might add Paul the 4th and Sixtus the 5th Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. quotes some others of this Opinion For the latter see the Authors quoted by Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. and ad versus Barclaeium in his Opuscula Salmeron Tom. 4. p. 413. Fr. Romulus Resp ad Apol. Ed. 1591. p. 41 42 43. Cardinal Perron in his Oration to the third Estate at Paris tells us That unless this Doctrine were approved it follows that the Church of Rome for many ages hath been the Kingdom of Antichrist and Synagogue of Satan And to let you see that his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects are no Honester than the rest of the World I appeal to two very late Writers of our own Country Some years since three Treatises were published under the Title of The Jesuites Loyalty The Author of the first roundly asserts what the other two slily insinuate this Deposing Doctrine and proves it by as great Authority as they can bring for any Article of the present Roman Faith The other is an English Jesuite too and he without any mincing of the matter tells us this Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions Seculars Regulars (B) See D. Stilling fleets Answer serveral late Treatises in the Preface And whether they teach the Popes Power to be direct or indirect 't is all one for if Princes may be deposed in some cases if there be no standing Court Independent on that at Rome which is to Judge when it is necessary to depose them they had as good tell us in plain terms that no Prince is to wear his Crown any longer than the Pope and other Princes or his own Subjects will give him leave that the Pope never wants Authority to depose a King but when he wants strength or courage a fair excuse or a fit opportunity (C) Bellar. recognit lib. 5. de Pont. c. 8. Ecclesia non semper privat Principes dominio vel qui a vires non habet vel qui a non judicat expedire And therefore there is no reason why they should have the reputation of moderate men that seem to restrain and qualifie the abuse of the Popes direct temporal power or to write against it with some pomp and vanity when indeed they do but abuse the world with a distinction which serves only to veil the impiety of the former assertion and make Princes secure and inapprehensive of their danger Again the assertors of the Pope's indirect Power are not agreed whether a Prince may forfeit his Crown for misgovernment or unfitness to govern or whether only for Apostacy or Heresie The Doctrine of deposing Kings for misgovernment is approved by the Authentick Canon Law of the Roman Church (D) Decret par 2. Can. Alius Caus 15. qu. 6. Zacharias Regem Francorum non tam pro suis iniquitatibus quam pro eo quod tantae potestati crat inutilis à regno deposuit If a Prince become a manifest Apostate he falls from all power and dignity in the Judgment of all their approved Divines and Canonists (E) Parsons or Creswel or both under the name of Philopater Sect. 2. n. 157. That a Prince may be deposed for Heresie is so generally received that those very persons of the Roman Church which have written against it in other cases do except the case of Heresie And 't is observable that in their General Council of Lyons wherein Frederick the Emperor was deposed for Heresie his Advocate endeavoured to vindicate him from the guilt of that crime but neither the Emperor nor he excepted against the power of the Church to depose him in the case of Heresie 3. This is the Doctrine of the General Councils and lawful Representatives of the Roman Church as the Reader may find in the Margent (F) Conc. Lat. 4 c. 3 an 1215. de haereticis tom 28. p. 161 162. Conc. Lugdun an 1245. tom 28. p. 424 c. Conc. Constant tom 29. an 1414 p. 458. I know the Council of Trent made no express Decree about the deposing of Princes but he that considers the State of Christendom at that time how many Princes had been already driven out of the Roman Church and how many more were ready to follow them will rather wonder they said so much than that they durst say no more For though it was no time for them to speak their minds yet so true were the Fathers of that Council to their Master at Rome as to keep up his claim to a temporal power over Princes For did they not make bold to Excommunicate and deprive Emperors Kings and Princes of all their Dominions held in Fee of the Church (G) Concil Trident tom 35. Sess 25. c. 19. in the Decree against Duels By this Canon saith a Royal Author the Kingdom of Naples had need look well to it self (H) K. James his works p. 449. For one Duel it may fall into the Exchequer of the Roman Church because that Kingdom payeth a relief to the Church as a Royalty or Seignorie that holdeth in Fee of the said Church And had not the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland