The Principles of the Roman Church and Religion destructive of Piety and Vertue. Three Cases where­in it is possible for R. Catholiques to be better than their Religion inclines or allows them to be. Of the Principles and Practises of his Majesties R. Catholique Sub­jects in the time of the late Rebel­lion. Of their Rebellion in Ire­land; and the Advantage which the Kings Enemies in England made of it. Since his Majesties Restauration they refused to give him any reasonable security of their Allegiance for the future. Many Papists actually in Arms a­gainst King Charles the First in England; many others did him no Service: Ʋpon what Motives the rest adhered to him. A Consult of the English Jesuits about taking away his Life. Of the Principles and Behaviour of the R. Catho­liques [Page 2]under the Usurped Powers. Of Mr. White's Book.

THe ensuing Treatise is not intended for those weak and credulous persons, that suffer themselves to be charmed with specious Titles and flattering Pre­faces; and therefore without any reflecti­on on our Author's Arts of Insinuation, I shall come to the Matter of the Book call­ed (by an odd kind of Antiphrasis) A Brief and Impartial Account, &c. So far as it falls within the Compass of my De­sign.

The former Part of the Book is for the most part made up of Allegations in proof of the Plot in general, and Reflections on the Depositions; The Process against the late Lord Stafford in particular, with the Evidence against him and his Lordships Exceptions, the Observations of the Ma­nagers of the Tryal and the Papists An­swers to them; the Consideration of all which I leave to others.

But that I may not seem to pass over any thing, which looks like a Proof of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of the Ro­man Church, or of his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects, I shall fairly set down all such Passages as are material to that purpose.

Staffords Memoires, p. 2.

[His Lordship was ever held to be of a generous disposition, very Charitable, De­vout, addicted to Sobriety, inoffensive in his Words, and a Lover of Justice. During the time of the last bloody Rebellion, he suf­fered much for his Loyalty to the King.]

Of the Popish Plot he saith; [p. 8. This Plot must be managed by per­sons of Quality, most remarkable peradven­ture of all others for firmness of Loyalty.]

Again, [The whole Body of Roman Ca­tholiques (men before this hour of known worth, vertue, integrity and unblemished Reputati­on) must all be involved by Vows and Sacra­ments in a Design so black and execrable, that God and Nature abhor to think on.]

[p. 52. Certain I am Catholiques (Roman Catholiques he means) both taught and pra­ctised Principles of Loyalty, at a time, when the King and Kingdom felt the dire Effects of contrary Persuasions.]

That I may proceed with all possible clearness in my Answer to these bold As­sertions, I shall reduce what I have to say to two Debates.

• I. Concerning the Piety and Vertue of Roman Catholiques.
• II. Concerning their Principles and Practices in the time of the late Rebel­lion.

I. I begin with the Piety and Vertue of Roman Catholiques.

That the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion do naturally tend to make men wicked and disloyal, I shall prove in the following Discourse. And yet I freely grant, That some men of that Communion may have a great and just Sense of their own Honour, and that Duty which they owe to their King and Country: They may be better Men, and better Subjects, than the Principles of their Church and Religion do either in­cline or allow them to be.

This may come to pass any of these three ways.

• 1. When they do not understand the Sense of the Roman Church, or the na­tural tendency of the Principles of their Religion, for the Confessors and Guides of Souls (which have the Faith and Con­sciences of the Laity in their keeping) do not think fit at all times and in all places to instruct their Disciples in such Do­ctrines.
• 2. When their natural Tempers and Dispositions are stronger than the Princi­ples of their Church and Religion. For I do not think the worst Religion in the World can root out all common Reason and natural Conscience, all good Nature and Humanity, and make all men Bloody and Disloyal, whom Nature hath made [Page 5]Kind and Peaceable. Some men have more of the Generosity of the English Man, than of the Treachery of the Pa­pist; the very names of Murder and Trea­son strike a kind of Horror into the minds of men, and natural Conscience (if it be not bribed or biassed by a bad Religion or a vicious Life) will startle at the thoughts of Assassinations and Rebellions, the vio­lation of Oaths and Contracts.
• 3. When they have not much Zeal for Religion. For if men be cool and indiffe­rent in that Religion which they profess, they may be over-ballanced with the Love of their King and Country.

And yet after all no man knows, just how much ignorance, good-nature or in­differency in Religion, will serve to bal­lance the Fury of a misguided Zeal.

II. I come to consider the Principles and Practices of the Roman Catholiques in the time of the late Rebellion.

And though I would not lessen the Ser­vices which some persons of that Religi­on have done to his Majesty, or Royal Fa­ther of Blessed Memory; yet I must say there are many things which overthrow all the Pretences of Loyalty to the Crown that are made by the main Body of Roman Catholiques.

That this is no uncharitable Surmise will appear if we look back as far as the [Page 6] Irish Rebellion, wherein the Roman Ca­tholiques of that Kingdom were almost universally engaged.

I know the Seditious Practices of such as called themselves Protestants were by so much the more inexcusable, by how much Protestant Principles are more in­consistent with Religion, than these of the Papists. But the Tumults in Scotland were now in a great measure suppressed, and the King had by some Acts of Grace, and Additions of Honour to the Male­contents of that Kingdom quieted, if not obliged his Enemies, when he was sur­prized with the news of a desperate Re­bellion and barbarous Massacre of many thousand Protestants in Ireland. And as his Majesties Affairs were hereby put into a much worse condition than before, so the Parliament in England became more unreasonable in their Demands, more re­solute in their Answers, than otherwise they either would or durst have been. For the King conjures them by all that is or can be dear to them or him, to take into consideration the case of his distressed Pro­testant Subjects; but (to use his Majesties own Words:) The Distractions and Jea­lousies here in England made most men rather intent to their own Safety, or Designs they were driving, than to the Relief of those, who were every day inhumanely butcher'd in Ireland. [...] prin­ted 1649. p. 92.

The Parliament in England pass a Vote, That the Kingdom be forthwith put into a posture of Defence; and soon after an­other, That the Ordinance for the De­fence of the Kingdom is not prejudicial to the Oath of Allegiance. They Vote, That what was done at York for a Guard to the King, was a Preparation for War against the Parliament, a breach of the Trust reposed in him by his People; &c. Memorials of the English Affairs printed 1682. ad an. 1641 & 1642

But to return to Ireland, Here was a Plot and Design against the Crown and Government, of which his Majesty ex­pressed the greatest Abhorrence, and De­testation, and offer'd to go in Person to reduce the Rebels to Obedience: A Plot in which the main Body of the Papists, and no others were actually concerned.In the Preamble to the Bill of Set­tlement in Ire­land an. 1662. it is called, An Unnatural Insurrection against his Majesties Royal Father, his Crown and Dignity, which first broke out Octob. 23.1641. and afterwards spreading it self over the whole Kingdom, it became a formed and almost National Rebellion of the Irish Papists. And in an Act of Parliament for keeping the 23d. of October as an An­niversary Thanksgiving, It is said, That many malignant and re­bellious Papists, and Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and other Super­stitious Orders of the Popish pretended Clergy, most disloyally, treacherously, and wickedly conspired to surprize the Castle and City of Dublin, and all other Cities, and Fortifications of that Realm; and that all Protestants and English throughout the whole Kingdom, which would not joyn with them, should be cut off, &c. See the late History of the Irish Rebellion in Folio.

And F. Walsh in the Dedication of his History of the Irish Remonstrance, tells us of an Universal Rebellion or Insurrection of all the Catholiques in Ireland, a very few excepted, against his Majesties Laws, Authority, and Deputies of that King­dom, An. 1641. Of their Confederacy formed, and a War continued by them for many years after; of two several Peaces (the first 1646. the second 1648.) with his Majesties Lord Lieutenant in that Interim, scandalously violated by the pre­vailing party among them.

Yea, to that prodigious height did the Insolence of the rebellious Faction arise, that at length they banished his Majesties Lieutenant, and took the Royal Autho­rity upon themselves.

But it may be since his Majesties happy Restauration, they have repented of their former Wickedness.

Repented of a Rebellion that was Bles­sed and Sanctified by the Pope! A Catho­lique Army (for so they stiled themselves) repent of fighting for the Catholique Cause!

They were so far from repenting, that the Popish Clergy of that Kingdom as­sembled in a National Synod Ann. 1666. refused to petition the King for Pardon, though there were at least thirty then pre­sent, and above five hundred more of [Page 9]them alive, which were obnoxious to the Laws for their carriage during the late Wars of the Roman Catholique Confede­rates. History of the Irish Re­monstrance, p. 667, 671, 672.

Indeed since his Majesties Return, some of the Irish Clergy and Laity agreed to present such a Remonstrance to his Maje­sty, as might seem to give him some to­lerable security of their Loyalty for the future. But the whole number of Eccle­siastical Subscribers was only Sixty nine; the Opposers being two thousand or thereabouts, besides all others in the Irish Colleges and Seminaries abroad: And of these few Subscribers some fell off imme­diately, upon the first intimation of dis­pleasure from the Internuntio De Vecchiis, and their General Superiors beyond the Seas.History of the Irish Re­monstrance, p. 577, 578.

In England many Roman Catholiques were actually in Arms against King Charles the First; His Majesty himself (that had most reason to know) informs us, That great numbers of that Religion were en­tertain'd in the Army of the Rebels; that others were seduced, to whom he had for­merly denied employment; that twenty or thirty at a time of one Troop or Com­pany had been taken Prisoners.See His Majesties De­claration to all his loving Sub­jects in his Kingdom of Scotland.

But were not many of the Roman Ca­tholiques in the Kings Army? They were indeed; but not so many as his Enemies [Page 10]would make the World believe. His Majesty tells us in His Declaration, That sometimes in a Month together there had not been one Papist near his Court. I am sure he was not much beholden to them for their Company at any time; His Ma­jesty knew it was the Policy of his Ene­mies to hunt them into his Camp, that they might bring an Odium upon the Royal Cause, and confirm the People in that groundless Jealousie of the Kings adhe­rence to Popery, which made him (by His Proclamation) to inhibit all men of that Religion to repair to Him: Besides we are told by one of the Roman Church, That 'tis a Maxim of the Jesuits (who have long bore the greatest sway in Eng­land) in the Quarrels of Princes and great Men, to have some of their Fathers on one part, and some for the contrary, that they may work for their own Interests on both sides.The Au­thor of the Je­suits Reasons unreasonable, Printed 1662. And, (whatever boasts they now make of their Loyalty to the late King) we have not yet forgotten, how they pleaded to the late Usurpers, That for the Preservation of their Lives they were forced to flee into the Kings Garri­sons without ever acting against the State.The Chri­stian Modera­tor, printed 1652. p. 60. That a great part of them were never in actual Arms against the Par­liament, but only fled to the Enemies Garrisons for Shelter, &c. Christian Moderator, p. 18

But I have so much charity as to believe, that some Roman Catholiques offer'd their Lives and Fortunes to the King upon more generous Motives; that they served him faithfully and suffer'd for him, because (as a great Man of that Religion said of himself) They valued the Favour and E­steem of their Country above all Earthly things; or were true English men as to this World. The Earl of Bristol in his Speech made July 1. 1673.

We have known some tempers that have conquer'd the malignity of Poyson; and some men have a greater love for their King and Country, than for their Priests and Confessors; some have too much ho­nesty, and some too little zeal for Religi­on to be intrusted with the State-Myste­ries of Jesuits and Bigotted Papists. A re­verend and learned Person of our Church hath divers times told the World in print,Dr. Du. Moulin Aus. to Philanax An­glicus p. 56. (Ed. 1679.) ‘This certain Intelligence shall be justified whensoever Authority will require it; that the year before the Kings death, a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England, first to Paris, then to Rome with this Question in writing; That seeing the state of England was in a likely posture to change Government, whether it was lawful for the Catholiques to work that change, for the advancing and securing the Catho­lique Cause in England, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresie? and p. 61. As for my be­ing defied by the Papists, I have defied them now seventeen years, to call me in question before our Judges, and so I do still.’ That there was a Consult in England of the whole Faction of Jesuites about bringing his Sacred Majesty to the Block; [Page 12]But what number of the Laity were pri­vy to that execrable Design, we are not able to learn.

But if ever the English Papists had any reason to boast of their Obedience to the Government, it was under the late Usur­ped Powers: For they basely flatter'd the most Infamous Rump;See the Petition of the Roman Catholi­ques, to the Su­pream Authori­ty of this Nati­on, the Parlia­ment of the Common wealth of England. Christian Mode­ration. p 59, 60. p. 51. Divers Papists had ta­ken the Oath of Abjuration and Engagement, &c. Part 2. p. 41. The Roman Catholiques have generally taken and punctually kept the Engage­ment, &c. Dr. Baily in the Life of B. Fisher (as I find him quoted by Mr. Fowlis) is very zealous in asserting the Loyalty of the Pa­pists; and yet at the same time bravely tells us, what good Sub­jects they were to O. Cromwel: Whereas (saith he) all other Sorts and Sects (excepting those who are for all Sorts and Sects) appear against the present Government, like Aries, Scorpio, &c. the Ro­man Catholiques like Pisces (the Emblem of the Fisherman) are contented to remain quiet under Foot. They publi­quely own'd them for the Supream Au­thority of the Nation, and pleaded the Merit of their Fidelity to them. And if generally to take, and punctually to keep the Engagement; if to flatter the great Tyrant; if to offer, that for a Tolerati­on they would renounce the Interest of the Stuarts, be Arguments of firmness of Loyalty to the Crown, then I will grant, That the Roman Catholiques are the Kings Most Loyal and Dutiful Subjects.

But I will conclude this Head with this Observation, That Mr. White in the height of Olivers Tyranny, set out a Book under the Title of The Grounds of Obedience and Government. This moderate Roman Ca­tholique [Page 13](as he is esteemed) labours not only to disengage the People of England from all Obligation to his present Maje­sty, (then in Exile) but his Majesty too from laying any further claim to his Crown; but (blessed be God) the King was restored to his Government, to which his Roman Catholique Subjects (according to this Gentleman) ought not to endea­vour his Restitution.

The Treasons and Seditions in other Countries, especially the Bloody Wars in England, and the Mur­der of King Charles the First charged upon the Protestants. The Reformed Churches abroad, and the Church of England vindicated from this Imputation. The King brought to the Block by a prevail­ing Faction against the Consent of the Nobility and People of Eng­land. The Romish Faction had a great Influence on the beginning and progress of the Rebellion. The Troubles in Scotland fomented by Cardinal Richlieu's Agents. The Letter of the Scotch Covenanters to the French King. The Design of the Papists against the King discover'd Ann. 1640. What In­fluence they had on the War which followed in England, and upon the Kings death. Two Proposi­tions added to the foregoing Dis­course. 1. That the Grounds on which the War against the King [Page 16]was justified were first laid by 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 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 [Page 17]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, [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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.V. Corpus & Syntagma Confessionum, &c. Aurei. Allob. 1662: V.G., The Bo­hemian, the Helvetian, the French, the Augustine, the Saxon, the [...] ­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 h [...] published it, if it had not been dasht by Cardinal Richlieu. [...] Englands Complaint by L. Gatford. Printed 1648. pag 10. And 'tis 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, [Page 20]but the motion was utterly rejected by the University, Senate, and Church of Geneva, and the 39 Articles put in as be­fore.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 [Page 21]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 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 [Page 22]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, [Page 23]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 [Page 24]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.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, 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, [Page 26]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 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.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 Ʋsurping 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 30]their Glory; and all Evil arts and ways, to bring Calamities upon us, they will esteem Meritorious.’

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 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.’ 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, [Page 32]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 either did, or might have learned from the Popes and greatest Divines of the Roman Church. It was truly alledged by Salmasius, that the Do­ctrine of the Sacred and inviolable Au­thority of Princes was preserved pure and uncorrupt in the Church, till the Bishops of Rome attempted to set up a Kingdom in this World paramount to all Kings and Emperours. But he, with his usual confidence, acquits the Popes, and charges his Antimonarchical Principles on Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, Paraeus, and all the Reformed Di­vines.Pro po­pulo Anglicano defensio, p. 33. Quot sunt Ecclesiae Reformata praestantissimi Doctores, tot videi aceri­mos sibi adversarios fore, —frustra id in Papam deonerare at que trans­sure contendis, quod omnes liberae Nationes, omnis Religio, omnes Or­thodoxi sibi sumunt, in se suscipiunt.

I might oppose to the Authority of Milton a very late Author of the Roman Church, who was well acquainted with the Doctrine of it. A reverend and lear­ned Divine of our Church charged this Seditious Principle on the Jesuites; that Government is so originally in the People, that they by their Representatives may call their Soveraign to an Account, and alter the Form of the Government; he returns this Answer, That ‘this Principle (whatsoever truth it may have in speculation) is by no means to be preacht to the People, who are apt enough of themselves to stretch Cases, and pick Quarrels with their best Governours; yet it was taught many Ages before the Jesuites were so much as thought of.’

It seems the Doctrine is true, and hath been taught for many Ages in the Roman Church, but the People are not fit to have the management of it.

This latter part of his Assertion I could make good; but because I study brevity, I shall only set down the Principal Heads of Antimonarchical Divinity as I find them in the Writings of some of the Popes, which lived divers Ages before the rise of the Jesuites.

1. I begin with Gregory the first, who lived above a thousand years since. The Story of Phocas (one of the greatest Vil­lains and Rebels in the World) is well known. This man from a Centurion be­came the Ringleader of a Rebellion a­gainst Mauritius, (his Soveraign Lord) caused the Emperors Children, the Heir Apparent to the Crown, divers of the Loyal Nobility, and the Emperor him­self to be put to death; and yet he was no sooner gotten into the Imperial Throne; but Pope Gregory writes an Epistle to him, wherein he basely and perfidiously courts the Tyrant; congratulates his Success in the same words the Angels did our Savi­ours Nativity; blesses God, and admires the Divine Providence in exalting him to the Empire. This canting flattering Letter might with a little variation have served for an Address to any late Usurpers.S. Gregorii Magni Opera Farisi is 1619. c 11. Ep. 38. Gloria in excel­sis Deo, qui, jux­ta quod scrip­tum est, mut at tempora & transfert regna; et qui hoc cun­stis innotuit, quod per pro­phitam suum lo­qui dignatus est, dicens, qui a dominatur ex­celsus in regno hominum, et cui voluerit ipse dat illud—aliquando cum misericors Deus merentium mul­torum cord a sua decrevit colla­tione resovere, unum ad regi­minis culmen provehit, per cujus misericordie viscera in cunctorum mentibus exultationis suae gra­tiam insundit. De qua exultationis abundantia roborari nos citius credimus, qui benignitatem vestrae pietatis ad imperiale fastigium pervenesse gaudemus. Laetentur coeli & exultet terra, &c.

[Page 35] 2. The next is Zachary, that (about 900 years ago) deposed Childerick the French King, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance, not so much for his Iniquities, as because he was not fit to Govern. And this is attested by divers Authors of good Credit, and by their own Authentick Canon-Law;Decret. Par. 2. Caus. 15 qu. 6. c. 4. However Milton pretends there was no need of a Pope, the King by his perfidiousness ha­ving discharged the people from their Oath made to him.Pro pop. Angl. def. c.4. But Milton and others of better credit acknowledge as much as is sufficient to my present pur­pose; That the Pope declared it was the Peoples right to make and un make their Kings; and that he should be King which was fittest to discharge that Trust.

The Nobility of France were sensible (say their Historians) of the Kings idle­ness and unfitness to Govern, and of the great Vertue of Pipin; and upon Pipin's consulting the Pope what was fit to be done in this case, his Determination was, that He should be King, who was fittest to discharge the Office of a King; Whereupon the Nobility and People in a full Assem­bly depose Childerick, and choose Pepin.

