A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 48
CHAP. XLVIII.
Detect. 39. THE laſt of their Practical frauds (at home) and the moſt deſperate is, Their Treaſons againſt the lives of Princes, and the Peace of Nations, and their diſſolving the bonds of Oaths and Covenants, and making Perjury and Rebellion to ſeem to be Duties and Meritorious works.
It would be a voluminous task to relate the Hiſtories of the Papal Treſons: How the Roman Vice-chriſt having laid a claim to both Swords, Spiritual and Temporal, hath plaid the Traytor againſt the Greek Emperors, diſpoſſeſſing them of the Weſt; and againſt the Emporors of Germany, ſtirring up their own ſubjects, and the Chriſtian Princes and States againſt them; ſetting his foot on the neck of one, and making another wait barefoot long at the Roman gates; and keeping many of them in wars. It was this Horrid Treaſon and Tyrannical uſurpation over all the Chriſtians Princes, that cauſed all thoſe Treatiſes on that ſubject wrote againſt him, in the Defenſe of Princes and their Rightt, which Mich. Goldaſtus hath preſerves and conjoyned in divers Volumes. It was this that cauſed England, Denmark, Sweden, and ſo many other Princes, to be the readier to ſhake off his yoke. Kings are not Kings where the Pope is fully Pope; except only the Houſe of Auſtria, whom he is forced to gratifie, as the only prop of all his tyrannie. France that hath ſo much ſtood for its Liberties, hath felt the fruits of the Roman Principles, and League; and two of their moſt renowned Kings ſucceſſively have been baſely and inhumanely butchered by them: And to this day the numerous ſwarm of the Popes dependant Clergy, doth not only devour, as is thought, about a third part of the Lands, but alſo aws and ſwaies the Princes. Even in Ireland before our wars, a Biſhop (Bedle in his Letter to Laud in Prins Introduct. pag. 102.) doth open the Power of the Clergie, and their inſolencies as ſuch, that he concludes [His Majeſty is now with the greateſt part of this Countrey as to their hearts and conſciences, King, but at the Popes deſcretion] And in another Letter to the ſaid Archbiſhop (ibid. pag. 112.) he ſaith [I that know that in this Kingdom of his Majeſty, the Pope hath another Kingdom far greater in number, and as I have heretofore ſignified to the Lords Juſtices, and Council (which ſince is juſtified by themſelves in print) conſtantly guided and directed by the order of the new Congregation, de propaganda fide, lately erected at Rome—] ſee the reſt.
Do I need to tell England of the many treacheries ſince the Reformation againſt our Princes? Or who it was that would have depoſed as well as Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and expoſed her Kingdoms to the will of others? Or who it was that wrote againſt King James his Title to the Crown? Or who were the Actors of the Helliſh Powder-plot? Or who it is that hath been ſtill blowing the fire, and caſting all into diſturbances for their ends? Do I need to mention their approving of the Murdering of Princes, and the pretence of power to diſpenſe with oaths of Allegiance and fidelity, and who hath actually ſo oft pretended to diſoblige the ſubjects, and expoſe Princes and their Dominions to the firſt occupant? I know that many of the ſeculars in England diſowned this doctrine: But 1. So never did the Pope, but hath owned and practiſed it. 2. By diſowning it, they diſown Popery it ſelf, if they know what they do: For it is an Article of their Faith, and ſo Eſſential to their Religion, as explicitly held; and is determined by a Pope and an approved General Council, even 12. the fourth at Lateran under Innocent the third, as I before recited the words at large in the third Argument againſt them here.
I know ſome of the Papiſts would perſwade the world that it was none but Mariana the Jeſuite that wrote for King killing: and that it was firſt condemned by themſelves. But the Parliament of Paris tells another ſtory of them, as it is recited by Thuanus (who was Preſident and then preſent) Hiſt. lib. 130. ad. an. 1604. And Rivet names them Guignardus (that wrote in praiſe of the murder of Henry the third) and of Ode Pichenatus, Barterius ſuborned by Varada, &c. And Albineus the Jeſuite did hear the Murderer of Henry the fourth confeſs before he did the fact, and put off the examiners with this anſwer, that God had given him that ſpecial gift to forget when once he had abſolved a ſinner whatſoever was confeſſed by him. And why was it that France did expel the Jeſuites, and ſet up a Pillar of Remembrance of their villanies, till Henry the fourth would needs gratifie the Pope by calling them in again, and told the Parliament, that the peril of it ſhould be on him; and ſo it was; for it coſt him his life. And why did the ſame Parliament of Paris, Novemb. 1610. condemn Bellarmines book againſt Barclay, as an engine of treaſon and rebellion? And the Theological faculty of Paris, April. 4. 1626. condemned Santarellus Book as guilty of the ſame villany, ſtirring up people to Rebellion and King-killing? And May 12. the Univerſity confirmed it: And March 13. the Parliament condemned the Book to be burnt.
