Popery Anatomized, Section 2
SECTION II.
Showing that no oath, nor bond can oblige a Papiſt: and that they hold it as a principle, that no faith is to be kept to Hereticks.
THe third thing we propoſed, was to prove that no oath, bond, or obligation whatſoever, can ty or oblige Papiſts, whither to their allegiance to their Prince, or duty to their neighbors, if Proteſtants: which is very palpable, if ye conſider.
Firſt, that it is beyond all controverſie with them, that all Proteſtants are hereticks, Princes not excepted: all being condemned as ſuch by the Pope and Council of Trent.
2. That they all hold, that Proteſtant Princes being declared hereticks by the Pope, have no right to their Kingdoms, nor are their ſubjects bound to any allegiance to them, which is evident both from what is ſaid formerly, and alſo from the Bull and Decrees of Pope Pius the fifth, who did depoſe and excommunicat Queen Elizabeth, and looſed her ſubjects from their allegiance, and gave the Kingdom to Philip the ſecond of Spain, which Bull was confirmed by Gregory the thirteenth, and Sixtus the fifth, his ſucceſſors, and was mantained and defended by Sanders, Parſons, Creſuel, and ſundry other Engliſh Papiſts, even unto death.
3. They not only looſe ſubjects from their allegiance to Proteſtant Princes, but alſo they hold and maintain that no faith is to be kept with Proteſtants becauſe condemned by the Pope and Council of Trent as hereticks, and ſo are fallen from the faith: and ſo forfeit all priviledges wherein keeping of faith with them might oblige others or ſtead them: and therefore let a Papiſt ſwear never ſo ſolemnly, and ingage himſelf never ſo ſtrictly by oath, compact, or covenant to a Proteſtant, he may break his oath, compact, and covenant to him without ſin, according to their principles. But becauſe that brazen headed impoſtor H. T. Author of the Manual of Controverſies, &c denyeth this, affirming that Papiſts eſteem themſelves obliged to keep faith, even with infidels: therefore I ſhal prove the truth thereof.
Firſt, who knoweth not that John Hus and Jerome of Prague, upon the Emperors promiſe of ſafe-conduct, appeared before the Council of Conſtance: But the Council declared that the Emperor was not obliged to keep his promiſe to them, becauſe no faith is to be kept to hereticks, and therefore notwithſtanding of the Emperors letters of ſafe-conduct, they condemned them to the fire, and accordingly burnt them. Now H. T. himſelf ſaith in that ſame place, What is defined by the Council of Conſtance, is of faith with Papiſts: therefore it muſt be a point of faith, That no faith is to be kept with hereticks.
2. Not only did the General Council of Conſtance decree this, but the Pope hath confirmed it. Now all Papiſts hold, that what is determined by a General Council and confirmed by a Pope, is of faith, and obligeth all Catholicks Now that the Pope hath confirmed and allowed this, is moſt ſure: for Pope Gregory the 9 (whoſe Decree is extant in the Decretals. lib. 5 tit. 7. de haereticis, cap. u…t.) out of his Pontifical ſeat decreeth: Abſolutos ſe noverint, & debito fidelitatis dominij, & totius obſequij, quicunque lapſis manifestè in haereſin aliquo pacto quacunque firmitate vallato tenebantur ad stricti. Let all know that they are looſed from their fidelity and obedience, and any duty whatſoever, that they are bound to any that are manifeſtly fallen in hereſie.
