Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	doctrine_n	see_v	2,504	5	3.8195	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41989	Autokatakritoi, or, The Jesuits condemned by their own witness being an account of the Jesuits principles in the matter of equivocation, the Popes power to depose princes, the king-killing doctrine : out of a book entituled An account of the Jesuits life and doctrine, by M.G. (a Jesuit), printed in the year 1661 and found in possession of one of the five Jesuits executed on the 20th of June last past : together with some animadversions on those passages, shewing, that by the account there given of their doctrine in the three points above-mentioned, those Jesuits lately executed, were, in probability, guilty of the treasons for which they suffered, and died equivocating.	M. G. (Martin Grene), 1616-1667.; M. G. (Martin Grene), 1616-1667. Account of the Jesuites life and doctrine.; Hopkins, William, 1647-1700.	1679 (1679)	Wing G1826; ESTC R13202	29,605	24

he was he answered Nec mentiri se posse nec hominem prodere passusque multa tormenta corporis nondum enim erant Imperatores Christiani permansit in sententiâ that is he would be neither a Lyar nor a Traytor and having endured much torturing for Emperors were not as yet Christians he persevered in that resolution It is a plain case this good old Bishop never dreamt what service a Mental Reservation might have done him and 't is further evident that if St. Augustine who so highly magnified his Heroick constancy had approved this Doctrine of Equivocation he would rather have pitied the poor Bishops simplicity than have commended his example to imitation So that it appears our Authors dilemma hath not so perilous and unavoidable horns as he imagins To conclude though the forementioned be an example of veracity in gradu heroico and perhaps constancy would often fail good men in the same circumstances yet I am sure that as strict conscience would not have permitted any man to betray his Majesty so neither would it have allowed him to make use of a Lie either plain or artificial for his Majesties preservation In such a strait he must have put on a resolution to suffer any thing rather than be a Liar or a Traytor and to have committed the keeping of himself and his Soveraign to the all-wise providence of a faithful Creator 1 Pet. iv 19. who knew how to provide for the security of both without the help of such indirect means and unworthy shifts M. G. The Doctrine therefore of Equivocation teacheth only this that when there is a just necessity of concealing the Truth then you may Equivocate but when there is not a just reason to conceal the Truth then it is a sin to Equivocate because such Equivocation containeth fraud and double dealing contrary to Christian Charity and that candor and sincerity which is necessary for commerce among men Answ If our Author seem to have a more tender conscience than his brethren and will admit that it is sometime a sin to Equivocate you must consider that he is an Apologist for the Society and must very warily unfold this Mystery of Jesuitism But if you please to consult * Op. mor l. 3. c. 6. num 22. Sanchez and some other less rigid Casuists you will find very slight causes may serve to justifie Equivocation even sport it self if a man do not swear to it M. G. And in this the Jesuits be no way singular they teach but what all teach Answ If the Jesuits are no way singular herein or as he saith above p. 101. herein the Society hath nothing particular but all Roman Catholicks agree with them in this point then they are even all to be trusted alike But I will do our Author and the Society thus much right they have above all other Writers obliged the World with these fine new Names for Officious Lies unknown till Navarrus read Casuistical Divinity to the Jesuits Colledg at Rome and further by communicating the art of framing and using Equivocations and Mental Reservations with the greatest dexterity imaginable M. G. The third and main objection against the Jesuits Doctrine is p. 105. that they maintain the Popes Authority in prejudice to Soveraignty teaching that the Pope hath power to depose Kings This is the objection with which the Jesuits are every where cried down And because it is so much made of by the adversaries of the Society p. 106. I shall humbly intreat the Reader to give me leave to be a little more large in my Answer Answ The Objection is very considerable and such as after all his shuffling he cannot get clear of For what he saith doth not so much justifie the Jesuits as impeach all other Romanists of the same Traiterous Tenant M G. I say therefore as to matter of fact for I mean not to meddle with the Question otherwise that the Jesuits never did at any time teach in this matter otherwise than what was the common Doctrine of other Doctors in the Catholick Church and for the