need look well to themselves too For if we believe the Popes and their dependents they are the Dominions of the Church the Pope is our Soveraign Lord the King is but his Vassal and did not King John grant to Pope Innocent and his Successors the Kingdoms of England and Ireland and receive them back again upon paying yearly a relief to the Church Did not Innocent the Third and Innocent the Fourth call the Kings of England their Vassals (I) Mat. Paris Ed. Lon. 1640. ad an 1216. p. 280. ad an 125. p. 272. Did not the Pope declare to Queen Elizabeths Resident that England was held in Fee of the Papacy (S) History of the Reformation part 2. P. 374. Since his Majesties restauration the Lovaine Divines insisted on this title of the Pope to the Kings Dominions and it seems his Holiness was well enough pleased with it (M) History of the Irish Remonstrance p. 117. and p. 101. placuit Pontifici reservat in sua tempora Baronius endeavours to make out the Popes title Tom. 12. ad an 1159. ad an 1172. And Spondanii Continuat Baronii Paris 1658. tom 1. p. 327. ad an 1299. Bellarmine Apol. pro resp c. ed. 1610. p. 33 34 35. That the Kingdoms of England and Ireland are Tributary to the Pope Again did not the Fathers of Trent confirm all the Canons of Popes and Councils in favour of Ecclesiastical persons and liberties and against the insringers of them (N) Concil Bid. Sess 25 de Ref. c. 20. Did they not take care to preserve the Authority of the Roman See in all things (O) Conc. Trid. Sess 25. de Ref. c. 21. And confirm the Capitula of the Council of Lateran in which the deposing Power is asserted But that I may
the Guilt of his Blood scarce any one of which he said had been a Beginner or an active Prosecutor of the War If then by the Protestant Religion our Author mean the Christian Religion as it is professed in the Church of England or in the best reformed Churches abroad his Charge is most unjust and malicious if he mean any thing else by it he might better have called it the Popish or Fanatick than the Protestant Religion What a potent Faction of men which they may call Protestants as they call themselves Catholiques did in these Kingdoms all men know But of all men living the Romanists have the least reason to call them Traitors and Rebels as I shall shew afterwards But though the King was arraigned in the name of the Commons of England yet it was well observed by his Majesty at his Tryal That they never asked the Question of the tenth man of the Kingdom much less of the major part of the Nation They had no consent of the House of Peers the Ordinance for trying the King being rejected by the Lords They were no free or full House of Commons for that House being freed from the Insolence of the Army resolved upon a Treaty with his Majesty recalled their Votes of Non-Addresses and voted that he should be in Honour freedom and safety And after the major part of the House had voted the Kings Concessions to be a sufficient ground for Peace the Army Officers seized and committed some of the Members as they were coming to the House accused others of inviting the Scots the last Summer and required that they might be excluded Thus many of the Commons being forced out and others absenting themselves they restored the Votes of Non-Addresses and voted the drawing up a Charge of Treason against his Majesty This is that Venerable Assembly a mere unparliamentary Juncto which in obedience to these Masters damn'd all former Votes in Favour of the King and brought him to the Block against the Laws of the Kingdom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy the Sense of the Church of England of the House of Peers and of the greater part of the House of Commons But if we trace the Footsteps of this Rebellion as far as we can it will appear that the Romish Faction had a great Influence both on the first Beginnings and Progress of it What is it that they have more maligned than the Government and Constitution of this Church and Kingdom Or how could the Roman Conclave find out a safer if not a quicker way to ruin the Protestant Religion than by breaking in pieces that Church which is the Strength and Beauty that Kingdom whose Soveraign was under God the Defender of the Reformation It was the Judgment of Bishop Bramhall That the Popes Privy Purse and Subtle Councils helped to kindle our Civil Wars which ended in the Tragical Murder of the Lords Anointed The intemperate Heat of the Seditious Spirits in Scotland had fermented a great part of the Kingdom but before they broke out into open Hostilities they made secret Applications to Cardinal Richlieu the great Minister of France and Favourite of Rome which made use of all his Interest and Policy to embroyl his Majesties Affairs in that Kingdom This great Statesman knowing that