3. If to the Decree of the Council, and confirmation of the Pope, the common ſuffrage of their Doctors can add any weight, then we have that too: For when Plancius (cited by D. Hornbeck, p. 172.) had ſaid, Dic ſodes, nonne in confeſſo eſt apud vos, Principi haeretico aut excommunicato fidem nullam deberi u…i Pontifex juſſerit Gratian. cauſ 15. quaest. 9. & decret lib. 7 cap. 5. & ibi gloſſae. Say, if ye dare, is it not confeſſed by you, that no faith is to be kept by you to a heretick or excommunicat, when the Pope commandeth? Suertius anſwereth (In confeſſo eſt: nec inventus eſt hactenus magn… nominis Theologus, qui non in hanc iêrit ſententiam.) It is confeſſed: neither is there any Divine of note, who hath not held this opinion. And Clarus lib. 5 ſent. ſaith▪ that (Sententiam illam frequentiori Doctorum calculo receptam) This opinion is received by the common ſuffrage of the Doctors. And Tiberius Decianus ſaith (Omnium conſenſu illam obtinere de fide haereticis non ſervandâ. That that tenet that faith is not to be kept to hereticks, is received by the conſent of all.
Hornbeck citeth many mo Popiſh Writers out of Plancius, Elenchi. pag. 7. Gerard. confeſſ. Cathol. lib. 1 part. 2. cap. 19. and he addeth himſelf, that Thuanus declareth, lib 63. ad ann. 1577. that the Popiſh Doctors did cry out in their Sermons, That the Magiſtrats were not obliged to keep faith to hereticks, according to the Decree of the Council of Conſtance. And he ſhoweth moreover, that upon this pretext the contract of marriage betwixt Charles the 5. his daughter, and the Elector of Saxonies ſon was declared void and nul: and Haumart the Emperors Legat openly ſaid, that faith was not to be kept to hereticks, as teſtifieth Sieidan and Scultetus ad an. 1527.
Finally, their dayly practiſes confirm this. For Cardinal Oſſatu… (as Hornbeck citeth him) tells us in his 87. Epiſtle ad D. de Villeroy, that Pope Clement the 8. did preſs the King of France to joyn with Spain in the invaſion of England: and the Cardinal anſwered, that the King was tyed by an oath to the Queen of England: to which the Pope replyed, that (That the oath was made to an heretick, but he was bound in another oath to God and the Pope: and in end he alledged the ſaying of Franciſcus Maria Duke of Urbin, 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 aucount him infamous: but ſupreme Princes may without any danger of their reputation make covenants, and break them, lie, betray, and commit other ſuch like things. Alſo Pope Innocent the 10. in his Bull againſt the Peace of Germany, anno 1651. doth annul and abrogat the oathes for confirming of Peace.
3. As the Popes practiſes is a good example to Papiſts, ſo they follow their example to purpoſe, as I ſhal ſhow in ſome few inſtances. In Queen Maries time in England, the Suffolk-men did aid, aſſiſt, and advance her to the crown; ſhe ſwearing to them that they ſhould enjoy the liberty of the Proteſtant Religion: but this principle, that faith ſhould not be kept to hereticks, induced her not only to break her promiſe; but alſo to impriſon ſome of them for minding her of it. How many fair promiſes did Katherin de Medicis Queen of France, and her ſon Charles the ninth, make to the Proteſtants; and yet this helliſh principle induced them not only to break their promiſes; but alſo under the greateſt pretext of friendſhip, to maſſacre them all at Paris, anno 1572. It was this deviliſh principle that made Don Frederick ſon to the Duke d' Alva, after he had taken Harlem upon compoſition, that the citizens ſhould give 24000. florins to redeem themſelves and town from ſpoil, to plunder the whole town contrary to promiſe, and to hang ſome, drown others, and ſtarve others. It was this wicked principle that cauſed the Segnior Noucarmes, when the inhabitants of Valenciennes in Hainault, ſurrendred the city upon good conditions, to keep the gates of the city ſhut for diverſe days, and moſt perfidiouſly and barbarouſly to hang up all the French ſouldiers, with all the Miniſters, and Proteſtant merchants, and confiſcat their goods. Many mo inſtances might be given, but this may ſuffice.
