Popery Anatomized, Section 1
SECTION I.
Showing that the principles of Papiſts are treaſonable and rebellious againſt the perſon and authority of Princes, and peace of Kingdoms, &c. And the excuſes of H. T. the Author of the Manual of Controverſies, are proved to be frivolous and naught.
THE Church of Rome was formerly moſt hateful to the Churches of Chriſt in Britain and Ireland; not only becauſe of her moſt damnable and heretical doctrine, but alſo becauſe of the rebellious and treaſonable principles and practiſes maintained and committed by her againſt the perſons and authority of Princes, and peace of Kingdoms: her faith being accounted faction, and her Religion rebellion: Therefore Papiſts of late have endeavored by all means to ingratiat themſelves in the favor of Princes and Magiſtrats, making ample profeſſion of loyalty and fidelity, and charging Proteſtants with the odious crime of diſloyalty. And thus we ſee their late Writers, denying and diſowning the doctrine of Rebellion and Parricide, that our Divines have juſtly charged them with. For H T. the Author of the Manual of Controverſies, &c. printed at Doway 1671 calleth it a loud ſlander, to charge Papiſts with maintaining, that if the Pope excommunicat a Tyrant, or heretical Prince, his own ſubjects may lawfully kill him.
Therefore to unmask a little the bloody, rebellious and treaſonable principles of Papiſts, we ſhal prove: Firſt, that it is no ſlander, but a real truth, that the Church of Rome holdeth, that if the Pope excōmunicateth a King, his own ſubjects may lawfully kill him. 2. That the Pope can diſpenſe with the alleageance of ſubjects to their Princes: and if he ſo diſpenſe, then they are looſed from ſubjection and alleageance to them. 3. That no faith nor oath is to be kept with Hereticks. 4 That the Pope and Synagogue of Rome, have been the Authors of warrs combuſtions and confuſions in Chriſtian Churches and Kingdoms all Europe over. 5. That their continual practiſe ever ſince the Reformation, hath been to plot and practiſe treaſons and rebellions, aſſaſſinations, and murders, both of Princes and people, who profeſſed the Reformed Religion. 6. That whereever they got the upper-hand and dominion in any Kingdom or Common-wealth they have practiſed moſt unheard-of cruelties, and barbarous inhumanities againſt the profeſſors of the Proteſtant Reformed Religion.
For the firſt and ſecond of theſe points; to wit, that Papiſts hold that if the Pope excommunicat a King his own ſubjects may lawfully kill him: And that the Pope can diſpenſe with the alleageance of ſubjects to their Princes; and if he ſo diſpenſe, then they are looſed from ſubjection and alleageance to them. I ſhal evidence it to be their commonly received doctrine, both by the writings of their approved Doctors, and Bulls of their Popes, and their dayly practiſes. And leſt they ſay we wrong them, we ſhal (for the moſt part) ſet down the words of the Authors themſelves.
1. I ſhal begin with Doctor Ranchin a Papiſt, and a famous Lawyer in France, in his Book, intituled, A review of the Council of Trent, lib. 2. cap. 10. who ſetteth down theſe following poſitions, as commonly received in the Church of Rome, to wit, That it is neceſſare to ſalvation to believe that every creature is ſubject to the Pope of Rome. That he it ſet over Emperors and Kingdoms. That he carryeth both the temporal and ſpiritual ſword. That he may depoſe Emperors &c. and transfer their Empires and Dominions from one line to another. That he may abſolve ſubjects from their oath of alleageance. That upon juſt cauſe be may ſet up a King in every Kingdom; for he is the overſeer of all Kingdoms in Gods ſtead. That it belongeth to the Pope to correct Kings when they offend. Much more hath this Author to this purpoſe.
2. But let us hear their own Doctors themſelves. Auguſtinus Triumphus, de poteſt Eccleſ quaeſt. 46. art. 2. (as Doctor Uſher citeth him) ſaith, There is no doubt but that the Pope may depoſe all Kings, when there is a reaſonable cauſe ſo to do.
Thomas Aquinas their Angelical Doctor, holdeth. (22. quast. 12 art. 2.) That ſo ſoon as a Prince is denounced excommunicat for Apoſtaſie, ipſo facto, his ſubjects are free from his ſoverainity: and abſolved from the oath of alleageance, which they are bound to him. Bannes, and Gregory de Valentia, his ſcholers, hold, That not only total apoſtoſie but partial alſo, ſuch as hereſie, is here meant. Now to profeſs the Proteſtant Religion is damnable hereſie with them, and therefore conſequently any Proteſtant Prince is here concluded by their interpretation.
