THE LOYALTY OF Popish Principles EXAMINED. In Answer to a late Book Entitled STAFFORD'S Memoirs. With some Considerations in this present Juncture offered to Protestant Dissenters.  
By ROB. HANCOCK, Fellow of Clare-Hall in Cambridge, and Rector of Northall in Bedfordshire.  
LONDON, Printed by S. Roycroft, for Thomas Flesher, at the Angel and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1682.   

The PREFACE to the Christian READER.  
IT may be expected that I should (according to Custom) say something towards the Recommendation of the following Discourse to the perusal of the Reader; and tell him what Motives I had to undertake this work. But the truth is, I have neither studied, nor ever seen any great Effects of this kind of Courtship. I know, the Weight and Importance of the Subject; the Honesty and Charitableness of the Design; the Truth and Evidence of the Matter; the Importunity of Friends, and the Authority of others whose Judgement we value above our own, are the common heads of Excuse in such Cases. If any or all of these will serve for an Apology, I hope I have some right to them; if they will not, it must undergo the Readers Censure. However I shall acquaint him with the Scope of the whole Treatise, viz. To make a Faithful Representation of such Principles and Designs as (under a colour of Religion) do naturally tend to disturb the Public Peace & Settlement of this Church and Kingdom; subvert the true Reformed Religion & Destroy Christian Charity, by fomenting Intestine Commotions or Foreign Usurpations. And if there be such a thing in the World (I am loath to call it Religion) as teaches men to advance itself by Treason and Bloodshed, by Falsehood and Treachery, it is our Duty and Interest to detect the Fraud and Hypocrisy of it.  
In the treating of this Subject,  
1. I have not only justified the Charge of Disloyalty and Cruelty against the Court and church of Rome; but also examined and confuted the most plausible Arguments of Romish Loyalty and Charity.  
2. Because the Doctrines and Practices of some reputed Protestants have given a deep Wound to the Reputation of our Religion; and some most horrid things have been taught and acted in this Nation, out of a real or pretended zeal for the Protestant Cause; I have vindicated the Honour & Peaceableness of the Reformation, and shown from whence the most Fanatic Sectaries derived their Principles, by whom they were Influenced, and whom they gratified in that management of them.  
3. I have given a brief account of Comprehension and Toleration, so far as they fell within the compass of the late Lord Staffords Design; and I am sensible it would have been an Argument of weakness or arrogance in me to have entered upon a larger Discourse upon those Heads, so soon, after the late Proposals of a great and learned Man for the satisfaction of Dissenters. 
(A) Preface to the unreasonableness of Separation, (printed 1681.)   
Lastly, I have concluded with such Important Considerations to all sober Dissenting Protestant's (whom I distinguish from wild fanatics) as I believe are necessary for the keeping out of Popery.  
In the Prosecution of the whole Argument, I have neither made any uncharitable Reflections, nor charged any persons with the remote Consequences of their Doctrines. And (though I will not answer for all little Mistakes or Inadvertencies in the Writing or Printing) I have neither taken any Quotations upon trust, nor misrepresented the words or sense of the Authors which I make use of.  
But I must here inform the Reader, that in my Animadversions upon Staffords Memoirs I have not meddled with the Life and Actions, the Charge or Arraignment of the late Lord Stafford, the Depositions of the Witnesses or the Observations upon them: For I am not angry with the person of any Roman Catholic, nor do I love to trample upon the Grave of a dead man; besides, it doth not become me to go out of my own Profession, or discuss such matters as do not concern Religion. And yet I think I may safely say, that I have not omitted any thing, which looks like an Imputation in the Reformed, or a Vindication of the Roman Church and Religion.  
If this Book should fall into the Hands of any of that Communion, I confess I have not much hope of convincing them, who by the very Principles of their Religion are bound to disbelieve their own Senses. If any of the Dissenting Protestants shall please to look into it, I have only this kindness (shall I say or justice?) to beg of them, that they would read the two last Chapters with the same sincerity and freedom from Passion, with which they were written; and then let them judge whether those Considerations and Advices are not as necessary to their own, as to our Safety.  
Farewell.   

The Contents  

CHAP. I. THe Principles of the R. Church and Religion destructive of piety and virtue. Three Cases wherein it is possible for R. Catholics to be better than their Religion inclines or allows them to be. Of the Principles and Practices of his Majesties R. Catholic Subjects in the time of the late Rebellion. Of their Rebellion in Ireland; and the Advantage which the King's Enemies in England made of it. Since his Majesty's Restauration they refused to give him any reasonable security of their Allegiance for the future. Many Papists actually in Arms against King Charles the First in England; many others did him no Service: Upon what Motives the rest adhered to him. A Consult of the English Jesuits about taking away his Life. Of the Principles and Behaviour of the R. Catholics under the Usurped Powers. Of Mr. White's Book.  
CHAP. II. The Treasons and Seditions in other Countries, especially the Bloody Wars in England, and the Murder of King Charles the First charged upon the Protestants. The Reformed Churches abroad, and the Church of England vindicated from this Imputation. The King brought to the Block by a prevailing Faction against the Consent of the Nobility and People of England. The Romish Faction had a great Influence on the beginning and progress of the Rebellion. The Troubles in Scotland fomented by Cardinal Richlieu's Agents. The Letter of the Scotch Covenanters to the French King. The Design of the Papists against the King discovered Ann. 1640. What Influence they had on the War which followed in England, and upon the King's death. Two Propositions added to the foregoing Discourse. 1. That the Grounds on which the War against the King was justified were first laid by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church. This Proposition proved from Gregory 1. Zachary, Gregory the 7th. etc. From Parsons, Creswel, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bouchier, Mariana, Fr. de Verone, Reynolds. They which have written in defence of the War, or of the King's death go upon the same Principles. 2. That in the Reign of King Charles the First, the Pope animated his Subjects to rebel, and sent over divers Bulls to that purpose.  
CHAP. III. Doctrines and Principles of the Roman Church. 

1. The Doctrine of Deposing Princes. This is the Doctrine of all the approved Writers of that Church; Of their General Councils, of their Public Offices and Breviaries. An Account of those persons who have appeared against the Deposing Doctrine.  
2. The King-killing Doctrine. It is a necessary consequent of the Deposing Doctrine. The Roman Divines equivocate in this Question. The Jesuits generally assert it; divers of the Popes and the Canon Law approve of it.  
3. Of destroying men's Lives for Religion. The true State of the Question. The Church of Rome damns all Haeretiques. All Protestants are Haeretiques in her account. She enjoins all Christians to endeavour the Extirpation of them. All Bishops of her Communion sworn to destroy them. The Laws of the Church deliver them up to the Secular Power to be put to death.  
4. Of absolving his Majesty's Subjects from their Allegiance.    
CHAP. IU. Testimonies of the Loyalty of the Roman Church and Religion, considered.  
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 Rheims, on Rom. 13.  
The fourth, from the Censure of the Doctors of the Faculty of Sorbon, against a Book of Sanctarellus.  
CHAP. V. The Fifth Testimony of the Loyalty of the Roman Church from a late Treatise of a Romish Priest.  
The Principles of that Treatise examined.  
Of the Principles and Authority of the General Councils of that Church.  
Of licensing men to lie and forswear themselves.  
Of the Doctrine of Aequivocation and mental Reservation; with a brief Account of the Propositions lately censured at Rome.  
Of the Simplicity and Godly Sincerity of the Roman Church.  
Of the Design of dividing the Papists.  
Of the Distinction between the Church and the Court of Rome; the grounds of that Distinction examined and confuted.  
Of Dispensations, etc.  
CHAP. VI Of the late Lord Staffords Declaration and Address to the House of Peers, concerning a Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants, and a Toleration for the Papists.  
1. Of the Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants.  
Three Propositions concerning Comprehension.  
'Tis neither the Duty nor Interest of any Roman Catholics (continuing true to their Principles) to promote a firm and lasting Union of Protestants.  
What Influence the Romish Agents had on the first Separation from our Church.  
Of the late Declaration of Indulgence.  
2. Of the Toleration for the Papists.  
Of their endeavours to procure a Toleration under Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First, the late Usurped Powers, and his present Majesty.  
What the Design of that Faction is in endeavouring to procure a Toleration.  
They have been the worse for Favour and Indulgence, as is evident from their Behaviour towards Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First, and his present Majesty.  
This Chapter concluded with the Protestation of King Charles the First.  
CHAP. VII. A short Reflection on the foregoing Discourse.  
Some things offered to all such as desire to prevent the Designs of the Papists.  
1. Beware of Seditious Doctrines and Practices.  
A brief Account of them.  
This Consideration recommended to all Protestants; especially to the Dissenters from the Established Church of England.  
Of the Secluded Members; and of the Solemn League and Covenant.  
2. Beware of being Instrumental to the weakening or subverting of the Church of England.  
Popery can never enter into our Church so long as the Established Articles, Liturgy and Government are maintained.  
The Difference between the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and those of the Church of England.  
Three Considerations to them that charge our Church and Episcopal Clergy with Inclining to Popery.  
Some other things propounded to the Dissenters by way of Consideration and Advice.  
The Conclusion of the whole.    

CHAP. I.  
The Principles of the Roman Church and Religion destructive of Piety and Virtue. Three Cases wherein it is possible for R. Catholics to be better than their Religion inclines or allows them to be. Of the Principles and Practices of his Majesties R. Catholic Subjects in the time of the late Rebellion. Of their Rebellion in Ireland; and the Advantage which the King's Enemies in England made of it. Since his Majesty's Restauration they refused to give him any reasonable security of their Allegiance for the future. Many Papists actually in Arms against King Charles the First in England; many others did him no Service: Upon what Motives the rest adhered to him. A Consult of the English Jesuits about taking away his Life. Of the Principles and Behaviour of the R. Catholics under the Usurped Powers. Of Mr. White 's Book.  