present they are less chargeable with this Doctrine than any others Answ There needs no extraordinary measure of sagacity to Divine why our Author balks the Question and will not meddle with it otherwise than as matter of Fact It is not of dread of Damnation for disobedience to Father Mutius his precept But the true reason is because he cannot meddle with it without spoiling the design of his whole Book He is an Apologist for the Jesuits and is obliged to give such an account of their Doctrine as may represent their Principles honest and no way dangerous to the rights of Princes Now should he have undertaken the Question this design were utterly defeated All the world knows our Author being a Jesuit one of the Popes Janizaries he must maintain the Popes power to depose Kings and determine the Question in such a way England and A. D. 1661. as considering the time and place for this account of the Jesuits Doctrine was calculated would have proved of dangerous consequence to the Society But that the Society is never a jot the less chargeable with this Doctrine than other Papists notwithstanding F. Mutius Vitelleschi's precept of obedience I will shew when I come to consider it by and by M. G. The first part of this Assertion I prove by Authority of Henry the Great our dear Soveraigns Grandfather who when the Doctrine of the Popes deposing Kings was objected against the Jesuits as an Argument why they ought to continue banished out of France said to the Parliament these words I am certain that in averring and defending the Popes Authority they differ not from other Catholick Divines This the French Stories aver this the Speech of that great King makes appear This Speech is Printed at the end of this Book p. 137. this the Actions of the same King if his words were not extant would make plain to all the world For how can it be imagined that he who was in the account of all a very wise man should admit into his Kingdom men that held Treasonable Doctrine p. 107. How should he possibly be supposed so forgetful of his own good and the safety of his own posterity as that he should plead for men charged to hold Doctrine prejudicial to Monarchy without examining whether their accusations were true No no he was not so weak as to become the Orator for his own ruin He would never have made it his business to plead for the Jesuits and command their admission nay further to take them into his familiar acquaintance make them his Confessors and build them Colledges and bequeath his heart to them if he had not been fully satisfied that their Doctrine contained nothing singular to the prejudice of Soveraignty Answ He makes a great flourish with the Authority of King Henry the fourth of France our dear Soveraign's Grandfather in an Oration which

the Society in the Year 1626. or the 13th of August made a precept of obedience by which all Jesuits are obliged upon pain of damnation never to write dispute teach or print any thing concerning that matter The Precept is extant in an Epistle of Father Mutius and from thence inserted as a perpetual Precept into the eighth Congregation in fine it runneth thus Ordinamus in virtute Sanctae Obedientiae nequis in posterum materiam de Potestate summi Pontificis super Principes eos deponendi c. tractet aut libris editis aut scriptis quibuscunque nec publicè disputet aut doceat in Scholis ut occasiones omnis offensionis querelarum praecidantur This is the Precept which hath now steed this 35 years and never was infringed by any one since the year 26 nothing hath been said of this Question in Schools or Sermons p. 112. or public discourses nothing hath been Printed of it in the Society This care the Society hath had to avoid all offensive Questions c. Answ How little effect Aquaviva's precept had or how little it was regarded may be plainly seen by the Publishing of Sanctarellus his Book in the year 1625. and that approved by Father Mutius the self same General of the Jesuits who Published the Precept of August the 13th 1626. This Precept upon pain of Damnation was but necessary to a tone for approving Sanctarellus's Book and manifestly appears to have been intended meerly to prevent clamor and maintain the reputation of the Society more than the Authority of Princes It provides but slenderly for securing their rights for though it prohibits writing Books publick Disputations and Lectures on that Subject yet it leaves them at liberty to instill that Doctrine in private wheresoever they see it likely to find a favourable reception Nay for ought appears Libris editis out scriptis quibuseunque nec publicè disputet out doceat in Schuli it may be still vented in Sermons we have only our Authors bare word that nothing hath been said in Sermons for 35 years for the Prohibition extends only to Writing publick ●isputations and Lectures in the Schools if they forbear it in the Pulpit their obedience outgoes