Thus the People of France (with the Popes Consent and Advice) took off the Crown from their Kings Head, gave it to one of his own Subjects, and changed the Kingdom from one Family to another.

And what unpardonable Crime was this poor King guilty of? What Acts of cruelty had he committed? Indeed there is no such thing laid to his Charge. Some say he was a good and religious King; o­thers that he was a good natur'd and easie Prince. His Enemies say he was not fit to govern; and this is the principal rea­son which the Canon-Law gives for his being deposed. It may be he was not so wise as some of his Neighbours; I am sure he was not so Crafty as his Holiness at Rome, or his own Subjects at home.

3. I challenge any man to shew me a more pernicious Account of the rise of Kingly Government, than is to be seen in Gregory the seventh that lived about six hundred years since. ‘The Kings and Princes of the Earth, were at first no better than other Mortals; but by the Instigation of the Devil, by Pride, Rapine, Perfidi­ousness, Murder, intolerable Presumption, and all manner of Wickedness, they got the Power into their hands.’ Rare Divinity for the Head of the Church! But had his Holiness put in Popes instead of Kings, he had not been much out either in his Divinity or History. He that has a mind to see any more such wicked stuff, may consult the places quoted in the Mar­gent.Greg. 7. Ep. l.8. Ep. 21. I­tant dignitas à secularibus eti­am Deum igno­rantibus inven­ta, non subjicie­tur ti dignita­ti, quam omni­potentis Dei providentia, &c. quis nescit Reges & Du­ces ab iis habu­isse Principi­um, qui Deum ignorantes, su­perbia, rapinis, perfidia, homi­cidiis, postremo universis paené sceleribus, mun­di principe dia­bolo videlicet agitante, super pares scilicet ho­mines dominari caeca cupiditate & intolerabili praesumptione affectaverint. V. l. 2. Ep. 5. Ep. 13. Ep. 18. l. 3. Ep. 10. Also his famous Dictares publi­shed in a coun­cil at Rome are to be seen in Baronius An­nal. Eccles Tom. 11. ad An. 1076. sect. 31, 32, 33. V. Baron. ad An. 1080. sect. 62, 63, 64, 65. ad an. 1073. sect. 73, 24.

Kingly Government (in his Judgment) is nothing else but the contrivance of evil Spirits to abridge men of that Liberty which God and Nature have given them; and if so, what we call Rebellion is a very harmless (if not a meritorious) thing. For why should not the People endeavour to recover their ancient Rights and Liberties which were so unjustly ta­ken from them?

Miltons Inference from such Premisses is this: ‘If it were my happiness to set free the Minds of Englishmen from longing to re­turn under the Captivity of Kings, from which the Strength and Supream Sword of Justice hath delivered them, I shall have done a Work not much inferiour from that of Zorobabel.’ Iconocla­stes towards the latter end.

And now I cannot shew (without ex­ceeding my intended brevity) how true the other Popes have been to these Prin­ciples V. G. in the 9th. Century Adrian the Second salutes the Pious and Ortho­dox Basilius, (that's the Roman Catholique Title for Traytors) and congratulates the Murder of his Soveraign Prince.

About the 1090th. year Ʋrban the se­cond sate in the Holy See, of whom I need say no more, than that he was the Author of that Impious Decree, That an Oath made to an Excommunicate Person is not to be kept.

His Successor Paschal the Second com­manded the Son of Henry the 4th, to take up Arms against his Father.

Alexander the Third (which lived in the same Century) trod upon the Neck of the Emperor.

The Decrees of Innocent the Third and Fourth are well known.

But I am not writing an History of the Bishops of Rome.

Since the rise of Jesuites the Roman Ca­tholiques in France entred into a clande­stine Combination (the Holy League they call'd it) without their Kings Consent, under a colour of opposing the Progress of Heresie, but in truth to reduce the Catholique Forces into one Body, and strip the King of his Royalty. And how specious soever the Design of it might ap­pear to some men of more Zeal than Judg­ment, yet in its very Nature and Ten­dency, it was of most fatal Consequence to the King and Government; and being prosecuted with Force and Armes against Henry the Third and Fourth, it cost one of them his Life and the other his Reli­gion.

The Principal Instrument of the League was Mathew a Jesuite; and the Fathers of that Order would give no Absolution to the Gentry of France, unless they would vow and promise to band themselves a­gainst their Soveraign. The secret Coun­sels [Page 39]and Conspiracies were holden in the Jesuites College; Where did the Agents and Ambassadors of Spain, the two Car­dinals that termed themselves Legates in France assemble their Counsels, but a­mong the Jesuites? Was not the Pro­vincial of the Jesuites sent to Rome, and Father Sammier into Spain; where they acquitted themselves so well, that both Gregory the 13th. and the King of Spain promised large Sums of Money for carry­ing on the War? In Fine, the Holy League, and the War of Subjects against their Kings in prosecution of it, were pro­moted by Pope Gregory the 13th. Sixtus the 5th. Gregory the 14th. Innocent the 9th: &c. by the Jesuites and most of the Preachers and Confessors of all Orders; who soon drew in the main Body of the Papists into this Combination against Henry the Third, a King of their own Religion; but unjustly suspected to be Haeretically affected.

The Design of this Holy League may be seen in Thuanus l. 63. Ed. Genevae p. 164. &c. more largely in Davila's History of the Civil Wars of France, ad An. 1576. &c. out of whom I will transcribe part of it.

Art. 2. ‘For preservation of the King and his Successors in the State, Honour, Autho­rity, Duty, Due to them by their Subjects, as it is contained in those Articles which shall be presented to him in the Assembly of the States, &c.’

Art. 4, and 5. ‘If there be any Impe­diment, Opposition, or Rebellion, be it from whom it will, or from whencesoever it may, &c. In case any of the Covenanters be mo­lested, oppressed or questioned for this Cause, be it by whom it will, (the King himself is not excepted) they shall employ their persons and goods, estates and lives to take revenge on them, either by Justice or Force, with­out any exception of persons whatsoever.’

Art. 6. ‘If any of the Confederates shall wilfully break this Promise and Oath, they shall be punished in Bodies and Goods, by all means that can be thought of, &c.’

Art. 7. ‘They shall swear to yield ready Obedience to the Head of the League, to the ruin of all Opposers of it without par­tiality or respect of persons.’

Art. 8. ‘All the Catholiques of all places shall be secretly advertised by their particu­lar Governours, to enter into this League, and to concur in providing of Men, Arms, and other Necessaries.’

Art. 10. ‘All to be held as Enemies that will not enter into this Covenant.’

It would be too large a digression to en­ter upon a Discourse concerning the So­lemn League and Covenant in these King­domes; and therefore I will only subjoyn the two following Observations, as a further Proof of the Loyalty and Peace­ableness of the Reformed Churches a­broad.

1. The first is that of his Majesty in his Excellent Manifesto (or late Decla­ration concerning the late Tumults in Scotland, by the King An. 1639. p. 74.)

‘This Covenant was resented abroad by Papists with infinite joy, in hopes it might oblige the King and his Successors to hate the Protestant Religion for the sake of those Seditious Zealots; and the Priests and Je­suites from Doway and other Seminaries, came over in great numbers upon that En­couragement. But by Foreign Protestants the Covenant was received with most offen­sive scandal and grief, (as his Majesties Publick Ministers abroad gave him an ac­count) for they were afraid it should bring an indelible Scandal upon the Reforma­tion, and alienate the minds of Princes from it. Thus it became Joy and Triumph to our Enemies, Grief and Scandal to our, Friends:’

[Page 42] 2. We are told, That the English Di­vines, and Scotch Commissioners, sent a Copy of their Covenant, with a solemn Invitation to Seventeen Reformed Churches beyond the Seas; but notwith­standing all the unjust Calumnies cast upon his Majesty, we never heard of any one Reformed Church that concurred with them in promoting it.

It is now time to come to the Princi­ples of the Jesuites; and though I can­not find that the Divines and Casuists of other Orders are much more Honest and Loyal than they, yet I shall confine my self to them, because their Seditious and Treasonable Doctrines are maintain'd for the advancement of the Court of Rome, and by a particular influence from the Holy See. This is the richest, most learned and active of all the Orders of the Roman Church; they are under the strictest Vow of Obedience to the Pope; have had more ample Charters and Bulls of Priviledges, than all the other Or­ders; they are best qualified to dive into the Councils of Princes and Statesmen, and into the Consciences and Purses of the People; they have almost devoured the Secular Clergy, worn out the other Orders, and engrossed the trade of hear­ing Confessions in England to their own Faction; and whensoever there hath been any dangerous Attempt upon our Church [Page 43]or State, they were the principal Contri­vers and Agents, the other Clergy is but their Tools and Instruments.

How much they have improved and re­fined these cursed Principles, I cannot inform the Reader without transcribing a great part of the Works of Parsons, Creswel, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bouchier, Ma­riana, Fr. de Verone, and others; out of almost any one of which, I could ga­ther an entire Body of Commonwealth Divinity.

Nor can it be alledged, that these are only the Opinions of private Do­ctors, which are disowned by the Body of the Society; for their Books are pe­rused and approved either by the Gene­ral, or by other Superiours, or by the most eminent Divines, authorized and assigned by them. And is it not expres­sed in most of the Licenses, that there is nothing in them contrary to Faith or good Manners? That they are profi­table for all Casuists and Guides of Souls?

But that this may appear to be no un­charitable imputation, I shall set down some of Bellarmine's Principles, and then refer you to the other Authors, as they are cited in the Margent; by which you may see, it is the glory of their Society, to be obliged to a perfect Uniformity in Doctrine.Disput. R. Bellarmini, Lagduni 1610. Tom. 1. de R. Pontifice, l. 1. c. 3. Regi­mentemperacum ex omnibus tribus formis, &c.

[Page 44] 1. Then, he informs you which is the best kind of Government. ‘Let not the Presidents of Provinces be the Kings De­puties or Annual Judges, but true Princes; who may both be obedient to the Command of the chief Prince, and in the mean time govern their Province or City, not as if it were another Mans, but as their own: By this means both Monarchy and Aristo­cracy may have place in the Commonwealth. And if neither the Supream Prince, nor the Inferior Princes, acquire their Dignity by right of Succession, but by the Election of the People; this would be the best and most desirable form of Government V. Consti­tut. Soc. Jes­const. —42. Doctrinae dif­ferentes non admittantur [...] nec verbo in concionibus, vel lectioni­bus publicis, nec scriptis li­bris, qui qui­dem edi non poterunt in lucem sine ap­probatione, & Consensu Prae­positi Generalis. A form of Government more Democratical (by his own acknowledgment) than that of Venice.’ L. 1. c. 2 (p. 619.) Respublica Venetorum est Aristocratia admixta Monarchiae.

2. ‘The Power is in the whole Multitude, as in its proper Seat and Subject, and that by Divine right; and it dependeth on the consent and courtesie of the People, to set either Kings or Consuls, or other Magi­strates over them; and if there be a lawful Cause, they may change the Government, and turn a Monarchy into an Aristocracy, as they please.’ De Laicis, l. 3. c. 6. Sect. Secundo nota, & Quarto nota.

This he took to be the common Do­ctrine of their Divines; but afterwards finding that some had written against it, he comes to confirm it in the Recognition of his Works. And first, he proves it from Aquinas, Dominicus à Soto, Na­varre, &c. then he confirms it by Expe­rience: ‘For (saith he) the City of Rome was first governed by Kings, then the Peo­ple set up Consuls instead of them; which kind of Government was therefore esteemed just, because it seemed good to the People.’ Afterwards he commends the saying of Navarre, ‘That the People do never so trans­fer their Power to a King, but they retain it habitually in themselves, and may in cer­tain cases resume it into their own hands.’ Lastly, he proves from several Examples out of Scripture, ‘That it belongs to the People to set a King over themselves.’ Recog­nitio, l. 3. Qui est de Laicis.

3. Kings are admitted to the Govern­ment under certain Conditions and Li­mitations, which if they transgress, the Subjects are discharged from all obligati­on of Obedience to them. ‘Princes are received into the Church with an express or tacit Compact, That they shall submit their Scepters unto Christ, defend and preserve the Faith, under the penalty of forfeiting their Crowns; therefore if once they fall into Heresie, or become Enemies to Religion, they may be judged by the Church, and De­posed without any Injury to them.’ De R. Pont. l. 5. c. 7. Sect. Quarta ratio.

[Page 46] 4. It is lawful for the People, in cer­tain Cases, to depose the King. ‘In Tem­poral Commonwealths, if the King degene­rate into a Tyrant; though he be the head of the Kingdom, he may be deposed by the People, and another Elected.’ De Concil. Auctor. l. 2. c. 19. Sect. Ad alteram conse­quentiam.

If you object, That the Primitive Christians did not depose Nero, Diocle­sian, &c. he answers, ‘They wanted strength; (they were bound to be subject for Wrath, but not for Conscience sake) for otherwise, they might lawfully have set up new Kings and Princes over them, as is evident from 1 Cor. 6.’ De R. Pont. l. 3. c. 7. Quod si Chri­stiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem, &c. id fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis. Id. de Excus. Barclaii.

If you urge those Texts of Scripture, which require Obedience to Kings and Princes: ‘Tis true (saith the Cardinal) to disobey your King, is against the Law of God; but the Pope, when he deposes a King, doth not permit the People to disobey the King, but makes him that was their King to be a King no longer.’ Idem in Earclaium.

If you demand Precedents out of Scri­pture; Was not Uzziah deposed? 2 Chron. '26. Was not Athaliah deposed and put to 'death? 2 Chron. 23.Id. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 8.

5. He makes the Civil Government to truckle under the Ecclesiastical: ‘For the Civil Government is instituted by Men; [Page 47]but the Church Government is from God alone, and of Divine Institution.’ Id. de Laicis, l. 3. c. 6. Sect. Quinte nota. Et. de. R. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. Praeterea prin­cipatus, &c.

‘The Cognizance of Church Matters be­longs not to Secular Princes, they have no judgment in Ecclesiastical Matters; be­cause Civil Peace and Tranquility is the proper object of their Care.’

‘If they do not their duty, they are to be brought under the Lash, and be compelled to it by Excommunication.’

‘The Ecclesiastical Power is to the Secu­lar, as the Spirit is to the flesh, which rules, moderates, and sometimes restrains it; but the Flesh hath no command over the Spirit, neither can it direct, or judge, or restrain it in any thing’ L. 1. c. 7. tit. Quod non sit Ecclesiasti­cum regimen penes Principes Seculares. Vid.l. 5. c. 7. & de Clericis. l. 1. c. 29. Sect. Alterum Argumentum, &c. Et Bellar. contra Barc­laium..

6. Though the Cardinal hath not in express Terms asserted the lawfulness of putting Kings to death, (and I know very few of any Perswasion that have ex­presly asserted it) yet he hath furnished the Regicides both with Precedents for their practice, and Warrants for their Doctrine. For he teaches, That the ‘Church may exercise a Coercive power over Kings and Princes by any ways and me­thods, that are necessary for the good of the Church.’ That Kings may be Deposed; and there is no great difference (as I shall shew afterwards) between Deposing [Page 48]and putting them to death. He proves his Doctrine from the practice of Jehoi­ada the High Priest, that commanded the Souldiers to put Athaliah to death, not only for Tyranny, but for adhering to a false Religion.Id. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 7, 8.

In his Book against King James, he commends the Murther committed by J. Clement on Henry the Third of France, calls the Regicide a Sacred Person, and admires the miraculous Providence of God in bringing him to death.Bell. in Torto, p. 71. Ed. 1608. Deus ultus est Christum suum, dum per alium sacratum virum, alioqui militiae imperitum & inermem, Regem tundem non sine manifesto divinae Providentiae miraculo intersecit.

But what if Heaven will not work a Miracle for them? The Cardinal is so well skilled in the Art of King-killing, that he can dispatch a Prince with less hazard to his own Party. ‘He would not have Ecclesiastical Men put them to death with their own hands; but the Pope must first admonish them, then deprive them of the Sacraments; next absolve their Subjects from the Oaths of Allegiance, and if need be, deprive them of their Royal authority. The Execution belongs to others.’ Id. contra Barclaium.

Thus I have given a short account of the Antimonarchical Principles of this great Man, that was first Reader of Controversial Divinity at Rome; after­wards [Page 49]sent by Pope Sextus the Fifth into France, with his Legate Cardinal Cajetan where he stir'd up the People to a Rebel­lion against their Sovereign;Qui Lute­tiae egit per illos annos publici furoris, totius conjura­tionis (Ligam vocant) approbator, fautor, & fax perpetua. Is. Casau­boni ad Fr. Duc. Epistola, p. 21. and was advanced to the dignity of a Cardi­nal by Clement the Eighth.Alegambe Bibl. Script. Soc. Jes. p. 410, 411.

I might now shew, that these are the common Principles of the Society; but this would afford matter enough for an entire Discourse.See Par­sons (under the counter­feit name of Doleman) in his Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, part 1. Creswel, (under the name of Philopater) and Reynolds (under the name of Rossary) De justa Christianae reipublicae in Reges impios & haereticos autoritate. (He was no Jesuite, but of the same Princi­ples.) Suarez Def. fid. Cath. &c. A Book written against King James. Bouchier, de justa Hen. 3. abd. è Francorum Regno. A small Book, but almost every page is full of Treasonable Principles. Mariana de Rege & Regis Institutione; or (as some call it) In­stitutio principum occidendorum. Fr. de Verone, Apol. pro J. Chasiello, (A Book, that if it be possible, outstrip; Mariana's in Villany.) To which I could add Endem. Johannes, Molina, Lessius, Em.Sa, Greg. de Valentia, Tolet. &c. Whether Junius Brutus was a Protestant or no, is not certain; I find King James suspects the Book was set out by a Pa­pist. The Positions of Knox and Buchanan are summed up by B. Ban­croft, in his dangerous Positions, l. 1. c. 4. The later Patrons of these Principles are well known.

These are the Men that furnish'd the leading Faction amongst us with Prin­ciples and precedents, with Arguments and Texts of Scripture; as will appear to any one that compares the Books ci­ted in the Margent, with the Speeches, Declarations and Pamphlets of the late Times. Out of them they either did, or might have derived the grounds of the War against the King, of erecting an High Court of Justice, and of bringing him to the Block. Out of them I could easily deduce all the Materials of that Bloody Ordinance, to erect an High Court of Justice for the Trial of the King; the Impeachment against his Ma­jesty in the name of the Commons of England; the Speech of Bradshaw, Pre­sident of that Mock-court of Justice; and Milton's Vindication of the Proceed­ings against the King.

But because Bellarmine did not in ex­press terms justifie the putting of Kings to Death, I will add, That Mariana doth not only defend the lawfulness of a for­mal and aggressive War against a Sove­raign Prince, but also sets down a Me­thod of destroying him, either with, or without the Formality of Justice. His Book was written An. 1599. which was divers years after he had read Tho. Aqui­nas in the University of Paris. Alegambe, p. 258. It was approved by Aquaviva, the General [Page 51]of the Jesuites, by Hoyeda Visitor of the Society in the Province of Toledo, by di­vers other grave and Learned Jesuites. It was commended or justified by Ribade­neira, Scribanius, Gretser, and Becanus, of the same Society.