Suarez holdeth, That Church-men may uſe a coactive power againſt Princes, even to dethrone them: his words are, Pontificem ſummum poteſtate coactivâ in Reges uti poſſe uſque ad depoſitionent etiam à Regno, ſi cauſa ſubſit. Suarez opuſc. lib. 3. de primatu ſum. Pontif. cap. 23.
Azorius their great Caſuiſt aſſerteth, That the juriſdiction and power of the Emperor, hath its being, existence, and dependance from the Pope. And upon this occaſion telleth us, how many Emperors the Pope hath depoſed, and that the Emperor is but the Popes miniſter, elected by him for the defence of the Church, Azorius inſt. Mor. part. 2. lib. 10.
Emmanuel Sa after he had ſtudied the point forty years, affirmeth, That the rebellion of a Clergy-man is no treaſon: becauſe he is no ſubject.
That all Clergy-men are exeemed from the lawes of Magiſtrats by a divine poſitive law, is mantained by Bellarmin de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 28. & de Pont. Rom. lib. 2. cap. 26. Soto de juſt. & jure, lib. 5. cap. 44. art. 1. Cajetan. Tom. 1. opuſc tract. 1. de poteſt. Pap. cap. 27. Turrecremata lib. 2. c. 93. Gregory de Valentia tom. 3. diſp 5. quaeſt. 11. punct. 1. Suarez in opuſc. lib. 4. de immunit. Eccleſ. cap. 4. num. 3. cap. 8. num 9. and the Rhemiſts in Rom. 8.
Cardinal Baronius, informeth us, by the example of Dacius Biſhop of Milan, his dealing againſt the Arriant, that theſe Biſhops deſerve no blame, & ought to ſuffer no envy, who uſe all means that they may not live under an heretical Prince. His words are, Quo exemplo ſatis intelligas non mereri calumniam, neque invidiam Epiſcopos illos pati debere, Qui ne ſub haeretico Principe degant, omnem lapidem volvunt, Annal. anno 538. §. 89. So that Papiſts may raiſe treaſons, rebellions, commit parricide on the perſons of Kings, rather then live under a Proteſtant Prince.
This is evil doctrine, but worſe followeth; for they directly maintain, that they may any manner of way kill Kings, Princes, or people, if in the leaſt ſuſpect to them of hereſie, that is, of the Proteſtant Religion, which theſe following inſtances prove.
M. Allen Principal of the Jeſuits Colledge at Rhemes, in a ſolemn Oration ſaid, It is permitted to us to kill Kings. Franciſcus de Verone, in his Apologie for John Chaſtel, grants allowance to every privat man to murder the heretick as he meets him, if publick means be wanting of making him away by the Magistrat. Dominicus Bannes in. 2. quaeſt. 12. art. 2. reſolves, that they need not in this caſe, expect any ſentencing of the matter by Pope, or any other: but when the knowledge of the fault is evident, ſubjects may lawfully (if ſo be they have ſufficient ſtrength) exempt themſelves from ſubjection to their Princes before any declaratory ſentence of a Judge. His words are, Quando adeſt evidens notitia criminis licitè poſſunt ſubditi (ſi modo ijs vires ſuppetant) eximere ſe à poteſtate ſuorum Principum ante Judicis ſententiam declaratoriam.
Suarez maintaineth that an heretical King after ſentence (of excommunication) given againſt him, is abſolutly deprived of his Kingdom, ſo that he cannot poſſeſs it by any juſt title, & therefore from thenceforth may be handled altogether as a Tyrant, and conſequently he may be killed by any privat perſon; and a little after he addeth, that in this a Chriſtian Kingdom dependeth upon the Pope, that he may not only adviſe and conſent that the Kingdom depoſe a King that is hurtful to it, but alſo command and compel them to do it. Hear his own words: Poſt ſententiam latam omninò privatur Regno, ita ut non poſſit juſto titulo illud poſſidere, ergo ex tunc poterit omninò tanquam Tyrannus tractari, & conſequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici. Suarez defenſ. fid. Cathol. lib 6. cap. 4. §. 14. Pendet Chriſtianum Regnum à Pontifice in hoc, ut poſſit non ſolum conſulere, aut conſentire ut regnum Regem ſibi pernicioſum deponat, ſed etiam praecipere & cogere, utad …aciat, §. 17.
