who are in the Communion of the Roman Church It is plainly this They are a sort of men who are alwayes the worse for Favour and Indulgence I mentioned but now the case of F. Watson who after his many publick declarations of himself against the traiterous Jesuits confuted all his Writings by his Actions But the particular which I now refer to is the time of this his Enterprize which was the entrance of K. Iames into this Kingdom when all the severities of the Laws against the Romanists were laid asleep and they received not only to a peaceful enjoyment of their Consciences and Estates but were admitted to the Court to Trust to Honours and Preferments nor was this treachery and falseness his singular Demerit At the same time and under the same circumstances was the Agency of the Romish Factors with the King of Spain for the procuring a second Invasion of their Native Country which might expiate that of 88. as also that hollish Machination of the Gun-Powder-Treason These though so barbarous in the intendment as to be capable of no aggravation had besides the forementioned Ingratitude of being attempted in a season of Indulgence this particular brand upon them that they were designed by those very men who had been guilty of Treasons in the time of Q. Elizabeth and had been graciously forgiven by K. Iames and personally had sued out their pardons from him under seal So that we may conclude it as reasonable an attempt to still a Tempest by whispering gently to it put out a Fire by pouring Oyl upon it or reclaim a Viper by receiving him into the Bosom as to hope by any Acts of Kindness and Indulgence to assure the Duty of a Roman Votary of whatever Principle or Subdivision he pretend to be ENQUIRY III. Whether the Popes power in deposing Kings be a Doctrine of the Roman Church Having debated this point already in the Seasonable Discourse and defended what I there asserted in my Reply to the Full Answerer there is really no need I should trouble my self or Reader in the proof of a thing perfectly evident But since the Gentleman with whom I had first to do and our present Author after him think they have abundantly cleared themselves by quoting a few Romanists who have denied the Exorbitant Tyrannies of the Pope and separating the Interests of the Court and Church of Rome with this Difference that whereas the Full Answerer quite slips over the mention of Councils this my Author after a short Reflection lightly passes the Allegations which I made from the Canons of the said Councils which I pretend to have been receiv'd as Universal not onely by the high-flown Papalins but these moderate pretenders and consequently what is by those Councils decreed must beyond all subterfuge be concluded to be the Doctrine of the Church And whereas the said Author onely addes some few colourable pretences to elude the Arguments drawn from the aforesaid Councils I shall which I take to be the alone remaining possible way of inforcement set down the express words of those Councils in plain English And then I hope there will need no infallible Interpreter to inform us of the meaning and importance of them And having done this I shall reply to those thin Sophisms which are brought to elude my Argument In the Seasonable Discourse I first cited the 27 Canon of the Third Lateran Council Cap. Sicut ait Where the Fathers having condemned the Cathari c. and subjected the Fautors of them to the same punishment with them 't is added They shall forfeit all the Fealty Homage and Obedience which was due to them Now we know who they are to whom Fealty and Homage in its remarkable and most proper importance is due But to avoid all Cavil this is determined to extend to Soveraign Princes by the express words of the Council of Constance as we shall see anon And therefore in the next place I proceed to the Fourth and as it is stiled by the Romanists the most General Council of Lateran Where the Fathers having condemned all Hereticks that exalt themselves against the Catholick Faith by them explained an Article whereof is That in the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Blood of Christ are really contained the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body of Christ and the Wine into his Blood that is to wave all the monstrous Absurdities of Transubstantiation that they who receive onely the Bread receive onely the Body and they who receive the Cup onely receive the Blood of our Saviour for concomitancy cannot suit with things entirely separate And having required the Aid of the Secular Powers against the said Hereticks the Council proceeds in this form If the Temporal Lord requir'd or admonish'd by the Church shall neglect to purge his Territory from Heretical pravity let him be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans and if he persist in neglecting to give satisfaction for the space of a year let him be signified to the Pope that he from thenceforth may pronounce his Subjects discharg'd from their Obedience and expose his Territory to be seiz'd