the precept Since the publishing of this Account we have reason to believe as we are informed upon Oath that this Doctrine hath been preached by some Fathers of the Society in Spain And if we observe the 0151 0146 V 2 consideration upon which F. Mutius was induced to prohibit the publishing of this Doctrine Ut occasiones omnis offensionis quirel exam praecidantar viz. To take away all occasions of offence and quarrel we shall not find the Princes of Europe much obliged to him for this precept For first hereby if there ever should be any of the Society so honest as to assert the rights of Princes against the Popes Usurpations they are prohibited doing it under pain of Damnation And Secondly there is no regard had to their Interests but meerly to the credit of the Society M. G. p. 113. The fourth Objection against the Jesuits Doctrine is that they teach the killing of Kings p. 114. though under the name of Tyrants So Mariana the Spanish Jesuit teacheth and therefore had his books burnt at Paris Answ This fourth Objection he propounds very blindly and not in those terms we make it That we charge them with is plainly this That they hold that Princes excommunicated by the Pope may be deposed and murthered by their Subjects This we put them to renounce in the Oath of Allegiance And upon Trial we find more Patrons of the King-killing Doctrine than a single Mariana whom they so freely give up M. G. I answer that Mariana did in the year 1599. print a book intituled de Rege Regis institutione which he dedicated to Philip the second King of Spain in this Book he did teach a Doctrine after Dominicus Soto l. 5. de Justitia Jure qu. 2. Art 3. contrary to the Judgment of the Society of killing not Kings but Tyrants which Doctrine the Society condemned and forbid and the other Doctors of the Society all unanimously impugned it Answ There is a great deal of craft in thus frankly giving up Mariana 1. As Bellarmine was excused before he borrowed his Arguments from Sanders a Secular Priest so here Mariana is not the first Author of this Doctrine he learned it of Soto 2. It is represented as a small slip a single Proposition that is saulty 3. They give him in composition for the whole Society and pretend that all the other Doctor Etors of the Society unanimously impugned it Whereas besides that it discovers the Authors passion for Mariana it shews that 't is not the King-killing Doctrine they disavow but have politickly picked out a single Proposition that they may have somewhat to condemn for their credit Whereas no less than two whole Chapters are hable to exception for that scandalous Doctrine And the King-killing Doctrine in the terms we charge them with it is as much the Doctrine of all Jesuits who have written on that Subject as 't is Mariana's M. G. That you may know the truth I must do as in the last Objection that is give you a Narrative of the passage When then the General of the Society Claudius Aquaviva understood that Mariana had put out an opinion of so dangerous consequence he writ to the Fathers of the Society in France who had acquainted him with the whole matter in these words as Father Coton sets them down in a Letter to the Queen Regent of France p. 115. We have been very sorry that no body perceived the fault until the Books were Printed the which notwithstanding we have presently commanded to be corrected and will use great care hereafter that such things happen no more This passed in the Year 1606. four years before the Sorbou condemned Mariana's Book which was An Dom 1610. July the 4. Answ Clandius Aquaviva's Epistle to the Fathers of the Society in France is Apocryphal it is extant no where save in Father Cotons letter to the Queen Regent and he who consulted an Astrologer teaching the Death of the King and betrayed his Confessions to the Spamard as Father Coton did would not stick to sorge a Letter from Clandius aquaviva to the Fathers of the Society in France at a time of need as that was when Father Coton wrote to the Queen Regent after the Murther of Henry the 4th by Ravilliack who was said to have been animated to commit that Parricide by reading Mariana But admit Clandius Aquaviva did write such an Epistle and at the time pretended is it credible considering that strict correspondence the Provincials of all Order throughout the world keep with their General at Rome that a Book which made so much noise should sell off a whole Impression and be Re-printed twice pass seven years and yet the General of the Order know nothing of that