It was ordered to be burnt by the Par­liament of Paris; but F. Cotton could never be induced to write against it: The Authors of the Apology (publish'd at Paris in the name of the Society soon after the Murder of Henry the Fourth) durst not plainly and honestly condemn it; and (whatever some credulous Peo­ple are now made to believe) neither the Pope, nor Superiours of the Jesuites ever passed any publick Censure upon this most pestilent and Treasonable Book. But to return.

1. Suppose there be a competent Strength and interest, then the readiest and safest way,Mariana, Edit. Mogun­tie 1605. p. 58, 59, &c. is for the People to ‘meet in a publick Assembly, to deliberate by publick Consent what is to be done, and then to keep inviolably that which is agreed upon by Common consent. The Prince must first be admonished and exhorted to amend; but if he refuse the Remedy, and there be no hopes of his amendment, the Sentence be­ing 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 [Page 52]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 'tis 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.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 [Page 54]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,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.’ Prinne's Speech in the House of Com­mons Decemb. 4. 1648. p. [...]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 [Page 55]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.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.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.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 'tis 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. 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 declared, ‘That he never heard any of the Church of Rome speak a good word of it.’ In the printed Tryal, p. 53.

The truth is there is nothing to defend such a Master-piece of Villany but the Sword; what the English Papists speak of it concerns not me to enquire; but was not the rise of that Horrid Treason from the Breves of Pope Clement the 8th. in which he required the Roman Catholiques not to admit any but a Catholique to the Crown? Did not the same Pope (by a Bull sent to the Superiors of the Regulars) for bid them to make use of any thing re­vealed in confession to the benefit of the Secular Government; and is it not (at least) highly probable that the said Bull had a particular respect to the Gun-powder Treason? See The Case put by Delrio the Je­suit, Disqu. Mag. c. I. sect. 2.

Did not Sir E. Digby call it the best Cause?

Was not Garnett's name inserted into the English Martyrology?

Was not one of the Conspirators made the Popes Paenitentiary, and another a Confessor in St. Peters at Rome?

[Page 58] 2. He saith, ‘That the Plot was owned by the Traytors themselves at their death.’

But did not Garnette and Tresham deny it with the most bitter Imprecations? make the most solemn Protestations of their own Innocency, and avow the Law­fulness of denying and forswearing any thing whereof they were guilty, in case either the Judges be incompetent, or the Proofs against them defective?

And 'tis observable, that Garnette ne­ver owned any thing which was laid to his Charge, till (as himself confessed) the clearness and unexpectedness of the Proofs made him ashamed to persist any longer in his Denial.If. Casau­ [...]ni Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum p. 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, &c:

I have now done with the Court of Rome and its Adherents. Of the Do­ctrines of the Church of Rome and Gene­ral Councils I shall speak in the next Chapter; by which it will appear, whe­ther the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness are Justifiable by the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion.

1. The Doctrine of Deposing Prin­ces. This is the Doctrine of all the approved Writers of that Church; Of their General Coun­cils, of their Publique Offices and Breviaries. An Account of those persons who have appear'd against the Deposing Doctrine.

2. The King-killing Doctrine. It is a necessary consequent of the Deposing Doctrine. The Roman Divines equivocate in this Que­stion. The Jesuites generally as­sert it; divers of the Popes and the Canon Law approve of it.

3. Of destroying mens Lives for Religion. The true State of the Question. The Church of Rome damns all Haeretiques. All Pro­testants are Haeretiques in her account. She enjoyns all Chri­stians to endeavour the Extirpa­tion [Page 60]of them. All Bishops of her Communion sworn to destroy them. The Laws of the Church deliver them up to the Secular Power to be put to death.

4. Of absolving his Majesties Sub­jects from their Allegiance.

I come now to his Lordships Principles of Faith and Loyalty, as they are cal­led p. 44.

But first he declares; ‘[As to the damn­able Doctrine of King-killing, if he were of any Church whatsoever, and found that to be its Principle, he would leave it.’

Doubtless (saith our Author) the thing which most weighed to my Lords Prejudice, &c. was a prepossest Opinion of wicked Principles supposed to be held and practised by my Lord, as the matter of his Faith and Re­ligion. It is by many taken for granted, the Papists hold it an Article of Faith, that to depose and murder Kings, to Massacre their Neighbours, and destroy their native Country by Fire and Sword (when the interest of their Religion requires it) are Acts dispensable by the Pope, and meritorious of Heaven. Now what thing so wicked, however slenderly pro­ved, will not easily be believed against men so principled? My Lord therefore to clear himself and his Religion from this heavy and [Page 61](as the Papists say) injurious Aspersion, pre­tested and declared in the presence of God and their Lordships, his hatred and detestation of such Principles; That he acknowledged the King his lawful Soveraign, and knew no Person or Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.]

From hence I shall take occasion to dis­course on the following Heads.

1. Concerning the Doctrine of Depo­sing Kings.

2. Concerning the Moctrine of King-killing.

3. Concerning the Massacring of their Neighbours and destroying their Native Country, when the Interest of their Re­ligion requires it.

4. Concerning his Lordships acknow­ledging the King to be his Lawful Sove­raign, and that he knew no Person or Au­thority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.

And here I shall fairly represent the Doctrines of the Roman Church, and then leave all men to judge of the natural Ten­dency of them.

1. I begin with the Doctrine of Depo­sing Kings.

Where I shall prove these three things.

1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church.

[Page 62] 2. That it is the Doctrine of their General Councils, and lawful Represen­tatives of the Roman Church.

3. That this Doctrine is taught in the Breviaries and publique Offices of the Church.

1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church.

And here (to do our Adversaries right) I acknowledge, that there are some things wherein they agree, and some wherein they differ.

That Soveraign Princes may in some cases be deprived of their Crowns and Dignities, is a Doctrine wherein their Divines are so universally agreed, that I do not know any Book, published accor­ding to the Order of the Roman Church, which hath plainly and honestly condem­ned it.

But they are not agreed, whether by vertue of a direct temporal Power o­ver all (at least Christian) Princes, the Pope may depose them at his plea­sure; or whether he hath only an in­direct power, whereby he may depose them when it is necessary for the good of the Church. The former Doctrine is current at Rome, and hath been avow­ed by many Popes, and their Creatures. The latter is Matter of Faith, as many of their own Writers prove by as good Arguments and Authority, as any man [Page 63]can produce for Transubstantiation it self.Of the former l. sacr. Caeremon. Aed. Romae 1560. p. 36 col. 1. Figurat Ponti­fical is hic gla­dius potestatem summan tomporalem a Christo ejus Vicario collatam. And this Power was challenged by Pope Gregory the 7th as of Divine right, Platina de vitis Pontificum Colon. 1568. p. 176. By Boniface the 8th. id. p. 247. By Paul the Third in his Damnatory Bull against Henry the 8th. King of England. Bullarium Cherubinis, Tom. 1. p. 619. (Ed. Romae, 1632. By Pius the 5th. in his Damnatory Bull against Queen Elizabeth, Tom. 2. p. 304. Both which Bulls begin thus; Regnans in excel­sis, &c. bunc unum super omnes gentes & omnia Regna Principem con­stituit, qui evellat, deftruat, dissipet, &c. To which I 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,See D. Stil­ling fleets An­swer serveral late Treatises, in the Preface.

And whether they teach the Popes Power to be direct or indirect 'tis 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.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.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.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 'tis 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.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 [Page 66]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?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. 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 [Page 67]Vassals?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?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.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?Concil. Bid. Sess. 25 de Ref. c. 20. Did they not take care to preserve the Authority of the Roman See in all things?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 not seem to conceal any thing which our Adversaries have to say for themselves, I do acknowledge that three plausible exceptions are made to these testimonies.

[Page 68] 1. They say, the forecited Canon is not an Act of the Fourth Council of Late­ran, but of the Pope only.

But if we may value the Judgment of the Council of Trent, or of a Synod of our own Nation above the opinion of some private men, we must conclude, that this Decree was the Act of the greatest Coun­cil which the Church of Rome hath to boast of.

For the Council of Trent divers times refers to the Capitula in question, as the Acts of the General Council of Lateran. Conc. Trid. de Ref. Sess. 5. c. 2. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 10. Sess 13. c. 9. to Conc. Lat. c. 21. Sess. 24. c. 1. to Conc. Lat. c. 51. Sess. 25. c. 8. to Conc. Lat. c. 12. Concil. Oxon. an. 1222. (Conciliorum tom. 28.) c. 24. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 20. c 28. to Conc. Lat. c. 47. c. 29. to Conc Lat. c. 66. c. 33. to Conc. Lat. c. 15, 16, 17. And so doth the Council of Oxford, held a few years after that of Lateran.

2. Others allowing this to be the Act of the Council, pretend it is to be under­stood of inferiour Feudatory Lords, not of Soveraign Princes.

I would not affix a more odious sense o [...] the Fathers of that Great Council, that their Decrees do import; but when I [Page 69]consider by what Spirit they were acted, what Antimonarchical Doctrines they taught, I cannot easily be induced to a be­lief of their honesty in this matter. For they strictly forbid all Clergymen (not possessing Temporalties or Secular ho­nours) to swear Allegiance to Secular Powers.Conc Lat. 4. c. 43. p. 125. (tom. 28.) They denounce the terri­ble sentence of Excommunication against such Magistrates as demand any Tribute of Churchmen.Conc. Lat. 4. c. 46. p. 197, 198. They make another Decree (wherein the Approbation of the Council is expressed) equally destructive of the Rights of Princes; which must ei­ther extend to Soveraign Princes, or else it was made to no purpose. I mean the Decree, in which all the Princes of Chri­stendom are required to be at peace with one another for four years, under pain of Excommunication, and loss of their Dominions.p. 119, &c. In the begin­ning of the Decree are these words; Sacro approbante Concilio definimus, &c.—Et qui acquiescere forte contempserint, per Excommunicationem in personas, & interdictum in terras arctissimé compellantur, &c. Quod si forte censuram Ecclesiaticam vilipenderint, poterunt noniimmeritó formidare, ne per authoritatem Ecclesiae circa eos, tanquam perturbatores negotii Crucifixi, saecularis potentia inducatur.

But to come to the matter in question; ‘If the temporal Governour being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Country from Haeresie, (and we know the meaning of that Word) let this be signified to the Pope, that from hence­forth [Page 70]he may declare his Subjects free from their Allegiance, and give away his Land to be possessed by Catholiques, &c.—Saving the Right of the Principal Governour, if he gives no hindrance and impediment in the matter; but nevertheless let the same Law be observed towards them who have no Prin­cipal Governours over them.’ Thus the Council of Lateran.

If this Canon be not to be understood of Soveraign Princes, as well as subordi­nate Lords and Deputy Governours, what doth the Council mean by that expression, 'Nevertheless let the same Law be observed 'towards them, who have no Principal Go­vernours over them? Do not those words plainly import thus much; Let their Dominions be given away in the same manner?

What doth the Council mean by that other Expression, ‘Saving the Right of the Principal Governour, if he gives no Impedi­ment?’ If he do, it seems his Countries are to be given away too.

Did not the Popes challenge and exe­cute a power of Deposing Soveraign Princes (as well as Subordinate Lords) be­fore the Sitting of this Council? And would any man of common Sense have given (at least) so fair a pretence for the continuance of this Power, if they were not well enough pleased with it?

[Page 71] 3. It is pretended that the deposing of Frederick the Emperor in the Council of Lyons was no Act of the Council.

Against which I have these things to say.

• 1. This Assertion is wholly precarious; for I do not find so much as one plain and positive Testimony in favour of it.
• 2. The Decree for the recovery of the Holy Land, wherein Princes are enjoyn­ed to keep the Peace under pain of Ex­communication and Interdicting their Kingdoms, is expresly said to be made with the approbation of the Council.
  Concil. Lugdun. (tom. 28.) p. 445. Sa­cro approbante Concilio.
• 3. The Emperor was deposed after mature deliberation had with the Coun­cil.
  Nos super premissis cum fratribus nostris & Sancto con­cilio deliberatione praehabita diligenti, &c. In the History of the Council.

  The same words are in the Popes Constitution. Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1. p. 64.

  In M. Paris (Ed. Lond. 1640) p. 772. An. 1245.

  Platina p. 220. Omnium consensu Imperio & Regnis privatur.

  And Bellar. Tract. de pot. sum. Pont. adversus Barclaium (in opuse. p. 845.) haec sententia est summi Pontificis, toto approbante Conci­lio, hoc est tota consintiente & laudante Christianorum Praesulum Uni­versitate.

• [Page 72]4. If the Council had favoured the Em­peror, there can be no reason, why he should appeal from that to another Gene­ral Council, and not rather from the Pope to that Council.
  History of the Conncil p. 458, 459. (in the 28th. Tome of the Coun­cil.

3. But it is time to proceed to the last Proof, which is from the Publique Offi­ces and Breviaries of the Roman Church.

St. Peters Universal Monarchy (which is the Foundation of the Popes Power over Princes) is expresly taught in the Roman Breviaries.V. Brivi­arium Rom. ex Decreto S.S. Concil. Trid. ristitutum, Pii 5. jussu editum, Et Clementis 8. auctaritate recognitisni. (Ed. Ant. 1614.) In Fisto Petri & Pauli Jun. 29. p. 710. Tu es Pastor Oviun, Princeps Apostoloruni, tibi tradidit Deus omnia regna mundi; & ideo tibi tradite sunt claves regni celorum. In Festo Petri ad Vincula Aug. 1. p. 741 Tibi tradidit Deus om­nia regna mundi. Sihneron (Ed. Col. Agrip. 1602) tom. 4. p. 410. Expounds these words of the Breviary in the same sense; viz. Of the Popes Tem­poral Power. And how can any man be a true Son of that Church, which doth not joyn in her publick Offices? How can he say Amen to those Prayers, which he believes do contain any false Doctrine in them?

And now let it be considered, That this Doctrine hath been taught by all the approved Writers of the Roman Church, and by the Authentique Canon-Law; by the General Councils, and by the Publi­que Breviaries.

And this is no mere Speculative Do­ctrine, but a kind of State-Engine fitted to raise and support the Papal Monarchy; Have not the Bishops of Rome made use of it, as often as it was in their Power and served their Interest? Have they not trampled on the Necks of Princes, and absolved their Subjects from their Al­legiance? Disposed of their Crowns and Dominions, animated their own Subjects and other Princes to take up Arms against them? Cast them out of the Church and out of their Kingdoms? Yea so true have they been to this Principle, that not only such as were very Prodigies of Pride and Tyranny, but even the more prudent and moderate Popes have so often put it in practise, that the troubles and Confusi­ons, the Wars and Treasons which have followed in Christendom, make up a great part of the History of some Ages.See the Catalogues of Princes ex­communicated and deposed by Popes in their own Authors. V.G. Bellar. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 8. Bzovius de Pont. Rom. c. 46. p. 613. to 620. Paul the third Excommunicated and deposed our Henry the Eighth. Bullarium tom. 1. p. 619. Pius the Fifth Excommunicated and Deposed Queen Elizabeth, tom. 2. p. 305. Clement the Eighth sent two Breves into England to debar King James from succeeding to the Crown. See King James his Works. p. 257.

And yet after all the Complaints and Sufferings of Princes under this Usurped Power, not the least care is taken (either [Page 74]by the Church or Court of Rome) to se­cure their Rights.

Why did not the Council of Trent make a plain and Honest Explication of the Popes Power and the Rights of Prin­ces, when they had so fair an opportuni­ty to vindicate themselves and their Re­ligion? And in what request this Do­ctrine is at Rome, may appear from hence; that since the breaking out of the Po­pish Plot in England, the present Pope was pleased to condemn sixty five Propo­sitions, but (as great a Scandal as their Religion lay under amongst us) could not find in his heart to speak one unkind word of this Doctrine.A De­cree made at Rome March 2. 1679. con­demning some Opinions of the Jesuites and other Ca­suists.

I know some private persons, and some Assemblies of Church-men (of the Roman Communion) have at some times taught the contrary Doctrine; but it concerns them, not me to reconcile their Determi­nations with the Doctrine of their Church. However I will say these three things.

1. They have been such as were over­awed by Princes, or in expectation of Fa­vours and Preferments from them.

2. They have been censured and excom­municated by the Teaching Governing part of the Church, and (as much as in them lay) shut out of her Communion.

[Page 75] 3. Where Princes Excommunicated and deposed for other real or pretended Crimes have procured any Advocates to plead for them; yet they have either ex­cepted the case of Haeresie, or not un­dertaken to prove the Unlawfulness of deposing Princes for it.

2. The next thing to be considered is the Doctrine of King-killing.

Concerning which the late Lord Staf­ford did indeed declare, That ‘if he were of any Church whatsoever, and found that to be its Principle, he would leave it.’

But this Patron of the Roman Cause did not think fit to acquaint us with that ex­pression of his Lordship, (in the printed Tryal p. 53.) ‘As to the Doctrine of King-Killing, and absolving Persons from their Allegiance, I cannot say the Church of Rome does not hold it, I never heard it did hold it, it may be it does, it may be not, I say not one thing or other.’

From which words we may learn these two things.

• 1. That his Lordship knew not that the Church of Rome had any where con­demn'd this wicked Doctrine.
• 2. That the English Priests and Con­fessors do not plainly and honestly difa­vow and condemn it, or instruct their Proselites in the Principles of Loyalty.

Indeed the Church of Rome hath not in express terms asserted the Lawfulness of putting Kings to death; but there is so little difference between the deposing and putting Kings to death, that who­soever allows of the one, can be no E­nemy to the other, if he understand the Consequences of his own Doctrine. For when a King is deposed by any lawful Authority, he is a King no longer. If he take up Arms to recover his Domini­ons, you may fight against him with as good a Conscience as against an Usur­per.

And will a King be so tame, as to lay down his Crown at the Popes or his Peoples Feet? Will he suffer himself to be stript of his Royal Dignity without striking a stroke, or solliciting the Assi­stance of other Princes?

I would not imitate the uncharitable Spirit of the Roman Church, whilst I am writing against it; nor dare I charge all men with the Consequences of their own Doctrines; but I am sure, many of the greatest Divines and Casuists of that Church have both seen and vindicated them, and I do not find that the rest are able to confute them.

‘But (saith Cardinal Perron in his fore­cited Orations) a King deposed, being once Reformed and become a new Man, may be [Page 77]restored to the lawful use and practise of his Regality’

And what if he will not reform? what if he be more hardned in disobedience than Childerick was, and prefer his own Honour and Conscience above the Bull of a Pope, or the Act of a Rebellious Faction in his own Kingdom? truly then he may lose his Head (as well as his Crown) notwithstanding any care the Church of Rome hath taken of him. If he take the Field, so may his Enemies; it may be they have been before hand with him.

But suppose the poor disarmed man (a King you cannot call him if he have no right to the Crown) be not able to raise Forces, and therefore resolves to trudge to his Holiness, and there bare-headed, bare-footed (as we know who did) hum­bly beg Absolution of the Pope: Perhaps he may be in a good Humour; grant him Absolution upon such terms as he did Henry the 4th. that he submit himself to the Judgment of an Assembly of the States.

But what if it be now too late to re­forme? It may be his Kingdoms are al­ready given away to another; (for the Popes are free enough in giving what is none of their own) or perhaps the E­states of the Kingdom have turned it into a Commonwealth.

In Fine, Princes deposed from their So­veraignty are liable to so many hazards, that they have seldom survived their de­privation, unless it were in exile or in a Prison.

But I must pass over the Jugglings and Equivocations of men of King-killing Principles. Ask them if it be lawful to kill a King? They tell you no; and many of them call God to Witness the Integri­ty of their Hearts and Loyalty of thier Practises.