THe ensuing Treatise is not intended for those weak and credulous persons, that suffer themselves to be charmed with specious Titles and flattering Prefaces; and therefore without any reflection on our Author's Arts of Insinuation, I shall come to the Matter of the Book called (by an odd kind of Antiphrasis) A Brief and Impartial Account, etc. So far as it falls within the Compass of my Design.  
The former Part of the Book is for the most part made up of Allegations in proof of the Plot in general, and Reflections on the Depositions; The Process against the late Lord Stafford in particular, with the Evidence against him and his Lordship's Exceptions, the Observations of the Managers of the Trial and the Papists Answers to them; the Consideration of all which I leave to others.  
But that I may not seem to pass over any thing, which looks like a Proof of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of the Roman Church, or of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects, I shall fairly set down all such Passages as are material to that purpose.  
Staffords Memoires, p. 2.  
[His Lordship was ever held to be of a generous disposition, very Charitable, Devout, addicted to Sobriety, inoffensive in his Words, and a Lover of Justice. During the time of the last bloody Rebellion, he suffered much for his Loyalty to the King.]  
Of the Popish Plot he saith; [p. 8. This Plot must be managed by persons of Quality, most remarkable peradventure of all others for firmness of Loyalty.]  
Again, [The whole Body of Roman Catholics (men before this hour of known worth, virtue, integrity and unblemished Reputation) must all be involved by Vows and Sacraments in a Design so black and execrable, that God and Nature abhor to think on.]  
[p. 52. Certain I am Catholics (Roman Catholics he means) both taught and practised Principles of Loyalty, at a time, when the King and Kingdom felt the dire Effects of contrary Persuasions.]  
That I may proceed with all possible clearness in my Answer to these bold Assertions, I shall reduce what I have to say to two Debates.  

I. Concerning the Piety and Virtue of Roman Catholics.  
II. Concerning their Principles and Practices in the time of the late Rebellion.   
I. I begin with the Piety and Virtue of Roman Catholics.  
That the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion do naturally tend to make men wicked and disloyal, I shall prove in the following Discourse. And yet I freely grant, That some men of that Communion may have a great and just Sense of their own Honour, and that Duty which they own to their King and Country: They may be better Men, and better Subjects, than the Principles of their Church and Religion do either incline or allow them to be.  
This may come to pass any of these three ways.  

1. When they do not understand the Sense of the Roman Church, or the natural tendency of the Principles of their Religion, for the Confessors and Guides of Souls (which have the Faith and Consciences of the Laity in their keeping) do not think fit at all times and in all places to instruct their Disciples in such Doctrines.  
2. When their natural Tempers and Dispositions are stronger than the Principles of their Church and Religion. For I do not think the worst Religion in the World can root out all common Reason and natural Conscience, all good Nature and Humanity, and make all men Bloody and Disloyal, whom Nature hath made Kind and Peaceable. Some men have more of the Generosity of the English Man, than of the Treachery of the Papist; the very names of Murder and Treason strike a kind of Horror into the minds of men, and natural Conscience (if it be not bribed or biased by a bad Religion or a vicious Life) will startle at the thoughts of Assassinations and Rebellions, the violation of Oaths and Contracts.  
3. When they have not much Zeal for Religion. For if men be cool and indifferent in that Religion which they profess, they may be overbalanced with the Love of their King and Country.   
And yet after all no man knows, just how much ignorance, good-nature or indifferency in Religion, will serve to balance the Fury of a misguided Zeal.  
II. I come to consider the Principles and Practices of the Roman Catholics in the time of the late Rebellion.  
And though I would not lessen the Services which some persons of that Religion have done to his Majesty, or Royal Father of Blessed Memory; yet I must say there are many things which overthrew all the Pretences of Loyalty to the Crown that are made by the main Body of Roman Catholics.  
That this is no uncharitable Surmise will appear if we look back as far as the Irish Rebellion, wherein the Roman Catholics of that Kingdom were almost universally engaged.  
I know the Seditious Practices of such as called themselves Protestant's were by so much the more inexcusable, by how much Protestant Principles are more inconsistent with Religion, than these of the Papists. But the Tumults in Scotland were now in a great measure suppressed, and the King had by some Acts of Grace, and Additions of Honour to the Malcontents of that Kingdom quieted, if not obliged his Enemies, when he was surprised with the news of a desperate Rebellion and barbarous Massacre of many thousand Protestants in Ireland. And as his Majesty's Affairs were hereby put into a much worse condition than before, so the Parliament in England became more unreasonable in their Demands, more resolute in their Answers, than otherwise they either would or durst have been. For the King conjures them by all that is or can be dear to them or him, to take into consideration the case of his distressed Protestant Subjects; but (to use his Majesties own Words:) The Distractions and Jealousies here in England made most men rather intent to their own Safety, or Designs they were driving, than to the Relief of those, who were every day inhumanely butchered in Ireland. 
(A) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 printed 1649. p. 92.   
The Parliament in England pass a Vote, That the Kingdom be forthwith put into a posture of Defence; and soon after another, That the Ordinance for the Defence of the Kingdom is not prejudicial to the Oath of Allegiance. They Vote, That what was done at York for a Guard to the King, was a Preparation for War against the Parliament, a breach of the Trust reposed in him by his People; etc. 
(B) Memorials of the English Affairs printed 1682. ad an. 1641 & 1642   
But to return to Ireland, Here was a Plot and Design against the Crown and Government, of which his Majesty expressed the greatest Abhorrence, and Detestation, and offered to go in Person to reduce the Rebels to Obedience: A Plot in which the main Body of the Papists, and no others were actually concerned. 
(C) In the Preamble to the Bill of Settlement in Ireland an. 1662. it is called, An Unnatural Insurrection against his Majesty's Royal Father, his Crown and Dignity, which first broke out Octob. 23.1641. and afterwards spreading itself over the whole Kingdom, it became a form and almost National Rebellion of the Irish Papists. And in an Act of Parliament for keeping the 23d. of October as an Anniversary Thanksgiving, It is said, That many malignant and rebellious Papists, and Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and other Superstitious Orders of the Popish pretended Clergy, most disloyally, treacherously, and wickedly conspired to surprise the Castle and City of Dublin, and all other Cities, and Fortifications of that Realm; and that all Protestants and English throughout the whole Kingdom, which would not join with them, should be cut off, etc. 
See the late History of the Irish Rebellion in Folio.    
And F. Walsh in the Dedication of his History of the Irish Remonstrance, tells us of an Universal Rebellion or Insurrection of all the Catholics in Ireland, a very few excepted, against his Majesty's Laws, Authority, and Deputies of that Kingdom, An. 1641. Of their Confederacy form, and a War continued by them for many years after; of two several Peace's (the first 1646. the second 1648.) with his Majesty's Lord Lieutenant in that Interim, scandalously violated by the prevailing party among them.  
Yea, to that prodigious height did the Insolence of the rebellious Faction arise, that at length they banished his Majesty's Lieutenant, and took the Royal Authority upon themselves.  
But it may be since his Majesty's happy Restauration, they have repent of their former Wickedness.  
Repent of a Rebellion that was Blessed and Sanctified by the Pope! A Catholic Army (for so they styled themselves) repent of fight for the Catholic Cause!  
They were so far from repenting, that the Popish Clergy of that Kingdom assembled in a National Synod Ann. 1666. refused to petition the King for Pardon, though there were at least thirty then present, and above five hundred more of them alive, which were obnoxious to the Laws for their carriage during the late Wars of the Roman Catholic Confederates. 
(D) History of the Irish Remonstrance, p. 667, 671, 672.   
Indeed since his Majesty's Return, some of the Irish Clergy and Laity agreed to present such a Remonstrance to his Majesty, as might seem to give him some tolerable security of their Loyalty for the future. But the whole number of Ecclesiastical Subscribers was only Sixty nine; the Opposers being two thousand or thereabouts, besides all others in the Irish Colleges and Seminaries abroad: And of these few Subscribers some fell off immediately, upon the first intimation of displeasure from the Internuntio De Vecchiis, and their General Superiors beyond the Seas. 
(E) History of the Irish Remonstrance, p. 577, 578.   
In England many Roman Catholics were actually in Arms against King Charles the First; His Majesty himself (that had most reason to know) informs us, That great numbers of that Religion were entertained in the Army of the Rebels; that others were seduced, to whom he had formerly denied employment; that twenty or thirty at a time of one Troop or Company had been taken Prisoners. 
(F) See His Majesty's Declaration to all his loving Subjects in his Kingdom of Scotland.   
But were not many of the Roman Catholics in the King's Army? They were indeed; but not so many as his Enemies would make the World believe. His Majesty tells us in His Declaration, That sometimes in a Month together there had not been one Papist near his Court. I am sure he was not much beholden to them for their Company at any time; His Majesty knew it was the Policy of his Enemies to hunt them into his Camp, that they might bring an Odium upon the Royal Cause, and confirm the People in that groundless Jealousy of the King's adherence to Popery, which made him (by His Proclamation) to inhibit all men of that Religion to repair to Him: Besides we are told by one of the Roman Church, That 'tis a Maxim of the Jesuits (who have long bore the greatest sway in England) in the Quarrels of Princes and great Men, to have some of their Fathers on one part, and some for the contrary, that they may work for their own Interests on both sides. 
(G) The Author of the Jesuits Reasons unreasonable, Printed 1662.  And, (whatever boasts they now make of their Loyalty to the late King) we have not yet forgotten, how they pleaded to the late Usurpers, That for the Preservation of their Lives they were forced to flee into the King's Garrisons without ever acting against the State. 
