CHAP. XLVIII. Their Treasons against the lives of Princes and the Peace of Nations, and their dissolving
CHAP. XLVIII. Their Treasons against the lives of Princes and the Peace of Nations, and their dissolving the bond of Oaths and Covenants, and making Perjury and Rebellion to seem Duties and Meritorius.
D etect. 39. The last of their Practical frauds (at home) and the most desperate is, Their Treasons against the lives of Princes, and the Peace of Nations, and their dissolving the bonds of Oaths and Covenants, and making Perjury and Rebellion to seem to be Duties and Meritorious works.
It would be a voluminous task to relate the Histories of the Papal Treasons: How the Roman Vice-christ having laid a claim to both Swords,
Spiritual and Temporal, hath plaid the Traitor against the Greek Emperors, dispossessing them of the West; and against the Emperors of Germany, stirring up their own subjects, and the Christian Princes and States against them; setting his foot on the neck of one, and making another wait barefoot long at the Roman gates; and keeping many of them in wars. It was this
Horrid Treason and Tyrannical usurpation over all the Christians Princes, that caused all those Treatises on that subject wrote against him, in the
Defense of Princes and their Right, which Mich. Goldastus hath preserves and conjoined in diverse Volumes. It was this that caused England,
Denmark, Sweden, and so many other Princes, to be the readier to shake off his yoke. Kings are not Kings where the Pope is fully Pope; except only the House of Austria, whom he is forced to gratify, as the only prop of all his tyranny. France that hath so much stood for its Liberties, hath felt the fruits of the Roman Principles, and League; and two of their most renowned
Kings successively have been basely and inhumanely butchered by them:
And to this day the numerous swarm of the Popes dependent Clergy, doth not only devour, as is thought, about a third part of the Lands, but also awes and sways the Princes. Even in Ireland before our wars, a Bishop (Bedle in his Letter to Laud in Prynne's Introduct. p. 102.) doth open the Power of the Clergy, and their insolencies as such, that he concludes [His Majesty is now with the greatest part of this Country as to their hearts and consciences,
King, but at the Popes descretion] And in another Letter to the said Archbishop (ibid. p. 112.) he saith [I that know that in this Kingdom of his
Majesty, the Pope hath another Kingdom far greater in number, and as I have heretofore signified to the Lord's Justices, and Council (which since is justified by themselves in print) constantly guided and directed by the order of the new Congregation, de propaganda fide, lately erected at Rome—] see the rest.
Do I need to tell England of the many treacheries since the Reformation against our Princes? Or who it was that would have deposed as well as Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and exposed her Kingdoms to the will of others? Or who it was that wrote against King James his Title to the Crown? Or who were the Actors of the Hellish Powder-plot? Or who it is that hath been still blowing the fire, and casting all into disturbances for
their ends? Do I need to mention their approving of the Murdering of Princes, and the pretense of power to dispense with oaths of Allegiance and fidelity, and who hath actually so oft pretended to disoblige the subjects, and expose Princes and their Dominions to the first occupant? I know that many of the seculars in England disowned this doctrine: But 1. So never did the Pope, but hath owned and practiced it. 2. By disowning it, they disown
Popery itself, if they know what they do: For it is an Article of their Faith, and so Essential to their Religion, as explicitly held; and is determined by a Pope and an approved General Council, even 12, the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third, as I before recited the words at large in the third
Argument against them here.
I know some of the Papists would persuade the world that it was none but Mariana the Jesuit that wrote for King killing: and that it was first condemned by themselves. But the Parliament of Paris tells another story of them, as it is recited by Thuanus (who was President and then present) Hist. lib. 130, ad. an. 1604. And Rivet names them Guignardus (that wrote in praise of the murder of Henry the third) and of Ode Pichenatus, Barterius suborned by Varada, &c. And Albineus the Jesuit did hear the Murderer of Henry the fourth confess before he did the fact, and put off the examiners with this answer, that God had given him that special gift to forget when once he had absolved a sinner whatsoever was confessed by him. And why was it that France did expel the Jesuits, and set up a Pillar of Remembrance of their villainies, till Henry the fourth would needs gratify the Pope by calling them in again, and told the Parliament, that the peril of it should be on him; and so it was; for it cost him his life. And why did the same
Parliament of Paris, Nov. 1610, condemn Bellarmine's book against Barclay, as an engine of treason and rebellion? And the Theological faculty
of Paris, April 4th, 1626, condemned Santarellus Book as guilty of the same villainy, stirring up people to Rebellion and King-killing? And May 12th, the University confirmed it: And March 13th, the Parliament condemned the Book to be burnt.
