A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion, Chapter 5

A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion · Chapter 5

p. 111CHAP. V. The Adverſaries Defence of the Jeſuites examined. Their Doctrine and Attempts againſt the Crown and life of Kings.

THe Adverſary who is commended in the Epiſtle to the Reader, as a most obſervant Son of the Church of England, takes upon him the defence of the Jeſuite Mariana, ſo infamous for his doctrine of killing of Kings, and ſaith three things about that.

The one is, That he handleth that matter only problematically.page 94. But the Court of Parliament of Paris, compoſed of grave heads, did not underſtand it ſo, when they condemned his book to the fire. Neither doth he ſpeak of the murther of Henry the III. of France problematically, when he exalteth the murtherer in theſe words. Making a ſhew of delivering Mariana lib. 1. de Rege & Regis Iuſtitutione, cap. 6. Specie litteras in manus tradendi cultro quem herbis noxiis medicatum manu tegebat ſupra veſicam altum vulnus inflixit. Inſignem animi confidentiam! Facinus memorabile—Caeſo Rege ingens ſibi nomen fecit.letters [to the King] he gave him a deep wound above the bladder with a poyſoned knife which he hid in his hand. O admirable confidence of minde! O memorable action! by killing the King, he got to himſelf a great name, And in the ſame place he taxeth the Kings ſervants, who preſently p. 112killed that murtherer, of cruelty and barbarouſneſs.

The ſecond anſwer for Mariana is, That the queſtion was not for killing of Kings, but for killing of Tyrants. page 94.This man ſhews himſelf a right ſcholar of the Jeſuites, for this is their diſtinction. But if a King depoſed by the Pope keeps his Kingdome in ſpight of him, they account him no more a King, but a Tyrant. And whereas there are two ſorts of Tyrants, ſome by uſurpation, which they call Tyrannos in Titulo, Tyrants in the Title; ſome Tyrants by adminiſtration; the Jeſuites hold, That a lawful King when he is once depoſed bySuarez deſenſ. lib. 6. cap. 5. Incipit eſſe Tyrannus in Titulo quia non eſt legitimus Rex, the Pope, begins to be a Tyrant in his Title, becauſe he is no more a lawful King. And being thus become a Tyrant, it is by their doctrine lawful to kill him. Therefore Henry the IV. of France, whom no body durſt have called King at Rome before his abſolution, was ſo often aſſaulted by murtherers at that time, becauſe he was accounted a Tyrant as long as he reigned without the Popes approbation. Upon that account Bellarmine ſaith, That theBellarm. in Barklaium, cap. 3. Non permitto tibi (inquit Papa) ut regi non pareas, quod eſſet contra jus divinum, ſed ſacio ut ille qui tibi Rex erat non ſit ſibi deinceps Rex. Pope depoſing a King, doth not permit the people to diſobey their King, but he makes him that was their King, to be their King no more.

The third anſwer is, that the whole order of Jeſuites diſavowes Marian's poſition, and have categorically determined the contrary. But why then did the ſame General of the Jeſuites, who diſavowed it when deſtruction was hanging over the head of his Order, approve and licence it before? For the Book was approved p. 113by Aqua viva General of the Jeſuites, and Stephanus Hoyeda Viſitor of their Society in the Province of Toledo. And theapprobation mentioneth thatQuippe approbatus prius à viris doctis & gravibus ex eodem ordine. other Jeſuites had approved it before.

The Adverſary brings ſome allegations out of Books of Jeſuites that diſown that poſition, that it is lawful to attempt againſt the life of a Prince. The Jeſuite Eudemono-Johannes had made thoſe allegations ready for him. He makes Tolet ſay in his Summary, lib. 5. cap. 6. that it is not lawful to attempt againſt the life of a Prince, though he never ſo much abuſe his Power, and that is flat hereſie to maintain the contrary. But theſe are Tolets words in the alledgedTolet Sum. lib. 5. cap. 6. Tyrannum adminiſtratione qui quidem habet verum titulum ſed tyrannicé tractat ſubditos non licet abſque publicae authoritate occidere. place, That, It is not lawful to kill with out publick authority a Tyrant by admistration, who hath indeed a juſt Title, but uſeth his Subjects tyrannycally. Now what publick authority doth he mean, but that of the Pope? And that is meant alſo bySuarez Defenſ. ful. lib. 6. cap. 4. Dicimus Principem propter tyrannicum regimen vel propter quaecunque crimina non poſſe ab aliquo privata authoritate occidi. Suarez, who ſaith, That a Prince may not be killed by any out of private authority for his Tyrannical Government, or for any crime whatſoever. He will have a publick authority for it, which is that of the Popes. For both Bellarmine and Becan maintain,Bellarm lib. 5. de Romano Pontif. cap. 8. Becan lib. de controverſia Anglicana. Jojada Pontifex prius privavit Athaliam regno deinde vita. Et paulo poſt, Quicquid poteſtatis & juriſdictionis permiſſum fuit Pontifici in Veteri Teſtamento, hoc etiam in Novo promiſſum eſt illi. that the Pope hath the ſame right over Kings, as Jehojada had over Athalia. Now Jehojada the high Prieſt (ſaith he) firſt deprived Athalia of her Kingdome, and next of her life. And a little after, All the power and juriſdiction that was granted to the high Prieſt in the Old Teſtament, p. 114is promiſed to him alſo in the New. This is then that authority without which they will not have a King kill'd, and by which he may be kill'd, even the Popes authority.