Joannes Mariana telleth us, That if the Pope excommunicat a King, and declare him a Tyrant, that he may be made away either by open force and arms, whether by violent breaking into the Court, or by joyning of battel, is a matter confeſſed: yea, by deceit and ambuſhes too, as Ehud did in killing Eglon the King of Moab. Indeed it would argue a braver mind to profeſs open enmity, and publickly to ruſh in upon the enemy of the Commonwealth: But it is no leſs prudence to take advantage by fraud and ambuſhes, becauſe it is done without ſtir, and …eſs danger, ſurely, both publick and privat. And in end he concludeth, That it is lawful to take away his life by any art whatſoever; with this proviſo only, that he be not conſtrained, either wittingly or unwittingly to be the cauſe of his own death; yet poyſon him you may, if ſo that the venom be externally applyed by ſome other, he that is to be killed helping nothing thereto: namely when the force of the poyſon is ſo great, that a ſeat or garment being infected therewith, it may have ſtrength to kill. Joan. Mariana de Regis Inſtit lib 1. cap. 7.
Franciſcus de Verone in his Apology for John Chaſtel, part. 1. cap. 7. determineth, That Kings and Princes which are not Roman Catholicks, may be lawfully killed by any privat perſon; and that the killing of them is a generous, vertuous, heroick exploit, to be compared with the greateſt and moſt praiſe-worthy actions: a moſt holy, worthy, commendable praiſeful work. Theſe that conſpire againſt the life of ſuch Kings and Princes, are magnanimous perſons; their courage more then humane, heroick, divine; their puniſhments are true martyrdoms, they ſhal receive reward in heaven. Leſt Papiſts think we wrong him, I ſhal ſet down his own words: Reges & Principes non Romani Catholici poſſunt de jure occidi etiam à privat â perſonâ & illud factum eſt generoſum, cum virtute conjunctum, & heroicum, comparandum cum maximis & ſumma laude dignis factis, eſſe ſanctiſſimum, humaniſſimum, digniſſimum, laudatiſſimum, commendatiſſimum, &c. Eos, qui in vitam talium Regum & Principum conjurant, eſſe animoſos machinatores, fortitudinem eorum eſſe pluſquam humanam, ſupplicia eorum non niſi vera martyria appellanda. Qui ſunt aliquando praemium accepturi in vitâ aeternâ. And again (part. 2. cap. 12. & 15. Neceſſarium quocunque caſu religionem confirmari, etiam morte Regum) It is neceſſary in any caſe, that Religion be maintained, even with the death of Kings.
Antonius Arnold in an Oration againſt the Jeſuits, affirmeth, that the Jeſuit Varadius wrote to Barerius, (Non poſſe ab aliquo fieri ullum magis meritorium opus, quàm ſi Regem interſecerit.) That there could not be a more meritorious work then for him to kill a King.
Creſuel in his Philopat. ſect. 2. num. 160. 162. affirmeth. That ſubjects may not only lawfully dethrone heretical Princes; but alſo are obliged by divine precepts, yea even upon the greateſt hazard of their ſouls. His words are, Obligati ſunt ſubditi ad Principos haereticos depellendos, & hujuſmodi Principes ſuos non tantum legitimè poſſunt deturbare, ſed etiam ad hoc praecepto divino ac vinculo arctiſſimo ac-extremo animarum periculo tenentur.