by Catholicks who having exterminated the Hereticks without Contradiction shall possess it and preserve it in the Purity of Faith So as no injury be done to the Right of the Superiour Lord where there is such provided he do not any way oppose himself and the same Law is to take place on them who have no superiour Lord. Where we may observe how pitiful the Excuse is which is commonly brought that Soveraign Princes are not here meant but onely Feudatary when as if it were on purpose to exclude this plea those who are most Absolute and Supreme are particularly level'd with the other In the mean time we of this Nation may take notice That besides our own Runagates whom I cited in the Seasonable Discourse who make our Kingdom to be held in fee from the Pope in a manner all Foreign Writers go away with it as a thing confest and evident and bring as the common instance of the Popes power to depose Kings that his Holiness may dispose of the Crown of England even where they exempt the King of France from such subjection But this upon the by The same Council goes on and says That the Excommunicate Fautors of Heresies shall have no Votes in Councils or Elections shall not be allowed to make a Will to give Testimony or bear any Office or inherit an Estate If any happen to be a Iudge his Sentence shall be null and void If an Advocate he shall not be admitted to plead if a Clark or Notary the Instruments drawn by him shall be of no moment And so in all other like Cases Whence we may gather what assurance we are likely to have of the possession of our Estates if Popery prevail All Acts of Law all Bequests of Wills and Judiciary Proceedings since the Reformation and I suppose most English men hold
under some of them are absolutely void and null by the Decree of this Council and we must come to new Purchases to be secur'd in the possession of whatsoever we possess or challenge for our own And how fair Chapmen we shall meet with in that Case it will not be difficult to determine My next Allegation is of the Council of Lyons where the Pope after mature deliberation had with his Cardinals and the Council having depos'd and deprived the Emperour and absolv'd all those from their Oaths of Allegiance who had sworn it to him and commanded that no person should own him from thenceforth as Emperour or any way obey or intend to obey him and excommunicated all such as should give him Counsel or any way favour him and ordered that the Electors should proceed to a new Choice the aforesaid particulars being read in the Council the Pope and Prelates sitting in Council with Candles burning in their hands thundred out their Excommunication against the deposed Emperour Frederick c. The words of the Council are plain enough but when illustrated by such a Comment as the Actual Deposing of an Emperour I cannot think it needful to subjoyn any farther Enforcement but proceed to the remaining Allegation from the Determination of the Council of Constance which in the seventeenth Session decrees defines and ordains that whosoever whether he be King Cardinal Patriarch Archbishop Bishop Duke Prince Earl Marquess or of any other Condition or Dignity either Ecclesiastical or Secular shall hinder disturb or molest Sigismund King of the Romans and Hungary and the King of Arragon from meeting c. shall incur the Sentence of Excommunication c. and shall be deprived of all Honour Dignity and Office c. Where by the way we may take notice that this Council who lay so severe Penalties on the Violators of their Safe Conduct were not asham'd perfidiously to violate it themselves on Iohn Huss who in confidence thereof put himself into their hands Besides this we alledge from this Council Pope Martin's Letter approved by the last Session of the same Council where his Holiness admonishes and requires all Professors of the Christian and Catholick Faith the Emperour Kings Dukes Princes Marquesses Earls Barons c. that they drive out of their Kingdoms Provinces Cities c. all Hereticks according to the tenour of the Lateran Council which begins Sicut ait c. And then decrees That all Hereticks Partakers or Defenders of them though they shine in the Dignity of Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops Kings Queens Dukes or any other Ecclesiastical or Mundane Title c. shall be pronounced Excommunicate in the presence of the People every Sunday and Holy-day c. and requires that they proceed to deprivation of Dignities c. Now our Author to all this given in proof by me from these oecumenical Councils as the Romanists stile them opposes the Authority of one Iohn Bishop who in a Book written in the time of Q. Elizab. proved that the Constitution of the Lateran Council upon which the whole authority of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance and deposing Princes is founded is no other then a Decree of Pope Innocent the III. and was never admitted in England yea that the said Council was no Council at all nor was any thing at all there decree'd by the Fathers So then we are