it was the Interest of England to hold the Ballance even between France and Spain and that his Majesty had in the year 35 hindred the French from making themselves Masters of the Spanish Netherlands resolved to blow the Coals in Scotland and practise upon the Male-contents whom he found so well prepared for an Insurrection To this purpose he sends Chamberlain a Scot to exasperate the Confederates against the King appoints one of his Secretaries to reside among them to be present in their Councils of War and to direct their Proceedings and some of the Covenanters had free access to Con the same Countryman whilst Chamberlain was Negotiating for the Cardinal This is certain the Court of Rome and the Jesuites those inveterate Enemies of our Religion and Government could not have thought of a more effectual and easie Method to bring us to ruin than by making us do their Work for them and the Cardinal who had formed those vast Designs of enlarging the French Monarchy observing if not raising the Tumults in that Kingdom laid hold of the Advantage which men of ambitious and restless Spirits had put into his Hands Ann. 1639. came to light a Letter of the Scotch Covenanters written to the French King wherein they desired his Protection and Assistance The Lord Lowdon being by the Kings Command examined about it confessed it was his hand-writing and that it was framed before the Pacification which being agreed to the Letter he said was never sent (D) The Memoires of D. Hamilton And The Memorials of the English Affairs ad an 1639. The late Author of the Impartial Collection hath furnished us with a more exact Discovery of the secret Influence which those Foreign Councils and Assistances gave both to the Scottish Commotions and English Rebellion The Letter to the French King is set down by him in English (E) An Impartial Collection of the great Affairs of State c. vol. 1. Published 1682. p. 276 277. which I will here transcribe SIR YOur Majesty being the Refuge and Sanctuary of afflicted Princes and States we have found it necessary to send this Gentleman Mr. Colvil to represent to your Majesty the Candour and Ingenuity as well of our Actions and Proceedings as of our Intentions which we desire to be engraved and written to the whole World with a beam of the Sun as well as to your Majesty We therefore most humbly beseech you Sir to give Faith and Credit to him and to all that he shall say on our part touching us and our Affairs being most assured Sir of an Assistance equal to your wonted Clemency heretofore and so often shewed to this Nation which will not yield the Glory to any other whatsoever to be eternally Sir your Majesties most Humble most Obedient and most Affectionate Servants Subscribed by divers of the Principal Covenanters At the Meeting of the Parliament in England Apr. 13. 1640. the Lord Keeper in his Speech to both Houses acquaints them Since his Majesty came from Berwick it came to his certain knowledge That they the Scots have addressed themselves to Foreign States and treated with them to deliver themselves up to their Protection and Power as by Gods great Providence and Goodness his gracious Majesty is able to shew under the Hands of the prime Ringleaders of that Faction than which nothing could be of more dangerous consequence to this and his Majesties other Kingdoms Whosoever they be that do or shall wish England ill they may know it to be of too tough a complexion and courage to be assailed in the Face or to be set upon at the Fore-door and therefore it is not unlikely but they may as in former times find
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
the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church This Proposition proved from Gregory 1. Zachary Gregory the 7th c. From Parsons Creswel Suarez Bellarmine Bouchier Mariana Fr. de Verone Reynolds They which have written in defence of the War or of the Kings death go upon the same Principles 2. That in the Reign of King Charles the First the Pope animated his Subjects to rebel and sent over divers Bulls to that purpose STaffords Memoires p. 12 13 To the Instances given of Popish Malice and Bloodiness (A) This resers to the printed Tryal of the late Lord Stafford P. 9. from former Examples he answers That by the same reason and to as good purpose the traiterous Seditions and Outrages in Germany France Bohemia and Holland authorized and fomented by Calvin Zuinglius Beza and other Reformers the late bloody Wars in England the almost yesterdays Remonstrances and Practises in Scotland but above all that never to be paralell'd hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed our Glorious Soveraign Charles the First in cold blood by outward form of Justice on pretence of Reformation might be imputed to the Protestant Religion for all these