Our Jeſuite alledgeth Salmeron, expounding the 13. Chapter to the Romans, Where (ſaith he) he referreth the act of Ehud againſt King Eglon to Gods expreſs commandment. That's granted. But hear him further. It is not lawfull for a private Salmeron in Rom. 13. Diſp. 5. Non licet privato propriá authoritate Tyrannum interficere, maxime ſi in pacificá poſſeſſione ſit & armatus ſatellitio regnet.Rom 13perſon to kill a Tyrant by his own authority, eſpecially if he be in quiet poſſeſſion and reign armed with Guards about him. All the ſecurity which he giveth to Kings, whom the Pope will call them Tyrants, is, that no man by his private authority can kill him; but by the publick authority, which is that of the Pope, any man may. And he giveth a good warning to ſuch Kings to keep a ſtrong guard about their perſons, without which a Jeſuite will ſoon find it lawful to kill them.

Gregorius de Valentia alledged by the Adveaſary,Greg. de Valent. part 2. q. 64. ſaith indeed, It is no way permitted, for a man to attempt upon the life of his Prince, albeit he abuſe his authority: But he addeth, If it be not done by publick judgement. Now that publick judgement is either that of the State, or of the Pope, or of the General of the Jeſuites. But let us hear the ſame Gregory ſpeak more home. Temporal domination and ſuperiority over Greg. de Valen. Tom. 3. diſputationum in Thomamdiſ. 1. q. 12. pan. 2 Dominatio temporalis & ſuperioritas in ſubditos per ſententiam Papae poteſt omnino adimi haereticis. Ratio eſt quia ſi poſſunt privari vitá multo magis omnibus bonis, & per conſequens omni ſuperioritate in alios.Subjects, may by the Popes ſentence be taken away from Hereticks. The reaſon is, that if they can be deprived of life, much more of all goods, and by conſequence of all ſuperiority over others; taking it for p. 115granted and preſuppoſed that Kings may be deprived of life by the Popes Authority.

Bellarmin alledged by the Adverſary, may have declared his opiniòn as the other Jeſuites, that a King muſt not be depoſed and slain by private authority; then it may be done by publick authority. And we have ſhewed before that Bellarmin alloweth the ſame authority to the Pope over Kings, as Jehoiada had over Athalia, whom he depoſedand killed; but he ſpeaks more plainly, when **Bellarm. ſub nomine Matth. Torti▪ pag. 84. & 85. Edit. Colon. Ultus eſt Deus Chriſtum ſuum dum per alium ſacratum virum alioqui militiae imperitum & inermem regem eundem non manifeſto divinae providentiae miraculo interfecit.he commends the murther committed by a Monk againſt the perſon of Henry the III. of France, and calls the Murtherer Sacratum Virum, a ſacred perſon. It ſeems then he had forgotten himſelf,Idem contra Barckl. cap. 7. Non pertinet ad Monachos aut alios Eccleſiaſticos viros caedes facere multo minus per inſidias Reges occidére; Neque ſummi Pontiſices conſueverunt iſta ratione Reges coercere. Mos eſt primum paterne corrigere, deinde per cenſuram Eccleſiaſticam ſacramentorum communione privare. Denique ſubditos eorum à juramento fidelitatis abſolvere, eoſque dignitate atque authoritate regia privare: Executio ad alios pertinet. when he would not have Eccleſiaſtical men to kill Kings with their own hands, but to ſtand to the method that the Pope obſerveth. Which is firſt to admoniſh Kings fatherly, Then deprive them of the Communion of the Sacraments by Eccleſiaſtical cenſures. Finally to abſolve their ſubjects from the Oath of their Allegiance, and if needs be, deprive them of the Royal Authority. The execution belongeth to others.

The Adverſary alſo alledgeth Leſſius in his book de Scientia & Jure, he meaneth de Juſtitia. It ſeemeth the man had heard of the book, but never ſeen it. But for that miſtake, his quotation is rightaaLeſſius de Iuſtitia & Iure, lib. 2. cap. 9. dubio 4. Talis non poteſt à privatis interimi quandiu manet Princeps, &c.. p. 116In that place ſpeaking of ſuch a King as is not a tyrant by uſurpation, but by adminiſtration, he ſaith, Such a Prince cannot be ſlain by private perſons, as long as he remains a Prince. Which is altogether againſt the ſecurity of Kings lives: For the Popes Decrees and the writings of the Jeſuites having ſo many times determined that a Prince depoſed by the Pope, is no more a Prince, but a private perſon; this goodly Aphoriſme of Leſſius expoſeth the lives of all Kings depoſed or excommunicated to the attempts of all private menbbIdem Ibid. dubio 11. Princeps non poteſt à ſubdito interfici niſi forte ob neceſſariam vitae ſuae deſenſionem.. He alloweth alſo a ſubject to kill his Prince in the defence of his own life, contrary to the Evangelical precept of not reſiſting the higherDub. 12. Si tantum excreſcat tyrannis ut non videatur amplius tolerabilis nec ullum aliud remedium ſuperſit, primum à Rep. vel comitiis regni vel alio habente authoritatem eſſe deponendum & hoſtem declarandum ut in ipſius perſonam liceat quicquam attentare. Tunc enim deſinit eſſe Princeps. powers. And that you may know him to be like his confreres in treaſonable doctrine. He concludes that queſtion thus: If the tyranny groweth to that point, that it ſeem not to be tolerated any more, and that there be no remedy; He muſt firſt be depoſed by the Commonwealth, or the States of the Kingdome; or by another that hath authority; and declared an enemy, that it may be lawful to attempt any thing againſt his perſon. What is that other perſon that hath authority over King, Commonwealth and States? It muſt be one that belongs not to the State, elſe he ſhould be a ſubject, and could not pretend to that authority of depoſing the King, and expoſing his life to all attempts. And what other perſon pretends to that authority, but the Pope.

