The loyalty of popish principles examin'd in answer to a late book entituled Stafford's memoirs : with some considerations in this present juncture offer'd to Protestant dissenters / by Rob. Hancock.

CHAP. IV.

Testimonies of the Loyalty of the Ro∣man Church and Religion, con∣sidered.

The first from St. Math. 22.21.

The second from the Decree of the General Council of Constance.

The third from the Annotations of the Divines of Rhemes, on Rom. 13.

The fourth, from the Censure of the Doctors of the Faculty of Sor∣bon, against a Book of Sancta∣rellus.

LEst this might seem a meerly ex∣torted Profession of a despairing Man, My Lord endeavoured to prove by se∣veral convincing Testimonies, he had ever been Instructed and Educated in the same Sentiments, as the established Doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church.

1. His first Testimony was taken from places of Holy Scripture; particularly that of St. Math. 22.21. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars; &c from the plain and clear sense of which, and other Texts of Holy Writ, nothing (he said) in this World was able to remove him.

That we are bound to render to all Men their dues, and to Caesar the things that are Caesars, is not disputed among any sort of Men that I know. But how shall a Roman Catholick understand which are the Rights of Caesar; or by a just and equal distribution give to God what is Gods, and to the King what is the Kings.

The Holy Scriptures indeed have told us with all plainess and sincerity, what we are to give to Caesar; but the lusts and interests of Men have perverted the clearest Texts, and made them serve their own Pride and Covetousness.

I believe his Majesty will hardly stand to the determination of the Rhemish Divines, by whom his Lordship, saith he, was instructed in the Principles of Faith and Loyalty. For our Blessed Savior commands us, to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars; and his own practice was a Comment on his Precept.

But the Rhemists in their Annotations outhat Text, are afraid to speak plain, as Men that mean honestly should do. They are more afraid of giving too much, than too little to Caesar(A)

In their Annotations on St. Math. 17. they roundly tell us, that Caesar hath no right to any payments from the Clergy.(B)

And one of the Holy General Coun∣cils of the Roman Church, tells us, (and pretends to prove it from Scripture too) that Secular Princes ought not to require any Tribute from the Clergy.(C)

2. His second Testimony was taken from the Authority of the General Council of Constance, (to which all Roman Catho∣licks are bound to submit) the 15th Canon and definition of which Council is, Quili∣bet Tyrannus potest, & debet licitè, & meritorie, occidi, &c. Every Tyrant law∣fully

and meritoriously may, and ought to be killed by any Vassal or Subject whatsoever, even by hidden Treacheries, and subtle Flat∣teries or Adulations, notwithstanding any Oath given, or confederation made with him; without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge whatsoever. (Which Clause is added in regard of the right of Supream Temporal Monarchs over Inferiour Princes subordinate to them.) This Doctrine the Synod declares to be erronious in Faith and Manners, and the same as Heretical con∣demns, &c.

The Council condemned this Propo∣sition! And would not an Assembly of the old Heathen Philosophers have done as much? Had the same Proposition been brought before them, and upon the same occasion, I am confident (as far as we can judge by their Writings) they would have made a better provision for the security of Princes, than the Fathers at Constance did.

But since it is acknowledged, That all Roman Catholicks are bound to submit to this Council of Constance, I will fairly represent some of the Doctrines of it.

That damnable Doctrine of breaking Faith with Hereticks was notoriously Pa∣tronized and put in practice by this Council: For the Emperour had granted

a safe Conduct to J. Husse; and yet after he had been some weeks at Constance, the poor Man is (contrary to his safe Con∣duct) cast into Prison. This being done in the Emperours absence, he comes to the Council, argues the case with them; upon which they pass that In famous De∣cree contained in the 19th Session; from which it is plain, that in the case of He∣resie, no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any persons whatsoever. And this Act of the Council so fully satisfied the Emperours Conscience, that he looked on himself as discharged from his obliga∣tion, and not only concurred in the Sen∣tence against the Prisoner, but gave or∣der for his Execution.

J. of Prague was trepann'd by a safe Conduct granted by that Council; and being unacquainted with their Arts and Treachery, ventures to Conftance, where understanding the Jugglings of his Ad∣versaries, he thought to shift for himself by flight, but being taken was burnt to death.

Again, The Council of Constance Ex∣communicates and deprives of all Secu∣lar honour and dignity, all that should presume to hinder Sigismund from meet∣ing with the King of Arragon, whether they be Kings, Dukes, Princes, &c. as all men know, which have been conversant in the Acts of that Council.