horrid Villanies were committed by Protestants Protestants who gloried in being more than ordinarily refined from Popish Errors and Superstitions If it be said as most justly it may the Churth of England never taught such Practises the same say and protest the Papists in behalf of their Church Let this Author bestow as hard names as he pleases upon the Contrivers and Actors in these horrid Villanies and let that Religion if so wicked a thing must be called Religion which gave encouragement to them go as it deserves for Infidelity and Irreligion I am sure there are no greater Enemies to the Christian Religion than those which endeavour to pretend to promote it by such ways as are contrary to the very Nature and Design of all true Religion Indeed our Adversaries of the Roman Communion lay as bad things to the charge of the Protestants as we can do to their Church and Religion and as often as we put them in mind of the Fifth of November they are ready to reproach us with the Thirtieth of January And that I may not make any cause or persons look either better or worse than they are I shall make a faithful representation of the Doctrines and Practises of both sides so far as they are pertinent to the present Debate viz. Whether the traiterous Seditions and Outrages in England and other Parts of Christendom may be imputed to the Protestant Religion with as much reason as the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodyness from former Examples may be to the Roman Church and Religion Some years ago was published a Seditious Libel under the Title of Philanax Anglicus wherein the Author taxes not only some Protestant Reformers but the very Reformation it self with Rebellion charges the English Reformers with Treason against Queen Mary and with a Roman boldness asserts That the Seditious Doctrines are allow'd by the generality of them that call themselves Protestants But this Book having had a solid and substantial Answer by Dr. Du Moulin I will not trouble my self or the Reader with any thing which he hath written in vindication of the Protestant Religion and the Reformed Churches and Divines abroad But I cannot but take notice of the ignorance or rather the Malice of the Author of the Controversial Letters out of whom the substance of the present imputation is taken who tells us He doth not know that the Church of England hath proceeded so far as the Roman Church hath done in the Council of Constance or condemned those Errors by any Authentick Censures And our Author is not afraid or ashamed to say that some Roman Catholiques are most remarkable peradventure of all others for firmness of Loyalty I shall endeavour therefore with as much brevity as the Subject will allow to vindicate the Honour of the Reformation of our own Church and Nation from this unjust and malicious Charge 1. The Confessions of the several Reformed Churches abroad are so full and clear in asserting the Obedience of Subjects to their Princes that I do not find our Adversaries of Rome have much to say against them (B) V. Corpus Syntagma Confessionum c. Aurei Allob. 1662 V.G. The Bohemian the Helvetian the French the Augustine the Saxon the â—…gick Confessions in the Articles concerning the Civil Powers We are told that the Protestants of France had towards the beginning of the War resolved upon a Declaration against the Parliament and Subjects of England taking Arms against the King and hâ—… published it if it had not been dasht by Cardinal Richlieu 〈◊〉 Englands Complaint by L. Gatford Printed 1648. pag 10. And 't is observable That upon the reprinting of all the Confessions of the Reformed Churches at Geneva An. 1654. it was moved That instead of the 39 Articles of the Church of England which do with the greatest plainness and sincerity assert the Duty of Subjects to Princes they would insert the Confession of the Assembly of Divines but the motion was utterly rejected by the University Senate and Church of Geneva and the 39 Articles put in as before (C) Durell vind Eccles-Angl c. 2. As to the Sayings of particular Doctors of the Reformation I cannot indeed I need not defend them they are no Pillars of our Faith nor do their Writings bear the stamp of publick Authority And since none of our Adversaries have proved that any of the Reformed Churches have by any Authentick Act approved of Seditions and treasonable Principles as I shall prove the Roman Church doth they cannot be imputed to the Protestant Religion with the same reason that we charge them upon the Roman Church Let the Papists say and Protest that their Church never taught any Seditious Practises yet I shall sooner trust my own Senses than such men as by the Principles of their Religion are under no Obligation of speaking Truth 2. No Church under Heaven did ever more expresly declare