But let us hear what H. T. replyeth: Firſt, ſaith he, art. 7. p. 100. What this or that particular Doctor may hold, or the Popes flatterers, if he have any, adds nothing to the creed of Catholicks, nor is it justly chargeable on the whole Church. Anſwer. Sir, if you had not the whores fore head that refuſeth to be aſhamed, ye could not write ſo; for this is ſo well known to be the commonly received doctrine of your Church that Creſuel & Eudem ingenuouſly confeſſeth it. For Creſuel plainly avoweth, That it is the univerſal opinion of your Divines, and an article of your Faith, that any Prince who openly maketh defection from the Roman Catholick Religion, and would withdraw others from the ſame, doth preſently fall from all his power and dignity, by vertue both of Divine and Humane law, and that before any ſentence of the Pope; and their ſubjects are all free of any obligation of oath to obedience, and they ought to caſt ſuch a man out of their dominions as an Apoſtat, leſt he infect others. Now leſt ye think we wrong him, not citing his words faithfully, we ſhal ſet down his own words, Univerſa Theologorum Schola tenet, & eſt certum ac de fide, quemcunque Principem Chriſtianum, ſi de Romano Catholica Religione manifeſtè deflexerit, & alios avocare voluerit, excidere ſtatim ab omni poteſtate & dignitate ex ipſa vi juris divini ac humani: Hocque ante omnem ſententiam Pontificis, & ſubditos quoſcunque liberos eſſe ab omni juramenti obligatione quod de obedientia praestitiſſent; poſſéque ac debere hujuſmodi hominem tanquam apoſtatam ex dominatu eficere, ne alios inficiat. Creſuel Philop. num. 37.
Likewiſe Eudem affirmeth, Apol. cap. 3. Non eſt propria Jeſuitarum, ſed totius Eccleſiae, & quidem ab antiquiſſimis temporibus conſenſione recepta noſtra doctrina. That this is not the peculiar doctrine of the Jeſuits, but of the whole Church of Rome, received from ancient times.
2. But if the teſtimony of theſe two Doctors be not ſufficient, I hope the infallible judgement of two Popes è Cathedra, will abundantly convince that this is the doctrine of the Romiſh Church. The firſt is Pope Urban, who (Can. 23. quast. 5. Can. excommunicatorum) ſaith, We eſteem them not murderers, who being poſſeſſed with the zeal of their mother the Catholick Church, againſt theſe that are excommunicat, ſhal happen to kill any of them. The ſecond is Pope Sixtus the fifth, who when he heard that King Henry the third of France was killed by the Monk, he went to his Conſiſtory, where before his Cardinals at Rome, Sept. 11. 1589, he had a Panegyrick Oration, which he began thus: Animo meo ſaepe, &c. When I pondered in my mind, and was intent upon the thoughts of theſe things which lately have fallen out by God providence: I thought I might make uſe of that of the Prophet Habakkuk, There ſhal be a work done in your dayes, which none ſhal believe when it ſhal be told. The King of France is dead by the hands of a Monk: for to that may the words of the Prophet be rightly applyed, &c. (a brave application of Scripture indeed.) And a little after, We with grief truly did often fore-tell, that as he was the laſt of his family, ſo he ſhould have an unuſual and ſhameful end. See more of this Oration cited by learned Hornbeck contra Bullam Pap. Innocent. 10. Now can any Papiſt for his heart diſown this treaſonable doctrine, which the Pope approveth, except he diſown his faith and Religion? For doth not the faith and Religion of Papiſts depend on the Popes decrees ſo ſtrongly, and with ſuch a ſpirit of deluſion, that he can make the moſt peſtilent doctrines paſs with them for Evangelical truths; and the moſt abominable actions for patterns of holineſs? For Bellarmin expreſly affirmeth (and no Papiſt that I heard of, did ever diſallow it) That if the Pope did err in commanding vices, or prohibiting vertues, the Church ſhould be obliged to believe that vices are good, and vertues evil, unleſs ſhe ſhould ſpeak againſt conſcience. Bellarm. lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 5. And that in good ſenſe Chriſt hath given to Peter the power to make ſin to be no ſin, and that which is no ſin, to be ſin. Bellarm. contra Barclay, cap. 31. We can diſſent from the moſt eminent in our Church, when they hold any thing contrary to the Word of God: but ſo cannot Papiſts do with the Pope, whom they acknowledge to be infallible.