(H) The Christian Moderator, printed 1652. p. 60.  That a great part of them were never in actual Arms against the Parliament, but only fled to the Enemy's Garrisons for Shelter, etc. 
(I) Christian Moderator, p. 18   
But I have so much charity as to believe, that some Roman Catholics offered their Lives and Fortunes to the King upon more generous Motives; that they served him faithfully and suffered for him, because (as a great Man of that Religion said of himself) They valued the Favour and Esteem of their Country above all Earthly things; or were true English men as to this World. 
(K) The Earl of Bristol in his Speech made July 1. 1673.   
We have known some tempers that have conquered the malignity of Poison; and some men have a greater love for their King and Country, than for their Priests and Confessors; some have too much honesty, and some too little zeal for Religion to be entrusted with the State-Mysteries of Jesuits and Bigoted Papists. A reverend and learned Person of our Church hath divers times told the World in print, 
(L) Dr. Du. Moulin Aus. to Philanax Anglicus p. 56. (Ed. 1679.) This certain Intelligence shall be justified whensoever Authority will require it; that the year before the King's death, a select number of English Jesuits were sent from their whole party in England, first to Paris, then to Rome with this Question in writing; That seeing the state of England was in a likely posture to change Government, whether it was lawful for the Catholics to work that change, for the advancing and securing the Catholic Cause in England, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresy? and p. 61. As for my being defied by the Papists, I have defied them now seventeen years, to call me in question before our Judges, and so I do still.  That there was a Consult in England of the whole Faction of Jesuits about bringing his Sacred Majesty to the Block; But what number of the Laity were privy to that execrable Design, we are not able to learn.  
But if ever the English Papists had any reason to boast of their Obedience to the Government, it was under the late Usurped Powers: For they basely flattered the most Infamous Rump; 
(M) See the Petition of the Roman Catholics, to the Supreme Authority of this Nation, the Parliament of the Common wealth of England. Christian Moderation. p 59, 60. p. 51. Divers Papists had taken the Oath of Abjuration and Engagement, etc. Part 2. p. 41. The Roman Catholics have generally taken and punctually kept the Engagement, etc. Dr. Baily in the Life of B. Fisher (as I find him quoted by Mr. Fowlis) is very zealous in asserting the Loyalty of the Papists; and yet at the same time bravely tells us, what good Subjects they were to O. Cromwell: Whereas (saith he) all other Sorts and Sects (excepting those who are for all Sorts and Sects) appear against the present Government, like Aries, Scorpio, etc. the Roman Catholics like Pisces (the Emblem of the Fisherman) are contented to remain quiet under Foot.  They publicly owned them for the Supreme Authority of the Nation, and pleaded the Merit of their Fidelity to them. And if generally to take, and punctually to keep the Engagement; if to flatter the great Tyrant; if to offer, that for a Toleration they would renounce the Interest of the Stuarts, be Arguments of firmness of Loyalty to the Crown, than I will grant, That the Roman Catholics are the Kings Most Loyal and Dutiful Subjects.  
But I will conclude this Head with this Observation, That Mr. White in the height of oliver's Tyranny, set out a Book under the Title of The Grounds of Obedience and Government. This moderate Roman Catholic (as he is esteemed) labours not only to disengage the People of England from all Obligation to his present Majesty, (then in Exile) but his Majesty too from laying any further claim to his Crown; but (blessed be God) the King was restored to his Government, to which his Roman Catholic Subjects (according to this Gentleman) ought not to endeavour his Restitution.   

CHAP. II.  
The Treasons and Seditions in other Countries, especially the Bloody Wars in England, and the Murder of King Charles the First charged upon the Protestants. The Reformed Churches abroad, and the Church of England vindicated from this Imputation. The King brought to the Block by a prevailing Faction against the Consent of the Nobility and People of England. The Romish Faction had a great Influence on the beginning and progress of the Rebellion. The Troubles in Scotland fomented by Cardinal Richlieu's Agents. The Letter of the Scotch Covenanters to the French King. The Design of the Papists against the King discovered Ann. 1640. What Influence they had on the War which followed in England, and upon the King's death. Two Propositions added to the foregoing Discourse. 1. That the Grounds on which the War against the King was justified were first laid by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church. This Proposition proved from Gregory 1. Zachary, Gregory the 7th. etc. From Parsons, Creswel, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bouchier, Mariana, Fr. de Verone, Reynolds. They which have written in defence of the War, or of the King's death go upon the same Principles. 2. That in the Reign of King Charles the First, the Pope animated his Subjects to rebel, and sent over divers Bulls to that purpose.  
STaffords Memoires p. 12, 13 [To the Instances given of Popish Malice and Bloodiness 
(A) This resers to the printed Trial of the late Lord Stafford P. 9  from former Examples, he answers, That by the same reason and to as good purpose the traitorous Seditions and Outrages in Germany, France, Bohemia, and Holland, authorized and fomented by Calvin, Zuinglius, Beza, and other Reformers; the late bloody Wars in England, the almost yesterdays Remonstrances and Practices in Scotland; but above all that never to be paralleled hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed, our Glorious Sovereign Charles the First, in cold blood, by outward form of Justice, on pretence of Reformation, might be imputed to the Protestant Religion; for all these horrid Villainies were committed by Protestants; Protestant's who gloried in being more than ordinarily refined from Popish Errors and Superstitions. If it be said (as most justly it may) the Churth of England never taught such Practices, the same say and protest the Papists in behalf of their Church.]  
Let this Author bestow as hard names as he pleases upon the Contrivers and Actors in these horrid Villainies; and let that Religion, (if so wicked a thing must be called Religion) which gave encouragement to them, go (as it deserves) for Infidelity and Irreligion. I am sure there are no greater Enemies to the Christian Religion, than those which endeavour to pretend to promote it by such ways as are contrary to the very Nature and Design of all true Religion.  
Indeed our Adversaries of the Roman Communion lay as bad things to the charge of the Protestants, as we can do to their Church and Religion; and as often as we put them in mind of the Fifth of November, they are ready to reproach us with the Thirtieth of January. And that I may not make any cause or persons look either better or worse than they are, I shall make a faithful representation of the Doctrines and Practices of both sides, so far as they are pertinent to the present Debate, viz.  
Whether the traitorous Seditions and Outrages in England and other Parts of Christendom may be imputed to the Protestant Religion, with as much reason, as the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodyness from former Examples may be to the Roman Church and Religion?  
Some years ago was published a Seditious Libel under the Title of Philanax Anglicus, wherein the Author taxes not only some Protestant Reformers, but the very Reformation itself with Rebellion; charges the English Reformers with Treason against Queen Mary; and (with a Roman boldness) asserts, That the Seditious Doctrines are allowed by the generality of them that call themselves Protestant's. But this Book having had a solid and substantial Answer by Dr. Du Moulin, I will not trouble myself or the Reader with any thing which he hath written in vindication of the Protestant Religion, and the Reformed Churches and Divines abroad. But I cannot but take notice of the ignorance or rather the Malice of the Author of the Controversial Letters, (out of whom the substance of the present imputation is taken) who tells us, He doth not know that the Church of England hath proceeded so far as the Roman Church hath done in the Council of Constance, or condemned those Errors by any Authentic Censures. And our Author is not afraid or ashamed to say, that some Roman Catholics are most remarkable peradventure of all others for firmness of Loyalty.  
I shall endeavour therefore, with as much brevity as the Subject will allow, to vindicate the Honour of the Reformation of our own Church and Nation from this unjust and malicious Charge.  
1. The Confessions of the several Reformed Churches abroad are so full and clear in asserting the Obedience of Subjects to their Princes, that I do not find our Adversaries of Rome have much to say against them. 
(B) V Corpus & Syntagma Confessionum, etc. Aurei. Allob. 1662.: V.G., The Bohemian, the Helvetian, the French, the Augustine, the Saxon, the ●…gick Confessions, in the Articles concerning the Civil Powers. We are told that the Protestants of France, had towards the beginning of the War, resolved upon a Declaration, against the Parliament and Subjects of England taking Arms against the King, and h●… published it, if it had not been dashed by Cardinal Richlieu. 〈◊〉 England's Complaint by L. Gatford. Printed 1648. pag 10.  And 'tis observable, That upon the reprinting of all the Confessions of the Reformed Churches at Geneva An. 1654. it was moved, That instead of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (which do with the greatest plainness and sincerity assert the Duty of Subjects to Princes) they would insert the Confession of the Assembly of Divines, but the motion was utterly rejected by the University, Senate, and Church of Geneva, and the 39 Articles put in as before. 
(C) durel. vind. Eccles-Angl. c. 2.   
As to the Say of particular Doctors of the Reformation I cannot, indeed I need not defend them; they are no Pillars of our Faith, nor do their Writings bear the stamp of public Authority. And since none of our Adversaries have proved, that any of the Reformed Churches have by any Authentic Act approved of Seditions and treasonable Principles (as I shall prove the Roman Church doth) they cannot be imputed to the Protestant Religion with the same reason, that we charge them upon the Roman Church. Let the Papists say and Protest, that their Church never taught any Seditious Practices, yet I shall sooner trust my own Senses, than such men as (by the Principles of their Religion) are under no Obligation of speaking Truth.  
2. No Church under Heaven did ever more expressly declare against all Seditious and Disloyal Practices, than the Church of England.  
Our Reformation was begun and carried on in a peaceable and legal manner; and our Reformers proposed to themselves that excellent Rule of our Saviour, They restored to God the things that were Gods, and to the Kings the full exercise of their lawful Power.  
We are Members of a Church whose just Glory it is not only to have constantly taught the Duty of Subjects to their Princes, but suffered for her Loyalty to them. Our Kings and the Church of England have always rejoiced and wept together; and none ever forsook the Royal Cause in its Distress, which had not first forsaken the Church, or at least lost all their Zeal and Affection to her.  