But if a King fall from the Faith, and become an Enemy to Gods Church and People; If he do (regis personam exuere) turn Tyrant, and abuse his Power to the hurt of the Church and Commonwealth; If he be deposed (for his Sins against God and man) by the Pope, or the Estates of his Kingdom; Then he ceases to be a King any longer; he is to be used as a publi­que Enemy; the Tyrant, the man of Blood, the Apostate, the Haeretique may be put to death without killing the King. And (to do them Justice) I confess some of them are so kind to a King, that they will not allow any private person to put him to death; but he that is Commissio­nated by the Pope, or Subordinate Ma­gistrates is no private person in the sense of these men.

This is the Divinity of those Politici­ans and Divines, which either promoted the hellish Murder of the late King, or afterwards wrote in Vindication of it: And there are scarce any Treasonable Positions or Distinctions; Presidents or Arguments, to be found in their Books or Pamphlets, which are not either expres­ly contain'd, or (at least) to be paral­lel'd in the Works of the Jesuites and o­ther Romish Doctors. They are not for killing a King! but before they put him to death they will be sure to Un-King him; and he shall suffer not as a King, but as a Malefactor. They will not re­sist the Authority of a King; but if he betray the Trust reposed in him, the wicked Person placed in Authority, may be punished not as a King, but as a Ty­rant.

To look for an express determination of this Point in the General Councils of the Roman Church, is to seek it where there can be no reason to expect it; but the General Councils have taught the World the distinction between the Kings Person and Authority; and according to their Principles, a lawful Prince doth by his Wickedness, or Misgovernment, fall from his Authority, and cease to be a King.Concil. Gen. Ludg. Conciliorum Tom. 28. p. 431. Memoratum Principem, (Fredericum) qui se imperio & regnis omni­que honore ac dignitate red­didit tam in­digaum, quique propter suas i­niquitates à Deo ne regnet vel imparet est abjectus, &c. And Milton speaks not on­ly the sense, but the very words of the Jesuites. Pro pop. Angl. def. p. 103. Jus Populi communi ab injusto Re­gum dominatu assererem, non id quidem Re­gum odio, sed Tyrannorum, &c. P. 104. Evincere potestis, non vos, amentia aut furore percitos Regem trucidasse, sed amore libertatis, religionis, justitiae, honestatis, patriae Charitate accensos Tyrannum punisse.

If the Councils speak doubtfully, or in general terms, Whom should the Peo­ple resort unto for Instruction, but their Confessors? What Books should they consult, but such as are published with Authority and approbation of the Go­verning part of the Church?

And as the Roman Church hath left the particular Directions for Conscience and Practise, to the Practical Divines and Casuists; so (above all others) the Je­suites have for many years been entrusted with the conduct of Mens Souls, and bore the greatest sway in his Majesties Dominions.

At their first coming over (which was about an hundred years ago) they quickly insinuated themselves into the Affections of some of the prime Nobility, and of multitudes of the Common People.Sanders, de Schism. Angl. p. 188. Within twenty years after they had al­most devoured all the Secular ClergySee the Important Considerati­ons by the Secular Priests, An. 1601. And since his Majesties happy Re­stauration, they made their boasts, That many of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry were Penitents of the So­ciety.See the Jesuites Paper, presented to divers Persons of Honour, and print­ed 1662.

I know one of the Jesuites (not long since Executed for High Treason) did with his dying breath declare, That the King­killing Doctrine was falsly charged upon the Jesuites.

In Answer to which bold Assertion, I will only say these two things:

• 1. That most of the Divines of that Order (which have had occasion to treat of this Argument) do expresly teach, That a lawful Soveraign Prince may in some cases be put to death: i. e. If he fall from the Faith, and endeavour to pervert his Subjects; If he abuse his Power, and Rule in a Tyrannical manner; If he be Excommu­nicated and Deposed by the Pope, or decla­red a publick Enemy, and deprived by the E­states of his Kingdom.
• 2. That amongst a great number of Books written by Jesuites, and Licensed according to the Rules of the Society, I could never meet with one, which hath freely and sincerely condemn'd this Do­ctrine.

  ‘But (saith Cardinal Perron) never any Pope went so far, as to give consent or Counsel for the desperate Murdring of Princes.’

1. And yet the first Christian Bishop, that ever approved of the Murder of a lawful Soveraign Prince, was Gregory the first.

[Page 82] 2. The Fundamental Principles of Treason against Kings and Princes, were laid by Zachary, Gregory the Seventh, &c.

3. The Rebellion against Henry the Third and Fourth of France, was encou­raged and abetted by the Bishops of Rome, Cambden Eliz. par. 2. p. 13. ed. Lond. 1627. Cum Rex problem non haberet, nec habiturum spes ulla esset, & regnum Navarro, & post Condeo Reformatae religionis propugnatoribus jure deberetur, Pontificii Principes, Pontifice & Hispano consciis, conju­rationem pernitiosam oecultè inierunt sub Religionis Catholicae tuendae velo, nomine S. Unionis, sive Ligae, ad Regem pissundandum, publicam, in illum invidiam accendendo, & ad Reformatam religionum funditùs extirpandam, praevertendo legitimam in regno successionem.

For the Leaguers in that Kingdom (un­der a pretence of Zeal for the Roman Catholick Religion) entred into a wick­ed Combination against their Soveraign; ‘And Gregory the 13th hearkned to their Proposals with much reaedinessDavila, (An. 1576): P. 452. But Sixtus the Fifth Excommunicates the next Heir of the Crown, declares him uncapable of the Succession, absolves his Vassals from their Oaths, and Excommunicates all such as adhered to him. This Declaration of the Pope pierced Henry the Third very deeply, without whose Privity it had been propounded in the Consistory, subscribed by the Cardinals, posted up and published’.Davila, l. 7. p. 574, 575.

‘Three years after his Holiness writes Letters to the Duke of Guise (the Head of the League) full of infinite Praises; com­pares him to the holy Macchabees, (the Defenders of Israel) exhorts him to fight for the advancement of the Church, and total extirpation of the Hugonots Davila, l. 9 (An. 1588) p. 715.’

‘Afterwards the Pope publishes a Moni­tory against the KingL. 10; p. 811. And that infamous Regicide which embrued his hands in the Royal Blood, Murdered Henry the Third without killing the King, which was now un-King'd by the Pope.’

Upon the News of the Kings Murder, the Pope makes a Panegyrick Oration, and solemn. Thanksgiving in the Con­sistory; and in his Canting Sermon per­verts the Holy Scriptures, admires the wonderful Providence of God in the death of his Anointed, compares the Bloody Fact to the Mystery of the Incar­nation, and extols the Traytor above Eleazar. Thstanus, l. 96. p. 461.

This Speech was printed at Paris, An. 1589. by the Authority of the Holy League, and with the approbation of three Doctors of the Loyal Colledge of Sorbonne.

Our Countryman Parsons (though he will not own the Speech which goes a­bout under the Popes name) acknow­ledges, that Sixtus, in a secret Consistory, upon the first News of the Fact, did ut­ter [Page 84]a certain Speech in admiration of the strange Providence of God, in chastising by so unexpected a way, so foul and im­pious a Murder, as that King had com­mitted upon a Prince and Cardinal, with­out any form of Judgment.Parson's discussion of the Answer of Mr. Barlow, printed 1612. permissu Supe­riorum.

And Bellarmine (who could not be ig­norant of what passed in the Consistory at that time) when it was urged against him by King James, first endeavours to shilt it off, but without any positive de­nial, and at length does what he can to vindicate it.Resp. ad Apol. &c.

How the Popes assisted the Leaguers with Men and Mony against Henry the Fourth, may be seen in Davila, whom I cited before.

4. Since Cardinal Perrons time, a Pope and his Counsel (as a Reverend Author of our own Church assures usDu Moulin Answ. to Phi lanax.&c. P. 59. gave Consent and Council for the taking away the life of (an Excellent Prince) King Charles the First.

'Tis indeed below the dignity and po­licy of the Popes, to do the drudgery of putting Kings to death, or venturing their Necks for the Good old Cause; but they can fight against Princes with Bulls and Anathema's; hire Souldiers with Mony, or with Indulgences; invade their Dominions with their own Souldiers, or [Page 85]with the Forces of Roman Catholick Kings; stir up Insurrections within their Kingdoms, or authorize their own stand­ing Army of Jesuites, Monks and Friars to kill them with the approved Catholick Weapons, with Pistol or Poyson.

And if to bless God for exalting a Regicide to his Masters Throne; if to furnish Rebels with Principles and Presi­dents; if to sanctifie Rebellious Leagues; if to extol the Murderers of Princes, and to give Advice for the cutting them off, do not prove that the Doctrine of King-killing is the Principle of Popes, (or Heads of the Roman Faith) then we may quit the Rebels in the late times, and even the most infamous High Court of Ju­stice.

Lastly, by the Authentique LawsDecret. par. 2. Can. Excom. Caus. 23. qu. 5. Non eos homi­cidas arbitra­mur, quos ad­versus Excom­municatos zelo Catholicae ma­tris ardentes, aliquos corum trucidâsse contigerit. The Title of the Cannon is, Non sunt homicidae, qui adversus Excommunicatos zelo ma­tris Ecclesiae armantur. of the Roman Church, any furious Zealot may kill an Excommunicate person; and if it come into the Popes head to let his Thunder-bolts flee abroad, then that which we call High Treason may deserve a Crown of Martyrdom.

Whether his present Majesty be by name Excommunicated at Rome, or not, I am not concern'd to enquire; but I am sure he lies under the General Ex­communication of the Bulla coenae Of this Bull, see Che­rub. Bullar. Tom. 3. p. 250, 251. and Tom. 4. p. 354, 355. Filliutius quest. Mor. Tom. 1. Tract. 16. and 'tis a received Rule, That the Su­pream Power may in great necessity dis­pense with the Formalities observed in ordinary cafes. If it be notorious that a King is an Heretick, and an obstinate Favourer of Hereticks, then secret and summary proceedings against him are warrantable, and the issuing out of Bulls and Citations would but alarm a Prince, and expose the Romish Faction to the severity of the Laws.

But since all those matters of form are only circumstantial; since the design of the Law is to bring Heretical Princes un­der the consequences of the Churches Censures, there can be no reason, why the Circumstantial parts of it may not be superseded upon extraordinary Emer­gencies.

Thirdly, I proceed to the Massacring their Neighbours, and destroying their Native Country with Fire and Sword, when the interest of their Religion re­quires it.

When the interest of their Religion re­quires it?

But what if they be not able to root out the Haeretiques?

The Roman Catholique Religion is so good natur'd and kind (to us shall I say, or themselves?) as to let us live, when they are not in a Condition to destroy us.See Bellar. de Laici [...], l. 3. c. 22. Cum au­tem in particulari, &c. Philop. Sect. 2.160. Si vires habeant ad hac idoneas, &c. Greg. 13. Facultates concessae R. Personio & E. Campiano pro An­glia, Ap. 14. 1580. Túdemúm quando publica ejusdem Bullae Exe­cutic fieri poterit. And Ribadeneira de Principe l. 1. c. 26. p. 178, 179. (Ed. 1603.)

We have not forgotten the Memorable Saying of Henry the Fourth of France. ‘Henry the third (that was but a Favourer of Haeretiques, or at most haeretically affect­ed, after the issuing out of the Popes Moni­tory against him, fetcht a Deep Sigh, and said, It was a hard case, that he which had fought for Religion should be excommunica­ted, because he would not suffer his own. Throat to be cut by his Rebellious Subjects; when they that bad sackt Rome, and kept the Pope Prisoner, had never been brought under that Censure. Sir (said the King of Navarre) but they were victorious: Let your Majesty endeavaur to conquer, and be assured the Censures shall be revoked; but if we be overcome, we shall all die condemned Heretiques.’ Davila, l. 10. An. 1589. p. 811.

Again: It must be noted, that there are other ways of rooting out Haeretiques [Page 88]besides Fire and Sword. What think you of rooting them out by degrees, without noise or tumult; by demolishing their Temples, seizing on their Estates, per­verting their Children, forcing thousands of them to leave their Native Country, and exposing the rest to Violence and Ra­pine?It was Campanella's Advice to the King of spain (then aspiring to the Monarchy of the West) to pro­ceed in this method against Haeretiques. cap. 11. p. 69, 70. Contzen (the Jesuite) was of the same mind. Coutzen polit. c. 18. p. 103. &c. (Ed. 1629.) The Book is dedicated to Ferdinand the Emperor, under this Head; Modus reducendae verae Religionis.

But these things being premised for the right stating of the question, let us come to the resolution of it.

And is there indeed such a Religion to be found in the World, that teaches men to Massacre their Neighbours, and destroy their native Country with Fire and Sword? A Religion which transformes men into Wolves and Tygers! A Religion which teaches men to kill their Brethren for Gods sake, and please God by doing the works of the Devil! I speak it with grief and shame, that Popery (abstracted from common Christianity) is such a Reli­gion. I will not here insist on the Gun­powder Treason, the horrour of Queen Maries dayes, the dreadful stories of the Inquisition, the Parisian and Irish Massa­cres, the infinite slaughters of the poor Albigenses, and Waldenses, the more than [Page 89]Heathenish barbarities exercised on milli­ons of the Americans upon the account of Religion; these would afford matter for an entire History, and therefore I shall summ up what I have to say under four heads.

1. The Church of Rome doth (as much as in her lies) damn all Heretiques; make them the members of the Devil (I speak their own words) whilest they live, and send them to hell when they die.

The fourth General Council of Lateran damns all Heretiques; and what doth that Council mean by Heretiques, but all such as do not submit to the Roman Faith, (as it is there set down) and particularly all which do not own the monstrous Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, which that Council makes an Article of Faith.Conc. Lat. 4. c. de fide Ca­tholica. et c. 3. de Haretlcis.

Besides the general Anathemaes of the Councils, all Heretiques are solemnly cursed every Maundy Thursday. Good God! that any thing which is called Re­ligion should teach or allow men to damn their Brethren, even whilst they are com­memorating our blessed Saviour who died for them! But I do not wonder that they should condemn our bodies to be burnt, who condemn our souls to everlasting fire.Decret. Greg. l. 5. tit. 7. de Haereticis c. 3. Nullatenús dubites, omnem haereticum vel Schismaticum cum diabolo & angelis ejus, aeterni ignis incendio participadum, nisi ante finem vitae Catholicae fuerit incorpora­tus & redintegratus Ecclisiae, &c. And what the Canon Law un­derstands by Hereticks you may see c. 9.

[Page 90] 2. All Christians are enjoyned by the Church to endeavour the extirpation of Heretiques to the uttermost of their pow­er, as they desire to be accounted Christi­ans.

About the latter end of the Twelfth, and beginning of the Thirteenth Cen­tury, Dominick and his brethren persuad­ed the Civil Magistrates in France to burn all such as were condemned for Heresie; and that their cruelties might be acted by a Law, the Holy General Councils, pro­mised their blessing and protection to them that should root them out, Decreed that all Heretiques should be delivered up to the Secular Magistrate, who (if he refu­sed to do his duty) should be compelled to it by Ecclesiastical Censures, by absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance, and by giving away his Dominions to other Prin­ces.Conc. Lat. 3. (Concil tom. 27) c. 27. de haereticis. (this was an. 1180. Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. de baereticis an. 1215. And even that sober piece of Popery (as the Council of Constance is called) invited J. Husse and Jerome of Prague, (two good and learned men) thi­ther, to dispute with them for their Reli­gion, whom they quickly silenced with the Catholick Arguments of fire and fa­got.

Thus a Romish General Council (and that none of the worst of them) owned the most inhuman cruelty and breach of publick Faith, in the sight of the Sun.

From whence we learn these two points of R. Catholique Divinity.

• 1. That no Secular Prince hath any right to promise safety to Hereticks.
• 2. If he do, the Church may declare his promise null and void, and demand justice against them, notwithstanding the most solemn promise to the contrary. And what greater honour can be done a Sove­raign Prince, than to be made the Church­es Executioner?

3. All the Bishops in the Roman Church are bound under pain of perjury, to destroy their Christian brethren.In the Oath before cited (which every Bishop takes at his Consecration) Is this clause; Haereticos, Schismaticos et rebelles Domino nostro v [...] Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar & impugnabo. A very fit employment for Spiritual Fa­thers!

4. By the Laws of the Roman Church all men condemned for Haeresie are to be put to death.Haeretiques condemned by the Church are to be dell­vered up to the Civil Power; (Animadversione debita puniendi pro viribus extirmi­nare, &c,) Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. But what the Punishment is▪ all men know which have read the History of the Council of Constance. In i [...]is persistens (J. Husse) apatribus de baeresi damnatus, vivus exastus est. In the History of the Council. Council. tom. 29. p. 238. Vid. Decret. Greg. 9. l. 5. tit. 7. de Haereticis. Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. de Haereticis. Extrav. Com. l. 5. tit. 3. de Hersticis.

Indeed the Church could only damn the Souls; the burning the Bodies of Hae­retiques belongs to the Civil Power; for if they refused to abjure, or were relapsed, they were to be delivered to the Secular Arm, and the Magistrates were to burn them in some publique place.

In the Second year of Henry the Fourth (King of England) a Law was made, whereby if any Haeretiques being convict did refuse to abjure, or after Abjuration did fall into relapse, they were to be left to the Secular Court according to the Ho­ly Canons; and the Major, Sheriffs or Bayliffs (after the Sentence) were to re­ceive and cause them to be burnt in an high place before the People. But the common course of the Law, was to cer­tifie into the Chancery the conviction of an Haeretique, upon which the Writ De Haeretico comburendo was issued out for the burning of him. Afterwards all Civil Officers were sworn to use their utmost diligence and power for the destroying of Errors and Haeresies, and to assist the Or­dinaries and their Commissaries in their Proceedings against them.

In Queen Mary's Reign hundreds of the Clergy and Laity, were burnt alive upon no other account but their Religion; there was nothing else either in their Accusati­on, or in their Sentence.See Statut. [...]n. 2. Hen 4. c. 15. An. 25. Hen. 8. c. 14. Also the Histo­ry of the Re­formation, &c. (An. 1679.) part. 1. lit. 1. The Writ for burning of Archbishop Cranmer may be seen in the second part of the same Hi­story, l. 2. In the Collection of R. cords, Numb. 27.

4thly and Lastly, I consider his Lord­ships Declaration; ‘That he acknowledged the King his lawful Soveraign, and knew no Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.’

That the General Councils of the Ro­man Church have arrogated to themselves a Power of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to Soveraign Princes, is so evi­dent from the forecited Testimonies, that I need not trouble either the Reader or my self with transcribing the Decrees of those Councils; but to the former autho­rities I will only add that of the third Council of Lateran, which did expresly absolve the Subjects of Princes from their Oaths of Allegiance.Conc. Lat. 3. c. 27, de Hae­reticis. (Coun­cil. tom. 27.) p. 461. Relax­atos autemse noverint a de­bito fidelitatis & hominii, &c.

Whether that Council did include 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.Decret. par. 2. caus. 15. qu. 6. c. 4. Nos Sanctorum, &c. Decret. Greg. l.5. tit. 7. c. 16. [Page 94]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.’ 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?’

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.

[Page 98] 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 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.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.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 [Page 100]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 [Page 101]a safe Conduct to J. Husse; 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 oneSuartz. 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 SecondGreg. 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 ThirdVerone 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 [Page 103]depose him, or put him to death,’ (saith a FourthDom. Bannes Scho­last. Comment. Tom. 4. p. 174. (Ed. 1614.) qu. 64. Act. 3.)

