador at Rome and procured for him a Cardinals Cap and his Holinesse's command and dispensation to receive it and to undertake the other honourable Employments which he laboured to decline according to the Obligation of his Vow Believe me Princes are so far from conceiving Jesuits to be Enemies to Government that they are generally of Alexander the Prince of Parma's mind that they are necessary to keep Subjects in obedience to their Governours and that one of their Colledges is as good as a strong Cittadel to keep the People in their duty Strad To. 2. l. 3. And it seems the Magistrates of Embrick in Cleaveland thought so too for not many years ago when the Protestant Governour would have turn'd them out of the City they prevail'd with him to let them stay protesting that the Jesuits had such a powerful influence into the good order of the whole Town that they neither could nor would govern it without them and with a great deal of reason for what do the Jesuits Preach to the People but first that Soveraign Princes are the Lords annointed and therefore to be respected and honoured as holy and sacred things 2. That it is a damnable Heresie to think that their power does not come from God 3. That it is God that sets the Crown upon their Heads as it was wont antiently to be represented in Pictures by a hand stretcht out holding a Crown 4. That he who resists Kings purchases to himself his own damnation as the Apostle expresses himself Rom. 13. 1. 5. That obedience is due to them not because they are vertuous or wise or indued with any other good quality but for this only that they are Soveraigns and Gods Vicegerents 6. that it is not lawful to deny them obedience much less to rebel against them although