Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n apostle_n church_n rome_n 2,013 5 6.8164 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
B21181 The Jesuites policy to suppress monarchy proving out of their own writings that the Protestant religion is a sure foundation and principle of a true Christian / written by a person of honor. Derby, Charles Stanley, Earl of, 1628-1672. 1678 (1678) Wing D1088 39,304 36

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Treatise in praise of James Clement with divers motives to make away the King which last dyed for the which he was Executed But Francis Verona Constant exceeds them all he affirms that notwithstanding the Council of Constance it is lawful for any private man to Murther Kings condemned of Heresie and Tyranny And Emanuel Sa writes that that the Rebellion of a Clerk against the King is no Treason insomuch that he is not Subject to him the which Bellarmine in a manner confirms saying the Pope of Rome hath Exempted Clerks from their subjection to Princes Kings are now no more Superiors of Clerks And to prove their Doctrine of killing Kings more plainly he produceth the equivocations and evasions of Garnet being apprehended for the Powder-Treason the which is justified by many of that Society John Henreux writing thus When any man is drawn into question under an unjust trial no man standing bound to inform against himself as the law of nature teacheth us plainly he may peremptorily and freely deny that for which he is called into question without any tergiversation because he always understands this Clause Ut tenear dicere which Doctrine is confirmed by divers other Jesuites One of them affirming that the Doctrine of Equivocation is grounded upon the memorable Example of St. Francis in the end he shows their opinion touching concealing of Confession which they hold ought not to be revealed John Henreux writing of that Subject sayes That a thing Sealed up with the most holy Signet of Confession cannot be broken without detestable Sacriledge and that there cannot fall so great a mischief for the avoiding of which it can be lawful to bewray a Confession And Suarez adds yea though the safety of the whole Common-weale should stand upon it by all which proof● he shews that it was not Mariana's Doctrine alone to Murther Kings but that all the Jesuites have erred with him in this whom Father Cotton connot justifie in general Anti-Cotton having set down the Jesuites Doctrine he proves it by their Actions and first by the Fact of John Chastel Clerk Confirmed by the Actions brought up in the Jesuites Colledge who having Stabbed the King in the Mouth the 27. of December 1604. being examined upon sundry Questions and among others wh ther he had studied Divinity in the Jesuites Colledge he answered that he had been th●re und●r Fath●r Gueet with whom he had continued two years and a half And being ask●d if he had ever been in the Chamber of Meditation whither the Jesuites use to bring the greatest Sinners there to behold the Representation of many Devils set forth under colour to reduce them to a better Life thereby to cause a perturbation in their minds and consequently upon such resolutions to thrust them forward to the undertaking of some gr●at Action His answer was that he had often been in the Chamber of Meditations And being questioned whether the killing of the King were not an ordinary disc urse amongst the Jesuites answered that he had heard them say it was lawful to kill the King and that he was no member of the Church and that we ought not to obey him nor hold him for our King untill he had received approbation from the Pope Peter Barriere being apprehended at Melun in April 1593. being d scovered by an honest Fryer Confessed that he came purposely to Court to kill the King and that he had been p●rswaded thereunto by one Varade a Jesuite whose dayly practice was to d●fame the King with v●le Speeches by wh se perswasion he had provided a Knife to do the Fact he first of all discovered his intent to Aubrey Curate of St. Andrew des Acts who directed him to Varade Rector of the Jesuites Coll●dge who confirmed him in his Resolution to kill the King assuring h m that in case he were put to death he should obtain in Heaven a Crown of Martyrdom and adjuring him unto this Action upon the Sacrament of Confession and to Holy Communion And omitting many Actions of Jesuites both at home and abroad to prove their damnable Doctrine he concludes with Garnet Hall and others of the Sect who were Complices in that Powd●r-Treason which was practised to ruine the King and the whole Estates of England In the end he seeks to prove by many pregnant presumptions that the Jesuites are guilty of the Murther First by an Advertisement sent from M. de la force the Kings Lievtenant in Bearn that a Spaniard described by him was come into France with an intent to kill the King which Spaniard was brought unto the King by Cotton but the King having received these Letters shewed them to Cotton and commanded him to bring the Spaniard again but he could not be found 2. Secondly the seditious Preaching of Gontier and Hardy both Jesuites the Lent before the Fact was committed insomuch that the Marshal D'Ornano told the King that if Gontier had Preached so at Bourdeaux he would have caused him to be cast into the River and yet he was as very Zealous Catholick 3. Thirdly the Confession of Ravilliac who justified unto Father Aubigny that he had told him in Confession that he had been sent to give a great blow and that he had shewed him the Knife having a heart graven upon it But the Jesuit protested That God had given him the grace to forget that presently which was revealed to him in Confession whereby he saved his Life And last of all the Predictions before the Kings death as at Bruxelles it was spoken of twelve or fifteen days before it happened At Prague it had been given out that the King was dead before it fell out so and moreover it was told them that after his death the Daulphin should not be King but the King of Spain and that for some reasons which Gontier gave in his Sermons in Lent last and then the Prediction of the Provost of Pluviers that the King was either slain or hurt that day He was a Jesuit in Faction and had a Son a Jesuit To conclude I think it not amiss to say something concerning the first General Council that ever was in the Church of Christ you have the whole Story of it in the 15 Chap. of the Acts of the Holy Apostles I shall take notice that it was not called by the particular direction of any of the Apostles but that all of them did concur th●r●unto and this was doubtless the Method of the Christian Church during it's greatest Purity and Integrity and the truth is no other way could be used while the Church of Christ was under Persecution but in process of time when supreme powers did receive and protect the Christian Faith and that as the Scripture saith Kings and Queens were Nursing Fathers and Nursing Mothers of the Spouse of Christ then were General Councils summon'd by them and by them were these Councils left to their free Debates and determinations whose Decrees were afterwards confirm'd by the Supreme Authorities