And it's worth the reading which Rivet recites of the Answers of the Jesuits in Paris, when the Parliament asked them their judgment of that Book, viz. [Seeing their General had approved the Book, and judged the things that are there written to be certain, whether they were of the same mind?] They answered that [Living at Rome he could not but approve what was there approved of.] [But say the Parliament, What think you? Say the Jesuits, the clean contrary. Say the Examiners, But what would you do if you were at Rome? Say the Jesuits, That which they do that are at Rome. At which said some of the Parliament, What! Have they one Conscience at Rome, and another at Paris? God bless us from such confessors as these.]
But yet some of the Papists will seem so honest, as to say that private men may not kill a King till he be deposed. Very true! But withal it is their currant doctrine, that if once he be excommunicate, he is then no King, yea or if he be a Heretic; and so being no King, they may kill the man, and not kill the King. This is the juggling of these seeming Loyall subjects. You may see it in their own writings; Suarez adverse. Sect. Anglic. lib. 6, c. 4.
Sect. 14, and c. 6. Sect. 22,24, and Azorius Jesuita Instit. Moral. part. 1, l.
8, c. 13. He that would see more of their mind in this, let him read the Mysterium Patrum Jesuitarum, and the Jansenians mystery of Jesuitism, and Bishop Rob. Abbots Antilogia ad Apolog. Eudaemojohan: But what need we more than the Decrees of a Pope and General Council, and the practice of the Church of Rome for so many ages?
And for the Popes power to absolve them from all oaths of Allegiance and fidelity, the foresaid Pope Innocent and his approved General Council have told the world enough of their mind to put us out of doubt of it.
But (leaving abundance of foreign instances) I shall mention but one or two at home. The Papists have lately had the confidence to affirm that the Powder-plot and the Spanish invasion in one thousand five hundred eightyeight were not upon a quarrel of Religion, nor owned by the Pope. King
James hath said already so much against them in these points, that I think it needless to say anymore (especially also after Bishop Abbots Antilogia) but only here to produce one Testimony of their own, concerning the Spanish
Invasion.
Cardinal Ossatus in his 87th. Epist. ad D. de Ville-roy, tells us that Pope Clement the eighth (one of the best of all the late ones) did press for the King of France to join with Spain in the Invasion of England, and the Cardinal answered that the King was tied by an Oath to the Queen of England: to which the Pope replied, that [The Oath was made to an Heretic, but he was bound in another Oath to God and the Pope] adding withal [that Kings and other Princes do permit themselves all things (or tolerate themselves in all things) which make for their commodity: and that the matter is gone so far, that it is not (or should not be) imputed to them, or taken for their fault: and he alleged the saying of Franciscus Mariae Duke of Urbine, that indeed everyone doth blame a Noble man, or Great man that is no Sovereign, if he keep not his Covenants, (or fidelity,) and they account him infamous; but supreme Princes may without any danger of their reputation, make Covenants and break them, lie, betray, and perpetrate other such like things] This was good Pope Clement the eighth. And can we look for better from the rest? You see what Oaths and Covenants are with them.
And that the design was still carried on against the Queen upon account of Religion, and the Realm to have been invaded by the Spaniard on that account, and that the principal point of the Plot was to prepare a party within the Realm that might adhere to the invaders; all this with much more
Sir Francis Walsingham (that well knew) hath testified to Monsieur Critoy in his Letter, Cabal. part. 2, p. 39.
