A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion, Chapter 6 – Part
CHAP. VI. Some Aſſertions of the Libeller are examined.
AFter I have vindicated the Proteſtant Religion from the aſperſion of Rebellion, and laid that charge in its proper place, I have done my main buſineſs. And now partly out of compaſſion, partly out of contempt, I will paſs by moſt of the untruths of this Libeller, which are well nigh as many as his lines, contenting my ſelf to have diſproved two ofpag. 109. them. The one, That the Rebel-doctrines are back'd by the generality of them that call themſelves Proteſtants. But I have proved the contrary by their publick Confeſſions.
This plain dealing of his is towards the latter end of his Book: He durſt not have ſpoken ſo in the beginning. But he muſt amuſe the Reader a great while with railing againſt the Presbyterians, or the Proteſtants of Integrity, before he charge the generality of the Proteſtants with rebellion. Beſides, he might hope tha few would have the patience to read his book ſo far.
This is worſe. In this Century of years (ſaith he) there have been more Princes depoſed and murthered for their Religion by theſe Proteſtants of Integrity, then have been in all the others ſince Chriſts time by the Popes excommunications, or the attempts and means of the Roman Catholicks.
It is not eaſie to determine whether malice or ignorance be prevalent in that aſſertion. I have ſhewed by unreproachable teſtimonies, that the Popes have filled Chriſtendome with ſedition and rebellion for many centuries of yeers; and what the Jeſuites have been acting undet them in this laſt Century. To which ſince the Libeller confines himſelf, it had been no hard task to name thoſe many Kings depoſed and murthered by the Proteſtants ſo lately, if the aſſertion had any truth in it.
When did a Proteſtant Miniſter thruſt his knife into his Sovereignes body, as the Monk James Clement did to his King Henry the III. and as the Jeſuite Campian would have done to his Sovereigne Queen Elizabeth? When did a Miniſter inſtruct any to kill his King, as the Jeſuites did Parry, the Jeſuite Walpole, Edward Squire, The Jeſuite Holt, Patrick, Cullen, York, and Williams; The Jeſuite Parſons, Heskec to tempt the Earl of Darby to rebellion? Or as the Jeſuite Varade inſtructed Barriere to kill Henry the IV. of France, and the whole Colledge of the Jeſuites John Chaſiell: Or what Proteſtant, either of the Clergie or Laity was known to have made an attempt againſt the life of his Sovereigne? For the late Engliſh Traytors who brought their moſt excellent Sovereigne to the Scaffold, are no more Proteſtants then they are Papiſts, and are Jeſuites in the point of obedience.
When this Libeller called the Miniſters of Scotland rare Saltpeter men, fit for fireworks, and to prepare matter to blow up both Church and State, Did he remember that he gave them the right ſtyle belonging to the Jeſuites Garnet, Hall, Hammond, Gerard and Greenville? For theſe were Saltpeter-men with a witneſs; and without metaphor, prepared matter to blow up Church and State.
Was it ever put to the charge of a Proteſtant Divine, Chaplain to his Prince, that he recommended to him a man ſent by his enemies to make him away? Or that he made queſtions to the Devil about his life? Or that he ſent word to his enemies of ſuch things as he had revealed unto him to eaſe his Conſcience, as the Jeſuite Cotton did? Or did ever our Divines blow the doctrine of King-killing into ignorant ſouls, as the Jeſuites did to Ravaillac; who being moſt rude, and a very Brute in all other points of Religion, was found by his examiners exquiſitely skilful in all the evaſions and diſtinctions of the Jeſuites about that horrible doctrine? Or did any convicted Traytor depoſe that he had declared his purpoſe to a Miniſter, and ſhewed him the knife for the execution, as Ravaillac maintained to Father Aubigni before his Judges? Some ſuch charges which might be juſtified by Records of Courts, and Judicial proceedings, this Accuſer would have brought, if there had been any; and we are ſure that he would not have ſpared us. If ever any man deſerved to be ſued upon an Action of Slander, it is this Libeller; for thus ſlandering the generality of the Proteſtants, and the State, of which he is a Subject. But I fear that if a Purſuivant were ſent for him, he would return and anſwer, Non est inventus.