against all Seditious and Disloyal Practises than the Church of England Our Reformation was begun and carried on in a peaceable and legal manner and our Reformers proposed to themselves that excellent Rule of our Saviour They restored to God the things that were Gods and to the Kings the full exercise of their lawful Power We are Members of a Church whose just Glory it is not only to have constantly taught the Duty of Subjects to their Princes but suffered for her Loyalty to them Our Kings and the Church of England have always rejoyced and wept together and none ever forsook the Royal Cause in its Distress which had not first forsaken the Church or at least lost all their Zeal and Affection to her In Fine our late Royal Martyr declared That he died for maintaining the true Protestant Religion he acquitted not only the Church of England but all the true Sons of the Church from
once pronounced it will be lawful for the Commonwealth to deny Obedience to him And because a War must necessarily follow the Counsels how to maintain it must be sit down Arms must be quickly provided and Taxes laid upon the People to defray the Expences of the War And if it be requisite and the Commonwealth cannot otherwise maintain it self it will be lawful both by the right of Defence and more by the Authority proper to the People to declare publiquely the King to be the common Enemy and then to kill him with the Sword The Commonwealth from which the Royal Power hath its Original may when the case requires it bring the King to Judgment and deprive him of his Soveraignty for the Commonwealth hath not so transferr'd the Right of Power to the Prince but it hath reserved a greater Power to it self 2. But if there be no opportunity for the States of the Kingdom to assemble in this case of necessity they may dispense with the Formalities of Law any man may do that which the Commonwealth is supposed to desire should be done the common voice of the People shall be his Warrant that cuts of the Kings Head 3. But what if this be like to endanger the Traytors Neck Then he may take away the King by conveying a strong and subtile Poyson into 〈◊〉 Garment or Saddle as the Moors have kill'd their Enemies with poysoned Presents But 't is time to draw to a conclusion of this Head J. Goodwin in one of his Pamphlets hath this remarkable expression As for offering violence to the person of a King or attempting to take away his Life we leave the proof of the lawfulness of it to those profound Disputers the Jesuites c. And one of his Adversaries in a Letter to him declares that J. Goodwin is for ought he knows the first and only Minister of any Reformed Church that ever was of that Jesuitical Opinion as himself stiles it (L) Nethersole in a Letter to J. Goodwin Printed Jan. 8 1648. And though I will not undertake to make good that Assertion yet to the Positions of any of our Sectaries I can oppose the Authorities of a whole Herd of Jesuites and other Divines of the Roman Church But to all these Observations I will only add one more That as a Preparative to the Murder of King Charles the First a Book was printed An. 1648. licensed by G. Mabbot bearing this Title Several Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliaments to proceed against their King for Misgovernment The Heads upon which these Speeches are pretended to be made and the very Matter and Expressions excepting only some few not material Passages are wholly taken out of the Book of Parsons an English Jesuit the great Design of which was to baffle the Title of King James to the Crown of England animate the People to Rebellion and introduce the Roman Catholique Religion All the difference is Parsons published his Book by way of Dialogue these turned it into Speeches This Parsons was Rector of the English College at Rome missed very narrowly of a Cardinals Cap of how great esteem he was at Rome may be gather'd from that famous Inscription on his Monument (M) Aligambe p. 413 414. And he hath furnished the Seditious Spirits amongst us with Arguments and Precedents for their Practises against the King This false new Title they are the words of Mr. Prinne ' published at this Season intimated to the World that this Discourse of a Jesuit for which he was condemned of High Treason was nothing else but Speeches made by some Members of the Commons House at a Conference with the Lords of which Book though himself and divers others complained there was nothing done to vindicate the Houses from this gross Imputation (N) Prinne's Speech in the House of Commons Decemb. 4. 