In Fine, our late Royal Martyr declared, That he died for maintaining the true Protestant Religion; he acquitted not only the Church of England, but all the true Sons of the Church from the Gild of his Blood, scarce any one of which (he said) had been a Beginner or an active Prosecutor of the War. If then by the Protestant Religion, our Author mean the Christian Religion as it is professed in the Church of England, or in the best reformed Churches abroad, his Charge is most unjust and malicious; if he mean any thing else by it, he might better have called it the Popish or Fanatic, than the Protestant Religion.  
What a potent Faction of men, (which they may call Protestants, as they call themselves Catholics) did in these Kingdoms, all men know: But of all men living the Romanists have the least reason to call them Traitors and Rebels, as I shall show afterwards. But though the King was arraigned in the name of the Commons of England, yet it was well observed by his Majesty at his Trial, That they never asked the Question of the tenth man of the Kingdom, much less of the major part of the Nation: They had no consent of the House of Peers; the Ordinance for trying the King being rejected by the Lords. They were no free or full House of Commons; for that House being freed from the Insolence of the Army resolved upon a Treaty with his Majesty, recalled their Votes of Non-Addresses, and voted that he should be in Honour, freedom and safety. And after the major part of the House had voted the King's Concessions to be a sufficient ground for Peace, the Army Officers seized and committed some of the Members as they were coming to the House, accused others of inviting the Scots the last Summer, and required that they might be excluded. Thus (many of the Commons being forced out, and others absenting themselves) they restored the Votes of Non-Addresses, and voted the drawing up a Charge of Treason against his Majesty. This is that Venerable Assembly (a mere unparliamentary Juncto) which in obedience to these Masters, damned all former Votes in Favour of the King, and brought him to the Block; against the Laws of the Kingdom, the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, the Sense of the Church of England, of the House of Peers, and of the greater part of the House of Commons.  
But if we trace the Footsteps of this Rebellion as far as we can, it will appear that the Romish Faction had a great Influence both on the first Beginnings, and Progress of it. What is it that they have more maligned than the Government and Constitution of this Church and Kingdom? Or how could the Roman Conclave find out a safer (if not a quicker) weigh to ruin the Protestant Religion, than by breaking in pieces that Church which is the Strength and Beauty, that Kingdom whose Sovereign was (under God) the Defender of the Reformation?  
It was the Judgement of Bishop Bramhall, That the Pope's Privy Purse, and Subtle Councils helped to kindle our Civil Wars, which ended in the Tragical Murder of the Lords Anointed. The intemperate Heat of the Seditious Spirits in Scotland had fermented a great part of the Kingdom; but before they broke out into open Hostilities, they made secret Applications to Cardinal Richlieu, the great Minister of France, and Favourite of Rome, which made use of all his Interest and Policy to embroil his Majesty's Affairs in that Kingdom. This great Statesman knowing that it was the Interest of England to hold the Balance even between France and Spain, and that his Majesty had (in the year 35) hindered the French from making themselves Masters of the Spanish Netherlands, resolved to blow the Coals in Scotland, and practise upon the Malcontents, whom he found so well prepared for an Insurrection. To this purpose he sends Chamberlain a Scot to exasperate the Confederates against the King; appoints one of his Secretaries to reside among them, to be present in their Councils of War, and to direct their Proceed; and some of the Covenanters had free access to Con, (the same Countryman) whilst Chamberlain was Negotiating for the Cardinal. This is certain, the Court of Rome and the Jesuits (those inveterate Enemies of our Religion and Government) could not have thought of a more effectual and easy Method to bring us to ruin, than by making us do their Work for them; and the Cardinal, who had form those vast Designs of enlarging the French Monarchy, observing (if not raising) the Tumults in that Kingdom, laid hold of the Advantage, which men of ambitious and restless Spirits had put into his Hands.  
Ann. 1639. came to light a Letter of the Scotch Covenanters written to the French King, wherein they desired his Protection, and Assistance. The Lord Lowdon being by the Kings Command examined about it, confessed it was his hand-writing, and that it was framed before the Pacification, which being agreed to, the Letter (he said) was never sent. 
(D) The Memoires of D. Hamilton. And The Memorials of the English Affairs, ad an. 1639.  The late Author of the Impartial Collection hath furnished us with a more exact Discovery of the secret Influence, which those Foreign Councils and Assistances gave both to the Scottish Commotions and English Rebellion. The Letter to the French King is set down by him in English, 
(E) An Impartial Collection of the great Affairs of State, etc. vol. 1. Published 1682. p. 276, 277.  which I will here transcribe.  
SIR, YOur Majesty being the Refuge and Sanctuary of afflicted Princes and States, we have found it necessary to send this Gentleman Mr. Colvil, to represent to your Majesty the Candour and Ingenuity, as well of our Actions and Proceed, as of our Intentions, which we desire to be engraved and written to the whole World, with a beam of the Sun, as well as to your Majesty; We therefore most humbly beseech you (Sir) to give Faith and Credit to him, and to all that he shall say on our part, touching us and our Affairs; being most assured (Sir) of an Assistance equal to your wont Clemency heretofore, and so often showed to this Nation, which will not yield the Glory to any other whatsoever to be eternally (Sir) your Majesty's most Humble, most Obedient, and most Affectionate Servants. Subscribed by divers of the Principal Covenanters.  
At the Meeting of the Parliament in England Apr. 13. 1640. the Lord Keeper in his Speech to both Houses acquaints them; Since his Majesty came from Berwick, it came to his certain knowledge, That they (the Scots) have addressed themselves to Foreign States, and treated with them to deliver themselves up to their Protection and Power (as by God's great Providence and Goodness, his gracious Majesty is able to show under the Hands of the prime Ringleaders of that Faction) than which nothing could be of more dangerous consequence to this and his Majesties other Kingdoms. Whosoever they be that do, or shall wish England ill, they may know it to be of too tough a complexion and courage to be assailed in the Face, or to be set upon at the Fore-door; and therefore it is not unlikely, but they may (as in former times) find out a Postern-Gate.  
After his Speech was ended, the King produced the Original Letter, which he intercepted as it was going to the French King; and ordered it to be read. 
(F) Impartial Collections, p. 309, etc.   
As to the later Insurrections in Scotland, I will only observel, That besides the Information of some Romish Priests, being sent thither to prepare them for a Rebellion, their very Declaration shows, they were acted by a Popish Spirit; for the Act of Supremacy was condemned, and the King's Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs called an Usurping Power.  
But to return: So true were the Romish Emissaries to their good Old Cause, that having set the factious Party to work in Scotland, they took advantage from that conjuncture to stir up a National Rebellion, and barbarous Massacre in Ireland; of which I have spoken already.  
I cannot pass over the Conspiracy against the King in the Year 1640, because it gives some further light into the Designs of Cardinal Richilieu and the Jesuits.  
Whilst his Majesty resided at York, he was acquainted by the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Information he had received from Sir W. Boswel, his Majesty's Ambassador at the Hague. By the discovery of this Plot it is evident, that the Jesuitical Party exasperated the King and his Subjects one against another; labouring to incense his Majesty against them, as conspiring against his Crown and Government; and them against their Sovereign, as aiming at the subversion of their Laws, Liberties and Religion. That they stirred up the Scots to rebel, hindered all accommodation between the King and them, and endeavoured to bring his Majesty under a necessity of craving the Assistance of the Papists, which he should neither obtain without yielding to their own terms, nor refuse without the hazard of his life: That for the compassing of their Ends Cardinal Barbarino was engaged, fifty Scotch Jesuits were maintained in London, Cuneus in quality of the Pope's Legate, Chamberlain, Chaplain and Almoner to Cardinal Richlieu, Sir T. Matthew a Jesuited Priest, Captain Read a Secular Jesuit; and that all the Papists in England did contribute to the carrying on the design.  
Here was a Plot against the King and Kingdom, and Protestant Religion; of which he that desires a full account, may consult Mr. H. Lestrange and Mr. Sanderson in their Histories, Prinn's Rome's Masterpiece, and others of later time.  
What great numbers of Priests, Jesuits, and other Romish Agents afterwards flocked into England; what various shapes they assumed, how they insinuated into the Councils and Armies of the King's Enemies; Mr. Gatford, Prinn, Dr. du Moulin, and others informs us, to whom I refer the Reader. And even some of the Members in the Long Parliament were sensible, how active our Enemies of Rome had been in raising and fomenting the War; as we learn from a late Writer, who sat in that Assembly. I will barely relate what he saith, without making any Collections or Inferences from his words: The Parliament Vote, That which was done at York for a Guard to the King, to be a preparation for War against the Parliament, a breach of the Trust reposed in him by his People, contrary to his Oath, and tending to the dissolution of his Government; and all such as serve him there, to be Traitors to the Laws of the Kingdom.  
Upon the debate for raising an Army, one of the Members declared his sense: Our Enemies of the Popish Church have left no Evil Arts unessayed to bring us to our present posture, and will yet leave none unattempted to make our breaches wider; well knowing, that nothing will more advance their Empire, than our Divisions. Our Misery, whom they account Heretics, is their Joy, and our Distractions will be their Glory; and all Evil arts and ways, to bring Calamities upon us, they will esteem Meritorious. 
(A) Memorials of the English Affairs. ad An. 1642. Sanderus de Schism. Angl. (1585.) p. 188. Quo Haereticorum (ut fit) bello, Catholici indies plures constantioresque in fide fiunt. 
Campanella de Mon. Misp. (Amst. 1641.) p. 204. Jam verò ad enervandos Anglos nihil tam conducit, quam dissensio & discordia inter illos excitata, perpetuóque nutrita, quod citò occasiones meliores suppeditabit.  