p. 117He alledgeth alſo Azorius in his Moral Inſtitution, but doth not quote any place. This is his doctrine, All that were bound to an heretick in any Azorius hiſt. Moral. part 1. lib. 8▪ cap. 13. Eos omnes qui erant haeretico aliqua ratione obſtrict jusjurandi ſeu fidelitatis ſeu alterius pactionis liberari—Abſolutos ſe noverint à debito fidelitatis Domini, & totius obſequii quicunque lapſis manifeſto in haereſin aliquo pacto quacunque firmitate tenebantur aſtricti.manner, whether with oath or fidelity, or any other paction. Let them know that they are abſolved from all debt of fidelity or obedience, &c. The Pope may take away or give a King for juſt cauſes, and then the people may obey the Pope as their ſuperiour, who hath ſovereigne power both upon the King and Kingdome. IfIdem Ibid. part 2. lib. 11. cap. 5. - A Romano Pontifice Rex au, fertur vel datur juſtis de cauſis & tunc populus tanquam ſuperiori Romano Pontifici parere debet—Habet in Regem & regnum ſummam poteſtatem. he hath ſovereigne power over them, he hath power of life and death.

And whereas this Gentleman alledgeth Gretzer as one that confuteth all Mariana's grounds, I find that he defends them all in that very place which he quoteth. We are not ſuch dastards (ſaithGretzer-Veſpertilio Haereticopoliticus, pag. 159. Tam timidi & trepidi non ſumus ut aſserere palam vereamur Romanum Pontificem poſse ſi neceſſitas exigat ſubditos Catholicos ſolvere juramento fidelitatis, ſi Princeps tyrannice illos tractet. he) as to fear openly to affirme that the Pope of Rome may, if neceſſity ſo require, free his Catholick ſubjects from their oath of fidelity, if their Sovereigne handle them tyrannically. Yea he takes openly Mariana's cauſe, ſaying, pag. 160. that Mariana is wrongfully traduced, for writing that it is lawful to kill any Prince that diſobeyeth the Pope; ſince he maintains that a lawful Prince who diſobeyeth the Pope, notwithſtanding ought not to be made away by any private man, if ſentence be not pronounced p. 118againſt him. And he that muſt pronounce that Sentence is the Pope. He complaineth alſo that Mariana is unjuſtly accuſed for affirming that a tyrant ought to be poyſoned; ſeeing heIdem pag. 162. Ne tyannum quidem primi vel ſecundi generis etiam poſt judiciariam contra illum latam ſententiam veneno licite tollis, ſi Tyrannus ipſemet venenum illud ſumere & ſibi applicare debeat. maintains the contrary; affirming that a tyrant cannot lawfully be made away by poyſon, if himſelf take it, and apply it to himſelf. Which cannot be avoided, when his meat and drink is poyſoned. So in the end he agreeth with Mariana, whoſe words I have produced in my ſecond Chapter, and is content that a tyrant be poyſoned, ſo that he takes not the poyſon himſelf. Is not that ſtraining the gnat, and ſwallowing the camel? Theſe holy murtherers make nothing of killing a King, onelyonly they are ſcrupulous about the circumſtance.

Thus I have ſhewed what thoſe Jeſuites ſay, which this Gentleman alledgeth: All but Serarius and Richeome, which I have not by me, no more then he that quoteth them. And I have made it plain, that they all conſent with Mariana, and ſpeak the ſame language.

But what! he tells us that the opinion of Mariana was condemned by a Provincial Congregation of the Jeſuites; and that condemnation ratified by the General of the Jeſuites Claudius Aquaviva. So it was, with ſhame enough, to Aquaviva and his confreres, who had approved and licenced it before. But ſee what that condemnation comes to, the Jeſuites ſeeing their Sect made odious by the writings of Mariana, Suarez, Vaſquez, and others, and more by the murthering of p. 119Kings, by perſons died with their principles, madeNe quiſquam ſcripto vel ſermone doceat licitum eſse cuicunque perſonae, quocun que praetextu, tyrannidis Reges aut Principes occidere. an order among themſelves, whereby they forbad to write or teach that doctrine any more. The words of the Ratification are thoſe, That none teach by writing or ſpeaking, that it is lawful for any perſon, or upon any pretence of Tyranny, to kill Kings and Princes.

Was it not time, think ye, to forbid teaching ſo any more, when they had been expelled for it out of France, and made the objects of the publick execration? But how groſſe is their fraud in that order! Do they forbid their Society to believe ſo? By no means, but to teach ſo. Neither will they have it lawful for any perſon to kill Kings, but to ſuch as are commiſſioned for it. Neither will they have the execution done upon any pretence of tyranny, but onelyonly upon the definitive Sentence of the Pope or the States. And how are the lives of Kings and Princes more ſecure then before by their declaring that it is not lawful to kill Kings and Princes, ſeeing that in their account they are no more Kings and Princes, when they are once excommunicated and depoſed by the Pope?