1648. p. â—00 By all which we see that the Popes and Jesuites though at a distance contributed very much to the late Bloody Wars in England and the dismal consequences of them All the difference I can find between the Heads of both Factions is only this Whether the Power of Deposing and Chastising Kings belongs to the People or to the Pope The Fanatique Sectaries allow the People by their Representatives to resume the Power into their own hands whereas some of the Popish Fanatiques reserve this Power to the Pope as the Common Father of Christendom Some I say for the greater part of them invest the Commonwealth with this Authority And so much of the first Proposition 2. In the Reign of King Charles the First the Pope stirr'd up his Subjects of the Roman Communion to Rebel forbad them to take the Oath of Allegiance and absolved them from their Obedience In the beginning of his Majesties Reign the Pope by his Bull strictly forbids the taking the Oath of Allegiance (O) Urban 8. Dilectis filiis Catholicis Angliae Romae Maii 30. 1126. An. 1642. The Pope persuades Eugenius Oneal to give proofs of his Valour in joyning with the Irish Catholiques against the Haeretiques grants to him and all his Adherents the Apostolical Benediction and Plenary Indulgence (P) In a Bull dated Octob. 8. 1642 to Eugegenius Oneal An. 1643. he grants a Bull of Plenary Indulgence to all the Roman Catholiques of Ireland who had joyned in the Rebellion began in the year 1641. (Q) This Bull is dated May 25 1643. all which Bulls are extant in the Histories of those times and therefore need not be transcribed When the Irish Papists submitted to the King subscribed and swore to the observation of the Articles agreed upon the Pope absolved them from their Oath took upon himself to be their General in the person of his Nuntio assumed the exercise of the Regal Power imprisoned those Roman Catholiques and threatned to take away their Lives who had promoted the Peace and desired to return to their Allegiance to his Majesty And 't is observable That soon after the most Infamous Rump had crowned all their Wickedness with the Murder of his Sacred Majesty they nulled the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and so made themselves as Innocent as the Child unborn (R) Feb. 9. The House voted that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy should be Null and Void Memorie 's of the English Affairs ad an 1648. Thus I have proved with as much brevity as a Discourse of this consequence would admit That neither the Reformed Churches abroad nor the Church of England gave any encouragement to the late Bloody Wars in England or the Murder of the Lords Anointed and I have shewed what Influence the Principles and Practises of the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church had upon them I have omitted nothing that deserves our Consideration except the Gunpowder Treason which having been the Subject of many Sermons and Books I shall pass it over only with these two Observations 1. The late Lord Stafford at his Tryal
Soveraign Princes in that Decree or not is not material for since the Rights of Inferiour Princes are properly their Soveraigns to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance without asking the Soveraigns leave is to deprive the Soveraigns of their due That this Power hath been challenged and executed by divers Popes upon Soveraign Princes as well as Subordinate Lords and particularly upon Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth is notorious to all the World and they did no more than the Laws of the Roman Church allow (E) Decret par 2. caus 15. qu. 6. c. 4. Nos Sanctorum c. Decret Greg. l. 5. tit 7. c. 16. I know not why the Roman Catholiques should call this an Usurpation of the Popes when they are entrusted by the General Councils with the Interpretation and Execution of all their Decrees But what need I insist on the proof of this Proposition When his Lordship in the printed Tryal declared He could not say the Church of Rome does not hold it only he never beard it did And a learned Author of that Church in Answer to this Charge saith ' As to the Popes Power of absolving Subjects I beg leave is wave such curious Controversies (F) See Dr. Stilling fleets Answer to several late Treatises 1674 in the Preface where his words are cited Thus I have endeavoured to give a clear and satisfactory Account of these four great Questions and proved my Assertions by as good Law as any is in the Roman Church at this day I know nothing that can invalidate the Testimonies which I have produced unless they can shew either that I have misquoted any of the Laws or mistaken the Sense of them that they have been condemned or abrogated by some publique Act of the Church binding to all persons of that Communion or else that the same Principles which oblige the Roman Catholiques to receive the other Articles of Faith wherein we differ from them do not also oblige them to receive these Canons and Decrees But if none of these things can be proved then let all men