Notwithſtanding of all this, H. T. is ſo ſhameleſly impudent as to ſay that the Council of Trent hath declared, That to violate any leaſt point of publick faith given to hereticks, is a thing puniſhable by the law of God and man, Seſſ. 15.18. Anſ. I have conſulted Petrus Suavis on Seſſ. 15. and 18. and I can find no ſuch declaration, only there is a ſafe-conduct granted by the Council to Proteſtants to come to the Council: But they fearing leſt it was like the ſafe-conduct given to John Hus, did not accept thereof.
The fourth evidence, to prove that no oath nor obligation can bind Papiſts is, Becauſe, let Papiſts ſwear never ſo ſolemnly, whither for performance of fidelity to their Prince, or of keeping covenant and bargain with their neighbor, yet the Pope (according to their principles) may diſſolve that oath, and free them from the obligation thereof. I might bring ſeveral proofs of this, but I ſhal only bring one very obſervable. After the Gun-powder treaſon King James appointed that all Papiſts ſhould ſwear the oath of allegiance. But hear how Paſchenius in his anſwer to King James his monitory Epiſtle, ſcoffs at it (as D. Uſher citeth him in his Sermon before the Houſe of Commons, Feb. 18. 1620.) Vide in tantâ aſtutiâ quanta ſit ſimplicitas. See (ſaith he) in ſo great craft how great ſimplicity doth bewray its ſelf: When he had placed all his ſecurity in that oath, he thought that he had found ſuch a manner of oath, knit with ſo many circumstances, that it could not with ſafety of conſcience by any means be diſſolved by any man. But he could not ſee that if the Pope, N. B. did diſſolve that oath, all the tyings of it, whither of performing fidelity to the King, or of admitting no diſpenſations, would be diſſolved together. Yea, I will ſay another thing that is more admirable: You know that an unjuſt oath if it be evidently known or openly declared to be ſuch, bindeth no man, but is voyd ipſo acto. That the Kings oath is injust, hath been ſufficiently declared by the Paſtor of the Church himſelf: Ye ſee therefore that the obligation thereof is vaniſhed into ſmoke, ſo that the bond which by ſo many wiſe men was thought to be of iron, it become leſs then of ſtraw. So we may ſee that an oath upon the conſcience of a Papiſt, is like a collar upon an Apes neck, that he will ſlip on for his Maſters pleaſure, and ſlip off again for his own. Hence we may ſee what truſt and credit to give their pretences to loyalty, and their taking the oath of allegiance. For let Papiſts pretend to never ſo much moderation, yet they acknowledge the Pope as ſupreme in all ſpirituals and Eccleſiaſticks, and profeſs obedience to him before all the world in things of this nature. Now they all know that the Pope doth profeſs and publiſh both by doctrine and practiſe, that he hath power to excommunicat the greateſt Potentats, if hereticks, and to command all Catholicks in all things, in ordine ad ſpiritualia. That all Catholicks are bound to obey him under pain of damnation, in oppoſing their Soveraign without diſputing his commands: And ſo ſoon as a Prince is excommunicat by the Pope for hereſie, he is forthwith depoſed and deprived of his Princely dignity and ſoveraignity, and his ſubjects are diſcharged from all allegiance, and are accurſed if they further obey him, as is evident from the afore mentioned Bulls of Pius the 5. Gregory the 13. and Sixtus the 5. againſt Queen Elizabeth, and the writings of Bellarmin, Suarez, Allen, Sanders, Parſons, Creſuel, and ſundry others Engliſh Papiſts; who have defended theſe Bulls and poſitions even to death. In this caſe, a Papiſt muſt either caſt off his allegiance, or incurr the Popes curſe, and conſequently run on certain damnation. From which we ſee that (according to the principles of Papiſts) the Pope hath power to diſſolve all bonds, covenants, leagues and oaths, as he ſhal find conducing to the advancement of the Catholik faith: ſo that if he liſt, no bonds, humane or divine, no oaths never ſo ſolemnly taken, ſhal bind Papiſts: for when occaſion ſerveth, the Pope can and will relieve them from all obligations of God or conſcience of nature and Nations, and they muſt ſubmit to him without contradiction or limitation. So that one cannot be a Papiſt, but if he underſtand his own principles, he muſt be a traitor.