Allegiance and says to take it were to renounce his Faith to God To what God I pray you Sir I am sure to take the Oath of Allegiance implies nothing contrary to the Word of God nor to any Article of the three Creeds Sure enough you mean your Lord God the Pope and your Faith given to him which is inconsistent with fidelity to any Protestant Prince or indeed any Prince whatsoever It 's plain for all your fair words what you dislike in the Oath of Allegiance You have no mind to renounce the Popes usurped power over Princes to Excommunicate and Depose them nor will you be brought to abjure the King killing Doctrine for you promise and profess every thing else contained in that Oath and your unwary acknowledgment that you are taught that to take the Oath of Allegiance as it now lies is to renounce the Catholick Faith strongly implies that those Doctrines are in your esteem matters of Faith And give me leave to add That His Majesty and the Parliament have little reason to credit your promise that you will take an Oath containing all imaginable Civil Duty in the strongest expressions that can be conceived since such a Formulary contrived by Roman Catholicks and professing no more than Civil Duty I mean the Irish Remonstrance met with so much opposition and persecution from the Jesuits See F. Walsh his History of the Irish Remonstrance the Popes Nuncio and the Cardinal Protector and is last come to just nothing IN these recited passages we have either an Account of or an Apology for the Jesuits Doctrine in the matter of Equivocation The Popes power to Depose Princes and the King-killing Doctrine Whether our Author truly assert that in these points the Jesuits differ not from other Roman Catholicks it concerns them more than us to enquire and do themselves right Before I represent ther Doctrines stripped of those disguises wherein our Author hath dressed them up I shall desire and I think my request not unreasonable that these four points be granted me 1. That our Author is a Jesuit and a professed Apologist for them and accordingly hath given us the most plausible and favourable account of their Principles that could be contrived so that the Jesuits Executed could not be more moderate and innocent in these points than the Society is here represented 2. That seeing Mr. Gawen was the only man of the five that spake any thing in vindication of the Society 't is probable that in regard he was a very Eloquent man and had a passionate moving way he was appointed by his Superior to that service and that what he said was the sense of the Provincial and the other three 3. That M. Gawen borrowed what he said in vindication of the Society See my Reasons in the Preface out of this Account of the Jesuits Life and Doctrine 4. That Mr. Gawen and his Brethren concurred with this Author in their Principles as to the three points above-mentioned This premised I shall prove that by the account here given 1. The Jesuits and indeed the Papists in general do allow the Pope power to Depose Princes 2. That they prevaricate in denying that they hold the killing of Kings For they deny not that Princes Deposed by the Pope may be put to death by their Subjects 3. That the Jesuits allow the concealing of Truth by Mental Reservations when there is a just necessity and that Mr. Gawen and his fellow-sufferers had in the judgment of their own Casuists such necessity of Equivocating at their Execution 1. That the Jesuits and indeed the Papists generally allow the Pope a power to Depose Princes according to our Author He saith That the Jesuits never did teach other than the common Doctrine of the other Doctors of the Catholick Church p. 106. He cites Pope Gregory the VII and with him Divines not only of the Secular Clergy but of all Religious Orders and Canonists for it p. 108. That when Bellarmine wrote his Controversies this was the Doctrine of the Schools That Bellarmine in his Book de summo Pontifice taught this Doctrine that four or five Jesuits more followed and defended him in it p. 110. It never was condemned by the Society in any of those Authors And though two Generals of the Jesuits successively forbid the publishing of it yet neither censured it as dangerous or erroneous but did prohibit it meerly to avoid clamor and complaint Our Author no where professeth to dislike this Doctrine neither doth he so much as intimate that he is of any other opinion than that commonly received viz. That the Pope hath power to Depose Kings though not arbitrarily as he saith to palliate the matter and at his list yet if they be Hereticks or favourers of them Schismaticks diminishers of the Church Rights and Revenues severe to Roman Catholicks c. And I presume none will deny but that His Sacred Majesty is in the Judgment of the Roman Court obnoxious to the Popes Censure upon all these accounts 11. In the matter of the King-killing Doctrine this Author and Mr. Gawen shuffle basely and baulk the point The dangerous Doctrine we charge them with is this That Princes Excommunicate by the Pope may be Deposed and Murthered by their Subjects Si sub voce Excommunicationis comprehendatur depositio ●●ss●●atio quae p●… sententiam Canonicam interdum sit sic conti●… propositionem impan● dep●●i vel OCCIDI à QUIBUSCUDIQUE posse docer Suarez Desens sid Cathol lib. c. 6. §. 