‘Another wrote a Book in the time of the French League 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 meaningParsons 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. 'Tis 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 Common­wealth (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.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 [Page 106]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 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 'tis 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 [Page 107]of their Annotations, as they are cited in the Margent.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.

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 [Page 109]Divines of Sorbon. 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 [Page 110]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.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 Ʋnite themselves, collect and raise Money for the Defence and Pre­servation of the Roman Catholiques in that Realm, against the wicked Counsels and Practises of the said King, and all other his Adherents, and against the breach of Publique Faith committed by him at Bloys, to the prejudice of the said Roman Religion, and Edict of Holy Ʋnion, and the natunal Liberty of the Assembly of the three Estates of that Kingdom? After mature deliberati­on upon the said Articles, it was concluded nemine refragante, That the said People were discharged from the said Oath of Alle­giance; and that they may with asase Con­science unite and Arm themselves against the King. Moreover the said Faculty thought fit to send their Decree to the Pope, that it might be ratified and confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Apostolick See.’
  Davila l. 10. And Fowlis History of Ro­mish Treasons (Ed. 1671.) p. 530, 551.

In the same year the Loyal Doctors of Sorbon declared their Approbation of the damnable Doctrine of King-killing. ‘For a short Paper was drawn up, contain­ing the Reasons of taking up Arms against the King; in the Conclusion of which it is said, That because Childerick King of France had caused one Bodille to be pu­bliquely whipped, the said Bodille took oc­casion thence to kill the King, for which he is commended by Historians, and therefore may not the injury done to a better than Bo­dille, viz. to a brave Prince (Guise) be also avenged?’

‘The Doctors of Sorbon having read o­ver the Tract, approved it, affirming that nothing was in it contrary to the Roman Church.’

‘About the same time it was Decreed by the Sorbonists, That the Name of Heary the third should be dashed out of all pu­blique Prayers; and that if any of the Faculty of Paris agree not to it, they should be Excommunicated. Accordingly instead of those. Prayers for the King, o­thers were drawn up for the Catholique Leaguing Princes.’ Fowlis, p. 537.

An. 1590. The Royalists had spread abroad such Propositions as these; ‘That Henry of Bourbon (the lawful Heir of the Crown) might or ought to be King; that the People might with a safe Conscience ad­here to him and pay him Tribute; That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate the King; That an Haretique, though re­lapst and put out of the Communion of the Church, may have right to the Crown of France. All which Propositions were pre­sently condemned by the Faculty of Sor­bon.’ Spon­dani Contin. Baronii tom. 2. ad An. 1590. (p. 860.) par. 3. Sorbonici Theologi in publicis turbis ad rerum in­stantium statum vota sua accommodare coacti, rogatu Faederatorum & Cajetani impulsu, nec non Cardinalis Montalti, ipsiusquemet Pon­tificis literis, ad fidem & religionem tuendam, & unionem confir­mandam incitati, partes suas interponentts congregati sanxerunt, pro­positiones quae passim a pluribus seminabantur; viz. Henricum Bor­bonium regis titulo infigniri posse aut debere, tuta conscientia es ad­barere, ac decimas & vectigalia persolvere debere, &c. Has & tjusmodi enuntiationes damnantes, &c.

‘An. 1629. They publish a Decree, That for the Future the Ancient and Laudable Practise be revived; that e­very Batchelour of Divinity swear to ob­serve the Decrees of the Popes of Rome.’ Spon­dani Contin. Baronii Tom. 2. (p. 982.) ad Ann. 1629. par. 10.

‘An. 1647. The Sorbonists, in An­swer to a Question sent to them in Writing from the Jesuites in England, resolved that it was Lawful for the Roman Ca­tholiques to work the Change in the Go­vernment by making away the King.’ Du Mou­lin Answ. to Philanax, p. 59.

I know P. Walsh hath printed (from the Originals) six Declarations of the Divines of Sorbon presented to the French King An. 1663. which seem more worthy of that Society, than these which I have produced. But, however signi­ficative they might be of their Loyalty to the French King, they do not reach the Case of his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects. For in France the King is of the same Religion; His Kingdoms are under no Ecclesiastical Censures; the Pope challenges no direct Temporal Right to them.

But I need say no more of them, than F. Walsh himself doth; ‘These De­clarations of Sorbon did neither protest against Equivocation; nor descend to the particular Cases, either of Excommunica­tion, or the pretended Exemption of Cler­gymen, or Condemnation of the Contrary Doctrines, &c.’ Hist. of the Irish Re­monstrance p. 662, 663, and 678.

And now let all men judge whether the Doctors of Sorbon were not as good at irritating the People of France; as the most Seditious Preachers and Pam­phleteers were at Animating those of England against their King?

The Fifth Testimony of the Loyalty of the Roman Church from a late Treatise of a Romish Priest.

The Principles of that Treatise ex­amined.

Of the Principles and Authority of the General Councils of that Church.

Of licensing men to lie and for swear themselves.

Of the Doctrine of Aequivocation and mental Reservation; with a brief Account of the Propositi­ons lately censured at Rome.

Of the Simplicity and Godly Since­rity of the Roman Church.

Of the Design of dividing the Pa­pists.

Of the Distinction between the Church and the Court of Rome; the grounds of that Distinction examined and confuted.

Of Dispensations, &c.

[P. 46. MY Lords Fifth Testimony was taken from a little Treatise, writ (as my Lord said) by a Priest of the Church of Rome, and entituled, Roman Catholique Principles, in reference to God and the King.In the printed Tryal p. 53. There is lately come out a Book, written by a Priest of the Church of Rome, tried for his life for be­ing in the Plot, but acquitted, &c. The chief Con­tents of which Treatise, because it in short explains the above-named Principles, and clears the Objections usually made on this Sub­ject, I shall here insert in the Authors own Words.]

In answer to which I shall briefly exa­mine all the Passages of this little Trea­tise, which may seem to vindicate the Ro­mish Faith and Religion from the imputa­tion of Disloyalty.

In the beginning he tells us: ‘We ab­hor, we renounce, we abominate such Prin­ciples: (Of Treason, Rebellion, Murder, &c.)’

But of this I shall speak in its proper place.

That a Priest of the Church of Rome should (before God and the World) deny the plainest matters of Fact is an Argu­ment either of the grosseft Ignorance of his own Religion, or (which I rather su­spect) of the most exact skill in the Arts of Prevarication.

V. G. [I have been instructed (saith he) in the Articles of my Faith, and I acknow­ledge the lawful Authority of General Coun­cils; yet I profess I never learnt or sound as­serted in any of them any such Principles.]

A Speech of so much assurance, that were it not for dis-believing my own Senses, I might be apt to give credit to it. But I would fain know how he proves, that there are any such things in the world as the Decrees and Canons of Councils? Or that Transubstantiation and Commu­nion in one kind were ever taught in any of them? Or that these words, Hoc est Corpus meum are in their Bibles?

If mens Senses are not to be trusted in plain sensible Matters, he will hardly prove any of these things; but if they are, then it is evident that such Principles are asserted in some of their General Councils.

What follows p. 47. shall be considered afterwards.

[P. 47, 48. Paragraph 1. Of the Ca­tholique Faith and Church in General.]

Which Paragraph doth not fall within the compass of my present Design.

[Paragraph 2. Of Spiritual and Tempo­ral Authority.]

[P. 48, &c. General Councils (which are the Church of God Representative) have no Commission from Christ to frame new mat­ters of Faith, but only to explain and ascer­tain unto us, what anciently was, and is re­ceived and retained, as of Faith in the Church, upon arising Debates and Controversies about them. The definitions of which General Coun­cils, in matters of Faith only, and proposed as such, oblige, under pain of Heresie, all the Faithful to a submission of Judgment.

[It is no Article of Faith to believe that General Councils cannot err, either in mat­ters of Fact or Discipline, &c. Hence it is deduced, If a General Council (much less a Papal Consistory) should undertake to depose a King, and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; no Catholique, as Catho­lick is bound to submit to such a Decree.

Hence also it followeth; The Subjects of the King of England lawfully may, without the least breach of any Catholick Principle, renounce even upon Oath the Doctrine of De­posing Kings Excommunicate for Heresie, &c.]

General Councils are the Church of God Representative!

And hath the Church of God (diffusive) intrusted them with a Power of conclu­ding in some things and not in others; or of obliging particular persons so far [Page 121]and no further? Where hath the Church of Rome warranted any such distinction (as this Author makes) between matters of Faith and Practise; or confined the whole Power of General Councils to mat­ters of Faith only? Lastly, suppose there were (as indeed there is not) some ground for such a distinction; yet why must Tran­substantiation be a matter of Faith; and the deposing of Princes be none, when both came out of the same Forge, the General Council of Lateran? How doth it appear that the Council did not propose this as matter of Faith, as well as the other?

But I will appeal to the General Council of Constance; both because the Author of the Controversial Letters, urges a Decree of that Council to prove, That the Church of Rome teaches the Duty to Princes to be a direct point of Faith;Controvers. Let. (Ed. 2. 1674.) p. 36. And because we are told, That all ‘Ro­man Catholiques are bound to submit to the Decrees of the Council of Constance.Staffords Memoirs, p. 44.’

And doth not this Council challenge a Power immediately from Christ, which all persons of whatever state and dig­nity are bound to obey; both in things pertaining to Faith, and the extirpati­on of Schism, and the General Refor­mation of the Church in the Head and [Page 122]Members?Concil. Const. (Con­cil. tom. 29. p. 257.) Ipsa Sy­nodus in spiritu Sancto congre­gata legitimé, Generale Concilium faciens, Ecclesiam Catholicam militantem reprae­sentans, potestatem a Christo immediaté habet, cui quilibet cujuscunque status vel dignitatis, etiamsi papalis, existat, obedire tenetur in his, quae pertinent ad fidem & extirpationem dicti Schismatis, & Reforma­tionem generalem Ecclesiae dei in Capite & Membris. Did not this Council define against an Error in Practise, ('tis their own expression) challenge a Power of dispensing with the Institution of Christ, and even of Excommunicating all such Presbyters as should presume to obey his Institution rather than their Decree?Conc. Const. Sess. 13. (p. 372, 373.) Hot Generale Concili­um declarat, decernit, & definit contra hune errorem; (viz. Of the peoples receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, and after Supper) quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis admini­ftraverit sub utraque specie panis & vini boc venerabile sacramentum, tament hoc non obstante, &c. praecipit sub poena Excommunicationis, quod nullus Presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini.

And now to bring this whole matter to a short Issue; By whatever Arguments this Author can prove that Roman Catho­licks as such are bound to receive the Sa­crament in one kind only; by the same it may be proved;

1. That if a General Council (or a Papal Consistory by Authority derived from a Gene­ral Council) should depose a King, and ab­solve his Subjects from their Allegiance, all Roman Catholiques as such are bound to sub­mit to such a Decree.

[Page 123] 2. That the Subjects of the King of Eng­land may not, without breach of a Roman Catholique Principle, renounce the Doctrine of deposing Kings Excommunicated for He­resie.

I confess there is a Roman Catholique Principle (of Aequivocation and Mental Reservation) by the benefit of which they may renounce the deposing of Kings, but so they may the receiving the Sacrament in one kind also.

P. 49. Nor do Catholiques as Catholiques beleive, that the Pope hath any direct or in­direct Authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes, &c.

This he asserts with his usual con­sidence, gives Bellarmine the lie, and out­faces all the Arguments and Authorities of the Cardinal and others, without of­fering at the least proof of his Position.

[It is an Article of Catholick Faith, that no Power on Earth can license men to lie, to forswear and perjure themselves, &c. on pretence of promoting the Catholick Cause or Religion.

But let him prove, (if he will prove any thing to the purpose) That it is an Article of Roman Catholick Faith to be­lieve;

Either that there are no Venial Sins; (such as do not put a man out of the Fa­vour of God, and hazard his Salvation.)

Or that an Officious Lie is a Mortal Sin, in their account.

Or that that which otherwise would be a Lie or Perjury, may not in some cases, be excused by a Mental Reservation or E­quivocation.

[The Doctrine of Equivocation, however wrong fully imposed on the Catholick Religion, is neither taught nor approved by the Church, as any part of her Belief.]

But if this be not a part of the Practical Divinity of the Roman Church, either she hath none at all, or else hath not let the World know where to find it. Indeed it is not taught in their General Councils; for they do not use to descend to particu­lar Rules of Conscience and Practise; but it is taught by the generality of those Di­vines whom the Church hath entrusted with the Souls of men.

Are either the Books censured, or the Authors punished? Are not the Books published with Approbation, and those Authors most countenanced which main­tain this Doctrine? Hath the Church gi­ven any Caution, or made any Declara­tion against it? And if after all this the Church doth not approve of it, what must become of the Souls of the people? [Page 125]May not the most erroneous and pernici­ous Doctrines and Practises prevail in the Church, whilst the greatest part of it follow their Guides, and think they are bound to believe as the Church believes?

I know 'tis commonly call'd the Jesui­tical Art of Equivocation; but though they have extended the Practise of it fur­ther; though they have polished it with more dexterity, and defended it with more subtilty than others of that Communion; yet I must needs say, Parsons spoke one great Truth, when he told us this Do­ctrine hath been received in the Roman Church for 400 years.

The Principal Cases wherein the Di­vines of the Roman Church allow of it, are these that follow.

‘If a man be charged with a secret Crime, which cannot be proved by clear evidence; If the Judges before whom he appears be Incompetent; (as all ours in England are) If it were told him in Confession, or if he hath been absolved by a Priest; If it be ne­cessary to the obtaining some great good, or the avoiding some great evil.’

‘And what a man may safely say, he may safely swear: What he may deny in a Court of Judicature, he may deny at his Executi­on; For if that which otherwise would be a Lie, is saved by a mental Reservation, there can be no danger in swearing to it; in stand­ing upon our own vindication, and making [Page 126]the most serious Appeals to Heaven at the point of death.’

Besides, suppose it were unlawful to e­quivocate in any case whatsoever; yet if it be not a Mortal Sin; if a thousand Ve­nial Sins cannot damn a man; I know no reason why they should not venture upon it to save their own Lives, or the Honour of their Religion.

In fine; This Doctrine hath been ex­presly avowed by the Holy See; those Di­vines which declaim against it with most seeming bitterness in other cases, allow of it in that of Confessions; those few Divines which have written against it, are charged with singularity or haeresie. But he that desires to see the Doctrine of E­quivocation and Mental Reservation ju­stified by the greatest Authorities of the Roman Church, may consult any of the Authors cited in the Margent;Lessius de Antichristo in Opuse. (Ed. 1626.) p. 773. De Justitia & Jure, c. 42. Dub. 9. n. 47, 48, p. 626, &c. Bonacina tom. 2. Disp. 4. qu. 1. punct. 12. Fr. Tolet. De instruct. Sac. l. 4. c. 21. & l. 5. c. 57. Eudaemon Joannes Apol. pro Garnetto, c. 2. Azorias Institut. Mor. l. 11. De Jure jurando. c. 4. J. de Dicastillo Tract. de Juram. Disp. a. dub. 12. See also Is. Casaub Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum. Parsons in his Treatise of Mitigation. And in his quiet and sober Recknoning with M. Morton. The Judgment of Pope Pius the 5th. Abbot de Mendacio Pras. p. 9. &c. And p. 39, 40. whose Books are licensed and approved by their Superiours, or other Eminent Divines.

And now it were easie to give an An­swer to the Decree made at Rome (March 2. 1679.) against some Propositions of the Jesuites and other Casuists; that De­cree being so very lame and defective, that we are not at all secured by it from the pernicious effects of this Doctrine; for

1. The Propositions condemned are the 27th and 22th. and though I did be­lieve those two Propositions to be false, yet I might equivocate in some of the Principal Cases before mentioned.

2. They are not condemned as evil or impious in themselves; contrary to the Laws of God and Nature; and conse­quently the Censure or Condemnation is not indispensable.

But what if a man be barr'd the use of Equivocation and Mental Reservation? What if he voluntarily, or by the com­mand of his Judges do renounce them?

I answer, If they be lawful in other cases, there can be no reason why they should be sinful in this.

V. G. You are commanded to tell all you know of such a Matter; Your An­swer is, I know no more than I have told you: i.e. with this Reservation, That I am bound to tell you. And being further required to speak without a Mental Re­servation, why may you not still answer, I do not make use of any Mental Reserva­tion? [Page 128]i.e. So as I am bound to tell you. This second Answer is defensible upon the same Principles with the first. So Garnette was required by the Lords Commissioners, to answer without Equivocation; yet he denied a certain Truth upon his Salvation, and with the most bitter and solemn Im­precations:Is. Casaub. Ep. ad Fr. Du­raeum p. 117. And this was no more than was Lawful by the Principles of Par­sons, Soto, Ja. a Graffiis, Bonacina, &c.

[On the contrary, Simplicity and Godly Sincerity are constantly recommended by her (the Roman Church) as truly Christian Ver­tues, necessary to the conservation of Justice, Truth and Common Society.]

But doth this Author think we never read the Acts of their Famous Council of Constance? I am sure J. Husse and Jerome of Prague felt the sad effects of the Simpli­city and godly Sincerity (which are but o­ther names for breach of publique Faith) of the Roman Church.

Having thus examined the Principles of this little Treatise so far as they fall under our present Debate, it will be no hard matter to discover the Fraud and Hy­pocrisie of his Discourse p. 47. which de­serves a distinct Consideration.

The question between us is, Whether the denial of the Principles (charged on the Roman Catholicks) be a sufficient Justifica­tion of their Innocence?

This Author seems to joyn with us in a just abhorrence of them.

[Let those in Gods Name, if any there be, of what Religion soever, who hold such Tenents, suffer for them; why should the In­nocent be involved with the Guilty? There is neither Reason nor Justice in it.]

I confess the Design of dividing the Pa­pists, and making a difference between men of loyal and disloyal Principles is very charitable; even great and good men are apt to believe that to be practi­cable, which they earnestly desire, and I know none which would not be glad to see a prudent and safe way found out, for making a discrimination between the In­nocent and the Guilty.

But the Dispute among those of out Church is not whether there be any Loyal and Honest men of the Roman Communi­on; nor yet whether they deserve more Favour than other Papists; but whether we can find out a safe and certain way to distinguish between men of Honest and Seditious Principles?

It is agreed on both sides;

• 1. That there are some good men of that Communion.
• 2. That the Righteous ought not to be as the Wicked.
• 3. That we can have no security from [Page 130]the Principles of their Religion.

Those very persons who are for divi­ding the Papists acknowledge, That ‘none of them can be truly good and loyal, but such in whom common reason or common Christianity prevail above their Religion; that all the Reason we can have to believe that they will do us no hurt, if they are truly 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, [Page 131]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.’ 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 [Page 133]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 Ʋnlawful, Detestable, Sa­crilegious, yea in effect as Schismatical and Heretical by the publick Letters of the In­ternuntio [...]'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 ch [...]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.’ F. wals [...] 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;The Popes Bull against the Loyal I­rish Cathol [...] was dated Rome Aug [...] 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.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 [Page 135]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;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.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 the Observation of that Canon;Concil. Constant. Sess. 39. p. 577. (tom. 29.) Et Conciliis Gene­ralibus & pro­visione erga futura schismata.—quem terminum lice at summo Pon­tifici de fratrum suorum S. R. Ecclesiae Cardinalium Consilio ob emer­gentes forté casus abbreviare, (sed nullatenús prorogetur. but how easily the Court of Rome hath e­luded the force of their Decree all the World knows.