But I come to the Decree produced by his Lordship; a Decree which some Roman Catholicks of these Kingdoms know how to make their advantage of; when others of greater Authority and Eminency in the Roman Church (that dare speak their minds) freely acquaint us with the true Catholick meaning of it.

Tell them of the Council of Constance,

It meddles not (saith one(D)) with He∣retical Princes Excommunicated and De∣posed by the Pope, or by the Commonwealth and States of the Kingdom.

A Lawful King, ruling in a Tyrannical manner, may be punished only by publick Authority (saith a Second(E);) that is, by the Commonwealth, as himself expounds it.

This Decree extends not to Tyrants, which conspire against the Publick good, or against the Roman Catholick Religion;

(saith a Third(F).)

A Commonwealth that is oppressed by a Prince ruling Tyrannically, may, and ought to have recourse to a Superiour Prince, as the Pope of Emperour, for the punishment of him; but if this remedy cannot be had without danger, the Commonwealth may by her own Power pass Judgment on such a Prince; and if he be incorrigible, either

depose him, or put him to death,

(saith a Fourth(G))

Another wrote a Book in the time of the French League(H), in the compiling whereof (as he tells us in the Preface) he was assisted by many Lawyers and Divines. In this Book he asserts the lawfulness of putting a King to death, after he is condem∣ned by Publick Authority.

Lastly, our Country-man Parsons justi∣fies the Doctrine of Bouchier; and be∣cause Mr. Morton is charged with mis∣representing his sense, let us take Parson's Account of Bouchier's meaning(I).

He holdeth, That a Private man may not kill a Tyrant, which is not first judged and declared to be a Publick Enemy by the Commonwealth; and he proveth the same by the Decree of the Council of Constance. But Bouchier grants (saith Mr. Morton) That when the Commonwealth hath con∣demned and declared any Tyrant for a publick Enemy, he may be slain by a private Man.

Whereunto I Answer, That then he is no Private man, for that he doth it by the publick Authority of the Commonwealth, as doth the Executioner that cutteth off a Noble-mans Head by Order and Authority of the Publick Magistrate.

These are not the Opinions of private Doctors; their Books are Licensed ac∣cording to the Order of the Roman Church, and approved by Divines of great Learning and Authority; they prove the Orthodoxy of their Doctrine from this very Decree of the Council of Constance, which is now alledged as an Argument of Roman Catholick Loy∣alty.

And are not Kings and Princes won∣derfully beholden to this Council? They must be put to death with a little more solemnity than other Mortals, and fall by the Sentence of a Papal Consistory, or of an High Court of Justice. 'Tis not lawful for a common Parricide to Stab or Pistol the Lord's Anointed of his own head.

No, but his Holiness may hire Soul∣diers against him with Mony, or with In∣dulgences; He may invade his Country with his own Armies, or with the Forces of Catholick Princes; he may stir up a Rebellion within his Dominions, or Au∣thorize his own standing Army of Je∣suites, Monks, and Friars, to kill him with the approved Catholick Weapons, with Pistol or Poyson. Lastly, the Common∣wealth (by its own, or the Popes Autho∣rity) may try and pass sentence upon him.

These things considered, I cannot but conclude, that it was a poor Security. which the Irish Remonstrants offered to his Majesty, since his Restauration, by de∣claring against the killing of Kings by any private Subjects.(L)

3. P. 45. My Lords third Testimony was taken from the Annotations upon Rom. 13. in the English Catholick Edition of the New Testament, set forth by the Colledge of Di∣vines at Rhemes. The words are these, upon the Text, He that resisteth, &c. ver. 2. Whosoever resisteth, or obeyeth not his lawful Superior, in those Causes wherein he is sub∣ject to him, resisteth Gods Appointment, and sinneth deadly, and is worthy to be punished, both in this World by his Superiour, and by God in the next life; for in Temporal Go∣vernment and Causes, the Christians were bound in Conscience to obey even the Hea∣then Emperours.

And upon v. 4. some Protestants of our time care neither for the one, (the Prince) nor for the other (the Prelate) though they extol only Secular Power, when it maketh for them. The Catholicks only most humbly o∣bey both according to Gods Ordinance; the

one in Temporal Causes, and the other in Spi∣ritual.]

(In the Rhemish Testament it is the (not some) Protestants of our time, &c.)