come to a Resolution of Faith if one single man shall write a Book against a received Doctrine in the Church that founds it self on the Decree of a Universal Council and shall deny that Council to be valid or received in a particular Church that Doctrine however received or founded as is above mentioned ceases to be the Doctrine of the Church Which if it be true I believe 't will be almost impossible for any man to be a Heretick some one or other having wrote a Book in the defence of his Tenet how Heterodox soever it were and disparaged the Authority of that Council that condemned it But this Author who relies so much on the credit of Iohn Bishop should have adverted to those very cogent Arguments which Cardinal Perron produces in his long Speech to the third Estate and Dr. Vane has since brought in favour of that Council and his Confutation of all Suggestions alledged on the contrary part Also he should have taken notice of the Subsidiary proof lately added by F. Labbe and Cossart Editors of the Councils now at Paris who there from a Copy supposed to be written in that very Age give the Canons of that Council in Greek deficient chiefly in those parts where the Controversie between the Eastern and Western Church was determined to the disadvantage of the Greeks And lastly he should have considered that the Council of Trent whose Authority he will not dispute has alledged the Canons of this fourth Lateran Council and therefore it will not be very reasonable to oppose I. Bishop to all those Fathers But to pass this How comes it about that our Author tells us this Council was never admitted in England Did he consider what power the Pope then claimed in this Island when he had rendered and openly stiled the King his Vassal As also how much work the English had to do in that Assembly particularly in the case of Stephen Langton then Archbishop of Canterbury and that the Canons of that Council were allowed and confirmed in the National Synod held at Oxford A. 1222. Had he told us that this convention notwithstanding all its pompous pretences of so many Patriarchs Emperous Kings and Princes Bishops and Doctors that attended at it was nothing but a Scene dressed up in Masquerade he would perchance have said something to the purpose For instance That the man who play'd the Greek Emperour was Hen. brother to Baldwyn Earl of Flanders that had lately before seised Constinople and some few more of the Greeks Towns with the Arms of the Croisade and had no other Title to his Conquests besides the Pope's gift That the Latin Emperour who yet was but Elect was the Popes Pupil so made by the will of his Mother Constance and chosen Emperor by the Popes influence who had unmade two Emperors before of whom one i. e. Otho 4. was then living and the next Pope save one Innocent the IV. deposed this very Emperour Farther that Iohn de Brenne and Almerick held the Kingdomes of Ierusalem and Cyprus of the Popes gift That our King Iohn was become his Feudatary and as his Holiness was pleased to stile him his Vassal that Iames King of Arragon held by the same Copy who besides was a Minor and Pupil to the Pope who was so favourable as to give him a Crown whose Father had deserved so ill as to forfeit to his Holiness both Kingdom and Life Then farther that Philip King of France had his Kingdom twice put under Interdict by this very Pope and was threatned worse That Andrew of Hungary was
throw off his yoak but if ever the Church of Romo could eradicate the Reformed Religion which doubtless is and ever must be their great drift and aim Princes of the Romish Religion would find the want of that check and awe upon the Pope Will you see how tender and fearful Princes have been heretofore of claiming their Rights in this kind See Ed. 3. a brave and a magnanimous Prince in the vigour of his Age in the 25 year of his Reign when he comes to claim and vindicate his Rights in Ecclesiastical matters he is so fearful of offending the Pope that he seeks all possible excuses even whilst he is claiming his own First he layes the fault on his Predecessors and quotes the Statute made in his Grandfathers time In the next place the grievous complaint of the Commons must bear its share then the injury to private Patrons is called in for a pretence as if that gave rise to the complaint when all this while the King had power enough from the Rights inherent in the Crown and from former Statutes if he durst put it in practise then which is a wonderful Instance of his fear to offend the Pope for a farther excuse he sets up a claim for his people to the prejudice of his Negative voice the greatest and choicest flower of the Crown for in the Statute of Provisors of that year he makes the Commons to alledge nor is there any mark of his dislike but rather assent to it so desirous he was of an excuse toward the Pope that the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the said Realm is such that upon mischiefs and damage which happened to his Realm he ought and is bound of the accord of his said