As for his ſaying, That the doctrine of Rome, with the page 110.opinions and practiſes of all its Doctors, are (as he hath ſhewed) quite contrary to rebellion, and all that is ſaid againſt that Church in this particular is meer calumnly. Let the world judge whether he hath ſhewed what he ſaith, and whether is more credible, his ſaying, or my proving. Yet becauſe he ſtands for the Roman Church, I deſire my Reader to take notice, that in this point of obedience, my quarrel hath been with the Court, not with the Church of Rome; between which I conceive as much difference, as between the Wind and the Sea. The Church might be quiet enough from ſtorms of rebellion, did not the boyſterous wind of ſedition make it foam, blown from the Court of Rome by its agents the Ieſuites.
After that the Libeller had railed againſt us, he falls upon a common place of loyalty, and brings ſome texts of S. Auſtin, taken out of Proteſtant books made by our Reverend Divines againſt the late Rebels. For that he is not acquainted with S. Auſtin, he ſhews it by the commendation he giveth him, calling him the moſt ancient pag. 119.and learned Father of the Chriſtian Church. S. Auſtin deſerveth a better commendation, but he is neither the moſt ancient, nor the moſt learned of the Fathers. Moſt of thoſe whom the Church calls Fathers, were before him, for he dyed in the fifth Century; And as for Learning, Origen and Hierome were far beyond him. Could the Engliſh Seminaries pitch upon no abler Champion to fight againſt us then this raw ſouldier? A more paſſionate and leſs reaſonable Writer I never met with. His ſtyle is a perpetual barking, and biting too, but without teeth. I could lay up a great heap of his untruths, ignorances, and impertinencies, if I would make ſuch a wilde-gooſe-chaſe as to follow him in all his falſe turns: But both my Readers and I have better buſineſſes then to heap up dung, or ſearch all the Impoſtures of a Novice of the Ieſuites.
For the end, he brings ſome rules of Law concerning the nature of the Engliſh Monarchy; which if he had ſtudied well, he had never taken upon him to defend the doctrine of the Ieſuites, which is inconſiſtent with them: For they allow not that which he affirmeth; That the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no ſuperiour; and that the Crown of England is independent, and his jura Regalia are holden of no Lord but the Lord of heaven. Bellarmine ſaith the clean contrary, and makes the Pope Sovereigne of England by double right, as we heard before. Yet this Scholar of the Ieſuites may give Bellarmines ſenſe to that aſſertion, that the Crown of England is independent; for holding with his Maſters, that the Crown of England belongeth to the Pope, he will ſay alſo that it is independent, and oweth homage to none but God; meaning, that the Pope, the right Sovereigne, oweth homage for it to none but God. The man being evidently a Scholar of the Jeſuites, cannot but be inſtructed in the doctrine of equivocations, about which Tolet Tolet, lib. 4. Inſtruct. Sacerd. cap. 21. Aliquando uti licet aequivocatione, & decipere audientem, ut cum Iudex petit juramentum ab aliquo ut dicat crimen vel proprium vel alienum ſi omnino eſt occultum, & jurare cogatur, utatur aequivocatione puta, Neſcio, intelligendo intra ſe, ut dicam tibi vel ſimile. Et lib. 5. c. 38. & lib. 4. c. 21, 22.gives large inſtructions in his book of the Inſtruction of Prieſts, ſaying expreſly, That it is lawful ſometimes to uſe equivocations, and to deceive the hearer. And Sanchez tells us in what caſe it is lawful to equivocate: There is a just cauſe (ſaith he) to Sanch. oper. Mor. l. 3. c. 6. num. 19. Cauſa jure utendi his amphibologiis eſt, quoties id neceſſarium aut utile eſt ad ſalutem corporis honorem, tes familiares tuendasuſe theſe equivocations, whenſoever it is neceſſary or uſeful for the preſervation of body, honour or estate. Since then the ſect and Religion of the Jeſuites, which ſubjecteth the Crown of England unto the Pope, cannot ſubſiſt in England without palliating that criminal doctrine with equivocation: They finde it neceſſary for the preſervation of body, honour, and eſtate, to profeſs that the Monarchy of England can do no homage, having no ſuperiour; and that the Crown of England is independent: but to whom that independant Crown belongs, that they will reſerve in their thoughts. Or if they ſay they will be true to the King, they will by the King underſtand the Pope, or the King of Spain, to whom the Pope gave the Kingdome of England fourſcore years ago, and never recalled that gift ſince.