A mighty Testimony of Roman Catho∣lique Loyalty! You are not to resist your Lawful Superior! But if a Prince be lawfully deposed, then he is no lon∣ger your Lawful Superior. If you be Clergymen, then he is none of your So∣veraign, and you are none of his Sub∣jects.

In those Causes wherein you are Subject to him! But what if a King challenge (as by the Word of God he may) the Su∣pream Government in all causes Ecclesia∣stical and Civil? In those Causes you are not Subject to him; for doth not the Pope claim the Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical and even in Temporal Causes, at least in ordine ad Spiritualia?

Let the Rhemists complain that the Pro∣testants extol only the Secular Power; We acknowledge the King to be Supream Go∣vernour in all Causes and over all Persons within his Majesties Dominions, (for this is all that we attribute to the Secular Power) and 'tis the Glory of our Church to have taught and suffered for this Do∣ctrine. But for the Loyalty of the Rhe∣mish Divines, I refer the Reader to some

of their Annotations, as they are cited in the Margent.(M) He that desires to see a true Character of the English Semi∣naries, may consult a Treatise penn'd by the direction of one of the greatest States∣men, and wisest men of his Age, under this Title; The Execution of Justice in England, &c. Reprinted An. 1675.

[My Lords 4th. Testimony was taken from the Censure of the Doctors of the Famous Faculty of Sorbon against a Book of Sancta∣rellus, particularly against the 30th. and 31th. Chapters: In those two Chapters, these Propositions are contained; That the Pope can punish Kings and Princes with Temporal Penalties, and depose and deprive them of their Kingdoms for the Crime of Haeresis, and free their Subjects from their Obedi∣ence; and that is hath been always the Cu∣stom in the Church; and for other Causes also, as for Faults, if it be Expedient; if

the Princes be Negligent; for the insufficien∣cy and unprofitableness of their Persons. Like∣wise, That the Pope hath Right and Power over Spirituals, and all Temporals also; and that both the Powers Temporal and Spiritual are in him by Divine Right; That it was to be believed, that Power was granted to the Church and its Chief Pastors to punish with Temporal Penalties (Princes) the Transgressours of Divine and Humane Laws, especially if the Crime be Haeresie. Likewise that the Apostles were subject to Secular Princes de facto non de jure, by Fact not by Right. Moreover that as soon as the Pope is installed, all Princes begin to be subject to him! Lastly, That he expounded the Words of Christ, Whatsoe∣ver ye shall bind upon Earth, &c. to be understood not only of the Spiritual, but of the Temporal Power, &c. The Faculty (after mature deliberation) disapproved and condem∣ned the Doctrine contained in these Propositi∣ons, and other like Expressions in the same Chapters, as new, false, erroneous, and contra∣ry to the Word of God.

Given in the Sorbon, Apr. 4. 1626.]

In Answer to all which I have many things to say, but that I may not exceed my intended brevity, I shall reduce them to the following Heads.

1. That this Book of Sanctarellus was re∣vised and approved by persons of greater Authority in the Roman Church, than the

Divines of Sorbon.(N) It was printed at Rome permissu Superiorum, approved by three Divines of the Society, licensed by the General of the Order, by the Master of the Sacred Palace, and several other Divines. By which we see what kind of Divinity was then in request at Rome. But it may be the Divines of the Roman Church have one Conscience at Rome and another at Paris, as was once said of the Jesuites.

2. Since the breaking out of the Po∣pish Plot in England, when so many of that Religion were in danger of their Lives; the Pope thought fit to condemn 65 Propositions (as I shewed before) but did not speak one word against the Power of deposing Princes, though it was assert∣ed in the same Divines and Casuists with the 65 Propositions. And whether the Judgment of his Holiness, or of the Di∣vines of Sorbon be of greater value with Roman Catholiques, let all men judge.

3. Why do the Church and Court of Rome suffer an hundred as bad Books as this of Sanctarellus, (in which the same or worse Propositions are maintained) to pass not only without Censure, but with

publique Anthority and Approbation?

4. There are no Propositions in the places censured by the Sorbonists, which he might not justifie by the Principles of the Bishops of Rome, the most correct Editions of the Canon Law; and in the Sentence of Excommunication and De∣privation of Frederick the Emperor (with the Approbation of a General Council) the Pope expounds the words of Christ (as Sancturellus since did) not only of the Spiritual, but of the Temporal Power also.(O)

5. What hath Sanctarellus said, more than the Doctors of the Famous Faculty of Sorbon did both before and since the Publishing of his Book?