Thuanus a Moderate Papist (and a most knowing and impartial Historian) tells you (lib. 89, p. 248,249, ad an. 1588.) that, [the Spaniards pretended to undertake the expedition only for Religion sake, and therefore took with them Martin Alarco Vicar general of the Holy Inquisition, with abundance of Capuchins and Jesuits: and that they had with them the Popes Bull, which they were to publish as soon as they landed, and that Cardinal Allan was appointed as the Popes Legate to land at the same time, and with full power to see to the restoring of Religion. And that the said Bull had these expressions: that the Pope, by the Power given from God by lawful succession of the Catholic Church, for the defection of Henry the eighth who forcibly separated himself and his people from the communion of Christians, which was promoted by Edward the sixth and Elizabeth, who being pertinacious and impenitent in the same Rebellion and Usurpation— therefore (the Pope) incited by the continual persuasions of many, and by the suppliant prayers of the English men themselves, (N. B.) hath dealt with diverse Princes, and specially the most potent King of Spain —to depose that woman, and punish her pernicious adherents in that Kingdom—] Read the rest there; for though wicked, its worth the reading. The Pope there saith, that Pope Sixtus before him prescribed the Queen, and took from her all her Dignities, Titles, and Rights to the Kingdom of England and Ireland, absolving her subjects from the Oath of fidelity and obedience: He chargeth
all men on pain of the wrath of God, that they afford her no favor, help, or aid, but use all their strength to bring her to punishment; and that all the English join with the Spaniard as soon as he is landed: offering rewards and pardon of sins, to them that will lay hands on the Queen; and so showing on what Conditions he gave the Kingdom to Philip of Spain. This and more you may see in Thuanus.
And yet some of our Jugglers that say they are no Papists, persuade the world that Papists hold not the deposing of Princes, nor absolving their subjects from the Oaths of fidelity; and that the Spanish invasion was merely on Civil accounts, and that they expected not any English Papists to assist them: with other such impudent assertions.
Even Dominicus Banns (one of the best of them) in Thom. 22, qu. 12, art.
2, saith that [Quando adest evidens notitia, &c. i.e. When there is evident knowledge of the crime, subjects may lawfully exempt themselves from the Power of their Princes, before any declaratory sentence of a judge, so they have but strength to do it.] Adding to excuse the English Papists for being no worse, that [Hence it follows that the faithful (Papists) of England and Saxony are to be excused, that do not free themselves from the power of their Superiors, nor make war against them: because commonly they are not strong enough to manage these wars, and great dangers hang over them.]
Princes may see now how far the Papists are to be trusted: Even as far as they are sufficiently disabled.
And their August. Triumphus saith (de Potest. Eccles. qu. 46, art. 2.) [Dubium non est quin Papa possit omnes Reges, cum subest causa rationabilis deponere] i.e. [There is no doubt but the Pope may depose all
Kings, when there is reasonable cause for it] Is not this a Vice-christ, and a Vice-god with a witness?
Add but to this, that the Pope is Judge when the cause is Reasonable; (for no doubt but he must judge, if he must execute;) and then you have a Pope in his colors, even in his Universal Sovereignty Spiritual and Temporal.
And (as I said before from Suarez and others) when the Pope hath deposed a King, any man may kill him. I will not trouble you with Mariana's directions for poisoning him, or secretly dispatching him (de
Reg. instit. lib. 1, c. 7.) Suarez his moderate conclusion is enough (Defens. fid. Cathol. li. 6 c. 4, sect. 14.) [Post sententiam, &c. After sentence past he is altogether deprived of his Kingdom, so that he cannot by just title possess it; therefore from thence forward he may be handled as a mere tyrant; and consequently any private man may kill him] O Learned Suarez! No wonder if you and your Profession be dear to Princes; and if Henry the fourth of France took down the Pillar of your infamy, and received you into his
Kingdom and Heart again? No wonder if the Venetians at last have readmitted you, to procure some aid against the Turk.
I will conclude with one Testimony of a Roman Rabbi (cited by Bishop Usher, who knew his name, but would not do him the honor to name him.)
