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
out a Postern-Gate After his Speech was ended the King produced the Original Letter which he intercepted as it was going to the French King and ordered it to be read (F) Impartial Collections p. 309 c. As to the later Insurrections in Scotland I will only observel That besides the Information of some Romish Priests being sent thither to prepare them for a Rebellion their very Declaration shews they were acted by a Popish Spirit for the Act of Supremacy was condemned and the Kings Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs call'd an Vsurping Power But to return So true were the Romish Emissaries to their good Old Cause that having set the factious Party to work in Scotland they took advantage from that conjuncture to stir up a National Rebellion and barbarous Massacre in Ireland of which I have spoken already I cannot pass over the Conspiracy against the King in the Year 1640 because it gives some further light into the Designs of Cardinal Richilieu and the Jesuites Whilst his Majesty resided at York he was acquainted by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Information he had received from Sir W. Boswel his Majesty's Ambassadour at the Hague By the discovery of this Plot it is evident that the Jesuitical Party exasperated the King and his Subjects one against another labouring to incense his Majesty against them as conspiring against his Crown and Government and them against their Soveraign as aiming at the subversion of their Laws Liberties and Religion That they stirred up the Scots to rebel hindred all accommodation between the King and them and endeavoured to bring his Majesty under a necessity of craving the Assistance of the Papists which he should neither obtain without yielding to their own terms nor refuse without the hazard of his life That for the compassing of their Ends Cardinal Barbarino was engaged fifty Scotch Jesuites were maintain'd in London Cuneus in quality of the Popes Legate Chamberlain Chaplain and Almoner to Cardinal Richlieu Sir T. Matthew a Jesuited Priest Captain Read a Secular Jesuite and that all the Papists in England did contribute to the carrying on the design Here was a Plot against the King and Kingdom and Protestant Religion of which he that desires a full account may consult Mr. H. Lestrange and Mr. Sanderson in their Histories Prinn's Romes Master-piece and others of later time What great numbers of Priests Jesuites and other Romish Agents afterwards flocked into England what various shapes they assumed how they insinuated into the Councils and Armies of the Kings Enemies Mr. Gatford Prinn Dr. du Moulin and others informs us to whom I refer the Reader And even some of the Members in the Long Parliament were sensible how active our Enemies of Rome had been in raising and fomenting the War as we learn from a late Writer who sate in that Assembly I will barely relate what he saith without making any Collections or Inferences from his words The Parliament Vote That which was done at York for a Guard to the King to be a preparation for War against the Parliament a breach of the Trust reposed in him by his People contrary to his Oath and tending to the dissolution of his Government and all such as serve him there to be Traytors to the Laws of the Kingdom Upon the debate for raising an Army one of the Members declared his sense Our Enemies of the Popish Church have left no Evil Arts unessayed to bring us to our present posture and will yet leave none unattempted to make our breaches wider well knowing that nothing will more advance their Empire than our Divisions Our Misery whom they account Hereticks is their Joy and our Distractions will be their Glory and all Evil arts and ways to bring Calamities upon us they will esteem Meritorious (A) Memorials of the English Affairs ad An. 1642. Sanderus de Schism Angl. 1585 p. 188. Quo Haereticorum ut fit bello Catholici indies plures constantioresque in fide fiunt Campanella de Mon. Misp Amst 1641. p. 204. Jam verò ad enervandos Anglos nihil tam conducit quam dissensio discordia inter illos excitata perpetuóque nutrita quod citò occasiones meliores suppeditabit P. 207. Verum ab alia parte instiget primores Comitiorum aut Parliamenti ut Angliam in formam reipublicae reducant Nor did the design of Cardinal Richlieu die with him it was vigorously pursued by Mazarine to whom he left his Instructions at his death and what an intimate Correspondence was maintain'd between him and the Grandees of Derby House we are told by the Author of the History of Independency (B) Hist of Indep p. 114 115. His words are these To negotiate which the detaining of the Prince in France the Grandees of Derby House and the Army have an Agent lying Lieger with Cardinal Mazarine the great French Instrument of State who is so well supplied with Money and so open handed that it hath been heard from Mazarines own Mouth That all the Money the Queen and Prince have cost the Crown of France hath come out of the Parliaments Purse with a good advantage It is likewise said Mazarine hath an Agent here to drive on the Interests of France in England To all which we may add That the King having assented in the Isle of Wight to pass five strict Bills against Popery the Jesuites in France at a General Meeting there resolved to bring him to Justice by the power of their Friends in the Army And this resolution of the Fathers was agreeable to the sense of the Roman Conclave For the Question being sent to Rome from the whole Party of Jesuites in England the year before the Kings death whether considering the present posture of Affairs it was lawful for the Catholicks to work a change in the Government by making away the King whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresie It was answered affirmatively (C) Answer to Philanax Anglicus p. 59 65. To what I have said upon this Argument I will add these two Propositions 1. That the grounds on which the War against the King was maintain'd so far as it was maintained under a colour of Religion were laid by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church and the most dreadful effects of Fanaticism which were the consequents of it may be justified by their Principles And here I could make it evident That the same Maxims of Political Divinity the same Arguments and many times the same Phrases and Expressions are to be found in the heads of both Factions I know it is disputed whether the Ring-leaders of Sedition amongst us poysoned the Jesuites or the Jesuites them but I do not envy the Bishops of Rome the honour of having first poysoned them both with Antimonarchical Doctrines If Milton the great Oracle of one of the Factions had owned himself to be a Papist there had been no reason to wonder at the Impiety of his Doctrines which he
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
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