Wherefore if this Gentleman appear in Print again, or any of his confreres for him about this point of obedience, we muſt deſire him to ſpeak more home, before he can juſtifie himſelf to be a true Philanax Anglicus, and a good Engliſh ſubject of his Majeſty. To that end let him declare that he acknowledgeth the following Articles as true and juſt, and is ready to ſubſcribe unto them.
I. The Kings Moſt Excellent Majeſty Charles the II. hath no ſuperiour on Earth, de jure, in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and other His Majeſties Dominions.
II. All Roman Catholicks born in theſe His Majeſties Dominions, are his ſubjects, de jure, and of none elſe, although they have taken the Orders of the Church of Rome, or have a General of ſome Religion to whom they have ſworn obedience.
III. The Doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine is falſe, that the King of England is ſubject to the Pope by double right, beſides his pretended ſubjection in matters ſpiritual.
IV. The Pope hath no power to deprive Kings of their Kingdoms, or any way to diſpoſe of their Crowns or their Lives.
V. The Pope cannot abſolve the ſubjects of His Majeſty King Charles the II. or of any of His Succeſſors, from the Oath of their Allegiance. Neither are they now abſolved from it by any precedent Decree from the Popes.
VI. A King declared heretick or excommunicate by the Pope, is not thereby diſabled from exerciſing his Kingly juriſdiction.
VII. The excommunicating or depriving of a King by the Pope, doth not exempt that Kings natural ſubjects from the duty of their Allegiance.
VIII. King John had no power to give his Kingdome to the Pope, without the conſent of his Peers and Commons: Neither is that Contract of any validity.
IX. A Prieſt having learned in Confeſſion a Conſpiracy againſt the Kings life, ought to diſcover it to the King or his Councel.
X. The Peers and Commons of England, and other His Majeſties Dominions, have no power to judge their King, much leſs to depoſe him, or put him to death, or to chooſe another King, or to alter the Government of the State.
He that will refuſe to ſubſcribe theſe Articles, and openly profeſs his conſent unto them, cannot juſtifie his love and fidelity to the King, and is altogether unfit to charge the Proteſtants with rebellious tenets. Vacuum culpa eſſe decet qui in alium paratus est dicere. He that is in an error cannot juſtifie himſelf but by forſaking it. That yeilding is glorious; and to be overcome by the truth is a great victory. Without ſuch a juſtification, leſſons of loyalty given by a Ieſuite are unſuitable, and of as little effect as a Lecture of Chaſtity preach'd by an allowed Curtizan of Rome.
JOH. VIII. foreign
CAROLE qui Latias artes & fulmina bruta,
Et Capitolini contemnis Vejovis iras,
Macte manumiſſus coeleſti lumine Princeps,
Lumine Romuleas tibi diſpellente tenebras,
Aſſertamque ſacro capiti firmante coronam.
Dum trepidi Reges & ſancti luminis orbi
Serva Quirinali ſubmittunt colla tyranno,
Tu liber ſpecta ſtantes ad fraena Monarchas
Stratorum officio, ſuccollanteſque cathedrae
Auguſtos lixas, mox flexo poplite curvos
Turpia purpureo libantes oſcula ſocco.
Erige tu curvos rectus; fratreſque doceto
Quos Regum Pater agnoſcit Natoſque Deoſque,
Quàm male proſtituat divum Rex ſanctus honorem
Tarpeiam lambens crepidam; ſoloſque pudendum
Excuſſiſſe jugum, libertatique litaſſe,
Gnaviter amplexos coeleſtia lumina Reges.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
PAge 8. line 17. Galileo. p. 9. l. 5. put out which. p. 11. in the margent, l. 10. tenerentur, p. 19. l. 12. matter. p. 24. l. 14. Popes. p. 26. l. 10. by the preaching. l. 12. oppreſſing. l. oppoſing. p. 30. l. ult. Francis the II, p. 31. l. 7. Ieſuites. p. 33. l. 20. Henry the IV. l. 22. becauſe▪ p. 3…. l. …4. the ordinary. l. 13. any of five Kings. p. 49. l. 28. unequitable. l. equitable. p. 53. l. 13. ſtonie the juſt. p, 87. l. 13. frequent. l. pregnant. p. 113. l. 24. Pope. p. 115. in the margent, 1. 6. non ſine manibus. p. 124. l. put out perſons, put letters. p. 128. l. 25. Mutius. p. 137. l. 26. depoſe.
End of the text · Peter du Moulin Jr, A Vindication of the Sincerity of the Protestant Religion (1664)