The Adverſary alledgeth alſo the Council of Conſtance, which condemneth the doctrine of killing tyrants as erroneous. But if this Gentleman be a true Papiſt, and hold that the Pope isMariana lib. 2. caſ. 6. p. 62. Id decretum Romano Pontifici Martino V. probatum non invenio, non Eugenio▪ aut ſucceſsoribus quorum conſenſu Conciliorum Eccleſiaſticorum ſanctitas ſtat praeſertim quod non ſine Eccleſiae motu tricipiti Pontificum diſſidio de ſummo Pontificatu contendentium celebratum fuiſse ſcimus. above the Council, he ſhall make nothing of that Councils Authority, ſeeing that it is not liked by the Popes; for we learn of Mariana, that neither Martin the V. p. 120then elected, nor Eugenius nor his Succeſſors approve it, and he diſgraceth it as aſſembled in a tumultuous time, when there were three Popes reigning together.

But the truth is, That the Decree of that Councell is rather againſt the ſafety of Kings. For the caſe propounded to the Councel by Gerſon, was not about the murther of Sovereigne Princes, but about the killing of a great Officer of the Crown who ruleth tyrannically, and exalts himſelf above his King: for John Duke of Burgundy who had killed Lewis Duke of Orleans, pretended him to have been a Tyrant in that kinde. If then ſuch Tyrants be declared inviolable perſons by the Councel, the Councel by its authority guards them againſt the attempts of loyal ſubjects, and ſtrengthneth them againſt their King.

Suarez goeth another way to work to elude the authoritySuarez in Keg. Mag. Brit. lib. 6. cap. 4. ſect. 20. Vbileget Rex in Concilio Conſtantienſi particulam illam, Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati? aut illam per ſuos ſubditos aut alios quoſcunque. of that Decree, ſaying to our Moſt Excellent King James, That the Council of Conſtance forbids not the killing of a King excommunicated by the Pope; for indeed that was not the caſe agitated in the Council.

And now we are upon Suarez, we will ſet down here one of his golden ſentences to this purpoſe. If (ſaith he) under the word of Excommunication Ejuſdem lib. cap. 6. ſect. 24. Si ſub voce excommunicationis comprehendatur depoſitio & diffidatio quae per ſententiam cononicam interdum fit, ſic veritatem continere illam propoſitionem Regem excommunicatum impune deponi vel occidi quibuſcunque poſſe.you comprehend depoſition and deveſting a Prince of his right, which ſomtimes is done by a canonical ſentence, then there is truth in that propoſition, that a King excommunicated may be depoſed or ſlain by any perſons whatſoever impunedly.

p. 121The Adverſary concludeth his juſtification of the Jeſuites, by alledging the Decree of Sorbon againſt the doctrine of King-killing, and the Arreſt of the Parliament of Paris againſt the book of Mariana. What ſtyle muſt be given to this mans confidence? Could he preſume ſo much upon the Readers ignorance, as to bring that for the Jeſuites which is moſt againſt them? Who knows not that the Decree of Sorbon was directly made againſt the Jeſuites, as the aſſertors of the doctrine of King-killing? Who knows not that the Arreſt of Parliament which condemneth Mariana's book to the fire, blaſteth expreſly the doctrine and the ſect of the Jeſuites? If he ſay that he brings that to clear the Roman Religion, he changeth the queſtion, for he had undertaken to defend the Jeſuites. And theſe allegations are for us, who deſire to ſhew to the world, that many Profeſſors of the Roman Religion abhor theſe principles, overcome by the evidence of honeſt truth; and therefore are not true Papiſts, ſince their belief is not ruled by the Head of the Roman Faith in the point which moſt neerly concerneth his power and grandeur. This Gentleman might be aſhamed to alledge the Sorbon, if he knoweth what Decree was made by them Apr. 4. 1626. againſt the book of the Jeſuite Santarel, and the Jeſuitical doctrine of King-killing: A Decree confirmed the 8. of May following by the Univerſity of Paris.

After theſe Allegations wherewith this Gentleman cuts the throat of his cauſe with his own ſword, Judgepage 96. ye what reaſon he hath to cry up, By this time I hope the tempest is pretty well laid. But he muſt have a little more of that tempeſt about his ears: And having ſo p. 122marred his own market, and given me occaſion to lay open the iniquity of his ſect, he muſt labour once more to ſatisfie divers of his good friends whom he hath found ibid.ſcandalized at the Fathers of the Society, for protecting ſo villanous and treaſonable a Theſis.

If now I bring upon the ſcaffold ſome more of their moſt notorious expreſſions and actions, they may not blame me, as I do them, for charging the whole party with the faults of particulars: For whereas this Gentleman chargeth the generality of the Proteſtants with the opinions of Knox and Paraeus, I charge not all the Roman Catholicks with theſe villanous doctrines and actions, but only the Court of Rome, and the Jeſuites. Theſe two I put together, for all that the Jeſuites have taught or done to promote rebellion and high Treaſon was undertaken to advance the Court of Rome, and by a particular influence from that Court, whoſe eſpecial favourites and moſt devoted champions they are.