And it's worth the reading which Rivet recites of the Anſwers of the Jeſuites in Paris, when the Parliament askt them their judgement of that Book, viz. [Seeing their General had approved the Book, and judged the things that are there written to be certain, whether they were of the ſame mind?] They anſwered that [Living at Rome he could not but approve what was there approved of.] [But ſay the Parliament, What think you? Say the Jeſuites, the clean contrary. Say the Examiners, But what would you do if you were at Rome? Say the Jeſuites, That which they do that are at Rome. At which ſaid ſome of the Parliament, What! have they one Conſcience at Rome, and another at Paris? God bleſs us from ſuch confeſſors as theſe.]
But yet ſome of the Papiſts will ſeem ſo honeſt, as to ſay that private men may not kill a King till he be depoſed. Very true! But withall it is their currant doctrine, that if once he be excommunicate, he is then no King, yea or if he be an Heretick; and ſo being no King, they may kill the man, and not kill the King. This is the jugling of theſe ſeeming Loyall ſubjects. You may ſee it in their own writings; Suarez adverſ. Sect. Anglic. lib. 6. cap. 4. Sect. 14. & cap. 6. Sect. 22, 24. & Azorius Jeſuita Inſtit. Moral. part. 1. l. 8. c. 13. He that would ſee more of their mind in this, let him read the Myſterium Patrum Jeſuitarum, and the Janſenians myſterie of Jeſuitiſm, and Biſhop Rob. Abbots Antilogia ad Apolog. Eudaemojohan: But what need we more then the Decrees of a Pope and General Council, and the practice of the Church of Rome for ſo many ages?
And for the Popes power to abſolve them from all oaths of Allegiance and fidelity, the foreſaid Pope Innocent and his approved General Council have told the world enough of their mind to put us out of doubt of it.
But (leaving abundance of forreign inſtances) I ſhall mention but one or two at home. The Papiſts have lately had the confidence to affirm that the Powder-plot and the Spaniſh invaſion in one thouſand five hundred eighty eight were not upon a quarrell of Religion, nor owned by the Pope. King James hath ſaid already ſo much againſt them in theſe points, that I think it needleſs to ſay any more (eſpecially alſo after Biſhop Abbots Antilogia) but only here to produce one Teſtimony of their own, concerning the Spaniſh Invaſion.
Cardinal Oſſatus in his 87. Epiſt. ad D. de Ville-roy, tels us that Pope Clement the eighth (one of the beſt of all the late ones) did preſs for the King of France to join with Spain in the Invaſion of England, and the Cardinal anſwered that the King was tied by an Oath to the Queen of England: to which the Pope replyed, that [The Oath was made to an Heretick, but he was bound in another Oath to God and the Pope] adding withall [that Kings and other Princes do permit themſelves all things (or tolerate themſelves in all things) which make for their commodity: and that the matter is gone ſo far, that it is not (or ſhould not be) imputed to them, or taken for their fault: and he alledged the ſaying of Franciſcus Mariae Duke of Urbine, that indeed every one doth blame a Noble man, or Great man that is no Soveraign, if he keep not his Covenants, (or fidelity,) and they account him infamous; but ſupream Princes may without any danger of their reputation, make Covenants and break them, lye, betray, and perpetrate other ſuch like things] This was good Pope Clement the eighth. And can we look for better from the reſt? You ſee what Oaths and Covenants are with them.
And that the deſign was ſtill carried on againſt the Queen upon account of Religion, and the Realm to have been invaded by the Spaniard on that account, and that the principal point of the Plot was to prepare a party within the Realm that might adhere to the invaders; all this with much more Sir Francis Walſingham (that well knew) hath teſtified to Monſieur Critoy in his Letter, Cabal. part. 2. pag. 39.