2. But let us hear what H. T. ſaith further: We (ſaith he) abominat and deteſt that doctrine; to wit, that if the Pope excommunicat an heretical Prince, it is lawful for his own ſubjects to kill him. For it is defined by the Council of Conſtance, and therefore of faith with us, that it is heretical to affirm it law…ul for a ſubject to kill his Prince, upon any pretence whatſoever. Seſſ. 15. Anſ. O matchleſs audacity! For doth not the Bulls and D…cretals of your Popes, the Writings and Diſputations of your Doctors, and your actings and practiſes prove you a liar? Yea, if there were no more then the Acts of the Parliament of Paris, who condemned the Books of Bellarmin Suarez, Mariana, Santarella, &c. to the fire, and baniſhed the Jeſuits the Kingdom, it were ſufficient to convince you of falſhood. 2. Whereas ye ſay, that the Council of Conſtance hath declared the doctrine of King-killing heretical, it is a mere forgery: For your great Doctor Suarez (who did write fifteen Volumes of Divinity) ſaith to King James of famous memory, that the Council of Conſtance forbiddeth not the killing of a King excommunicated by the Pope. His words are: Ubi legit Rex in Concilio Constantienſi particulam illam Principis per Papam excommunicati vel deprivati, aut illam, per ſuos ſubditos, aut alios quoſcunque. The truth is, the caſe propounded to the Council by Gerſon, was not about the murdering of Soveraign 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 of that kind. So then Tyrants are declared inviolable perſons by the Council, who by its authority ſtrengtheneth them againſt their King. But although it were true that is alledged, to wit, that the Council of Conſtance had decreed againſt King-killing, yet who knows not that Papiſts make nothing of its authority: for none of the Popes ever liked it, much leſs confirmed it.
3. His next excuſe is, That Mariana maintained the doctrine of King-killing only problematically, and his book was condemned & burnt by a Provincial Council of his own Order. Anſwer 1. Peter du Moulin tells another of your ſtamp uſing the ſame excuſe, that 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 murder of King Henry the third problematically, when he exalteth the murderer, in theſe words: Making a ſhow of delivering 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 mind! 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 killed that murderer, of cruelty and barbarouſneſs: Mariana de rege, &c lib. 1. cap. 6.
2. Whereas he ſaith that a Provincial Council of the Jeſuits condemned Marianas book, the ſame Du Moulin anſwereth. But why then did the ſame General of the Jeſuits, who diſavowed it when deſtruction was hanging over the head of his Order, approve and licence it before? For the book was approved by Aquaviva, General of the Jeſuits, and Stephanus Hoyeda, Viſitor of their Society in the Province of Toledo: and the approbation mentioneth, that other Jeſuits had approved it before. But (ſaith he) ſee what that condemnation comes to: The Jeſuits ſeeing their ſect made odious by the writings of Mariana, Suarez, Vaſquez, and others, and more by the murdering of Kings, and for that cauſe expelled France, made an order among themſelves, whereby they forbade to write or teach that doctrine any more: The words of the ratification are theſe, That none teach by writing or ſpeaking, that it is lawful f r any perſon, or upon any pretence of tyranny, to kill Kings and Princes. But how groſs 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 the execution done upon any pretence of tyranny, but only 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? Peter die Moulin ubi ſupra, cap. 5. Truly any that conſiders the Jeſuits temper, needs not to think it ſtrange that their General both approved and condemned Marianas book; for Doctor Rivet tells us that when the Parliament of Paris asked the Jeſuits in Paris, whither they were of the mind of their General, who had approved Santarellas book for King killing, and judged the things that are there to be certain? They anſwered, That living at Rome, he could not but approve what was there approved of. But ſay the Parliament, What think you? They anſwer, We think the clean contrary. But ſay the examiners, What would ye do if ye were at Rome? The Jeſuits anſwered, That which they do which are at Rome. So Jeſuits have one conſcience at Rome, another at Paris. Thirdly, nor was it Mariana his alone that was guilty of writing for King killing. For beſide theſe before cited, D. Rivet tells us that Ging…ardus a Jeſuit, did write in praiſe of the murder of King Henry the third. And Albineus another Jeſuit, did hear the murderer of King Henry the fourth confeſs before he did the fact, and when he was examined upon it, he anſwered; That God had given him that ſpecial gift to forget, when once he had abſolved a ſinner whatſoever was confeſſed by him. Yea, there was ſo much wryting for, and acting of aſſaſſinations and parricids upon the perſons of Princes, that the Parliament of Paris did not only condemn Bellarmin and Santarellas books to be burnt, as engins of treaſon and rebellion: but alſo did expel the Jeſuits the Kingdom, and ſet up a pillar of remembrance of their villanies.
From all which I hope it is more then evident, that it is no ſlander, but a real truth that the Church of Rome holdeth, 1. That if the Pope excommunicat a King or Prince, his ſubjects may lawfully kill him. 2. That the Pope can diſpenſe with the allegiance of ſubjects to their Princes, and if he do diſpenſe therewith, they are looſed from ſubjection to them.