Since this Gentleman ſtands upon the ſentence of the Court of Parliament of Paris, let him hear that great man Achilles de Harlay, the firſt Preſident of that Venerable Court; who, when King Henry the IV. of France, after long ſollicitations of the Court of Rome, was perſwaded to recall the Ieſuites baniſhed before out of the Kingdome, made an Oration to diſſwade him from it. That Oration is related by Thuanus another Preſident of that Court, who was then preſent. There that vertuous Achilles repreſents to the King the doctrine of the Ieſuites, which is, That the Pope Thuanus Hiſt. lib. 130. ad ann. 1604. Ieſuitae docent. Pontiſicem jus habere Reges extra communionem Eccleſiae ponandi; excommunicatum Regem tyrannum eſſe, & ſubditos impune contra eum inſurgere. Ipſorum unumquemque qui vel minoribus Eccleſiae Ordinibus ſit initiatus quodcunque crimen admiſerit in laeſae Majeſtatis crimen non poſſe incidere, quippe qui minime ſint amplius Regis ſubditi nec juriſdictioni ejus ſubjecti. Ita Eccleſiaſticos per eorum doctrinam a ſeculari poteſtate eximi, & Manus cruentas licere impune Regibus ſacro-ſanctis afferre. Hoc eos libris editis aſſerere.hath that right to put Kings out of the communion of the Church; that an excommunicate p. 123King is a tyrant, and that his ſubjects may impunedly riſe against him. That every one of thoſe that have but one of the leaſt Orders of the Church, cannot be guilty of Treaſon, what crime ſoever he commit; becauſe Clergy-men are no more the Kings ſubjects, nor under his juriſdiction: So that Eccleſiaſtick perſons are by their doctrine exempted from the ſecular powers, and may impunedly fall upon their Kings with their ſanguinary hands. This they affirm in their publiſhed books. That grave Iudge ſpake that upon good ground; for the books of the Ieſuites inſiſt much upon the exemption of Clerks from Temporal Iuriſdictions. Whence the Ieſuite Emanuel Sa draweth this concluſion, That Emanuel Sa in Aphoriſmis tit. Clericus. Rebellio▪ Clerici adverſus Principem, non eſt crimen leſae Majeſtatis, quia Principi non eſt ſubditus.the Rebellion of a Clergy-man againſt the Prince, is not Treaſon, becauſe he is not the Princes ſubject. Which words are omitted in the Edition of Paris, but they remain in that of Collen, and in that of Antwerp. For that reaſon Bellarmine findes great fault with thoſe that ſlew the Monk who had murdered Henry the III. of France, (as I alledged before) becauſe they had ſlain ſacratum virum, a conſecracred man. A more ſacred man in his opinion, and more inviolable then the Sacred Majeſty of a King. The murder of that great Prince, the Venerable Harlay repreſented unto the King, and how it wasThuanus▪ ibid. exalted as a holy Act by the Ieſuite Guignard, who had writ a book in the commendation of the murtherer. And puts his Majeſty in minde of the Attempt made upon p. 124his perſon by Peter Barriere ſuborned by the Ieſuite Varade.

He might alſo have put him in minde of John Chastel Thuanusa Scholar of the Ieſuites, who hit him in the mouth, and ſtruck out one of his teeth, intending to have cut his throat. In his examination he confeſs'd that he being guilty of a great crime, was kept priſoner by the Ieſuites in the chamber of Meditations, where after they had long terrified his ſoul, they propounded to him a way to Ieſſen his torments in hell which he had deſerved by his crimes; and that was to kill the King, which the miſerable youth promiſed and attempted.

Upon this the Colledge of the Ieſuites was ſearched, and many perſons ſeized on, among which was found a book in the praiſe of James Clement the murtherer of Henry the III. written by the Ieſuite Guignard, as himſelf confeſs'd, containing many arguments and reaſons to prove that it was lawful and juſt to kill Henry the III. together with many inductions and incitements to make away his Succeſſor, who was Henry the IV. then reigning. The Theams given to young Scholars, were found to be about killing of Tyrants, with praiſes of the attempt, and exhortations to it. And it was found, that after that Paris was reduced to the Kings obedience, the Maſters of the Forms had forbidden their ſcholars to pray for the King.

The yeer before, Barriere being examined, had confeſs'd that the Ieſuite Varade, Rector of the Colledge of the Ieſuites, had incited and adjured him upon the Sacrament of Confeſſion, and the Communion of the Lords Body, to kill the King; aſſuring him, thatThuanus. p. 125if he ſuffered for it, he ſhould obtain the Crown of Martyrdome. Upon all theſe evidencesVponUpon that Pyramide the Ieſuites were called Homines norae & maleficae ſuperſtitionis, qui Remp. turbabant, quorum inſtinctu piacularis adoleſcens dirum facinus inſtituerat. the Jeſuites were expelled out of France by Arreſt of the Court of Parliament, and a Pyramid erected with inſcriptions declaring their expulſion and the cauſes of it, for a memorial of perpetual execration to poſterity.

Ten years after, they returned from their exile, the ſame men, corrupting the youth, and working rebellion; till in the end they got what they would have, even the Kings heart, which they keep in their principal houſe la Fleſche, after he had been ſtabbed by Ravaillac, a wretch, who in his examination and confeſſion ſhewed ſufficiently by whoſe inſtructions he was perſwaded to that parricidial act, for he gave this reaſon why he did it, becauſe the King would make War unto God, in asKing James defence of the right of Kings. much as he prepared warre againſt the Pope, and that the Pope was God, which is the plain doctrine of the Jeſuites. And being inquired whether he had ever confeſs'd his deſign to any, he named the Jeſuite Aubigny, and that he had ſhewed him the Knife: Which when Aubigny denied, Ravaillac maintained it to him before his Judges.