another Opinion In the first place I will lay down for an infallible Truth That never any Protestant i. e. a Son of the Church of England did ever draw his Sword against the King or any other their Sovereign Prince since the Reformation begun by King Henry the Eighth Caco Oh Monstrum horrendum Sure you do not believe what you say Ortho. Yes and I 'le prove what I say thus That the late Rebels Cromwel your Friend President Bradshaw and the rest of those that were of their Party were not Protestants that is they were not Sons of the Church of England you may as well call those People Royalists as Protestants or Sons of the Church of England Did they not overthrow the Hierarchy of the Church as well as Monarchy How then can you call them Protestants When indeed they do not deserve without a great deal of Charity the name of Men so Monstrous were their Actions Thus much to vindicate Protestants whose Tenet is this that if their Sovereign were a Tyrant and a Turk which our Sovereign is far from I thank God yet in such a case we allow of no other Arms than what the Primitive Christians did use against their Persecutors that is Prayers and Tears Caco Thus far I confess you have well proved that Protestants in a strict sense so called i. e. true Sons of the Church of England may be very good Subjects and that if they deviate from their Lovalty to their Sovereign it is not from any ill Principle in their Rel●gion which they suck in with their Milk and that such deviations do rather proceed from the ill Principles of Sin and frailties of humane Nature All this I acknowledge for a great truth but what have you to say against Papists that they should not be as good Subjects as any the best Protestants in the World Ortho. In a word the Rebellion of Ireland accompanied with an universal Massacre without all distinction of Ages and Sexes which as it preceeded the Rebellion of England so did it also exceed it in Inhumanity and Bloodshed and for ought I know might occasion the English Rebellion Caco I did expect no less from you who are so great an assertor of the Protestants so much an adversary to the Papists and so Loyal to the Prince but all this while I hear nothing of any Principle in the Popish Religion that should lead them into such horrid actions which I do by no means justifie Ortho. Have patience and I shall give enough of that you know what our Saviour said No man can serve two Masters which possibly might be a Prophecy of the Popes Sovereignty over the Kings and Protentates of the World How can the Papists serve God Honor the King which two are but one in reality and Serve Worship and Obey the Pope for he is as our Saviour says the other Master Caco Well enough for the Pope as the Papists tell me pretends to no other Soverelgnty but in Spiritualibus Ortho. In Temporalibus also I assure you and yet it is a wonder how an Opinion so Diametrically opposite to the truth of God delivered in the Scriptures and the Doctrine of the Antients both Councils and Fathers should ever get up among such as profess Christianity And surely were not the Interests of the Court of Rome in greater esteem than the truths of the Gospel and the Peace of the Catholick Church it were not possible that your Popes should be so presumptuous as to assume this Power or the Doctors of Rome so impudent as to assert it For to enlarge a little on this particular of such concernment to the peace of the Church and all Christendom Is it not St. Peter's Exhortation 1. Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake to the King as Supreme and St. Paul is of the same mind Rom. 13.1 Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers and v. 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for Conscience sake and St. Chrysostom's gloss upon the Text answers all your pretences against this truth Etiamsi Apostolus sis c. Although you be an Apostle or an Evangelist or a Prophet yet you must be subject And such was St. Paul's own practice He submits himself to the judgment of Felix Acts 24 and to Festus and from him Acts 25. makes his appeal to Caesar Appellatio autem non nisi ad legitimum sit judicem And this incontroulable Power did the Primitive Christians acknowledge in their Emperors and submit to it though Heathens Hereticks and Persecutors Athanasius being unjustly banished from Alexandria where he was Bishop by Constantius and afterwards falsly accused of Disobedience to his Decree makes this mild defence to him though an Arian and a Persecutor Epist ad Constantium Nequaquam restiti mandatis tuae Pietatis c. I no way resisted the Commands of your Piety neither shall I ever endeavor to enter into Alexandria till your Piety give me leave And thus St. Augustin in Psal 128. Apostata erat Julianus iniquus Idololatra milites tamen Christiani servierunt Imperatori c. Julian was an Apostate a wicked Man an Idolater yet the Christians obeyed him When it concern'd the cause of Christ then indeed they acknowledged him only that was in Heaven but when the Emperour commanded other things they obeyed him I may also ask by what Law the Pope can challenge this Power to himself to dispose of the Temporal Affairs or Estates of Princes Not by any human Law for the Prince is above the coactive or coercive Power of humane Laws solo Deo minor If by Divine Law let him shew any Text of Scripture or Tradition of the Apostle surely they are both against it The weapons of our Warfare saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 10. are not carnal but Spiritual and our Saviour determines against it Mat. 20.25.26 The Princes of the Gentiles exerise Dominion and Authority over them but it shall not be so among you Hence St. Hicrom Epist 3. ad Heliodor speaking of the King and the Bishop saith Ille nolentibus praeest hic volentibus The King hath Power over the refractory and disobedient the Bishop over such as are willing to obey him His Power compulsory the Bishops but precarious And thus the second General Nicene Council Act 3. discoursing of the Regal and Sacerdotal Power speaks to the same purpose Sacordos Coelesti● curat Rex autem legibus aequis justis omma quae in terris siunt procurat The Priest takes care for what may bring us to Heaven The King by just and equitable Laws orders all Affairs on Earth And this is answerable to the terms and boundaries of both powers which we see appointed by Jehosaphat 2 Chron. 19.11 Ananias the chief Friest is over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler or Prince for all the Kings matters If therefore the King be over all and orders all