2. Suppose a General Council should be called, yet (according to present Con­stitution of the Roman Church) it cannot act in opposition to the Court of Rome. For, not to insist on the great Numbers of Monks and Friars, of Canonists, and such like Creatures and Vassals of the Pa­pacy, with which their Councils are filled; all the Bishops (who have Decisive Votes [Page 136]in Councils) are under an Oath of as ab­solute Allegiance to the Pope, as any Sub­ject in Christendom is to his Natural Prince. For proof hereof I appeal both to the Roman Pontifical, (where the Oath is to be seenPontif. Rom. p. 59, 60. and to F. Walsh him­self, to whom the Catholicks of the Church of Rome refer us.F. walsh in the Dedica­tion of his Hi­story p. 19. All the Bishops bind themsel­ves (at their Consecration) Liege-men to his Holiness, by the strictest Oath that could be sworn or penn'd, especially being the Pope himself is the only Interpreter thereof. See also the History, part 1. p. 513. In this Oath (among other things) they swear to defend the Ro­man Papacy, and the Regalities of St. Peter; to observe with all their might the Rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolical Decrees and Commands; (by which are undoubtedly meant the Popes Canons and Commands.) They are bound by this Oath, to observe (at least) all the Canons that are already set forth and en­joyned; and are not many of those Ca­nons destructive of the Rights of Princes? Is there the least notice taken in this Oath of the Obedience due to them?

And though the Papal Usurpations have been for some Ages lamented and com­plained of by the better part of the Chri­stian World, yet the Church of Rome hath not used any effectual means to pre­vent them, as she was bound both in Pru­dence and Conscience to do, if she had no mind to let the Pope keep up their Pre­tensions to them. Besides, when it was desired, that the Pope would dispence with this Oath at the Council of Trent, [Page 137]and leave the Bishops to the freedom of their Consciences, the Motion was reject­ed, as not only F. Paul; but Cardinal Pal­lavizine himself acknowledges.Pallavi. Hist. Cone. Trid. Tom. 2. p. 366.367. (Ed. 1670.)

3. If any Decrees of General Councils should chance to prove prejudicial to the Papacy; they shall signifie no more than his Holiness please. For if the Pope think fit to dispense with them, or to interpret them according to his own mind, who can help it? Was not the Order of the Je­suites set up against a Decree of one of their General Councils?Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1, p. 654. Paul the third in his Bull of ap­probation of that Order hath this expression; Non obstantibus Ge­neralis Concilii, & Faelicis recordationis Gregorii Papae 10. acqui­busvis aliis Constitutionibus & Ordinationibus Apostolicis, caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque. The Council to which he refers is that of Lateran under Innocent the third; c. 13. De Novis Religionibus pro­hibitis, where 'tis expresly said, firmiter prohibemus, ne quis de cae­tero novam Religionem inveniat, &c. Are not all men (by the Laws of the Church) bound to resort to the Pope for the Sense of their Decrees?Decret. par. 1. dist. 17. c. 4. Quoties aliqua de Universali Synodo aliquibus dubitatio nascitur, ad recipiendam de eo quod non intelligant rationem, aut sponte ii qui salutem animae suae desiderant, ad Apostoli­cam sidem pro recipienda ratione conveniant, aut si forté it a obstinati & contumaces exteterint, &c.

4. To put this matter out of all doubt I add, That whatever pretences there might be for this Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome before the [Page 138]Council of Trent; yet they are utterly destroyed by that Great Oracle of the present Roman Church. For the Fa­thers of that Council tamely gave up the Cause, betrayed their own and their Churches Liberties, abetted the Usur­pations of the Court of Rome, took a­way the Legality of Appeals from that Court to a General Council, and the Superiority of their own Power to that of the Papacy; they enjoyned all the Beneficed Clergy to take an Oath of Obedience to the Pope, made him the Judge and Interpreter of all their De­crees, provided that all Writers should either speak for the Court of Rome, or be silent.

What was the Issue of this goodly Convention, but the confirming the Pope in his Usurped Power, the ensla­ving the Consciences of the Clergy, and leaving the whole Christian World (of that Communion) under an impossibi­lity of ever having a Free General Coun­cil?History of the Church of Trent by F. Paul l. 8. an. 1563. Conc. Trid. Sess 25. Decret. de Ref. c. 2. c. 5. c. 21. de libt. prohibit. reg. 10. &c. And Card. Pallavizine Hist. Conc. Trid. tom. 2. p. 367.

And now let al Wise and Impartial men judge, whether the Distinction be­tween the Church and Court of Rome be not utterly insignificant, as to those purposes, for which it is commonly pro­duced?

[Object. Hereunto some Persons stick not to say, That Dispensations, and I know not what Indulgences and Pardons, whereby to legitimate the Crimes of Lying and Forswearing, when the Interest of our Church requires it, are a main part of our Religion; and by Consequence the De­nial of our Principles is no sufficient Ju­stification of our Innocence.]

I have not leisure to discourse of their Dispensations, Indulgences and Pardons; But that Dispensations have been gran­ted from Rome to legitimate these Hor­rid Crimes we are assured by Persons of unquestionable Credit.

Whether the Generality of the En­glish Papists in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, had any Dispensati­ons for the Dissembling their Religion, and coming to our Churches, I know not; but not long after ‘The very Dis­pensations were intercepted in Scotland, and shewed to the King; by which they were allowed to Promise, Swear, Sub­scribe, [Page 140]and do what else should be required of them, so as in Mind they continued firm, and did use their Diligence to ad­vance in secret the Roman Faith.’ Spotswoods, History of the Church of Scotland, ad an. 1580. p. 308. And sure it was not without Reason on the Irish Remonstrants part, That they left out that Clause in their For­mulary (which was contained in the Oath of Allegiance,) viz. That the Pope cannot dispense with this Oath.

We know, no less Person than Lay­nez (the General of the Jesuites) de­clared in the Council of Trent, ‘That to say the Pope cannot by Dispensations disoblige him, who is Obliged before God, is to teach men to prefer their own Con­science before the Authority of the Church’ History of the Council of Trent, l. 8. And Laynez was so far from be­ing call'd to an Account for that bold Assertion, that he was Honoured and highly complimented by the Fathers of that Council.

In short, The Bishops of Rome have presumed to alter the Nature of Things, to absolve in some Cases from the O­bedience of God himself; to grant Par­dons for the greatest Sins against the Divine Majesty, and to License Ince­stuous Marriages against the Law of God and Nature.

But the High-Priest did not use to let out Goliahs Sword but upon Extraordi-Occasions; It may be these Dispensati­ons are not very commonly and fre­quently sent over hither, for many Pa­pists do not need them; some are not fit to be trusted with them; and 'tis not always for the Interest of the Roman Church and Religion to grant them.

Of the late Lord Staffords Decla­ration and Address to the House of Peers, concerning a Compre­hension for the Dissenting Prote­stants, and a Toleration for the Papists.

1. Of the Comprehension for the Dis­senting Protestants.

Three Propositions concerning Com­prehension.

'Tis neither the Duty nor Interest of any Roman Catholicks (continu­ing true to their Principles) to promote a firm and lasting Ʋnion of Protestants.

What Influence the Romish Agents had on the first Separation from our Church.

Of the late Declaration of Indul­gence.

2. Of the Toleration for the Papists. Of their endeavours to procure a Toleration under Queen Eliza­beth, King James, King Charles the First, the late Ʋsurped Powers, and his present Majesty.

What the Design of that Faction is in endeavouring to procure a To­leration.

They have been the worse for Fa­vour and Indulgence, as is evi­dent from their Behaviour to­wards Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First, and his present Majesty.

This Chapter concluded with the Protestation of King Charles the First

[P. 52, 53. MY Lords Declaration before the House of Lords after his Con­demnation.

That there had been at divers times endea­vours used, and Overtures made to obtain an Abrogation, or at least a Mitigation of Se­verities against Catholicks, but this to be pro­cured no otherwise, than by Legal and Parlia­mentary means. That he himself went to Breda, whilst the King was there, and pro­pounded 100000 l. in behalf of the Catho­licks, to take off the Penal Laws: That after the King came in, there was a Bill brought into the House, in Favour of Catho­licks, but it was opposed by my Lord Chan­cellor Hide. (With some later Proposals and Expedients, &c.) These he avouched were the chief, and only Designs he ever had, or [Page 145]knew of amongst Catholicks, for promoting their Religion.]

[In his former Address to the Court p. 41. he declared; That it was ever indeed his Opi­nion, that an Act of Comprehension for Dis­senting Protestants, and a Toleration for Ro­man Catholicks (yet so as not to admit them into any Offices of Profit or Dignity) would much conduce to the Happiness of the Nation; but this not otherwise to be procured or desired, than by a free Consent of the King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled: That he never read or knew of Coleman's Let­ters or Consultations for Tolerations till he saw the Letters themselves in the Printed Tryal.]

[In the Printed Tryal p. 201. My Lords, I believe that after that all of all Religions had Meetings amongst themselves to endeavour to get that Toleration which they proposed humbly to your Lordships, there I will never deny, that my Opinion was, and is, That this Kingdom can never be happy till an Act of Parliament pass to this effect: It was my Opinion then, and I did endeavour it all I could that the Dissenting Protestants might have a Comprehension, and the other (those of the Church of Rome) a Toleration.]

But how comes a zealous Papist to have so much kindness for Dissenting Prote­stants? Were I a Dissenting Protestant, I [Page 146]should very hardly be persuaded, That those men, which (ever since the Refor­mation) have endeavour'd to undermine the Foundations of our Religion, are now become Friends to the Protestant Interest. I should call to mind Coleman's Declarati­on after Sentence given against him; That possibly he might be of an Opinion, that Po­pery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted.

I should be afraid of helping to break in pieces the established Religion and Go­vernment; lest when they have gotten the Power into their Hands, they should betake themselves to their old Arguments of Fire and Fagot.

But to return, I shall take occasion from his Lordships Declaration, to give a brief Account of the Comprehension for Dis­senting Protestants, and the Toleration for the Roman Catholicks, so far as they of the Romish Party are concerned in them.

1. I begin with the Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants.

If by Comprehension be meant such a Settlement, as tendeth to a firm and last­ing Union of Protestants; and is consi­stent with the Security of the Reformed Religion, the Honour of our first Refor­mers, and the establishment of the Church [Page 147]of England; in short, such a Settlement as may shew that the present Terms of Communion with our Church are not un­lawful; I say, if this be the meaning of Comprehension, let it be considered.

1. That Private Persons (of how great Eminency soever) can only make Propo­sals to their Lawful Superiors, for the Laws are still in force, and cannot be al­tered by any Authority less than that by which they were Enacted.

2. That divers very Eminent Persons of the Church of England have made the most fair and equal Proposals for the Sa­tisfaction of all wise and peaceable men, which are consistent with the Honour and Safety of the best established Church in Christendom.

3. Since the Alteration of the Establish­ed Laws (concerning the Preservation of our Church and Religion) is one of the weightiest Considerations in the World; since it is impossible to gain all Parties without receding too far from the first Principles of the Reformation; there is something to be done by the Dissenters before they can reasonably hope for an Alteration of the present Constitutions. I mean, it should be known what kind of Alteration is desired, and for whom, what [Page 148]sort of men will be gained by it, and what number of them?

When they which make such loud out­cries and passionate Expostulations for Ʋ ­nion have gone thus far; then may our Governours understand what Measures are fittest to be taken; i. e. Whether it be expedient to make any Alterations; and if it be, how far to Alter for the sake of Peace and a firm Ʋnion of Protestants? Private Persons may judge of the Lawful­ness of things imposed by Authority; but it is an Argument of Pride and Immode­sty for private persons to think themselves Competent Judges of the necessity or ex­pediency of Laws.

But this is not the Design of the leading Faction of the Roman Church. I grant they may be for promoting a seeming Uni­on among Protestants, (call it by what name you please) but it must be such a one as will only serve a present turn, and is inconsistent with a lasting Settlement; such a one as tendeth not to the lessening but the encreasing our Differences, and will in the conclusion ruin the beauty if not the very being of the Church of England. See the Letter of Ad­vice given to F. Young, con­cerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England up­on his Maje­sties Restaura­tion. The first Advice is, To make the Obstruction of Settlement the great De­sign, especially upon the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom. The Letter is cited by the Dean of S. Pauls in his Preface to the Unreasonableness of Separation. A Church, against which as their At­tempts [Page 149]have been more frequent, so they have been carried on with more Art and Industry, than against any Church in the Christian World. A Church that is free from Impostures and Innovations, from Superstition and Enthusiasm, which are the principal Ingredients of Popery. A Church that endeavours to reduce all things to their Antient Limits; and so long there can be no room for Papal U­surpations. And I appeal to all wise men, Whether it be either the Interest or Duty of the Romish Faction, (continuing true to their Principles) to strengthen or re­pair such a Church as this, which they are bound to pull down or break in pieces? All the Service that I could ever find they did the Church of England was to raise and support Sects and Factions amongst us, to creep in among them under various dis­guises; to weaken the Government, to lay us open to the Assaults of Foreign and Domestick Enemies, and to bring us into such a disorder and confusion as was more likely to end in Atheism or Popery, than in the Ʋnion of Protestants.

If we look back as far as the first begin­ning of the Separation from our Church, we shall see many strong probabilities, that the busie Factors for Popery (the Je­suites and Jesuited Papists) had a great In­fluence on it; and what advantages they have ever since made of our unnatural Heats and growing Schisms, we are not [Page 150]wholly ignorant. They knew the safest (though not the quickest) way to reduce their Religion, was by fomenting dome­stick Factions; And when some of the Exiles (in the beginning of Queen Eliza­beths Reign) returned home with a dis­like of some things in our Church, they laid hold of this Opportunity of dividing the Protestants, and enflamed the diffe­rences in hope of making them destroy one another and fall a Prey to the com­mon Adversary. ‘Whilest Harding, San­ders, and others (of the Roman Commu­nion) attacked our Church on one side; (saith a learned and faithful Historian) Coleman, Butten, Hallingham and others were as busie on the other.’

And it hath been lately published to the world, (from the Lord Burleighs Papers) that Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar, and Thomas Heath (a Jesuite) were em­ployed by the Pope and Jesuites under the disguise of zealous Protestants to draw men off from the Communion of the Church of England. Such wonderful Friends are the Emissaries of Rome to or­der and unite amongst English Prote­stants!

But I will conclude this Head with the Declaration of Indulgence An. 1671/2; con­cerning which the Author of the Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country tells us, That ‘when the War was [Page 151]to be made with Holland, the Lord C. ad­vised to quiet all Dissenters in Religion at home, with granting the Declaration of Indulgence; and the E. of S. though a man of Principles and Interest opposite to the o­ther, presently closed with his Advice.’

And Coleman own'd that the ‘Fatal Revocation of this Declaration for Liberty of Conscience was that to which the Papists owed all their late Miseries and Hazards.’ We all know that from this time Licenses were accepted, and Meeting-houses built; People were withdrawn from the Paro­chial Assemblies, and Books written to justifie their Practises upon such Princi­ples, as naturally lead to endless Separa­tions, and the destroying the very being of our Church: Whole Herds of Priests and Jesuites have lurked in these King­doms, and the Roman Church hath had a most plentiful Harvest amongst us. If this be called the Ʋniting of Protestants, it must be by the same Figure, by which the destroying mens Rights is call'd the defending their Liberties.

2. I come to consider the Endeavours which have been used by the Roman Ca­tholicks to procure a Toleration for them­selves.

At Queen Elizabeth's first coming to the Crown the Pope threatned to Excom­municate her; the Emperor and other [Page 152]Foreign Princes moved by their Ambassa­dors for a free and open Exercise of the Roman Catholick Religion.Cambden Eliz. ad an. 1558.

In King James his time Cardinal Bellar­mine roundly tells his Majesty, ‘That if he desired to consult his own and his Peoples Safety, he must give Liberty to their Reli­gion. Bel. Resp. ad. Apol. (Ed. C [...]. Agripp. 1610.) p. 21. Si [...]ex secure regnare, & vitae suae ac suorum consulere cupit, sinat ca­ [...]os frui antiqua possessione religionis suae.’

And the Lord Herbert in a Letter to the King An. 1623. tells him; ‘The Pope will never grant his Consent to the Marriage of the Prince with the Infanta of Spain, un­less his Majesty grant some not able Privi­leges and Advantages to the Roman Ca­tholicks in his Dominions: He adds, The King of Spain would never insist on obtain­ing these Privileges, but that he desires to form a Party in your Majesties Kingdoms, which he may always keep obsequious to his will, &c.’ Cabala. printed 1654.

In the beginning of King Charles the First his Reign, the Irish Papists taking advantage of the Emptiness of the Kings Treasury, proffered to maintain Five Thou­sand men at their own Charge, if they might enjoy a Toleration; but that Mo­tion was crushed by the Bishops. The Pro­ject failing in Ireland, the English Papists offer'd (but with no better Success) to [Page 153]buy the free Exercise of their Religion at the expence of maintaining a certain pro­portion of Ships.Fullers Church Histo­ry, l. 11. p. 128, 129.

It is well known how that restless Fa­ction fed their Disciples with continual expectations of a Change, and though these two Excellent and Pious Princes did inviolably maintain the established Pro­testant Religion, yet they gained this mighty Advantage, that notwithstanding all the Writings and Speeches, Declara­tions and Protestations of King James a­gainst Popery, the Fears and Jealousies of his Subjects (occasioned only by some short Relaxations) were never cured in his days. And in the Reign of King Charles the First, whatever Indulgence ei­ther the Gentleness of his own Disposition prompted him to, or the necessity of his Affairs extorted from him, was looked upon as the Effect of his Majesties Incli­nation to Popery. For though the War was raised by discontented, covetous, and ambitious men, and carried on by a lead­ing Faction, yet it was necessary to make Religion a Stalking Horse to their Inte­rest; and the Imputation of Popery was the great Engine, by which they rendred the King and his Adherents odious, and robb'd him of the Hearts of his People; for by this Suggestion they abused the cre­dulity of many well-meaning (but intem­perate) Zealots; persuaded them to engage in the Defence of the Prote­stant [Page 154]Religion, and kept others so long from his Majesties Assistance, till they too late saw and lamented their own weak­ness, and the Treachery of a lesser but more active party, whom they had fol­lowed in the Simplicity of their hearts.

Not long before the Muder of the King, many Jesuites and other Priests daily flocked into this Kingdom, and so far insinuated themselves into some prime Commanders of the Army and others of the House of Commons (then at the De­votion of the Army) that they were in a fair way to obtain their share in that To­leration or Liberty of Conscience which was so agreeable to the Judgment of the Times, as Mr. Gatford saith upon his own immediate knowledge.Englands Complaint, p. 17, 18. And Mr. Prinne (in the Appendix to his forecited Speech) tells us, that after the Army had imprisoned and removed his Majesty to bring him to Tryal, ‘They voted at their General Council of War (carried by two Voices,) That the Papists should have Free Liberty and Toleration of Conscience, and all Sequestrations and Forfeitures as Papists only, taken off.’

Under the Usurped Powers they offer'd to renounce their Loyalty and Allegiance to the Royal Family for ever, upon condi­tion of a free Toleration of their Religi­on: And certainly those times of disor­der [Page 155]and confusion gave them a mighty ad­vantage for the re-establishing their Reli­gion in England, when Episcopacy was voted down; (and 'tis well known what re­joycing that Vote brought to the Romish par­ty) the Defender of the Faith put to death; (and we are not ignorant with what Joy and Triumph the news of his death was received in the English Convents and Seminaries) The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy repealed, and it was put to the Vote in the Little Parliament, Whe­ther all the Parochial Ministers should not be put down at once?