To favour the deſign of killing that great King, and prepare the World for it, four moneths before he was murdered, the Arreſt of the Court of Parliament of Paris Note this.against John Chastel, who had attempted to murder him, was cenſured and forbidden to be read by an Act of the Conſiſtory at Rome, and together the Hiſtory of Thuanus for relating too plainly that horrid action, and p. 126the part which the Jeſuites had in it. By the ſame Conſiſtorial Act a Book of Mariana was cenſured; not that which approveth the murthering of Kings. The Court of Rome was not ſo unkind as to diſgrace a work which doth their work; but another Book which treats of Coynes. Certainly had they disliked that notorious Book condemned to the fire by the Court of Parliament of Paris, they would not have forgotten to cenſure it while they were in hand with Mariana.

As ſoon as Henry the IV. was ſtricken, the Colledge of the Jeſuites was environed with a Guard, the Magiſtrate and the people looking upon them as the Doctors and Contrivers of high Treaſon. And preſently they were ſued by the Univerſity of Paris, as corrupters of the youth, and teachers of treaſonable doctrine. Peter Marteliere a famous Advocate pleaded for the Univerſity, and maintained that in the Confeſſion of Ravaillac evident marks were found of the Doctrine of the Jeſuites. The Jeſuites were caſt, and commanded to ſhut up their Colledge, and not to teach Schollars any more. The Kings Councell required their expulſion, but they had friends about the Queen Regent, and were ſuffered to ſtay; and in time recovered alſo the liberty to teach.

Five years before that Kings death, it was a famous Hiſtory how Father Cotton a Ieſuite and his ConfeſſorThuanus▪ Hiſt. lib. 123. ad an. 1604. had written in a paper ſome queſtions which he had propounded to a Maid, who was ſaid to be poſſeſſed with a Devil who told ſtrange things. Among other things about which he would be reſolved, theſe were ſome, What ſhould be the iſſue of the converſion of Monſieur p. 127de Laval, and of the enterpriſes againſt Geneva, and the continuance of Hereſie, and of the estate of Madamoiſelle Acarie, and of the life of the King. Which laſt queſtion is a matter capital by the Lawes, for which Tertullian giveth the ſame reaſon that anTertul. Apologet. Qui de ſalute Principis vel ſummá Reip. Mathematicos ariolos, aruſpices, Vaticinatores conſulit, cum co qui reſponderit capite punitur. Cui autem opus eſt ſcrutari ſuper Caeſaris ſalute niſi à quo adverſus illum aliquid cogitatur, aut poſt illam ſperatur & ſuſtinetur. Engliſh Lawyer would give, becauſe it is imagining the Kings death. This paper he had laid in a Book which he had promiſed to Monſieur Gillot a Councellor of the Great Chamber, and through overſight he gave that paper with the Book.

Two years after this Monſieur de la Force, Vice-Roy of Bearn and Navarre, by the intelligences which he had from Spain, by reaſon of his neighbourhood unto it, was advertiſed that a Spaniard of ſuch a ſtature, of ſuch a hair, and in ſuch apparel, departed ſuch a day from Barcelona, to go into France with intendment to make away the King by poyſon or other means. This Spaniard came to Paris, and addreſs'd himſelf to Father Cotton, who brought him unto the King, and gave great commendations of him. A while after came the Letters of Monſieur de la Force, giving warning to his Majeſty againſt that Spaniard, with the foreſaid deſcription. The King ſhewed the Letters to Father Cotton, and commanded him to bring back again that Spaniard. But Cotton returning a good while after, told the King that he could not find the man, and that he was gone.

Not a year before the Kings death, Cotton writ unto a Provincial of Spain, divers things which the King p. 128had revealed unto him in confeſſion: Which treachery being diſcovered, Cotton was in diſgrace for ſix moneths, and then was forgiven. But he did not forgive the King, who was ſtabbed ſoon after. A few dayes after the young King being importuned by him, put him off with this gird, I will tell you nothing, for you will write it into Spain, as you did my Fathers Confeſſion.

Half a year after the Kings death the Court of Parliament ſeeing evidently, that the murther of the King, and that of his next Predeceſſor, were the productions of the doctrine of the Ieſuites, condemned the Book of Bellarmine againſt Barklay, as containing a falſe and execrable propoſition, which tends to the overthrowing of the Powers ordained and establiſhed by God, inciting Subjects to rebellion, and withdrawing them from the authority of Princes, to plot againſt their Lives and Kingdoms, and trouble the publick peace and tranquillity.

I have ſpoken before of the Decree of the TheologicalSantarellus de Haereſi & Schiſmate Faculty of Paris, againſt the Book of the Ieſuite Santarel, confirmed by the judgement of the Univerſity in May 1626. The ſame Book had been condemned by the Court of Parliament of Paris Martii 13. of the ſame year to be burnt. And becauſe the Book was printed at Rome by permiſſion of the Superiours, and with the approbation of Mutins Viteleſcus General of the Ieſuites, and Maſter of the Sacred Palace, the Ieſuites of Paris were ſent for by the Court and demanded, Whereas their General had approved that Book, and declared his opinion, that the contents of it were certain and good, whether they believed as he did. They anſwered, that Since their General lived at Rome, he could p. 129not but approve that which the Court of Rome approveth. What do you believe then? ſaid the Court; The clean contrary, ſaid the Ieſuites. And what ſhould ye do if you were at Rome? As they do at Rome, ſaid they. To which ſome of the Court anſwered, What then! Have theſe men one conſcience at Rome, and another at Paris? God keep us from ſuch Confeſſors.