P. 207. Verum ab alia parte instiget primores Comitiorum, aut Parliamenti, ut Angliam in formam reipublicae reducant.    
Nor did the design of Cardinal Richlieu die with him; it was vigorously pursued by Mazarine, to whom he left his Instructions at his death; and what an intimate Correspondence was maintained between him and the Grandees of Derby House, we are told by the Author of the History of Independency 
(B) Hist. of Indep. p. 114, 115.  His words are these: To negotiate which (the detaining of the Prince in France) the Grandees of Derby- House, and the Army, have an Agent lying Lieger with Cardinal Mazarine (the great French Instrument of State) who is so well supplied with Money, and so open handed, that it hath been heard from Mazarines own Mouth; That all the Money the Queen and Prince have cost the Crown of France, hath come out of the Parliaments Purse with a good advantage. It is likewise said, Mazarine hath an Agent here, to drive on the Interests of France in England.  
To all which we may add, That the King having assented (in the Isle of Wight) to pass five strict Bills against Popery, the Jesuits in France, at a General Meeting there, resolved to bring him to Justice, by the power of their Friends in the Army. And this resolution of the Fathers was agreeable to the sense of the Roman Conclave. For the Question being sent to Rome from the whole Party of Jesuits in England (the year before the King's death;) whether, considering the present posture of Affairs, it was lawful for the Catholics to work a change in the Government, by making away the King, whom there was no hope to turn from his Heresy? It was answered affirmatively. 
(C) Answer to Philanax Anglicus, p. 59, & 65.   
To what I have said upon this Argument, I will add these two Propositions: 1. That the grounds on which the War against the King was maintained, (so far as it was maintained under a colour of Religion) were laid by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church; and the most dreadful effects of Fanaticism, which were the consequents of it, may be justified by their Principles.  
And here I could make it evident, That the same Maxims of Political Divinity, the same Arguments, and many times the same Phrases and Expressions, are to be found in the heads of both Factions. I know it is disputed, whether the Ringleaders of Sedition amongst us poisoned the Jesuits, or the Jesuits them; but I do not envy the Bishops of Rome the honour of having first poisoned them both with Antimonarchical Doctrines. If Milton (the great Oracle of one of the Factions) had owned himself to be a Papist, there had been no reason to wonder at the Impiety of his Doctrines, which he either did, or might have learned from the Popes and greatest Divines of the Roman Church. It was truly alleged by Salmasius, that the Doctrine of the Sacred and inviolable Authority of Princes was preserved pure and uncorrupt in the Church, till the Bishops of Rome attempted to set up a Kingdom in this World paramount to all Kings and Emperors. But he, with his usual confidence, acquits the Popes, and charges his Antimonarchical Principles on Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Bucer, Martyr, Paraeus, and all the Reformed Divines. 
(D) Pro populo Anglicano defensio, p. 33. Quot sunt Ecclesiae Reformata praestantissimi Doctores, tot videi acerimos sibi adversarios fore,— frustra id in Papam deonerare at que transsure contendis, quod omnes liberae Nationes, omnis Religio, omnes Orthodoxi sibi sumunt, in se suscipiunt.   
I might oppose to the Authority of Milton a very late Author of the Roman Church, who was well acquainted with the Doctrine of it. A reverend and learned Divine of our Church charged this Seditious Principle on the Jesuits; that Government is so originally in the People, that they by their Representatives may call their Sovereign to an Account, and alter the Form of the Government; he returns this Answer, That this Principle (whatsoever truth it may have in speculation) is by no means to be preached to the People, who are apt enough of themselves to stretch Cases, and pick Quarrels with their best Governors; yet it was taught many Ages before the Jesuits were so much as thought of. 
(E) Answer to several late Treatises (in the Preface) Ed. 2. 1674. By Dr. Stillingsleet. 
And this was the Fundamental Principle of the Seditions Spirits in Scotland, at the first beginning of the Trouble, viz. That all Authority is Originally in the Collective Body, derived from thence to the Prince; and that not only in case of negligence it is Suppletive in the Collective Body, as being Communicate from the Commonalty to the King, Cumulative not Privative; but also in case of Maladministration, to return to the Collective Body; so that Rex excidit jure suo, and that they may refuse Obedience.  
See the Declinator of the Bishops of Scotland against the pretended General Assembly holden at Glasgow. Novemb. 21.1638.    
It seems the Doctrine is true, and hath been taught for many Ages in the Roman Church, but the People are not fit to have the management of it.  
This latter part of his Assertion I could make good; but because I study brevity, I shall only set down the Principal Heads of Antimonarchical Divinity as I find them in the Writings of some of the Popes, which lived divers Ages before the rise of the Jesuits.  
1. I begin with Gregory the first, who lived above a thousand years since. The Story of Phocas (one of the greatest Villains and Rebels in the World) is well known. This man from a Centurion became the Ringleader of a Rebellion against Mauritius, (his Sovereign Lord) caused the Emperor's Children, the Heir Apparent to the Crown, divers of the Loyal Nobility, and the Emperor himself to be put to death; and yet he was no sooner gotten into the Imperial Throne; but Pope Gregory writes an Epistle to him, wherein he basely and perfidiously courts the Tyrant; congratulates his Success in the same words the Angels did our Saviour's Nativity; blesses God, and admires the Divine Providence in exalting him to the Empire. This canting flattering Letter might with a little variation have served for an Address to any late Usurpers. 
(F) S. Gregorii Magni Opera Farisi is 1619. c 11. Ep. 38. Gloria in excelsis Deo, qui, juxta quod scriptum est, mut at tempora & transfert regna; et qui hoc cunstis innotuit, quod per prophitam suum loqui dignatus est, dicens, qui a dominatur excelsus in regno hominum, et cui voluerit ipse dat illud— aliquando cum misericors Deus merentium multorum cord a sua decrevit collatione resovere, unum ad regiminis culmen provehit, per cujus misericordie viscera in cunctorum mentibus exultationis suae gratiam insundit. De qua exultationis abundantia roborari nos citius credimus, qui benignitatem vestrae pietatis ad imperiale fastigium pervenesse gaudemus. Laetentur coeli & exultet terra, etc.   
2. The next is Zachary, that (about 900 years ago) deposed Childerick the French King, and absolved his Subjects from their Allegiance, not so much for his Iniquities, as because he was not fit to Govern. And this is attested by divers Authors of good Credit, and by their own Authentic Canon-Law; 
(G) Decret. Par. 2. Caus. 15 qu. 6. c. 4.  However Milton pretends there was no need of a Pope, the King by his perfidiousness having discharged the people from their Oath made to him. 
(H) Pro pop. Angl. def. c. 4.  But Milton and others of better credit acknowledge as much as is sufficient to my present purpose; That the Pope declared it was the People's right to make and un make their Kings; and that he should be King which was fittest to discharge that Trust.  
The Nobility of France were sensible (say their Historians) of the King's idleness and unfitness to Govern, and of the great Virtue of Pippin; and upon Pipin's consulting the Pope what was fit to be done in this case, his Determination was, that He should be King, who was fittest to discharge the Office of a King; Whereupon the Nobility and People in a full Assembly depose Childerick, and choose Pepin.  
Thus the People of France (with the Pope's Consent and Advice) took off the Crown from their King's Head, gave it to one of his own Subjects, and changed the Kingdom from one Family to another.  
And what unpardonable Crime was this poor King guilty of? What Acts of cruelty had he committed? Indeed there is no such thing laid to his Charge. Some say he was a good and religious King; others that he was a good natured and easy Prince. His Enemies say he was not fit to govern; and this is the principal reason which the Canon-Law gives for his being deposed. It may be he was not so wise as some of his Neighbours; I am sure he was not so Crafty as his Holiness at Rome, or his own Subjects at home.  
3. I challenge any man to show me a more pernicious Account of the rise of Kingly Government, than is to be seen in Gregory the seventh that lived about six hundred years since. The Kings and Princes of the Earth, were at first no better than other Mortals; but by the Instigation of the Devil, by Pride, Rapine, Perfidiousness, Murder, intolerable Presumption, and all manner of Wickedness, they got the Power into their hands. Rare Divinity for the Head of the Church! But had his Holiness put in Popes instead of Kings, he had not been much out either in his Divinity or History. He that has a mind to see any more such wicked stuff, may consult the places quoted in the Margin. 
(I) Greg. 7. Ep. l. 8. Ep. 21. Itant dignitas à secularibus etiam Deum ignorantibus inventa, non subjicietur ti dignitati, quam omnipotentis Dei providentia, etc. quis nescit Reges & Deuces ab iis habuisse Principium, qui Deum ignorantes, superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis paené sceleribus, mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante, super pares scilicet homines dominari caeca cupiditate & intolerabili praesumptione affectaverint. V l. 2. Ep. 5. Ep. 13. Ep. 18. l. 3. Ep. 10. Also his famous Dictares published in a council at Rome are to be seen in Baronius Annal. Eccles Tom. 11. ad An. 1076. sect. 31, 32, 33. V Baron. ad An. 1080. sect. 62, 63, 64, 65. ad an. 1073. sect. 73, 24.   
Kingly Government (in his Judgement) is nothing else but the contrivance of evil Spirits to abridge men of that Liberty which God and Nature have given them; and if so, what we call Rebellion is a very harmless (if not a meritorious) thing. For why should not the People endeavour to recover their ancient Rights and Liberties which were so unjustly taken from them?  
Miltons' Inference from such Premises is this: If it were my happiness to set free the Minds of Englishmen from longing to return under the Captivity of Kings, from which the Strength and Supreme Sword of Justice hath delivered them, I shall have done a Work not much inferior from that of Zorobabel. 
(L) Iconoclastes towards the latter end.   