Thuanus a Moderate Papiſt (and a moſt knowing and impartial Hiſtorian) tells you (lib. 89. p. 248, 249. ad an. 1588.) that, [the Spaniards pretended to undertake the expedition only for Religion ſake, and therefore took with them Martin Alarco Vicar general of the Holy Inquiſition, with abundance of Capuchins and Jeſuites: and that they had with them the Popes Bull, which they were to publiſh as ſoon as they landed, and that Cardinal Allan was appointed as the Popes Legate to land at the ſame time, and with full power to ſee to the reſtoring of Religion. And that the ſaid Bull had theſe expreſſions: that the Pope, by the Power given from God by lawfull ſucceſſion of the Catholick Church, for the defection of Henry the eighth who forcibly ſeparated himſelf and his people from the communion of Chriſtians, which was promoted by Edward the ſixth and Elizabeth, who being pertinaceous and impenitent in the ſame Rebellion and Uſurpation—therefore (the Pope) incited by the continual perſwaſions of many, and by the ſuppliant prayers of the Engliſh men themſelves, (N. B.) hath dealt with diverſe Princes, and ſpecially the moſt potent King of Spain—to depoſe that woman, and puniſh her pernicious adherents in that Kingdom—] Read the reſt there; for though wicked, its worth the reading. The Pope there ſaith, that Pope Sixtus before him preſcribed the Queen, and took from her all her Dignities, Titles, and Rights to the Kingdom of England and Ireland, abſolving her ſubjects from the Oath of fidelity and obedience: He chargeth all men on pain of the wrath of God, that they offord her no favour, help, or aid, but uſe all their ſtrength to bring her to puniſhment; and that all the Engliſh join with the Spaniard as ſoon as he is landed: offering rewards and pardon of ſins, to them that will lay hands on the Queen; and ſo ſhewing on what Conditions he gave the Kingdom to Philip of Spain. This and more you may ſee in Thuanus.
And yet ſome of our Juglers that ſay they are no Papiſts, perſwade the world that Papiſts hold not the depoſing of Princes, nor abſolving their ſubjects from the Oaths of fidelity; and that the Spaniſh invaſion was meerly on Civil accounts, and that they expected not any Engliſh Papiſts to aſſiſt them: with other ſuch impudent aſſertions.
Even Dominicus Bannes (one of the beſt of them) in Thom. 22. qu. 12. art. 2. ſaith that [Quando adeſt evidens notitia, &c. i. e. When there is evident knowledge of the crime, ſubjects may lawfully exempt themſelves from the Power of their Princes, before any declaratory ſentence of a judge, ſo they have but ſtrength to do it.] Adding to excuſe the Engliſh Papiſts for being no worſe, that [Hence it follows that the faithfull (Papiſts) of England and Saxony are to be excuſed, that do not free themſelves from the power of their Superiors, nor make war againſt them: becauſe commonly they are not ſtrong enough to manage theſe wars, and great dangers hang over them.] Princes may ſee now how far the Papiſts are to be truſted: Even as far as they are ſufficiently diſabled.
And their Auguſt. Triumphus ſaith (de Poteſt. Eccleſ. qu. 46. art. 2.) [Dubium non eſt quin Papa poſſit omnes Reges, cum ſubeſt cauſa rationabilis deponere] i. e. [There is no doubt but the Pope may depoſe all Kings, when there is reaſonable cauſe for it] Is not this a Vice chriſt, and a Vice-god with a witneſs?
Add but to this, that the Pope is Judge when the cauſe is Reaſonable; (for no doubt but he muſt judge, if he muſt execute;) and then you have a Pope in his colours, even in his Univerſal Soveraignty Spiritual and Temporall.
And (as I ſaid before from Suarez and others) when the Pope hath depoſed a King, any man may kill him. I will not trouble you with Mariana's directions for poyſoning him, or ſecretly diſpatching him (de Reg. inſtit. lib. 1. cap. 7.) Suarez his moderate concluſion is enough (Defenſ. fid. Cathol. li. 6 c. 4. ſect. 14.) [Poſt ſententiam, &c. After ſentence paſt he is altogether deprived of his Kingdom, ſo that he cannot by juſt title poſſeſs it; therefore from thence forward he may be handled as a meer tyrant; and conſequently any private man may kill him] O Learned Suarez! No wonder if you and your Profeſſion be dear to Princes; and if Henry the fourth of France took down the Pillar of your infamy, and received you into his Kingdom and Heart again? No wonder if the Venetians at laſt have readmitted you, to procure ſome aid againſt the Turk.