judge Whether the Treasons and Seditions in other Countries especially the late bloody Wars in England and Hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed may by the same reason be imputed to the Protestant Religion as Queen Mary's Cruelties the Powder Plot the Irish Barbarism the French Massacre and many other Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness from former Examples may be charged on the Roman Church and Religion CHAP. IV. Testimonies of the Loyalty of the Roman Church and Religion considered The first from St. Math. 22.21 The second from the Decree of the General Council of Constance The third from the Annotations of the Divines of Rhemes on Rom. 13. The fourth from the Censure of the Doctors of the Faculty of Sorbon against a Book of Sanctarellus LEst this might seem a meerly extorted Profession of a despairing Man p. 44. My Lord endeavoured to prove by several convincing Testimonies he had ever been Instructed and Educated in the same Sentiments as the established Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church 1. His first Testimony was taken from places of Holy Scripture particularly that of St. Math. 22.21 Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars c from the plain and clear sense of which and other Texts of Holy Writ nothing he said in this World was able to remove him That we are bound to render to all Men their dues and to Caesar the things that are Caesars is not disputed among any sort of Men that I know But how shall a Roman Catholick understand which are the Rights of Caesar or by a just and equal distribution give to God what is Gods and to the King what is the Kings The Holy Scriptures indeed have told us with all plainess and sincerity what we are to give to Caesar but the lusts and interests of Men have perverted the clearest Texts and made them serve their own Pride and Covetousness I believe his Majesty will hardly stand to the determination of the Rhemish Divines by whom his Lordship saith he was instructed in the Principles of Faith and Loyalty For our Blessed Savior commands us to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and his own practice was a Comment on his Precept But the Rhemists in their Annotations outhat Text are afraid to speak plain as Men that mean honestly should do They are more afraid of giving too much than too little to Caesar (A) See the Rhemists Annotations on St. Math. 22.21 In their Annotations on St. Math. 17. they roundly tell us that Caesar hath no right to any payments from the Clergy (B) Rhem. Annot 8. St. Mat. 17.26 Though Christ tò avoid scandal paid Tribute yet indeed he sheweth that himself ought to be free from such payments as also his Apostles and in them the whole Clergy c. Which Exemption and Priviledge being grounded upon the very Law of Nature it self c. And in Hebrews 5.1 in all Matters touching God his Service and Rellgion the Priest hath only Charge and Authority as the Priest Temporal is the Peoples Governour Guide and Sovereign in the things touching their worldly Affairs And one of the Holy General Councils of the Roman Church tells us and pretends to prove it from Scripture too that Secular Princes ought not to require any Tribute from the Clergy (C) Conc. Lat. 3. c. 19. p. 455 456. Ne Laici imponant Ecclesiis onera And in the Margent we have Gen. 47. quoted 2. His second Testimony was taken from the Authority of the General Council of Constance to which all Roman Catholicks are bound to submit the 15th Canon and definition of which Council is Quilibet Tyrannus potest debet licitè meritorie occidi c. Every Tyrant lawfully and meritoriously may and ought to be killed by any Vassal or Subject whatsoever even by hidden Treacheries and subtle Flatteries or Adulations notwithstanding any Oath given or confederation made with him without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge whatsoever Which Clause is added in regard of the right of Supream Temporal Monarchs over Inferiour Princes subordinate to them This Doctrine the Synod declares to be erronious in Faith and Manners and the same as Heretical condemns c. The Council condemned this Proposition And would not an Assembly of the old Heathen Philosophers have done as much Had the same Proposition been brought before them and upon the same occasion I am confident as far as we can judge by their Writings they would have made a better provision for the security of Princes than the Fathers at Constance did But since it is acknowledged That all Roman Catholicks are bound to submit to this Council of Constance I will fairly represent some of the Doctrines of it That damnable Doctrine of breaking Faith with Hereticks was notoriously Patronized and put in practice by this Council For the Emperour had granted a safe Conduct to J. Husse