24. Suariz ibid. cap. 4. §. 14. Eil de sum ●●nt l. 5. c 8. Bican de Controv Anglic. Suarez ibid. § 20. I abjure that Heretical and Traiterous Position c. If the Sentence of Excommunication contain a Deposition and Absolution of the Subjects from their Allegiance which is sometimes done by Canonical Sentence then that Proposition is true that he viz the Excommunicate Prince may he Deposed or killed by any whatsoever without incurring any penalty saith Suarez And the same Author saith That after Sentence passed upon him he may be treated as a Tyrant and killed by any private person Both Bellarmine and Becan prove the Popes power to Depose Kings and to condemn them to death by the Example of Jehoiada the High Priest who first deprived Athalia of the Kingdom and afterward of her Life So that you see more than a single Mariana defend the King-killing Doctrine which while they renounce and impugn unanimously in that Proposition condemned by the Council of Constance they as unanimously maintain when the Pope interposes his fatal Sentence and alters the Case 'T is plain the Jesuits thenmseves think that Decree of the Council of Constance affords no security to Princes against the Popes Sentence What saith Suarez to King James where doth the King read in the Council of Constance such a word as a PRINCE EXCOMMVNICATED or DEPRIVED by the POPE I have heard some Jesuited Papists say whether in sincerity or not God

when FALSHOOD is vented by Speech 'T is evident that the only way of concealing Truth allowed by St. Augustine is silenced and he esteems it a Lie to speak any thing that is false Now in Mental Reservation that which is uttered is absolutely false intended to deceive and in the judgment of the Jesuits themselves would be a Lie but for the help of a secret reserve in the Speakers breast which can no way alter the real quality of the proposition uttered That this must be that Fathers meaning will appear by the occasion he had so to determine in that point the Priscillianists defended Lying as the Jesuits do Equivocation by the example of the Holy Patriarchs particularly of Abraham in the case of his Wise Aliquid ergo veri tacuit ron falsi aliq●id dixit tac●it ux rem dixit sarorem Aug. uti sapr St. Austin denies that Abraham Lied he did not deny her to be his Wife which had been a Lie but declared to be his Sister which was true he concealed the Truth but spake Truth also As he hath abused St. Augustine who held it not lawful to Lie upon any account no not to save a Soul so I am apt to believe he doth Aquinas whom he calls St. Thomas For I find * Sepulveda de ratione dicendi testim cap. 17. Sepulveda impugning the use of ambiguous Speech in giving evidence saith that none of the ancient and eminent Divines allow it and before telling whom he meant by those ancient Divines expresly saith such was Themas Aquinas How he hath used St. Chrysostome and St. Ambrose I have not had opportunities to examine I fear ill enough he cites no place nor so much as refers to any and I believe quotes Fathers as he doth Protestants upon trust and from no very honest Authors M. G. Among the Protestants are divers mentioned in the Protestants Apology as P. Martyr Zuinglius Willet Melancthon Luther Musculus Wieleff and divers others cited at length in the 7 Section of the 3 Tract under the letter M. number 76. and in the 703 page of the Impression An. Dom. 1608. Though of the Authors there cited some will not use the name of Equivocation or Mental Reservation but call these doubtful Speeches Officious Lies which notwithstanding they say one is sometimes bound to use So Luther there cited saith of Rahab and concludeth that there is an Officious Lie by which men provide for the same and safety of their Neighbour Igitur honestum ac pium mendacium est ac potius officium charitatis appellandum And Osiander there cited saith of the Calvinists Hane maximan seu regulam habent Calvinistae licere pro gloriâ Christi mentiri The Calvinists have this for a ground or principle that it is lawful to Lie for the glory of Christ Answ I confess I was at first amazed to find there had been any such Protestant Apology taking it for granted as our Author whose honesty appears answerable to those principles he is maintaining desires his Reader should that it was an Apology for the Protestant Religion and written by some Protestant but upon enquiry I find that his worthy Author is Mr. Breerly who hath written a Book intituled The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church a Book fraught with many prevarications one of which cited here by our Author gave me enough of the Apologist and he and our Author may go together for their veracity M. G. Yet Catholicks generally do not allow of Lying but as many Protestants of concealing the Truth by Equivocation Answ Here he stily and maliciously insinuates