I will conclude with one Teſtimony of a Roman Rabbi (cited by Biſhop Uſher, who knew his name, but would not do him the honour to name him.) It is, B. P. foreign. Epiſtol. J. R. impreſan 1609. Who hath excuſed the Powder-Plot from the Imputation of cruelty, [becauſe both Seeds and Root of an evil herb muſt be deſtroyed] and doth add a deriſion of the ſimplicity of the King in impoſing on them the oath of Allegiance, in theſe moſt memorable expreſſions, worthy to be engraven on a Marble Pillar [Sed vide in tanta aſtutia, quanta ſit ſimplicitas! &c. But ſee what ſimplcity here is in ſo great craft! When he had placed all his ſecurity in that Oath, ho thought he had framed ſuch a manner of oath, with ſo many circumſtances, which no man could any way diſſolve with a ſafe conſcience. But he could not ſee, that if the Pope diſſolve the Oath, all its knots, whether of being faithfull to the King, or of admitting no Diſpenſation, are accordingly diſſolved. Yea I will ſay a thing more admirable. You know I believe, that an unjuſt Oath, if it be evidently known to be ſuch, or openly declared ſuch, obligeth no man. That the Kings oath is unjuſt, is ſufficiently declared by the Paſtor of the Church himſelf. You ſee now that the Obligation of it is vaniſhed into ſmoak, and that the bond which ſo many wiſe men thought was made of iron, is leſs then ſtraw.]
Theſe are the words of Papiſts themſelves. From their publiſhed writings we tell you their Religion.
I know they will here again tell us abundance of falſe accuſations of the Proteſtants, ſuch as [the Image of both Churches] heapeth up; and they will tell us of our war, and killing the King in England. But of this I have given them their anſwer before. To which I add, 1. The Proteſtant doctrine expreſſed in the Confeſſions of all their Churches, and in the conſtant ſtream of their writers, is for obedience to the Soveraign Powers, and againſt reſiſting them, upon any pretenſes of Hereſie, or Excommunication, or ſuch like.
2. The wars in England were raiſed between a King and Parliament, that joyned together, did conſtitute the Higheſt Power; and upon the lamentable diviſion (occaſioned by the Papiſts,) the people were many of them uncertain which part was the Higher, and of greateſt Authority: ſome thought the King, and others thought the Parliament, as being the Repreſentative body of the people (in whom Polititians ſay is the Majeſtas Realis,) and the Higheſt Judicature, and having the chief part in Legiſlation, and Declaration what is juſt or unjuſt, what is Law and what is againſt Law: Had we all been reſolved in England which ſide was by Law the Higher Power, here had been no war. So that here was no avowed reſiſting of the Higher Powers. None but a Parliament could have drawn an Army of Proteſtants here under their banner.
3. And withall that very Parliament (conſiſting of Nobles, Knights, Gentlemen and Lawyers, who all declared to the people, that by Law they were bound to obey and aſſiſt them) did yet profeſs to take up offenſive Arms only againſt Delinquents, or rather, even but defenſive againſt thoſe men that had got an Army to ſecure them from Juſtice: And they ſtill profeſſed and vowed fidelity to the King which, as I have ſhewed, they manifeſted to the laſt of their power, till they were impriſoned and ſecluded. Read Mr. Irins Speech for Agreement with the King: and read the writing of the London Miniſters preſented to the General, and publiſhed againſt the Kings death: and Read the Vindication of the ſecluded members, and read the Paſſages of the war with Scotland, and of the Impriſonment of many London Miniſters, and of the death of Mr. Love and others: and tell me whether you can do men greater wrong then to defame them for being cauſers of that which they diſowned, though it coſt them the loſs of Liberty, Eſtate, or Life.
4. And really if you take either Vaniſts or Levellers (who were the chief agents in this) for Proteſtants, you may as well ſay that Papiſts are Proteſtants. The world knows that the Prayers, the Petitions, Proteſtations, and other endeavours of the Proteſtants, even the Presbyterians, was for the preventing the death of that King, how ever many of them diſliked his courſe, and joyned with the Parliament againſt his adherents. This is the very truth, which they that have been eye witneſſes all along have good reaſon to know, whatever any Papiſt ſay to the contrary.
5. And what Proteſtants be they that give power to any man on earth to depoſe Princes, and give their Kingdoms to others; or to diſoblige all their ſubjects, and warrant them to kill them, and diſpenſe with oaths, and turn them all into ſmoak and ſtraw as yours do?
Renounce your treacherous Principles, and we will ceaſe to charge you with them. Let a General Council and Pope but Decree the contrary to what the forecited Pope and General Council have Decreed, or elſe do you all declare that you think this Pope and Councill erred, and then we will ſhake hands with you; for then you will either ceaſe to be true Papiſts, or at leaſt become tolerable members of humane ſocieties. Why doth not the Pope himſelf at leaſt condemn theſe doctrines, if really he diſown them? The caſe is too plain.