people in his Parliament thereof to make Remedy and Law in voiding the mischiefs and damage which thereof cometh c. Then the King goes on himself to alledge his own Oath to see the Laws executed c. as the Reader may satisfie himself more fully from the Statute at large as it appears in all our Books I suppose this may sufficiently show how fearfully that Great and Generous Prince not subject to vain fears went about to remedy that Inconvenience What Fruit he reap'd from the hazard he adventur'd And how effectual that Great Medicine our Author so highly commends to us was may be conjectur'd by the need there was of another Statute of Provisors the very next Parliament viz. the 27 year of his Reign It would be too tedious to the Reader and my self to quote all the Statutes of that kind Instead of others which it were easie to produce I shall onely add that of the 16 of Rich. 2. cap. 5. Where the Commons of the Realm having complained of the intolerable Tyrannies and Oppressions of the See of Rome go on to pray the King and him require by way of Iustice that he would examine all the Lords in the Parliament as well Spiritual as Temporal severally and all the States of the Parliament how they think of the Cases aforesaid which be so openly against the Kings Crown and in derogation of his Regality and how they will stand in the same Cases with our Lord the King c. Whether this Examination was in order to the Attainder of the Persons or Suspension of the Votes of the Dissenters or some other purpose I will not take upon me to enquire Certainly considering the Greatness of the Peerage of England at that time such a way of procedure shews the greatness of the mischief which was desir'd to be redrest But the continued Complaint and fresh Endeavours for Remedy do likewise as evidently demonstrate that none of our Kings ever found an effectual Cure till the time of Henry the VIII who yet although he retain'd the Roman Profession of faith denying temporal Subjection to the Pope became liable to that Deprivation and Censure and all that Spiritual Thunder which so severely fell upon him and has since exercised his Successors But these our Princes who came after him having generally been of the Reformed Religion which they of Rome have declar'd to be Heresie the practises among us however exorbitant will not fall under our present consideration I shall therefore pass over to our Neighbours of France and examine how well the Priviledges of the Gallican Church have stood the most Christian Kings in stead which will readily be seen if we look into their Histories nor will we seek farther than the last Age. Henry the Third we know had difficulty enough with the Catholick holy League oppos'd not only by the high-flown Jesuited Romanists but the Bulwarks of Regal Authority the Loyal Doctors of the Sorbon who being Seventy in number unanimously decree nemine contradicente That the Subjects of France were freed from their Oaths of Allegiance and Obedience made to Henry the Third And also that the said Subjects may legally and with a safe Conscience arm and unite themselves collect and raise money c. Which Decree of the good Doctors was ratified by his Holiness in his Bull of Excommunication which suddenly followed and was pursued to such Extremities by the Leaguers that they were not onely content to subject that Kingdom to the Yoak of Spain but in despite of the Sallick Law endeavour that the Infanta Clara Eugenia Elizabetha should succeed unto the Crown and though the King turn'd Covenanter himself and Establish'd the Oath of Union in the Assembly of the Three Estates and personally swore to it making it a Fundamental Law of the French Nation that onely a Catholick should be capable to succeed unto the Crown yet notwithstanding this the said Henry the Third could not escape the Anger of his Holiness and what is consequent thereto the being depriv'd of his Kingdom and his Life massacred by I. Clement the Iacobin-Monk To him we know succeeded Henry the V. who after great strugling and the same opposition from the Unanimous Determination of the Loyal Sorbon-Doctors in their general Congregation who May 7. 1590. Declar'd Henry of Bourbon uncapable of the Crown though he should obtain Absolution from the Church and that the French were oblig'd to keep him from the Crown that all who favour him are in perpetual mortal sin and all that are slain in the Cause against him shall obtain an everlasting Reward and be crown'd with the Trophies of Martyrdom This Henry I say having by the blessing of God and a good Sword added possession to his Claim and in spite of opposition made himself Master of France yet this new Sallick Law stood still in his light and a Crown was not to be had but at the price of a Mass For though it be a receiv'd Maxime That the Crown removes all taint of Blood it cannot of Opinion One now would have expected in this instance that the Church Doors should have flown open to receive this Royal Convert but the case is far otherwise Five years diligent