The ſame Court ſent for Father Cotton, and commanded him to confute the Book of Santarell. Cotton being put to a ſad dilemma, either to offend the Pope his Maſter, and his General and the whole Society; or to anſwer an Indictment of high Treaſon, freed himſelf by a ſudden death, being in perfect health before; or ſome of his Society took that pains for him. It ſeems that the Court were more peremptory with him, then King Henry the IV. who ſhewed him once that Book of Mariana, which ſince was condemned to the fire, and commanded him to confute it. But he gave ſome ill excuſe to the King, who preſs'd him no further about it.

About the ſame time that this great Prince was slain by the faction of the Ieſuites, the Prince of Tranſylvania was in the ſame danger by them. So much is certified by Letters of the Baron of Zerotin, May 2. 1610. that a Ieſuite perſwaded a Lord of Tranſylvania in whoſe houſe he lived, to kill the Prince. But the Prince having diſcover'd the Plot, killed the Conſpiratours, and the Ieſuite the Author of the conſpiracy.

This Jeſuite was taken tardy, and had not the luck of many of his Confreres, who frame the plots, and look ſtanding out of the reach of the blows, the acting of the deſperate attempts upon which they have caſt p. 130others. Yet there was a Scottiſh Jeſuite of the Colledge of Clermont in Paris, his name Alexander Hayes, who was ſo zealous, as to wiſh openly, and that often, that King Henry the IV. would paſſe by his Colledge, that he might throw himſelf down upon him from the window and break his neck. But by that croſſe caper he might be ſure to break his own. For theſe words, and for teaching openly, that it was good to diſſemble and performe obedience in ſhew for a while, he was condemned by Sentence of the Court to perpetual baniſhment, and (if ever he returned) to be hanged without any other forme of arraignment.

Now if from their feats in forreign Countries, we look to their doings in England, what troubles they have ſtirred, and what miſchiefs they have plotted continually againſt this State, now above a hundred years. We are at a loſſe in that prodigious heap of iniquity. They have afforded matter to large Volumes of Hiſtory, and the labour of the worthy writers, need not to be ſeconded by mine. And when the Jeſuite Eudemono-Iohannes in his Apologetick for Garnet, would excuſe or deny the treaſons wrought under the pretence of a Catholick zeal, the truth of them was aſſerted by the R. Reverend and Learned Robert Abbot Biſhop of In his Antilogia.Salisbury, out of the publick Acts and Records of Courts, and out of the very books of Adverſaries, Blu…t and Watſon. How many attempts were made againſt the life of the Bleſſed Queen Elizabeth? And in what treaſon was there a Jeſuite wanting? Parry, Cullen, Williams, York, Squire, Hesket, Lopez, Babington, with his aſſociates, and how many more? All were p. 131aſſiſted and prompted by Jeſuites, as the judicial examinations will juſtifie.

And now we ſpeak of Babington and his aſſociates, I find two brothers Bellamy's, both apprehended for hiding them, after they were openly proclaimed traitors, in their houſe neer Harrowhill, where they were kept ten dayes, and clothed in ruſtical habits. There they were all taken and thence carried to priſon, where one of the Bellamies ſtrangled himſelf, the other was executed with the conſpirators; his name Hierome Bellamy. From which of the two brothers our Adverſary Thomas Bellamy is deſcended, and whether from either or neither, himſelf beſt knows. But it ſeems by his behaviour, that the crime of hiding and diſguiſing traitors runs in the blood: For what is his covering of the parricidial doctrine of Jeſuites with falfe conſtructions, but hiding and diſguiſing traitors; whoſe doctrine is declared treaſonable by ſundry Acts of Parliament? Let him take warning by the crime and the ill ſucceſſe of theſe men of his name, and apply to himſelf that Sentence of Tully, which he miſapplyeth to the Proteſtants of Integrity. Mirror te Antoni quorum facta imitere corum exitus non pertimeſcere. Since you imitate the actions of men of your name, Sir Bellamy, I wonder you are not frighted, with thinking of their ends.

The Devil and the Jeſuites having been ſo often diſappointed of their attempts againſt England, in the end contrived the fouleſt plot that ingenious cruelty did in any age imagine; the Gunpowder-Treaſon, which ſhall be to the Worlds end, the wonder of ſucceeding p. 132ages, and the ſhame of ours. This was the godly product of the Engliſh Seminaries abroad, and the Roman education. It is eaſie to judge that the plotters of it had been bred long in another Climate then the middle aire of England; for it looks like one of the feats of Caeſar Borgia. Non noſtri generis monstrum nec ſanguinis. Of that attempt to cut off King and Kingdome with one blow, none could be capable, but ſuch as had many years breathed the ſame aire where he reigned, who wiſhed that the Romans had but one neck, that he might cut it off with one ſtroke. But a Jeſuite is capable of deviſing, and the Romiſh zeal of executing any miſchief, though never ſo prodigious, to promote the Papal intereſt. And they have law for it, even the Roman Decree, the Oracle of the Pope himſelf. We do not account them for Cauſa 23. qu. 5. Can. Excommunicatorum. Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur quos adverſus excommunicatos zelo Catholicae Matris Eccleſiae ardentes aliquos eorum trucidaſſe configerit.murtherers (ſaith his Holineſſe) who burning with the zeal of our Catholick Mother the Church againſt exmunicate perſons, ſhall happen to kill ſome of them. Now England was lying under many excommnnications, when the Gunpowder-Treaſon was plotted, and lyeth under them ſtill, for they never were repealed.