that Protestants are more favourable in the point of the lawfulness of Officious Lies which he calls doubtful Speeches than the Jesuits or other Popish Doctors generally are but the malice and falshood of this insinuation will readily appear to any man who is able and will take the pains to compare the Casuists on both sides M. G. Now that this Doctrine may and sometimes must be allowed examples will make manifest I will instance in one When His Majesty after Worcester Fight was constrained to shelter himself in Boscobel There was as we all know very narrow search made after him Among the rest one of the Pendrils those Loyal Subjects ever to be commended in all History was asked where the King was he answered that he knew not meaning that he knew not for to tell them He thought he might and ought in that case conceal the Truth And all the Jesuits in the World are of his opinion He was bound there under pain of High-Treason to Equivocate And those that deny Equivocation to be lawful let them say what they would have done Sure I am that if they would not in that case have used Equivocation or Mental Reservations they must have been either Lyars or Traytors Answ Here he triumphs in a cunning instance and seemingly invicible A. D. 1661. which suited very well the time of Publishing his Book The happiest instance sure that ever was thought on which besides the fair opportunity it gives him to extol the Papists Loyalty seems to prove Mental Reservations not only lawful but even meritorious He would make us believe that we owe the great blessing of his Majesties preservation after Worcester Fight to a Mental Reservation and to that honest Jesuit Pendrills Confessor who taught him dextrously to use it I am apt to believe Pendrills is a made case and not a real fact Be it how it will I conceive a Protestant might have as laudably saved his Majesty by a Lie as Mr. Pendrill did by a Mental Reservation I honour and commend his Loyal affection and zeal for his Majesties preservation as much as our Author and thus far I concur with him and all the Jesuits in the World That in this case he ought to conceal the Truth but that he ought to do it in that way by such a Mental Reservation I utterly deny If we may not Lie for God neither may we for the King And there is not a pin to chuse between Equivocation Mental Reservation and a Lie But since we will not admit Equivocations or Mental Reservation what would we have done in Pendrils case he says we must have been either Lyars or Traytors there is no avoiding it By his leave I am of opinion that there is no necessity of either I think I can fit him Aug. lib. de Mendac ad Consentium c. 13. Quanto ergo fortius quanto excellentius dices nec prodam nec mentiar Fecit hoc Episcopus quondam Tagastensis Ecclesiae Firmus nomine firmior voluntate c. with a case very like this out of St. Augustine which will make out what I have said and withall shew how much that Father was a friend to Equivocation He tells us that Firmus Bishop of Tagasta in Africk had received a man belike some persecuted Christian and hid him the Emperor sent his Officers to search for him who demanding where

scandalous Doctrine it contains But suppose him to know no more on 't than the Pope of Rome I am confident any single Proposition so much in favour of Princes against the Popes Usurpations should not have escaped the censure of Claudius Aquaviva seven Months nor yet seven Weeks M. G. According to this the General of the Society did give order for correcting that place and inppressed the Book till it were corrected Answ That place a● though it were but a single Proposition that needed amendment and yet I am confident a Copy of Mariana with that Proposition expnuged would be a rarity few Scholars in Europe ever saw M. G. But some Copies being abroad before the error was known to the General which the Society would gladly have called in the Heirs of one Wechel a Protestant or as some French Authors call him an Hugonot Printed it again at their own charges And this for no other reason as it may be presumed but for lucre or malice to the Society Answ Some Copies those were no fewer than two Impressions the one Printed in Spain the other at Mentz Whoever offends the Protestants must suffer for it Wechel's Heirs Printed it again for lucre or malice to the Society Whose avarice or malice was it that procured the Moguntine Edition A. D. 1605 Was Balthazar Lippius an Hugonot I have been informed from a good hand That the Prackfort Edition was procured by a Jesuit who chose wechels Heirs that he might at once publish this pretious Doctrine and cast the blame upon the Protestants when he had done M. G. After this the General sent a strict Command to all of the Society as appeareth Congreg 8. tit Censurae under pain of Excommunication inability and divers other penalties prohibiting all of the Society from writing or