Object. But it may be ſaid, Although Papiſts maintain ſuch principles in reference to them who perſecute and extirpate Popery: yet if a Prince be favorable to Popery, and ſeek reconciliation with Rome▪ there is no fear from them. Anſ. Let Simancha a Popiſh Doctor determine this. If Kings (ſaith he) or other Chriſtian Princes be turned hereticks, their ſubjects are preſently fred from their dominion, neither ſhal they receive their right again, though they be afterward-reconciled to the Church. And as a King loſeth his Kingdom by hereſie, ſo his children loſe their right of ſucceſſion. His words are, Si Reges aut alij Principes Christiani facti ſint haeretici protinùs ſubjecti & vaſſalli ab eorum dominio liberantur, nec jus hoc recuperabunt quamvis poſtea reconcilientur Eccleſiae. Et propter haereſin non ſolum Rex regno privatur, ſed etiam ejus filij a regni ſucceſſione pelluntur.
To omit other inſtances, had not King Henry the 4. of France experience of this in his own perſon? for he being a profeſſed Proteſtant & perſecuted by the Leaguers, that he might enjoy the Kingdom in peace, was reconciled to the Fope, and went to Maſs. But was he the more ſecure or ſafe for all this, ſurely no: for not long after he was ſtobbed in the mouth by a Jeſuit. After which, for this and other of their treaſonable practiſes and writings, they were baniſhed France, and a pillar of remembrance of their villanies ſet up. But he to gratifie the Pope cauſed demoliſh the pillar, and called them in again, telling the Parliament that the peril of it ſhould be on him: and ſo it was; for it coſt him his life, being ſtobbed by Ravillac through the very heart. And truly God ordinarly turns this policy to folly, whereof many inſtances might be given: I ſhal name but a few. The Eaſtern Emperors Justinian & Phocas, the better to recover & keep Italy, did the Popes much honor, and greatly furthered their ſupremacy: But they in requital ſoon after (by Gods juſt judgement) ſetting themſelves againſt their ſucceſſors in the cauſe of Images, made the greateſt part of Italy revolt from the Emperors obedience. After this, Conſtantin the 7. and his mother Irene, to get the Popes favor, and to recover the Weſtern Empire, or at leaſt to keep what they had from revolting, with ſtrong hand eſtabliſhed worſhipping of Images in the ſecond Council of Nice. But within twelve years the Pope crowned Charles the Great Emperor of the Weſt, and ſo they loſt the Weſtern Empire. Likewiſe John Paleologus Emperor of Greece, to procure the Popes favor againſt the Turks, by the ſtrong hand induced the Greek Church to reconcile with Rome, and to acknowledge the Popes ſupremacy in the Council of Florence anno 1439. But this was ſo far from advantaging him, that the Empire was loſt within 14. years after.
Thus we ſee that God in his righteous judgement turneth ſuch temporizing with the Pope, to the ruine of them that do it. The only way of ſafety, is to ſtand at the ſwords point. The eyes of the Lord run to and fro to ſhow himſelf ſtrong in the behalf of them; whoſe heart is per…ect toward him, 2. Chron. 16.9. Whereas politick complyance turns to the ruine of complyers. We all know what Jeroboams policy did: he to preſerve his own Kingdom, Set up Ido…s ſtretched out his hand againſt the Prophet, made Prieſts of the lowest of the people, and ordained high places, 1. Kings 12.27.28. But what was the event? The text tells us, This thing became ſin unto the houſe o… Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to deſtroy it from the face of the earth, 1. Kings 13 33 34 Thus we ſee what treaſonable rebellious and bloody principles Papiſts hold. Let us in the next place ſee if their practiſes have been anſwerable thereto.