What endeavours have been used since his Majesties Happy Restauration to pro­cure or purchase a Toleration, Mr. Cole­man and the late Lord Stafford have infor­med us.

And yet some men ask, Why may not Roman Catholicks enjoy the Freedom of their Consciences and Religion?

But they have never read, or never con­sidered Colemans Tryal, and the Collecti­on of Letters lately published. What made him lament the Fatal Revocation of the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience? What is the meaning of such Expressions as these; ‘That if they could carry the De­sign of getting an Act for Liberty of Con­science, they should in effect do what they list afterwards? That the prevailing in these [Page 156]things would give the greatest blow to the Protestant Religion here, that ever it recei­ved since its Birth? That they had a migh­ty Work upon their hands, no less than the Conversion of three Kingdoms; and by that perhaps the subduing of a Pestilent Heresie, which had domineer'd over a great part of the Northern World a long time?’ And yet the Author of Staffords Me­moirs, (p. 10.) would persuade us, That the Letters of Mr. Cole­man and others do only shew, that they desired perhaps in some measure a Liberty of Conscience; yet without confronting, much less destroying the King or Government.

And the Lord Stafford himself acknow­ledged before the House of Peers, ‘That if he had known any such Design, as Cole­mans Letters do hint, he would not have continued in England.’ See the Printed Tryal p. 292.

How miserably then are those poor men imposed upon, that think the De­sign (at least of the Active Men) of this Faction was meerly to enjoy the Freedom of their Consciences, or the private Ex­ercise of their Religion? It is not the Ease of their own Consciences, but a Power to lay insupportable Burthens on other mens Consciences which they aim at. What they call Indulgence and To­leration is indeed Rule and Dominion; they first strengthen their own party, and weaken the Established Religion and Go­vernment by all the Arts of Fraud and [Page 157]Treachery; and when they have once gotten the Power into their Hands, they deprive all others of the Enjoyment of their Religion and Consciences; and this is notorious in all places where they have had Strength and Opportunity to compass their Designs.

Indeed some good-natur'd People are willing to believe, that they are a very harmless and peaceable sort of Creatures; and others (that pretend to some kind of Insight into Mysteries of State) look upon an Indulgence as the best way to oblige and make them sure to the Go­vernment.

But it were no hard matter to prove that the former are very much mistaken in their Charity, and the latter in their Politicks. All the Connivence and Fa­vours of our Princes (since the Refor­mation) have been so far from making them true to the Crown, that they have always been the worse for Indulgence.

In the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign, she treated them with the great­est Mercy and Clemency, which had dealt most Insolently and Cruelly with her before she came to the Crown. ‘For the first ten years of her Majesty (by the Confession of the Secular Priests) Important Considerati­ons, &c. the State of Catholicks in England was to­lerable, and after a Sort in some good quiet­ness.’ [Page 158] Parsons and Creswel (the Jesuites) tell her Majesty, ‘That in the beginning of her Kingdom, she dealt something more gently with Catholicks; that none were then urged by her, or pressed either to her Sect, or to the denial of their Faith; all things seemed to proceed in a far milder course, no great Complaints were heard of.’

Yea her Majesty suffered Bonner (that Man of Blood) after all his Butcheries, quietly to live and dye amongst us; Heath to live securely at his own House in Surrey; Tonstall, Thirlby and Fecknam to live in ease and freedom; she reserved Pensions to such of the Popish Clergy, as quitted their Benefices by Resignation.Hist. of the Reforma­tion, part. 2. p. 396. &c.

In Fine, some Roman Catholicks were highly obliged, none provoked by any greater Severity than the requiring of 12 d. a Sunday for not coming to Church; and yet they were continually giving fresh Proofs of their Loyalty and Gratitude to the Queen, by dispersing of Libels against her Person, Crown and Dignity; procu­ring of Bulls from Rome, fomenting of Treasons and Conspiracies at home, or tampering with the King of Spain to in­vade her Majesties Dominions, as (be­sides our Writers) their own Secular Priests do acknowledge.Impor­tant Conside­rations, &c.

King James at his first coming to the Crown of England, was so far from put­ting the Laws in Execution against the Papists, that he remitted the Arrears of their Penalties in Queen Elizabeths time, and pardoned divers of the Conspira­tors; he suffer'd them to enjoy their E­states and Consciences, and admitted divers of them to Places of Trust and Honour. But for a Testimony of their prodigious Ingratitude, I refer you to that Royal Author.

The King himself avowed it to the whole Christian World, ‘That such was his Mercy and Clemency to them, as not only the Papists grew to that height of Pride, in confidence of his Mildness, as they did di­rectly expect, and assuredly promise to them­selves Liberty of Conscience, and Equality with other of his Subjects in all things; but even a Number of the best and faith­fullest of his Majesties Subjects, were cast in great Fear and Amazement of his Course and Proceedings, ever Prognosti­cating and justly Suspecting that Sowre Fruit to come of it, which shewed it self clearly in the Powder Treason.’

‘How many did I honour with Knighthood (they are his Majesties own Words) of known and open Recusants? How indiffe­rently did I give Audience and Access to both sides, bestowing equally all Favours and Honours on both Professions? How free and continual Access had all Ranks [Page 160]and Degrees of Papists in my Court and Company? How frankly and freely did I free Recusants of their Ordinary Pay­ments?—My General Pardon extend­ed to all convicted Priests in Prison, where­upon they are set at liberty as good Sub­jects; and all Priests that were taken af­ter, were sent over and set at Liberty there, (after a Proclamation, That all Priests that were at Liberty might go out of the Country by such a Day.) But time and Paper will fail me to make Enumeration of all the Benefits and Favours that I bestowed in general and particular upon Papists; in recounting whereof every Scrape of my Pen would serve but for a Blot of the Popes In­gratitude and Injustice in meating me with so hard a measure for the same.’ King James his Works, p. 253.

Grant them an Indulgence; they will move for an open Toleration. Give them a Toleration, they will aspire to an E­quality with other (Protestant) Subjects; and then all the Art and Policy of Rome shall be employed to get the Power into their own hands.

I know nothing that could exasperate them under King Charles the First, his Majesties Goodness and Clemency to them gave occasion to a wicked and malicious Imputation, of his being popishly affected, and what requital they made his Sacred Majesty I have already shew'd.

Since his Majesties Blessed Restaurati­on, they have enjoyed as great a measure of Peace and Liberty, as ever any People did under a Prince of a different Religion. As his Majesty was very tender of their Lives and Fortunes, so his Protestant Subjects have been so far from thirsting after their Blood, that they never gave them any disturbance which was not ne­cessary for their own Safety, till the break­ing out of Plots and Designs against the Government awakened the sleeping Laws. Let us appeal to the Testimony of the late Lord Stafford; his words (in the printed Tryal p. 200.) are, ‘Since his Majesties Happy Restauration I do conceive, and I think I may safely say it (for you all know he was Gracious and Good to all Dissenters, particularly to them of the Romish Church) they had Connivence and Indulgence in their Private Houses, and I declare to your Lord­ships, I did then say to some that were too open in their Worship, that they did play foul in taking more liberty upon them than was fit­ting for them too, and that brought the Misfortune upon me which I will not name.’

And now a man might wonder at the continual and loud Complaints of Per­secution for their Religion and Consci­ences; and their Restless Endeavours to procure Liberty of Conscience (as they call it) by any Means, at any Price. If ever they wanted Liberty since the [Page 162]Reformation, they may thank themselves for it: They have generally enjoyed the Private Exercise of their Religion; but this is not the meaning of Liberty of Conscience in the stile of our times.

From these Instances it is evident, That if Kindness and Lenity were the way to oblige the Roman Catholicks of these Kingdoms, we had never heard of a Spanish Armada, a Gunpowder Treason; of an Irish Rebellion, or of a Plot against his Sacred Majesty, whom God long pre­serve; they would have been indeed (what they falsly pretend to be) His Majesties Loyal and Dutiful Subjects. But I wish they had not taken an effectual Course by the many Conspiracies with­in this last hundred Years, and by this of equal or greater Horror than the rest, to convince us how easily a Popish Zeal can break through all Obligations of Religion and Gratitude.

I will conclude this Chapter with the Judgment of our late Royal Martyr, concerning these men and their Religi­on.

An. 1642. he call'd God to Witness, ‘That he would never Consent, upon what Pretence soever, to a Toleration of the Po­pish Profession, or Abolition of Laws then in force against the Recusants.’

This Solemn Protestation was made by his Majesty, who had too much rea­son to understand their Tempers and Principles; and though I find it quoted by his Enemies, yet I cannot meet with any Proof that ever he alter'd his Mind in this Matter.

A short Reflection on the foregoing Discourse.

Some things offered to all such as de­sire to prevent the Designs of the Papists.

1. Beware of Seditious Doctrines and Practises.

A brief Account of them.

This Consideration recommended to all Protestants; especially to the Dissenters from the Established Church of England.

Of the Secluded Members; and of the Solemn League and Covenant.

2. Beware of being Instrumental to the weakning or subverting of the Church of England.

Popery can never enter into our Church so long as the Established Articles, Liturgy and Govern­ment are maintained.

The Difference between the Cere­monies of the Church of Rome and those of the Church of England.

Three Corsiderations to them that charge our Church and Episcopal [Page 166]Clergy with Inclining to Popery.

Some other things propounded to the Dissenters by way of Considera­tion and Advice.

The Conclusion of the whole.

THus far I have endeavoured to lay open the Mystery of Iniquity and Rebellion, as it hath been carried on un­der a pretence of Zeal for God and Reli­gion.

I have fairly represented those Do­ctrines and Principles which strike at the very root of our Established Religion and Government; with the Arts and Instru­ments which have been used by the prevai­ling Faction of the Roman Church for the Subversion of them. And I know no strong­er Argument against the Truth and Good­ness of any Religion, than that it sup­plants Moral Righteousness and serves to be a Bond of Conspiracy; allows of Se­dition and Treachery, Injustice and Cruel­ty. For how can that Religion be from God, which maketh Men unlike to God; as bad or worse than if they were left to the Principles and Inclinations of their own Natures?

I have proved, That there are no Do­ctrines or Rules of the Reformed Religi­on which enjoyn or countenance any Sedi­tions or Bloody Practises for the Propaga­tion of it; and there is no reason why [Page 167]those Faults of Ill Men should be imputed to Religion, which proceed either from the Ignorance or the Want of it.

The True Reformed (i. e. Christian) Reiigion is the strongest Bond of Humane Society, the best Friend in the World to Civil Government; 'tis a better Security to the Throne of a King than all his Trea­sures and Magazines, all his Guards and Armies: It never licensed any Treasons or Murders, any Insurrections or Massa­cres, though it were for the best Ends, for God and Religion; and why should such a Religion suffer in our esteem for the Do­ctrines or Actions of men, which under the disguise of Zeal against Popery have weakned the Reformation?

Of the Church of England I will only say; It hath established the Righth of Kings upon such sure and unalterable Foundations, that it is the Interest as well as the Duty of the Civil Power to support and defend it.

But I cannot dismiss this Subject with­out offering some things by way of Con­sideration and Advice to all such as (out of a just regard to the Honour of God, and the Tranquillity of this Church and Kingdom) desire to prevent the Designs of our Enemies, and transmit the True Religion to Posterity. I speak to Men that have seen or heard of the Ways and Means, by which the Monarchy and [Page 168]Church of England were once overthrown; to men that have felt both the Calamities of an Intestine War, and the Happiness of a long Peace; and therefore I need not trouble the Reader or my self with those things which are fresh in our Me­mories.

We have of late been alarm'd with the Apprehensions of Popery, and we are loth to put our Necks under that Yoak which our Fathers were not able to bare. But do we detest Popery for the sake of the Church and Kingdom, as well as our own Estates and Liberties? Do we hate Popery for the Immorality as well as the Destructiveness of its Principles? Are we Zealous for the Reformed Religion, be­cause it teaches us to fear God and honour the King; to be just and merciful to our Brethren, humble and obedient to our Lawful Governours? If these be not the Motives of our preferring the Protestant before the Romish Religion, we better de­serve the name of Hobbists, than of Pro­testants. Protestants and no Christians! Protestants only because 'tis against our Humour or Interest to be Papists! But if we have indeed a greater regard to our Souls than our Fortunes; if we value the honour and security of our Religion above our temporal Concernments, and the com­mon cause of the Reformation above our private Fancies and Passions; then we shall be infinitely fearful of giving any Advan­tages [Page 169]to our Enemies of Rome, of serving the Designs of the Papists really and even­tually (to use the words of a late reverend Author) though not designedly and intention­ally.

1. Then let us beware of those Sediti­ous Doctrines and Principles which were first set on foot, and have been since kept up by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church. What Doctrines were taught by some of the Popes before the breaking out of an avowed Design for an Universal Monarchy, I have shewed already. But for the last six hundred years, all things have been contrived and carried on for the setting up a Kingdom in the Church, to which all the Princes of the Earth are to submit. The Bishops of Rome have usurped upon the Crowns of Kings and Empe­rors; (under the pretence of a direct or indirect Supremacy over them) Excom­municated and deposed them for Tyranny and Heresie; absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance, and animated them to take up Arms against them. The General Councils of that Church have esta­blished Treason by a Law; their De­crees are entred into the Body of the Ca­non Law, alledged by their Schoolmen, justified by their Divines and Casuists, re­fined and improved by the Jesuites. And 'tis said, that Buchanan transplanted those Antimonarchical Doctrines (which he had learnt of one of these Masters) from the [Page 170]Church into the State; but with this diffe­rence only, that he invested the People with that Authority over Princes, which the other had placed in the Pope.

But (to omit many particulars of lesser moment) these are properly Popish Prin­ciples and Jesuitical Tenents, and they have been the main Pillars to support the Papal Interest.

‘That the Original of all Civil Power is from the People, and derived from them to the Prince by way of Mutual Compact. That a King is the Peoples Trustee, and their duty to him only Conditional. That his Person and Authority are separable; and that the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Matters be­longs not to him. That the Church hath Power to Excommunicate the King, and (in certain Cases) to denounce Sentence of De­privation against him; that it is lawful for Subjects to enter into Confederacies and take up Arms against him for their Religion and Liberties; and that the Commonwealth may curb and restrain him, bring him to Tryal and Condign Punishment.’

I can hardly meet with any Seditious Antimonarchical Doctrines, or any spe­cious Arguments to maintain them, in the Pamphlets of the last Forty years, but they are either expresly contained in the Writings of the Popes and Jesuites, or at least may be parallell'd in the approved Divines and Canonists of the Roman Church. Certainly the Enemy hath sown [Page 171]these Tares in the Field;St. Math. 13.28. The im­placable restless Enemy of Rome hath cunningly sown these Principles of Sedi­tion amongst us, and industriously fomen­ted such Practises as are consonant to them.

And now let all men which call them­selves Protestants consider, That it was not the least part of the Design of our Reformers, to assert and retrieve the An­cient Rights of the Crown; and how can it be for the Honour of the Reformation, to maintain such Doctrines, as naturally tend to the weakning or subverting that Authority which they Established? They have left us a more holy and peaceable Religion than that of the Papists; and if we would shew our selves true Protestants, our Doctrines and Practises must protest against Popery, and prove us better Chri­stians and better Subjects than they.

If you are Protestants of the Church of England as it is established amongst us, I need only put you in mind, that you have been Educated in a Faith of Loyalty and Obedience; and you can never be tempted by any the most plausible pre­tences to desert it, without either forsa­king or being false to that Church where­of you are Members.

If you are Dissenters from the Church of England, I know not how it can consist with your Zeal against Popery, to contri­bute [Page 172]any thing towards the breaking in pieces that Government, which you ac­knowledge the present (as well as former) Designs of the Papists are levelled against. You glory in the Name of Protestants, but where do you find any one Protestant Church in the World, that hath by any publick Act asserted any of these Do­ctrines?

I speak not either to Hobbists and Li­bertines, or to furious and wild Fanaticks, but only to men of Conscience and Sobrie­ty, to such as (I believe) have a real (tho misguided) Zeal for the protestant Reli­gion, for their King and Country: To such as have not forgotten that a War was raised for the Preservation of Religion and Liberty, but ended in the ruin of them both; That an Army turned their Arms against them from whom they received their Commission;Prinnes E­pistle before his Speech of Decemb. 4. 1648.— ‘It is clear that the very Officers and the Army, being not our Masters but Servants, particularly raised, waged, and engaged by Solemn League and Covenant, among other things, to pro­tect and defend the Parliaments and Members Rights, Priviledges and Persons from all force and violence whatsoever, in such manner as both Houses and the Committee of both Kingdoms should approve, cannot pretend the least shadow of Reason or Authority from the Law of God or Man, thus traiterously to seize, imprison and seclude [...], without the Houses License, before any particular Charge against [...].’ That a Covenant was first entred into for the Defence of the King, and afterwards (to the astonish­ment of many that had taken it) made use of by others against his Person and Autho­rity. [Page 173] See the Declaration of the Army at St. Albans, (Novemb. 16. 1648.) presented to the House by the Army Officers, wherein they demand the bringing the King to a speedy Tryal. In this Re­monstrance they say; Whereas It might be objected, that by the Covenant they were obliged to the Preservation of his Majesties Person and Authority, it was with this Restriction, In the Pre­servation of the True Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom; So that, considering Religion and the Publick Interest were to be un­derstood the Principal and Supream Matters engaged for, and the Kings Person and Authority as Inferior and Subordinate thereto; And whereas the Preservation of his Person and Authority was not consistent with the Preservation of Religion and the Publick Inte­rest, they were therefore by the Covenant obliged against it. The Clause in the Covenant to which they refer is Art. 3. On the other side, the Secluded Members remind the Army Of­ficers of the Solemn League and Covenant, by which (they say) they were obliged to preserve the Kings Person and Dignity from violence; and give this among other Reasons for their Voting the Kings Answer Satisfactory, &c.

I know 'tis unreasonable to charge men with all the Consequences of their Prin­ciples, when they not only declare against those Consequences which are charged upon them, but also protest against them by their Practise, as many Gentlemen did, especially after they were surprised with the Votes of No further Addresses to the King. And therefore I shall not here en­quire into the Nature and Tendency of the Covenant, Declaration, Remonstrances &c. of those times, which have been so often quoted both for and against adhe­ring to the King. However all men of Conscience and Loyalty may from hence learn, how easie it is, for a Leading and Potent Faction to strein the Consequences [Page 174]of things, and how little all Arguments signifie to them them that have gotten the Sword into their Hands. Mr. Bax­ter in his Pre­face to the Cure of Church-Divisions. I have seen how confidently the Killing of the King, the Rebellious demolishing of the Government of the Land, the killing of many thousands of their Brethren, the turnings and overturnings of all kinds of Rule, even that which they themselves set up, have been committed, and justified, and prophanely Fa­thered upon God.

To conclude this Head; Let it be the peculiar honour of Papists and Turks to propagate their Religion with Sword and Bloodshed; Let us regulate our Zeal with Prudence, Obedience and Charity, which make up the truly Christian Temper of English Protestants; Let no private Passi­on or Interest transport us beyond the bounds of our Duty to God and our Alle­giance to our Soveraign: For if they do, we shall convince all Impartial men, that we have as little sense of True Religion as ous Adversaries of Rome.

You have seen the Operation of these Principles in the inciting and animating the People to Tumults and Commotions; Evil Principles brought forth Seditious Words, and they were quickly followed with Seditious Practises against the Go­vernment: But those Holy Scriptures which (blessed be God) you have in your own Language, forbid you To curse the King in your thought: Eccles. 10.20. To despise Domi­nion and speak evil of Dignities: St. Jude, ver. 8. They [Page 175]command you to pray for the King, and for all that are in Authority; 1 Tim. 2.1. and to be Subject, not only for Wrath, but also for Con­science sake. Rom. 13.5.