teaching in private or in publick or advising that it was lawful to kill Kings or Princes p. 116. or MACHINE their death upon any pretence of Tyranny And all the Authors of the Society excepting ONLY MARIAN A both before and since him perpetually taught and teach the contrary saying Anathema to all that teach or practise any such Doctrine condemned long since by the Council of Constance This is what the Society hath done to stop that Book and root out the opinion which I conceive will cleerly shew that this Doctrine is not reasonably laid to the Society nor could it be objected but by them who will have it that the fault of ANY ONE of the Society must like Original sin infect all for ever and * That Original sin is an unpardonable infection is strange Divinity I thought the Jesuits had not esteemed Original sin so great a matter unpardonably to whom I can give no other answer but that I wish them more wit and less malice Answ How ineffectual this Command of their General hath been and how true it is that all other Authors of the Society teach the contrary to the King-killing Doctrine which our Author and Mr. Gawen say may appear by the writings of Suarez and others of the Society who have since the Year 1606 Published the same Doctrine with Mariana though they have baulked that very Proposition That it is lawful for a private Person to kill a King This Position they condemn in Mariana but how far they dis-allow the King-killing Doctrine our Author acquaints us viz as it is condemned by the Council of Constance and no further Now that Council hath condemned this Proposition only Quilibet Tyrannus potest debet licitè meritoriè occidi per quemcunque vasallum suum vel subditum Caranza edit Duac 1659. pag. 630. etiam per clanculares insidias subtiles blanditias vel adulationes non obstante quocunque praestito juramento sen consaederatione facta cum eô NON EXPECTATA SENTENTIA JVDICIS cujuscunque Any Tyrant may and ought to be killed lawfully and meritoriously by any Vassal or Subject of his even by Clandestine snares or subtil Blandishments or Flatteries notwithstanding any Oath or League made to or with him NOT WAITING FOR THE SENTENCE OR COMMAND OF ANY JUDG WHATSOEVER How slender security doth this Decree afford Protestant Princes charged with HERESIE Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope and SENTENCED to death by the General Provincial and a whole Consult of Jesuits But there are many other fallacies couched in that Proposition and the Decree which condemns it which are fully detected by my Lord Bishop of Lincoln to whom I refer my Reader That a Prince Excommunicate and Deposed by the Pope In his Letter to a Person of Honour 8. p. 163. That Princes excommunicate by the Pope may be Deposed and murthered by their Subjects may be put to death by his Subjects is a Doctrine none of the Jesuits disown and if Mr. Gawen would have cleared himself and the Society of this scandalous Doctrine he would have more effectually done it by renouncing it in the words of the Oath of Allegiance and have averred that all Authors of the Society teach the contrary But this had been too bold a Lie as I shall have occasion in the close of these Papers to shew and therefore neither our Author nor Mr. Gawen hath any reason to charge us as guilty of meting them that hard measure of condemning all Jesuits for the rashness of one M. G. Our Author says For my part p. 118. I do sincerely make this protestation in the sight of God I do acknowledg his Majesly CHARLES the II. to be my lawful Soveraign and Liege Lord I believe that I am bound to respect honour and obey hun and that not only for fear but also for conscience sake as the Scriptures teach me I do believe that whosoever resisteth him resisteth God and whosoever rebelleth against him reballeth against God and procureth to himself Damnation And accordingly I do promise to be a true and faithful Subject to His Majesty and not only never to Act against Him or Abet any that shall Act against Him p. 119. but also to defend and maintain according to the best of my skill His Life Crown Dignities and Prerogatives And if I refuse the Oath of Allegiance as now it is couched it is not because I refuse Allegiance but because I must not renounce my Faith to God That to take that Oath as now it lies is to renounce the Catholick Faith I am taught c. and p. 120. He saith If it may please His Sacred Majesty and the Honourable Houses of Parliament to make such an Oath of Allegiance as may without trenching upon conscience contain all imaginable civil Duty in the strongest expressions that can be conceived I shall be exceeding glad and most ready to take it my self and invite all others to take it Answ You see how fair professions and promises he makes I was tempted to believe he meant honestly But this is only a small sprinkling of Holy Water After all he refuses to take the Oath of