Truly ſo far we muſt excuſe Campian, Garnet, Hall, Hamond, and other Jeſuites, who have plotted or incouraged rebellions and treaſons in England. They have done no more then they were commanded or allowed by the Pope. And here I muſt be a ſuitor to all the conſcionable Roman Catholieks, who abhorre theſe wicked wayes, to acknowledge ingenuously that the p. 133Actors were grounded upon the fundamental Laws of the Court of Rome. And that the Pope the Head of their Faith, is he that commands by his Canons and Bulls the slaughter of thoſe that diſpleaſe him, the breach of faith, the depoſing of Kings, and the rebellion of the people, as I have ſufficiently demonſtrated before. If after that they adhere to the other points of the Roman Religion, upon this main ground of the Roman Faith, That the Pope cannot erre, they blinde themſelves wilfully, and building their faith upon an unſafe ground, they may come ſhort of the end of their faith, the ſalvation of their ſouls.

This power of depoſing Kings, and expoſing them to the attempts of their enemies, ſo peremptorily aſſumed by the Pope, and ſo boldly executed by his zealous agents, ought to be grounded upon ſome proof out of holy Writ. In all the paſſages which I have alledged out of Jeſuites books, I finde but two of thoſe proofs.

The one of Bellarmine, who provethBellarm. lib. cui Titulus Tortus, p. 19. Rex Anglorum ſubjectus eſt Papae jus omnibus Chriſtiadis communi, ratione Apoſtolicae poteſtatis juxta illud Pſ. 4. 4. Conſtitues eos Principes ſuper omnem terram.Ps 4:4 that the King of England is ſubject unto the Pope by a right common to all Chriſtians, by reaſon of the Apostolick power; according to this Text, Pſal. 44. Thou ſhalt make them Princes over all the earth. In that Pſalm, which with us is the 45. this promiſe is made to the Kings Spouſe, which is the Church, the Spouſe of Chriſt our King; Instead of thy Fathers houſe ſhall be thy children, whom thou mayest make Princes over all the earth. Anſwerably to that we learn Rev. 1. 6. That God hath made us Kings and Prieſts unto God our Father. That bleſſing then (to be underſtood and fulfilled in Gods good time) belongs to all the true children of the Church. The ingroſſing of it to the Pope p. 134alone, to the excluſion of all Chriſtians, is a bold, and indeed a ridiculous incloſing of Commons without any warrant.

Suarez brings a proof of the like validity. After that horrid aſſertion alledged before, that after that a Prince is excommunicated, he may be diſpoſſeſs'd or slain by any perſons whatſoever. He prevents the objection out of Rom. 13. 1. Let every ſoul Suarez adverſus ſect Anglic lib. 6. c. 6. ſect. 24. … Paulus his verbis Omnis anima poteſtatibus ſublimioribus ſubdi. a ſit Rom. 13 nunquam addidit, etiam poteſtatibus excommunicatis vel deprvatis a Papa omnes ſubditiſint.Rom 13be ſubject to the higher Powers, and ſaith that the Apoſtle never added, Let all be ſubject alſo to the Powers excommunicated and deprived by the Pope. A recreative proof which would make but a poor enthymema. The Apoſtle addeth not, that we muſt be ſubject alſo to the higher Powers deprived by the Turk; Ergo if the Great Turk pronounce a ſentence of deprivation againſt a Chriſtian Prince, the Subjects of that Prince are free from their allegiance, and may diſpoſſeſs and kill him when they think good.

But what! Theſe proofs are as concluding as thoſe that the Popes themſelves bring to prove their power,Nicholaus 1. Epiſt. ad Michael Imp. Conſtant. Petro ſpecialiter oſtenſum eſt ut ea mactaret & manducaret Illi ſoli juſſum eſt ur rete plenum piſcibus ad littus traheret. as when Pope Nicholas the I. proveth the Papal power, becauſe it was ſaid to Saint Peter, Kill and eat; and becauſe to him alone was granted that power to draw a Net full of Fiſhes to Land.

Likewiſe Bonifacius the VIII. proveth his primacyBonifac. VIII. Extravag. Vnam Sanctam. and Sovereignty, becauſe it is written, that in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Joſeph's Coat of many colours, and the Head of Holofernes would have been as pertinent to prove the Popes Temporal p. 135and Spiritual powér. Yet ſee how reſolutely and ſyllogiſtically his Holineſs concludes upon thoſe premiſſes; Wherefore we declare, ſay, define, and pronounce, that it is of neceſſity of ſalvation to be ſubject to the Roman Prelate.

After theſe ſcientifical proofs of the Popes power to diſpoſe of the Crowns and Lives of Princes, Who ſhould make any more doubt of it! Who would not in the ſtrength of theſe reaſons venture his life to dethrone Heretick Kings, and ſpill their hearts blood for a ſacrifice of ſweet ſavour unto his Holineſs!