And now I cannot show (without exceeding my intended brevity) how true the other Popes have been to these Principles V G. in the 9th. Century Adrian the Second salutes the Pious and Orthodox Basilius, (that's the Roman Catholic Title for Traitors) and congratulates the Murder of his Sovereign Prince.  
About the 1090th. year Vrban the second sat in the Holy See, of whom I need say no more, than that he was the Author of that Impious Decree, That an Oath made to an Excommunicate Person is not to be kept.  
His Successor Paschal the Second commanded the Son of Henry the 4th, to take up Arms against his Father.  
Alexander the Third (which lived in the same Century) trod upon the Neck of the Emperor.  
The Decrees of Innocent the Third and Fourth are well known.  
But I am not writing an History of the Bishops of Rome.  
Since the rise of Jesuits the Roman Catholics in France entered into a clandestine Combination (the Holy League they called it) without their King's Consent, under a colour of opposing the Progress of Heresy, but in truth to reduce the Catholic Forces into one Body, and strip the King of his Royalty. And how specious soever the Design of it might appear to some men of more Zeal than Judgement, yet in its very Nature and Tendency, it was of most fatal Consequence to the King and Government; and being prosecuted with Force and Arms against Henry the Third and Fourth, it cost one of them his Life and the other his Religion.  
The Principal Instrument of the League was Matthew a Jesuit; and the Fathers of that Order would give no Absolution to the Gentry of France, unless they would vow and promise to band themselves against their Sovereign. The secret Counsels and Conspiracies were holden in the Jesuits College; Where did the Agents and Ambassadors of Spain, the two Cardinals that termed themselves Legates in France assemble their Counsels, but among the Jesuits? Was not the Provincial of the Jesuits sent to Rome, and Father Sammier into Spain; where they acquitted themselves so well, that both Gregory the 13th. and the King of Spain promised large Sums of Money for carrying on the War? In Fine, the Holy League, and the War of Subjects against their Kings in prosecution of it, were promoted by Pope Gregory the 13th. Sixtus the 5th. Gregory the 14th. Innocent the 9th: etc. by the Jesuits and most of the Preachers and Confessors of all Orders; who soon drew in the main Body of the Papists into this Combination against Henry the Third, a King of their own Religion; but unjustly suspected to be Haeretically affected.  
The Design of this Holy League may be seen in Thuanus l. 63. Ed. Genevae p. 164. etc. more largely in Davila's History of the Civil Wars of France, ad An. 1576. etc. out of whom I will transcribe part of it.  
Art. 2. For preservation of the King and his Successors in the State, Honour, Authority, Duty, Due to them by their Subjects, as it is contained in those Articles which shall be presented to him in the Assembly of the States, etc.  
Art. 4, and 5. If there be any Impediment, Opposition, or Rebellion, be it from whom it will, or from whencesoever it may, etc. In case any of the Covenanters be molested, oppressed or questioned for this Cause, be it by whom it will, (the King himself is not excepted) they shall employ their persons and goods, estates and lives to take revenge on them, either by Justice or Force, without any exception of persons whatsoever.  
Art. 6. If any of the Confederates shall wilfully break this Promise and Oath, they shall be punished in Bodies and Goods, by all means that can be thought of, etc.  
Art. 7. They shall swear to yield ready Obedience to the Head of the League, to the ruin of all Opposers of it without partiality or respect of persons.  
Art. 8. All the Catholics of all places shall be secretly advertised by their particular Governors, to enter into this League, and to concur in providing of Men, Arms, and other Necessaries.  
Art. 10. All to be held as Enemies that will not enter into this Covenant.  
It would be too large a digression to enter upon a Discourse concerning the Solemn League and Covenant in these Kingdoms; and therefore I will only subjoin the two following Observations, as a further Proof of the Loyalty and Peaceableness of the Reformed Churches abroad.  
1. The first is that of his Majesty in his Excellent Manifesto (or late Declaration concerning the late Tumults in Scotland, by the King An. 1639. p. 74.)  
This Covenant was resented abroad by Papists with infinite joy, in hopes it might oblige the King and his Successors to hate the Protestant Religion for the sake of those Seditious Zealots; and the Priests and Jesuits from Douai and other Seminaries, came over in great numbers upon that Encouragement. But by Foreign Protestants the Covenant was received with most offensive scandal and grief, (as his Majesty's Public Ministers abroad gave him an account) for they were afraid it should bring an indelible Scandal upon the Reformation, and alienate the minds of Princes from it. Thus it became Joy and Triumph to our Enemies, Grief and Scandal to our, Friends:  
2. We are told, That the English Divines, and Scotch Commissioners, sent a Copy of their Covenant, with a solemn Invitation to Seventeen Reformed Churches beyond the Seas; but notwithstanding all the unjust Calumnies cast upon his Majesty, we never heard of any one Reformed Church that concurred with them in promoting it.  
It is now time to come to the Principles of the Jesuits; and though I cannot find that the Divines and Casuists of other Orders are much more Honest and Loyal than they, yet I shall confine myself to them, because their Seditious and Treasonable Doctrines are maintained for the advancement of the Court of Rome, and by a particular influence from the Holy See. This is the richest, most learned and active of all the Orders of the Roman Church; they are under the strictest Vow of Obedience to the Pope; have had more ample Charters and Bulls of Privileges, than all the other Orders; they are best qualified to dive into the Councils of Princes and Statesmen, and into the Consciences and Purses of the People; they have almost devoured the Secular Clergy, worn out the other Orders, and engrossed the trade of hearing Confessions in England to their own Faction; and whensoever there hath been any dangerous Attempt upon our Church or State, they were the principal Contrivers and Agents, the other Clergy is but their Tools and Instruments.  
How much they have improved and refined these cursed Principles, I cannot inform the Reader without transcribing a great part of the Works of Parsons, Creswel, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bouchier, Mariana, Fr. de Verone, and others; out of almost any one of which, I could gather an entire Body of Commonwealth Divinity.  
Nor can it be alleged, that these are only the Opinions of private Doctors, which are disowned by the Body of the Society; for their Books are perused and approved either by the General, or by other Superiors, or by the most eminent Divines, authorized and assigned by them. And is it not expressed in most of the Licenses, that there is nothing in them contrary to Faith or good Manners? That they are profitable for all Casuists and Guides of Souls?  
But that this may appear to be no uncharitable imputation, I shall set down some of Bellarmine's Principles, and then refer you to the other Authors, as they are cited in the Margin; by which you may see, it is the glory of their Society, to be obliged to a perfect Uniformity in Doctrine. 
(M) Disput. R. Bellarmini, Lagduni 1610. Tom. 1. de R. Pontifice, l. 1. c. 3. Regimentemperacum ex omnibus tribus formis, etc.   
1. Then, he informs you which is the best kind of Government. Let not the Precedents of Provinces be the King's Deputies or Annual Judges, but true Princes; who may both be obedient to the Command of the chief Prince, and in the mean time govern their Province or City, not as if it were another Man's, but as their own: By this means both Monarchy and Aristocracy may have place in the Commonwealth. And if neither the Supreme Prince, nor the Inferior Princes, acquire their Dignity by right of Succession, but by the Election of the People; this would be the best and most desirable form of Government 
(N) V Constitut. Soc. Jesconst.— 42. Doctrinae differentes non admittantur●… nec verbo in concionibus, vel lectionibus publicis, nec scriptis libris, qui quidem edi non poterunt in lucem sine approbatione, & Consensu Praepositi Generalis.  A form of Government more Democratical (by his own acknowledgement) than that of Venice. 
(O) L. 1. c. 2 (p. 619.) Respublica Venetorum est Aristocratia admixta Monarchiae.   
2. The Power is in the whole Multitude, as in its proper Seat and Subject, and that by Divine right; and it dependeth on the consent and courtesy of the People, to set either Kings or Consuls, or other Magistrates over them; and if there be a lawful Cause, they may change the Government, and turn a Monarchy into an Aristocracy, as they please. 
(P) De Laicis, l. 3. c. 6. Sect. Secundo nota, & Quarto nota.   
This he took to be the common Doctrine of their Divines; but afterwards finding that some had written against it, he comes to confirm it in the Recognition of his Works. And first, he proves it from Aquinas, Dominicus à Soto, Navarre, etc. then he confirms it by Experience: For (saith he) the City of Rome was first governed by Kings, than the People set up Consuls instead of them; which kind of Government was therefore esteemed just, because it seemed good to the People. Afterwards he commends the saying of Navarre, That the People do never so transfer their Power to a King, but they retain it habitually in themselves, and may in certain cases resume it into their own hands. Lastly, he proves from several Examples out of Scripture, That it belongs to the People to set a King over themselves. 
(Q) Recognitio, l. 3. Qui est de Laicis.   
3. King's are admitted to the Government under certain Conditions and Limitations, which if they transgress, the Subjects are discharged from all obligation of Obedience to them. Princes are received into the Church with an express or tacit Compact, That they shall submit their Sceptres unto Christ, defend and preserve the Faith, under the penalty of forfeiting their Crowns; therefore if once they fall into Heresy, or become Enemies to Religion, they may be judged by the Church, and Deposed without any Injury to them. 
(R) De R. Pont. l. 5. c. 7. Sect. Quarta ratio.   
4. It is lawful for the People, in certain Cases, to depose the King. In Temporal Commonwealths, if the King degenerate into a Tyrant; though he be the head of the Kingdom, he may be deposed by the People, and another Elected. 
(S) De Concil. Auctor. l. 2. c. 19 Sect. Ad alteram consequentiam.   
If you object, That the Primitive Christians did not depose Nero, Dioclesian, etc. he answers, They wanted strength; (they were bound to be subject for Wrath, but not for Conscience sake) for otherwise, they might lawfully have set up new Kings and Princes over them, as is evident from 1 Cor. 6. 