It is, B. P. ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ Epistol. J. R. impresan 1609. Who hath excused the Powder-Plot from the Imputation of cruelty, [because both Seeds and Root of an evil herb must be destroyed] and doth add a derision of the simplicity of the King in imposing on them the oath of Allegiance, in these most memorable expressions, worthy to be engraven on a Marble Pillar [Sed vide in tanta astutia, quanta sit simplicitas! &c. But see what simplicity here is in so great craft! When he had placed all his security in that Oath, he thought he had framed such a manner of oath, with so many circumstances, which no man could any way dissolve with a safe conscience. But he could not see, that if the Pope dissolve the Oath, all its knots, whether of being
faithful to the King, or of admitting no Dispensation, are accordingly dissolved. Yea I will say a thing more admirable. You know I believe, that an unjust Oath, if it be evidently known to be such, or openly declared such, obligeth no man. That the Kings oath is unjust, is sufficiently declared by the Pastor of the Church himself. You see now that the Obligation of it is vanished into smoke, and that the bond which so many wise men thought was made of iron, is less then straw.] These are the words of Papists themselves. From their published writings we tell you their Religion.
I know they will here again tell us abundance of false accusations of the Protestants, such as [the Image of both Churches] heapeth up; and they will tell us of our war, and killing the King in England. But of this I have given them their answer before. To which I add, 1. The Protestant doctrine expressed in the Confessions of all their Churches, and in the constant stream of their writers, is for obedience to the Sovereign Powers, and against resisting them, upon any pretenses of Heresy, or Excommunication, or such like.
2. The wars in England were raised between a King and Parliament, that joined together, did constitute the Highest Power; and upon the lamentable division (occasioned by the Papists,) the people were many of them uncertain which part was the Higher, and of greatest Authority: some thought the King, and others thought the Parliament, as being the Representative body of the people (in whom Politicians say is the Majestas
Realis,) and the Highest Judicature, and having the chief part in Legislation, and Declaration what is just or unjust, what is Law and what is against Law:
Had we all been resolved in England which side was by Law the Higher Power, here had been no war. So that here was no avowed resisting of the
Higher Powers. None but a Parliament could have drawn an Army of Protestants here under their banner.
3. And withal that very Parliament (consisting of Nobles, Knights, Gentlemen and Lawyers, who all declared to the people, that by Law they were bound to obey and assist them) did yet profess to take up offensive
Arms only against Delinquents, or rather, even but defensive against those men that had got an Army to secure them from Justice: And they still professed and vowed fidelity to the King which, as I have shown, they manifested to the last of their power, till they were imprisoned and secluded. Read Mr. Irins Speech for Agreement with the King: and read the writing of the London Ministers presented to the General, and published against the Kings death: and Read the Vindication of the secluded members, and read the Passages of the war with Scotland, and of the Imprisonment of many London Ministers, and of the death of Mr. Love and others: and tell me whether you can do men greater wrong then to defame them for being causers of that which they disowned, though it cost them the loss of Liberty,
Estate, or Life.
4. And really if you take either Vanists or Levelers (who were the chief agents in this) for Protestants, you may as well say that Papists are
Protestants. The world knows that the Prayers, the Petitions, Protestations, and other endeavors of the Protestants, even the Presbyterians, was for the preventing the death of that King, however many of them disliked his course, and joined with the Parliament against his adherents. This is the very truth, which they that have been eye witnesses all along have good reason to know, whatever any Papist say to the contrary.
5. And what Protestants be they that give power to any man on earth to depose Princes, and give their Kingdoms to others; or to disoblige all their
subjects, and warrant them to kill them, and dispense with oaths, and turn them all into smoke and straw as yours do?
Renounce your treacherous Principles, and we will cease to charge you with them. Let a General Council and Pope but Decree the contrary to what the forecited Pope and General Council have Decreed, or else do you all declare that you think this Pope and Council erred, and then we will shake hands with you; for then you will either cease to be true Papists, or at least become tolerable members of human societies. Why doth not the Pope himself at least condemn these doctrines, if really he disown them? The case is too plain.