I know that Ancient College of Sorbon did for many years keep up a great reputa∣tion, and was esteemed the Bulwark of Regal Authority; but ever since the rise of the Jesuites, many of their Determi∣nations have been carried by Interest and Faction.

An. 1589: (a little before the Murder of Henry the third of France,) the People of that Kingdom proposed these two que∣ries to the Divines of Sorbon.

• 1.

  Whether the People of France may not be discharged and set free from their Oaths of Allegiance made to Henry the Third?

• 2.

  Whether they may not with a safe Con∣science Arm and Ʋnite themselves, collect and raise Money for the Defence and Pre∣servation of the Roman Catholiques in that Realm, against the wicked Counsels and Practises of the said King, and all other his Adherents, and against the breach of Publique Faith committed by him at Bloys, to the prejudice of the said Roman Religion, and Edict of Holy Ʋnion, and the natunal Liberty of the Assembly of the three Estates of that Kingdom? After mature deliberati∣on upon the said Articles, it was concluded nemine refragante, That the said People were discharged from the said Oath of Alle∣giance; and that they may with asase Con∣science unite and Arm themselves against the King. Moreover the said Faculty thought fit to send their Decree to the Pope, that it might be ratified and confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Apostolick See.

  (P)

In the same year the Loyal Doctors of Sorbon declared their Approbation of the damnable Doctrine of King-killing.

For a short Paper was drawn up, contain∣ing the Reasons of taking up Arms against the King; in the Conclusion of which it is said, That because Childerick King of France had caused one Bodille to be pu∣bliquely whipped, the said Bodille took oc∣casion thence to kill the King, for which he is commended by Historians, and therefore may not the injury done to a better than Bo∣dille, viz. to a brave Prince (Guise) be also avenged?

The Doctors of Sorbon having read o∣ver the Tract, approved it, affirming that nothing was in it contrary to the Roman Church.

About the same time it was Decreed by the Sorbonists, That the Name of Heary the third should be dashed out of all pu∣blique Prayers; and that if any of the Faculty of Paris agree not to it, they should be Excommunicated. Accordingly instead of those. Prayers for the King, o∣thers were drawn up for the Catholique Leaguing Princes.

(Q)

An. 1590. The Royalists had spread abroad such Propositions as these;

That Henry of Bourbon (the lawful Heir of the Crown) might or ought to be King; that the People might with a safe Conscience ad∣here to him and pay him Tribute; That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate the King; That an Haretique, though re∣lapst and put out of the Communion of the Church, may have right to the Crown of France. All which Propositions were pre∣sently condemned by the Faculty of Sor∣bon.

(R)

An. 1629. They publish a Decree, That for the Future the Ancient and Laudable Practise be revived; that e∣very Batchelour of Divinity swear to ob∣serve the Decrees of the Popes of Rome.

(S)

An. 1647. The Sorbonists, in An∣swer to a Question sent to them in Writing from the Jesuites in England, resolved that it was Lawful for the Roman Ca∣tholiques to work the Change in the Go∣vernment by making away the King.

(T)

I know P. Walsh hath printed (from the Originals) six Declarations of the Divines of Sorbon presented to the French King An. 1663. which seem more worthy of that Society, than these which I have produced. But, however signi∣ficative they might be of their Loyalty to the French King, they do not reach the Case of his Majesties Roman Catholique Subjects. For in France the King is of the same Religion; His Kingdoms are under no Ecclesiastical Censures; the Pope challenges no direct Temporal Right to them.

But I need say no more of them, than F. Walsh himself doth;

These De∣clarations of Sorbon did neither protest against Equivocation; nor descend to the particular Cases, either of Excommunica∣tion, or the pretended Exemption of Cler∣gymen, or Condemnation of the Contrary Doctrines, &c.

(V)

And now let all men judge whether the Doctors of Sorbon were not as good at irritating the People of France; as the most Seditious Preachers and Pam∣phleteers were at Animating those of England against their King?

Notes

• p. 44.
• (A)

  See the Rhemists An∣notations on St. Math. 22.21.
• (B)

  Rhem. An∣not. 8. St. Mat. 17.26. Though Christ, tò avoid scandal, paid Tribute; yet indeed he sheweth, that himself ought to be free from such payments, as also his Apo∣stles, and in them the whole Clergy, &c. Which Exemption and Priviledge being grounded upon the very Law of Nature it self; &c.