(T) De R. Pont. l. 3. c. 7. Quod si Christiani olim non deposuerunt Neronem, etc. id fuit quia deerant vires temporales Christianis. Id. de Excus. Barclaii.   
If you urge those Texts of Scripture, which require Obedience to Kings and Princes: 'tis true (saith the Cardinal) to disobey your King, is against the Law of God; but the Pope, when he deposes a King, doth not permit the People to disobey the King, but makes him that was their King to be a King no longer. 
(V) Idem in Earclaium.   
If you demand Precedents out of Scripture; Was not Uzziah deposed? 2 Chron. ' 26. Was not Athaliah deposed and put to ' death? 2 Chron. 23. 
(X) Id. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 8.   
5. He makes the Civil Government to truckle under the Ecclesiastical: For the Civil Government is instituted by Men; but the Church Government is from God alone, and of Divine Institution. 
(Y) Id. de Laicis, l. 3. c. 6. Sect. Quinte nota. Et. de. R. Pont. l. 1. c. 7. Sect. Praeterea principatus, etc.   
The Cognizance of Church Matters belongs not to Secular Princes, they have no judgement in Ecclesiastical Matters; because Civil Peace and Tranquillity is the proper object of their Care.  
If they do not their duty, they are to be brought under the Lash, and be compelled to it by Excommunication.  
The Ecclesiastical Power is to the Secular, as the Spirit is to the flesh, which rules, moderates, and sometimes restrains it; but the Flesh hath no command over the Spirit, neither can it direct, or judge, or restrain it in any thing 
(A) L. 1. c. 7. tit. Quod non sit Ecclesiasticum regimen penes Principes Seculares. Vid.l. 5. c. 7. & de Clericis. l. 1. c. 29. Sect. Alterum Argumentum, etc. Et Bellar. contra Barclaium. .  
6. Though the Cardinal hath not in express Terms asserted the lawfulness of putting Kings to death, (and I know very few of any Persuasion that have expressly asserted it) yet he hath furnished the Regicides both with Precedents for their practice, and Warrants for their Doctrine. For he teaches, That the Church may exercise a Coercive power over Kings and Princes by any ways and methods, that are necessary for the good of the Church. That Kings may be Deposed; and there is no great difference (as I shall show afterwards) between Deposing and putting them to death. He proves his Doctrine from the practice of Jehoiada the High Priest, that commanded the Soldiers to put Athaliah to death, not only for Tyranny, but for adhering to a false Religion. 
(B) Id. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 7, 8.   
In his Book against King James, he commends the Murder committed by J. Clement on Henry the Third of France, calls the Regicide a Sacred Person, and admires the miraculous Providence of God in bringing him to death. 
(C) Bell. in Torto, p. 71. Ed. 1608. Deus ultus est Christum suum, dum per alium sacratum virum, alioqui militiae imperitum & inermem, Regem tundem non sine manifesto divinae Providentiae miraculo intersecit.   
But what if Heaven will not work a Miracle for them? The Cardinal is so well skilled in the Art of King-killing, that he can dispatch a Prince with less hazard to his own Party. He would not have Ecclesiastical Men put them to death with their own hands; but the Pope must first admonish them, then deprive them of the Sacraments; next absolve their Subjects from the Oaths of Allegiance, and if need be, deprive them of their Royal authority. The Execution belongs to others. 
(D) Id. contra Barclaium.   
Thus I have given a short account of the Antimonarchical Principles of this great Man, that was first Reader of Controversial Divinity at Rome; afterwards sent by Pope Sextus the Fifth into France, with his Legate Cardinal Cajetan where he stirred up the People to a Rebellion against their Sovereign; 
(E) Qui Lutetiae egit per illos annos publici furoris, totius conjurationis (Ligam vocant) approbator, fautor, & fax perpetua. Is. Casauboni ad Fr. Duc. Epistola, p. 21.  and was advanced to the dignity of a Cardinal by Clement the Eighth. 
(F) Alegambe Bibl. Script. Soc. Jes. p. 410, 411.   
I might now show, that these are the common Principles of the Society; but this would afford matter enough for an entire Discourse. 
(G) See Parsons (under the counterfeit name of Doleman) in his Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England, part 1. 
Creswel, (under the name of Philopater) and Reynolds (under the name of Rossary) De justa Christianae reipublicae in Reges impios & haereticos autoritate. (He was no Jesuit, but of the same Principles.)  
Suarez Def. fid. Cath. etc. A Book written against King James.  
Bouchier, de justa Hen. 3. abd. è Francorum Regno. A small Book, but almost every page is full of Treasonable Principles.  
Mariana de Rege & Regis Institutione; or (as some call it) Institutio principum occidendorum.  
Fr. de Verone, Apol. pro J. Chasiello, (A Book, that if it be possible, outstrip; Mariana's in Villainy.)  
To which I could add Endem. Johannes, Molina, Lessius, Em. Sa, Greg. de Valentia, Tolet. etc.  
Whether Junius Brutus was a Protestant or no, is not certain; I find King James suspects the Book was set out by a Papist.  
The Positions of Knox and Buchanan are summed up by B. Bancroft, in his dangerous Positions, l. 1. c. 4. The later Patrons of these Principles are well known.    
These are the Men that furnished the leading Faction amongst us with Principles and precedents, with Arguments and Texts of Scripture; as will appear to any one that compares the Books cited in the Margin, with the Speeches, Declarations and Pamphlets of the late Times. Out of them they either did, or might have derived the grounds of the War against the King, of erecting an High Court of Justice, and of bringing him to the Block. Out of them I could easily deduce all the Materials of that Bloody Ordinance, to erect an High Court of Justice for the Trial of the King; the Impeachment against his Majesty in the name of the Commons of England; the Speech of Bradshaw, Precedent of that Mock-court of Justice; and Milton's Vindication of the Proceed against the King.  
But because Bellarmine did not in express terms justify the putting of Kings to Death, I will add, That Mariana doth not only defend the lawfulness of a formal and aggressive War against a Sovereign Prince, but also sets down a Method of destroying him, either with, or without the Formality of Justice. His Book was written An. 1599 which was divers years after he had read Tho. Aquinas in the University of Paris. 
(H) Alegambe, p. 258.  It was approved by Aquaviva, the General of the Jesuits, by Hoyeda Visitor of the Society in the Province of Toledo, by divers other grave and Learned Jesuits. It was commended or justified by Ribadeneira, Scribanius, Gretser, and Becanus, of the same Society.  
It was ordered to be burnt by the Parliament of Paris; but F. Cotton could never be induced to write against it: The Authors of the Apology (published at Paris in the name of the Society soon after the Murder of Henry the Fourth) durst not plainly and honestly condemn it; and (whatever some credulous People are now made to believe) neither the Pope, nor Superiors of the Jesuits ever passed any public Censure upon this most pestilent and Treasonable Book. But to return.  
1. Suppose there be a competent Strength and interest, than the readiest and safest way, 
(F) Mariana, Edit. Moguntie 1605. p. 58, 59, etc.  is for the People to meet in a public Assembly, to deliberate by public Consent what is to be done, and then to keep inviolably that which is agreed upon by Common consent. The Prince must first be admonished and exhorted to amend; but if he refuse the Remedy, and there be no hopes of his amendment, the Sentence being once pronounced, it will be lawful for the Commonwealth to deny Obedience to him. And because a War must necessarily follow; the Counsels how to maintain it must be sit down; Arms must be quickly provided, and Taxes laid upon the People, to defray the Expenses of the War. And if it be requisite, and the Commonwealth cannot otherwise maintain itself, it will be lawful, both by the right of Defence, and more by the Authority proper to the People, to declare publicly the King to be the common Enemy, and then to kill him with the Sword.  
The Commonwealth (from which the Royal Power hath its Original) may, when the case requires it, bring the King to Judgement, and deprive him of his Sovereignty; for the Commonwealth hath not so transferred the Right of Power to the Prince, but it hath reserved a greater Power to itself.  
2. But if there be no opportunity for the States of the Kingdom to assemble; in this case of necessity, they may dispense with the Formalities of Law, any man may do that which the Commonwealth is supposed to desire should be done; the common voice of the People shall be his Warrant that cuts of the Kings Head.  
3. But what if this be like to endanger the Traitor's Neck?  
Then he may take away the King by conveying a strong and subtle Poison into 〈◊〉 Garment or Saddle, as the Moors have killed their Enemies with poisoned Presents.  
But 'tis time to draw to a conclusion of this Head; J. Goodwin in one of his Pamphlets hath this remarkable expression; As for offering violence to the person of a King, or attempting to take away his Life, we leave the proof of the lawfulness of it to those profound Disputers the Jesuits, etc.  
And one of his Adversaries in a Letter to him declares, that J. Goodwin is (for aught he knows) the first and only Minister of any Reformed Church, that ever was of that Jesuitical Opinion, as himself styles it. 
(L) Nethersole in a Letter to J. Goodwin Printed Jan. 8, 1648.   
And though I will not undertake to make good that Assertion; yet to the Positions of any of our Sectaries I can oppose the Authorities of a whole Herd of Jesuits and other Divines of the Roman Church. But to all these Observations I will only add one more; That as a Preparative to the Murder of King Charles. the First, a Book was printed An. 1648. (licenced by G. Mabbot) bearing this Title, Several Speeches delivered at a Conference concerning the Power of Parliaments to proceed against their King for Misgovernment.  
The Heads upon which these Speeches are pretended to be made, and the very Matter and Expressions (excepting only some few not material Passages, are wholly taken out of the Book of Parsons, (an English Jesuit) the great Design of which was to baffle the Title of King James to the Crown of England, animate the People to Rebellion, and introduce the Roman Catholic Religion. All the difference is, Parsons published his Book by way of Dialogue, these turned it into Speeches.  