2. As we desire to keep out Popery, and strengthen the Interest of the Reformati­on, let us beware of contributing any thing towards the subverting of the Church of England. A Church which is the most Impregnable Bulwark of the Prote­stant Cause; A Church which hath the Sup­port of Scripture and Antiquity; of puri­ty of Doctrine, and Piety of Devotion; and therefore the busie Factors for the Roman Religion have made use of more Arts and Instruments for destroying this, than any other Church in Christendom. But whe­ther will the misguided Zeal of some men transport them? Whilst one Faction la­bours to break it in pieces, as the most probable means of introducing Popery; the other strives to overthrow the Con­stitution of it out of Zeal against Pope­ry! Our Liturgy (for they have not much to say against our Articles of Doctrine) is but the Masse-Book translated into Eng­lish; Our Church-Government Antichri­stian, and our Ceremonies but Popish Trumpery! And yet the Compilers of our Liturgy (the Bishops and Episcopal Di­vines) suffered Martyrdom by the hands of the Papists; they had the Substance of our Liturgy, the same kind of Episcopa­cy, [Page 176]the same Rites and Ceremonies with us. I do not say, That no Constitutions of our Church are capable of being explain­ed or amended; for what Church under Heaven is perfect in all matters of Do­ctrine and Worship, of Order and Disci­pline? But did we lay aside all Prejudices and groundless Disaffections; did we al­low to them the same (Favour shall I say or) Common Equity, which is allowed to all other things of Humane Composure, we should not only be freed from the loud clamours of Antichristianism and Popery, but we might assure our selves that Popery can never enter into our Church, whilst the Established Doctrine and Liturgy, Government and Order are preserved. For

• 1. Doth the Church of England im­pose any other Doctrines as necessary to Salvation, besides That Faith which was once delivered to the Saints? Is our Creed swelled of late by the Addition of any of the new Articles of the Roman Church?
  See Ar­ticle the 6th. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation. 9th. Of Origi­nal Sin. 11th. Of the Justifi­cation of Man. 14th. Of works of Supereroga­tion. 15th. Of Christ alone without Sin. 19th, and 20th. Of the Church. 21st. Of the Autho­rity of General Councils. 22d. Of Purgatory. 24th. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understand not. 25th. Of the Sacraments. 28th. Of the Supper of the Lord. 29th. Of the Wicked, &c. 30th. Of both Kinds. 31st. of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. 32d. Of the Marriage of Priests. 34th. Of the Traditions of the Church. 36th Of the Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. 37th Of the Civil Ma­gistrate.
  [Page 177]

  And Sancta Clara, that went about to reconcile our Articles with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, might as well have attempted to reconcile the Masse-Book with the Alcoran.

• 2. As to the Liturgy; How many un­certain Stories and Legends, Responds, Verses, vain Repetitions, Commemora­tions, &c. have our Reformers cast out? How many Anthems and Invitatories have they cut off, which did break the conti­nual course of reading the Scriptures? How many of the principal points of Po­pery are countervened in our Liturgy?
  V. G. The Cup in the Ho­ly Eucharist restored to the Laity. The Mediation of the blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Apostles, and Saints departed; the Merit of our good Works; the Sacrifice of the Masse; Transubstantiation, and the Adoration of the Host; five of the Romish Sacraments; Prayer for the Dead; and the Su­perstitious Ceremonies of Baptism expresly excluded.
  But they that make this Objection, I suppose (to say no worse) never read ei­ther the Popish or our Service-Book.
  See the former part of the Morning Prayer; the Liturgy, Communion Service, &c.
• 3. To come to the Episcopal Govern­ment of the Church of England; ‘It is very well known (saith B. Sanderson in the Preface to his Sermons) to many, what re­joycing the Vote (for pulling down of Episco­pacy) brought to the Romish Party; how even in Rome it self they sung their Io— [Page 178]Paeans upon the Tidings thereof, and said triumphantly, Now the Day is Ours; now is the Fatal Blow given to the Protestant Re­ligion in England.’ A thing little consi­dered by them that were for Reforming the Church by the Extirpation of Popery and Prelacy; and opposed the Roman Cause by the Abolition of that Government, which the Strength and Policy of Rome have been so long employed against.

Do not all Historians agree, That as the Monks and Friars were found to be more serviceable to the Papacy, than the Prelates; so the Popes enlarged their Pri­viledges, granted them Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction, and all the Oppo­sition of the Bishops against them have signified little in the Court of Rome, so long as their Interest and Grandeur were maintain'd by those Creatures and Vassals of the Roman See.

V.G. Gregory the 9th. published two Bulls, forbidding all Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them. Greg. Dicret. l. 5. tit. 31. c. 16.17, Greg. 9. Uni­versis Ecclesia­ [...]am Praelatis. The fol­lowing Popes confirmed their Priviledges; and though some of them (wearied with the Complaints of the Bishops) confined them within certain Limits, yet others revoked their Constitutions, granted them new and more ample Charters, nulled all former Bulls of Restriction, and Decreed that they were immediately Subject to the Pope, and to none else.

This Design was all along aimed at in the Institutions of the Regular Clergy; and the Popes and Court of Rome always appear'd in it as much as they durst. But the Complaints of the Bishops and Secu­lar Clergy became so Universal, that at length they fixed upon a new project, set up the Order of the Jesuites, (or Spiritual Janizaries) by whom they have ever since exercised an absolute Tyranny over the Bishops as well as the Parochial Clergy and People. The Immunities and Privi­leges conferr'd upon them are such as these; ‘To Preach, hear Confessions, open their Schools, without License of the Bishops or Ʋniversities; to administer Sacraments, and instruct Youth; to Correct, Interpret, Expunge and Burn such Books as they dis­like, &c.’ V. Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1. p. 653, 154. Where the se­veral Bulls or Charters of Priviledges are enumerated. Thus were the Bishops in the Roman Church stript of their Au­thority, the Government of the People committed to mere Priests; and a Jesuite, by Delegation from the Pope, may ordain Priests too as well as the Bishops.

We see the Pope and Court of Rome are no great Friends to a Popish, and do you think they have more kindness for a Protestant Episcopacy? By whose means did Cranmer and Ridley, Hooper, Farrar and Latimer suffer Martyrdom? Did not those Holy Men exercise the same Power and Jurisdiction then, which our Bishops do at this day? Is the same kind of Episco­pacy Popish in our Times, that was Hereti­cal [Page 180]in theirs? Were they esteemed by the Papists their most formidable Enemies, and are their Successors become their Secret Friends? In Fine, How can you give credit to the Popish Plot, and at the same time brand those very persons with the Infa­mous Names of Papists and Popishly affect­ed, which were to be made Examples of Popish Cruelty? Hath not the first Disco­verer of the Plot acquainted you with the Names of them, which were to be put in­to their Places?

But I cannot pass over that memorable Passage of B. Hall in his Speech to the House of Peers; ‘Speaking of the base and scurrilous Libels and Pamphlets, wherewith the Governours of the Church had been over-born, and in which Papists and Prelates like Oxen in a Yoke, were matched together; O my Lords I beseech you to be sensible of this great Indignity; do but look on these Reve­rend Persons; do not your Lordships see here sitting on these Benches, those that have spent their time, their Strength, their Bo­dies and Lives, in preaching down and wri­ting down Popery; and which would be rea­dy, if occasion were offered, to sacrifice all their old Blood that remains, to the main­tenance of that Truth of God, which they have taught and written: And shall we be thus [...]spightfully ranged with them, whom we do thus professedly oppose?’ B. Halls [...]eech, quoted [...]late Book, [...]led, The [...], the [...] art, (1682.) p. 4, 5.

But the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are Popish and Su­perstitious!

And yet we have no Adorations of Saints, Angels, or any other created Beings; no Superstitious Consecrations of Bells, Candles, Salt, Water, &c. Hath not our Church put a manifest Difference between Naked Ceremonies and Superstitious Parts of Divine Wor­ship? Don't She reject all Opinion of Merit and Spiritual Efficacy, and ex­presly declare that they are Things in their own Nature Indifferent and Alte­rable? In short, Would those men which make this Objection, apply their Minds to the Study of the Popish and Protestant Doctrine, I believe we should hear no more of this Groundless Ca­lumny.

But to them which fasten this Odi­ous Imputation upon our Church and Church-men, I will only say these three Things.

• 1. It is the highest Injustice and Un­charitableness: For did ever any Order of men write with more Learning and Judgment, with more Zeal and Vigour against Popery, than the Episcopal Clergy of England have done? Have [Page 182]they not always been the Principal (I had almost said the only) Champions in this Nation to maintain the Prote­stant Cause? Did they (when under the Heaviest Persecution) ever truck with the Papists for a General Tolerati­on? Or have they (since the Kings Re­turn) endeavoured to procure an Indul­gence or Abolition of the Laws against them? Did they not boldly and honest­ly give the Nation Warning of the Dan­ger of Popery, before the breaking out of the Popish Plot?

  I remember that a few Years since, some Eminent Dissenters from the Church of England, instead of joyning with us against the Assaults of a Common Enemy, spoke very kindly of the Common and In­nocent Papists, as they were pleased to stile them: And yet God forbid I should either charge this on the Body of Dissen­ters, or say those very persons were Po­pish or Popishly affected. I pray God open their eyes to see the Danger of Joyning with the Papists for a General Tolerati­on, and taking the same Course to keep out Popery, which the Papists do to bring it in. Since the Declaration of Indulgence, a little Book was drawn up by one Man (but with the Consent of several Non-conformists) with a Design to present it to the Parliament, and published under this Title, The Peaceable Design; or an Account of the Non-conformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London, An. 1675. In this Book an Objection is put; But what [Page 183]shall we say then to the Papists? The Answer is, The Papist in our Account is but one Sort of Recusants, and the Conscienci­ous and Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predi­cament with those among our selves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer:—But as for the Common Papist, who lives Innocently in his Way, he is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration. This Book was reprinted an. 1680. and with some small Alte­rations. Since the breaking out of the Plot Mr. Baxter (as I find him quoted in the forementioned Book called The unreasonableness of Separation; (part 2) tells us; Mr. H. is a Man of Latitude, and tyeth himself to no Party or Opinions of other men; and I so little fear the Noise of the Cenlorious, that even now while the Plot doth render them most Odious, say freely; 1. That I would have Papists used like Men. (I hope this Adrice is needless to English Protestants.)2. I would have no man put to death for being a Priest.3. I would have no Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo, or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments.

• 2. You cannot have forgotten, That they which first joyned Popery and Pre­lacy, quickly saw the Romish Papacy and Scottish Presbytery linked together.

  ‘Presbytery is Babylon, Egypt a Limb of Antichrist, a Tyrannycal Lordly Go­vernment, a worse Bondage than that un­der the Bishops.’

  'Antichristian Tyranny under the name of a Christian Presbyterian Church-Govern­ment'.

  ‘An Episcopal Tyranny exchanged for a Presbyterian Slavery.’

  [Page 184]

  ‘The Presbyterian is a Bloody Ʋnpeace­able, and Persecuting way.’

  ‘Presbytery is more Tyrannical than Epis­copacy, because one Tyrant is not so bad as many together.’

  ‘The Divines of the Assembly are Anti-Christian, Romish, Bloody, Baals Priests, &c.’

  This was the Language of the Secta­ries in the late Times.

• 3. Have you never heard what Advan­tage Parsons, Kellison and others have made of such Calumnies as these, to the disgrace of the Reformed Religion? Is not this the Way to gratifie the Ro­mish Faction? Will they not be em­boldened in their Attempts against us and our Religion, when the Gover­nours of our Church and the Body of the Episcopal Clergy are represented as their Secret Friends, or at least as not Hearty and Zealous in the Prote­stant Cause? Sure it must raise their Hopes of reducing the Romish Religion, to hear that they are now marching to­wards Popery, which used to be look­ed upon as their most Formidable Ad­versaries.

But so much of this unreasonable and groundless Charge.

I will now sum up this whole Argu­ment as briefly as I can. You (that dissent from the established Church of England) are concerned in good earnest (as I believe many of you are) to main­tain the Reformed Religion against the Abominations of Popery; I would then offer to your consideration, That you cannot reasonably hope to keep out Po­pery without a National settlement; (for how can a multitude of petty Sects and divided Interests, maintain their ground against the Roman Forces?) that accord­ing to the Principles of the present Sepa­ration, a National Settlement can hardly be expected.

V. G. If things Indifferent are unlawful in the Worship of God, the same Ob­jection will for ever lie against any Con­stitutions that should succeed in the room of ours, and you must divide and sub­divide to the Worlds end. The same Principle which first led Men to the de­crying of Kneeling at the Sacrament, wear­ing a Surplice, and the Cross in Baptism; afterwards led them into Independency, Quakerism, &c. They which cryed out against the Impositions of our Church, could never set up a better (or any Esta­blished) Church, or agree upon one way of Worship and Government among themselves.

Some of the Dissenters did ingenuously confess (in the late Times) that upon the pulling down the Establishments of our Church, more Sects and Heresies sprang up within a very few years, than were ever known in the Kingdom be­fore. But I will only appeal to the Testimonies of two Eminent Persons of the Presbyterian Persuasion; some of whose words I have transcribed in the Margent Gangraena, by Th. Edwards (Ed. 3. 1646.) In the Epistle Dedicatory to the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament. You have, most Noble Senators, done worthily a­gainst Papists, Prelates, and Scandalous Ministers, in casting down Images, Altars, Crucifixes, throwing out Ceremonies, &c. but what have you done against other kinds of growing Evils, Here­sie, Schism, Disorder, against Seekers, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Brownists, Libertines and other Sects? — You have made a Reformation; but with the Reformation have we not a Deformation, and worse things come in upon us than ever we had before? Were any of those Monsters heard of heretofore, which are now common among us? as denying the Scriptures, pleading for a Toleration of all Religions and Worships, yea, for Blasphemy, and denying there is a God. You have put down the Book of Com­mon Prayer, and there are many among us have put down the Scriptures, &c.—You have cast out the Bishops and their Officers; and we have many that cast down to the ground all Mi­nisters in all the Reformed Churches. You have cast out Cere­monies in the Sacraments, as the Cross, kneeling at the Lords Supper; and we have many cast out the Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, &c.—If Schism, Heresie, &c. be let alone, and rise proportionably for one year longer, we shall need no Ca­valiers nor Enemies from without to destroy us. Mr. Baxter's Preface to the Cure of Church Divisions. I have long stood by while Churches have been divided and subdivided, one Congregation of the Division labouring to make the other contemptible and odious; and this called, The Preaching of Truth, and the Purer worshipping of God. I have seen this grow up to the height of Ranters in horrid Blasphemies, and then of Quakers, in disdainful Pride and Surliness; and into the way of Seekers, that were to seek for a Ministry, a Church, a Scripture, and consequently a Christ.—I have lived to see it put to the question in that which they called the Little Parliament, Whether all the Mi­nisters of the Parishes of England should be put down at once?

'Two ways especially (said Mr. Baxter, since the Restauration of the King and the Church of England) ‘Popery will grow out of our Divisions.’

1. ‘By the Odium and Scorn of our Dis­agreements, Inconsistency, and multiplied Sects; they will persuade People, that we must come for Ʋnity to them, or else run mad, and crumble into Dust and Indi­viduals. Thousands have been drawn to Popery, or confirmed in it by this Argu­ment already; and I am persuaded, that all the Arguments else in Bellarmine, and all other Books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Papists in Eng­land, as the multitude of Sects among our selves, &c.’

2. ‘Who knoweth not how fair a Game the Papists have to play by the means of our Divisions? —Who is so blind as not to see their double Game and Hopes; viz. That either our Divisions and Alie­nations will carry men to such distances and practices, as shall make us accounted Sedi­tious, Rebellious, and dangerous to the [Page 188]Publick Peace, and so they may pass for better Subjects than we; or else, that when so many Parties under Sufferings are constrained to beg and wait for liberty, the Papists may not be shut out alone, but have Toleration in the rest. And shall they use our Hands to do their works, and pull their freedom out of the fire? We have already unspeakably served them, both in this, and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder-Plot, and their other Treasons, Insurrecti­ons, and Spanish Invasion, &c.’ Defence of the Cure, &c. p. 52, 53, 54. (Printed 1671.)

But we cannot joyn with the Church of England (as now Established) with a safe Conscience! and we ought not to provide for the security of our Religion by sinning against God.

I Answer. Since you are under Laws and Government;

1. You may (with a safe Conscience) submit to all such conditions of Com­munion, as you do not believe to be sinful. And either all the Gospel Precepts of O­bedience signifie nothing at all, or they signifie thus much, That you ought to come up to Authority, as far as you can without disobeying the Commands of God.

2. You may with a safe Conscience make the most favourable construction of all doubtful things, which they are fairly capable of.

[Page 189] 3. You are not bound in Conscience to affront the Established Religion and Go­vernment.

4. You are bound to make Conscience of one Duty, and one Sin as well as ano­ther. Are not the Obedience and Peace­ableness, doing Justly, loving Mercy, and walking Humbly with God, matters of Duty? Are not Spiritual Pride and Cen­soriousness, False Accusations and Slan­derings, Schism and Sedition, forbidden by the Law of God?

Could Men be perswaded thus far (and there is all the reason in the World that they should) they would seek out for Information, and not take up Objections upon trust; they would proportion their Zeal to the nature of things, and yield to a restraint of their liberty (in all things not sinful) for the Peace of the Church; the number of Dissenters would be lessened, and they would joyn with us in opposing the Common Enemy; they would take the most effectual course to incline their Superiours to pity them, and secure the Peace of their own Con­sciences.

But it is time to draw to a Conclusion of the Whole. Let us not express our Zeal against Popery, by Swearing and Hectoring against it, by Cursing and Drinking to its Confusion; by Sedition and Faction, by Vices or Immoralities of [Page 190]what kind soever; for these are the ready ways to bring it in.

But as the Piety and Zeal of our first Reformers banished Popery out of our Confessions of Faith and Publick Offices, so let us banish it out of our Hearts and Lives; and particularly let us sincerely put in practise those Vertues which the Reformed Religion teaches, as opposed to Popery; viz. Serious Devotion to God, and inflexible Loyalty to our So­veraign, Christian Meekness and Cha­rity, Truth and Fidelity toward all Men.

Let us first make use of all lawful Means, (for the Divine Providence sup­poseth the use of all honest Means for the prevention of impendent Dangers) and then make our fervent and constant Addresses to the Throne of Grace for a Blessing upon our just Endeavours.

But what good and wholesom Laws are fit to be made for the strengthning the Protestant Interest, and the keeping out of Popery, doth not become Persons of a private Capacity too nicely to de­termine.

I am not speaking to Law-Makers, but to such as are tied up to the Laws in being; nor do I think my self able to determine, what further Laws may be made for the securing the Church and Kingdom (against all future Machinati­ons of the Papists, or promoting a firm [Page 191]and lasting Union amongst our selves. These Considerations are to be left to Au­thority.

In fine, Let us lay aside all private Animosities and secular Ends in matters of Religion, and study the true Celestial Wisdom, which is first pure, then peaceable, mild, and easie to be intreated; full of mercy and good works, without partiality, and without hypocrisie. So shall we confute the Calumnies of the Romish Emissaries, and adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour; engage the Divine Providence to take care of us and our Religion, and be re­warded with the fruit of Righteousness, which is sown in peace for them that make peace.