  And in Hebrews 5.1. in all Matters touching God, his Service and Rellgion, the Priest hath only Charge and Authority; as the Priest Temporal is the Peoples Governour, Guide and Sovereign, in the things touching their worldly Affairs.
• (C)

  Conc. Lat. 3. c. 19. p. 455, 456. Ne Laici imponant Ecclesiis onera. And in the Margent we have Gen. 47. quoted.
• (D)

  Suartz. def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 4. p. 417.
• (E)

  Greg. de Valentia, Tom. 3. disp. 5. qu. 8. punct. 3. In his resolution of this Question; utrùm liceat privato cuilibet civi occidere Tyran∣num?
• (F)

  Verone Apol. par. 2. c. 13.
• (G)

  Dom. Bannes Scho∣last. Comment. Tom. 4. p. 174. (Ed. 1614.) qu. 64. Act. 3.
• (H)

  I mean Bouchier the French Je∣suite, in that Treasonable Book which I quoted be∣fore.
• (I)

  Parsons in his quiet and sober reckoning, &c. p. 318, 319, 321.
• (L)

  We do hold it impi∣ous, and a∣gainst the Word of God, to maintain. That any private Subject may kill or murder the Anointed of God, his Prince, though of a different Belief and Religion from his. And we abhor and derest the pra∣ctise thereof as damnable and wicked. Irish Remonstrance in F. Walsh his History, p. 8.
• (M)

  The Rhe∣mish Testa∣ment was see forth by that Traiterous Se∣minary of En∣glish Papists, and printed at Rhemes An. 1582.

  See the former part of their Annotations on ver. 4. of this 13th, Chapter to the Romans, where they complain, That now all is given to the Secular Power, and nothing to the Spiritual, which expresly is ordained by Christ and the Holy Ghost.

  The exemption of the Clergy is asserted Annot. on S. Matth. 17.26.

  The Popes Infallibility, Annot. on S. Luke 22.31. And in the Margent they say, Popes may err personally, not judicially or de∣finitively.

  The Popes Supremacy, Annot. on S. John 21.17.

  And on 1 Pet. 2.12. They say, Although all Power be of God, and Kings Rule by him, yet this is no otherwise, than by his ordi∣nary Concurrence and Providence.
• (N)

  Alegambe Bibl. script. soc. Jes. in the life of Sanctarellus gives us this Character of him, Vir mori∣bus apprimé re∣ligiosis & mo∣destissima man∣suetudine.

  The Title of the Book is A. Sanctarelli soc. Jes. Tract. de Haeres. &c. Ed. Romae. 1625. In the License of the Master of the Sacred-Palace are these words; In eo omnia religioni consona atque utilia adinvenerim. In another of the Licenses, In quo nihil reperi, quod Sanctae Fidei, aut bonis moribus adversetur.
• (O)

  In the General Coun∣cil of Lyons (Concil.tom. 28. ut supra.) Innocent the 4th. with the consent of the Council denounces Sentence of Deprivation against Frederick the Emperor. Nobisque in B. Petri Apostoli persona sit dictum, quod∣cunque ligaveris, &c. S. Marth. 16.

  Also M. Paris, ad An. 1245. p. 672.
• (P)

  Davila l. 10. And Fowlis History of Ro∣mish Treasons (Ed. 1671.) p. 530, 551.
• (Q)

  Fowlis, p. 537.
• (R)

  Spon∣dani Contin. Baronii tom. 2. ad An. 1590. (p. 860.) par. 3. Sorbonici Theologi in publicis turbis ad rerum in∣stantium statum vota sua accommodare coacti, rogatu Faederatorum & Cajetani impulsu, nec non Cardinalis Montalti, ipsiusquemet Pon∣tificis literis, ad fidem & religionem tuendam, & unionem confir∣mandam incitati, partes suas interponentts congregati sanxerunt, pro∣positiones quae passim a pluribus seminabantur; viz. Henricum Bor∣bonium regis titulo infigniri posse aut debere, tuta conscientia es ad∣barere, ac decimas & vectigalia persolvere debere, &c. Has & tjusmodi enuntiationes damnantes, &c.
• (S)

  Spon∣dani Contin. Baronii Tom. 2. (p. 982.) ad Ann. 1629. par. 10.
• (T)

  Du Mou∣lin Answ. to Philanax, p. 59.
• (V)

  Hist. of the Irish Re∣monstrance p. 662, 663, and 678.