This Parsons was Rector of the English College at Rome, miss very narrowly of a Cardinal's Cap; of how great esteem he was at Rome may be gathered from that famous Inscription on his Monument, 
(M) Aligambe p. 413, 414.  And he hath furnished the Seditious Spirits amongst us with Arguments and Precedents for their Practices against the King.  
This false new Title (they are the words of Mr. Prinne) ' published at this Season, intimated to the World, that this Discourse of a Jesuit (for which he was condemned of High Treason) was nothing else but Speeches made by some Members of the Commons House at a Conference with the Lords; of which Book though himself and divers others complained, there was nothing done to vindicate the Houses from this gross Imputation. 
(N) Prinne's Speech in the House of Commons Decemb. 4. 1648. p. ●00   
By all which we see that the Popes and Jesuits (though at a distance) contributed very much to the late Bloody Wars in England and the dismal consequences of them.  
All the difference I can find between the Heads of both Factions is only this; Whether the Power of Deposing and Chastising Kings belongs to the People or to the Pope? The Fanatique Sectaries allow the People (by their Representatives) to resume the Power into their own hands; whereas some of the Popish fanatics reserve this Power to the Pope as the Common Father of Christendom. Some I say, for the greater part of them invest the Commonwealth with this Authority.  
And so much of the first Proposition.  
2. In the Reign of King Charles the First, the Pope stirred up his Subjects (of the Roman Communion) to Rebel, forbade them to take the Oath of Allegiance, and absolved them from their Obedience.  
In the beginning of his Majesties Reign the Pope by his Bull strictly forbids the taking the Oath of Allegiance. 
(O) Urban 8. Dilectis filiis Catholicis Angliae. Romae Maii 30. 1126.   
An. 1642. The Pope persuades Eugenius Oneal to give proofs of his Valour in joining with the Irish Catholics against the Haeretiques, grants to him and all his Adherents the Apostolical Benediction and Plenary Indulgence. 
(P) In a Bull dated Octob. 8. 1642, to Eugegenius Oneal.   
An. 1643. he grants a Bull of Plenary Indulgence to all the Roman Catholics of Ireland, who had joined in the Rebellion began in the year 1641. 
(Q) This Bull is dated May 25, 1643. all which Bulls are extant in the Histories of those times, and therefore need not be transcribed.   
When the Irish Papists submitted to the King, subscribed and swore to the observation of the Articles agreed upon; the Pope absolved them from their Oath, took upon himself to be their General in the person of his Nuntio, assumed the exercise of the Regal Power, imprisoned those Roman Catholics, and threatened to take away their Lives, who had promoted the Peace, and desired to return to their Allegiance to his Majesty.  
And 'tis observable, That soon after the most Infamous Rump had crowned all their Wickedness with the Murder of his Sacred Majesty, they nulled the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and so made themselves as Innocent as the Child unborn. 
(R) Feb. 9 The House voted that the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy should be Null and Void. memory's of the English Affairs. ad an. 1648.   
Thus I have proved (with as much brevity as a Discourse of this consequence would admit) That neither the Reformed Churches abroad, nor the Church of England gave any encouragement to the late Bloody Wars in England, or the Murder of the Lords Anointed; and I have showed what Influence the Principles and Practices of the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church had upon them.  
I have omitted nothing that deserves our Consideration, except the Gunpowder Treason; which having been the Subject of many Sermons and Books, I shall pass it over only with these two Observations.  
1. The late Lord Stafford at his Trial declared, That he never heard any of the Church of Rome speak a good word of it. 
(S) In the printed Trial, p. 53.   
The truth is there is nothing to defend such a Masterpiece of Villainy but the Sword; what the English Papists speak of it concerns not me to inquire; but was not the rise of that Horrid Treason from the Breves of Pope Clement the 8th. in which he required the Roman Catholics not to admit any but a Catholic to the Crown? Did not the same Pope (by a Bull sent to the Superiors of the Regulars) for bid them to make use of any thing revealed in confession to the benefit of the Secular Government; and is it not (at least) highly probable that the said Bull had a particular respect to the Gunpowder Treason? 
(T) See The Case put by Delrio the Jesuit, Disqu. Mag. c. I. sect. 2.   
Did not Sir E. Digby call it the best Cause?  
Was not Garnett's name inserted into the English Martyrology?  
Was not one of the Conspirators made the Pope's Paenitentiary, and another a Confessor in St. Peter's at Rome?  
2. He saith, That the Plot was owned by the Traitors themselves at their death.  
But did not Garnette and Tresham deny it with the most bitter Imprecations? make the most solemn Protestations of their own Innocency, and avow the Lawfulness of denying and forswearing any thing whereof they were guilty, in case either the Judges be incompetent, or the Proofs against them defective?  
And 'tis observable, that Garnette never owned any thing which was laid to his Charge, till (as himself confessed) the clearness and unexpectedness of the Proofs made him ashamed to persist any longer in his Denial. 
(V) If. Casau●…ni Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum p. 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, &c:   
I have now done with the Court of Rome and its Adherents. Of the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and General Councils I shall speak in the next Chapter; by which it will appear, whether the Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness are Justifiable by the Principles of the Roman Church and Religion.   

CHAP. III. Doctrines and Principles of the Roman Church.  
1. The Doctrine of Deposing Princes. This is the Doctrine of all the approved Writers of that Church; Of their General Councils, of their Public Offices and Breviaries. An Account of those persons who have appeared against the Deposing Doctrine.  
2. The King-killing Doctrine. It is a necessary consequent of the Deposing Doctrine. The Roman Divines equivocate in this Question. The Jesuits generally assert it; divers of the Popes and the Canon Law approve of it.  
3. Of destroying men's Lives for Religion. The true State of the Question. The Church of Rome damns all Haeretiques. All Protestants are Haeretiques in her account. She enjoins all Christians to endeavour the Extirpation of them. All Bishops of her Communion sworn to destroy them. The Laws of the Church deliver them up to the Secular Power to be put to death.  
4. Of absolving his Majesty's Subjects from their Allegiance.  
I come now to his Lordship's Principles of Faith and Loyalty, as they are called p. 44.  
But first he declares; [As to the damnable Doctrine of King-killing, if he were of any Church whatsoever, and found that to be its Principle, he would leave it.  
Doubtless (saith our Author) the thing which most weighed to my Lord's Prejudice, etc. was a prepossessed Opinion of wicked Principles supposed to be held and practised by my Lord, as the matter of his Faith and Religion. It is by many taken for granted, the Papists hold it an Article of Faith, that to depose and murder Kings, to Massacre their Neighbours, and destroy their native Country by Fire and Sword (when the interest of their Religion requires it) are Acts dispensable by the Pope, and meritorious of Heaven. Now what thing so wicked, however slenderly proved, will not easily be believed against men so principled? My Lord therefore to clear himself and his Religion from this heavy and (as the Papists say) injurious Aspersion, pretested and declared in the presence of God and their Lordships, his hatred and detestation of such Principles; That he acknowledged the King his lawful Sovereign, and knew no Person or Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.]  
From hence I shall take occasion to discourse on the following Heads.  
1. Concerning the Doctrine of Deposing Kings.  
2. Concerning the Moctrine of King-killing.  
3. Concerning the Massacring of their Neighbours and destroying their Native Country, when the Interest of their Religion requires it.  
4. Concerning his Lordship's acknowledging the King to be his Lawful Sovereign, and that he knew no Person or Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.  
And here I shall fairly represent the Doctrines of the Roman Church, and then leave all men to judge of the natural Tendency of them.  
1. I begin with the Doctrine of Deposing Kings.  
Where I shall prove these three things.  
1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church.  
2. That it is the Doctrine of their General Councils, and lawful Representatives of the Roman Church.  
3. That this Doctrine is taught in the Breviaries and public Offices of the Church.  
1. That it is the Doctrine of all the Approved Writers of the Roman Church.  
And here (to do our Adversaries right) I acknowledge, that there are some things wherein they agree, and some wherein they differ.  
That Sovereign Princes may in some cases be deprived of their Crowns and Dignities, is a Doctrine wherein their Divines are so universally agreed, that I do not know any Book, published according to the Order of the Roman Church, which hath plainly and honestly condemned it.  
But they are not agreed, whether by virtue of a direct temporal Power over all (at least Christian) Princes, the Pope may depose them at his pleasure; or whether he hath only an indirect power, whereby he may depose them when it is necessary for the good of the Church. The former Doctrine is current at Rome, and hath been avowed by many Popes, and their Creatures. The latter is Matter of Faith, as many of their own Writers prove by as good Arguments and Authority, as any man can produce for Transubstantiation itself. 
(A) Of the former l. sacr. Caeremon. Aed. Romae 1560. p. 36 col. 1. Figurat Pontifical is hic gladius potestatem summan tomporalem a Christo ejus Vicario collatam. 
And this Power was challenged by Pope Gregory the 7th as of Divine right, Platina de vitis Pontificum Colon. 1568. p. 176.  
By Boniface the 8th. id. p. 247.  
By Paul the Third in his Damnatory Bull against Henry the 8th. King of England. Bullarium Cherubinis, Tom. 1. p. 619. (Ed. Romae, 1632.  
By Pius the 5th. in his Damnatory Bull against Queen Elizabeth, Tom. 2. p. 304. Both which Bulls begin thus; Regnans in excelsis, etc. bunc unum super omnes gentes & omnia Regna Principem constituit, qui evellat, deftruat, dissipet, etc. To which I might add Paul the 4th, and Sixtus the 5th.  
Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. quotes some others of this Opinion. For the latter see the Authors quoted by Bellarmine de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 1. and ad versus Barclaeium in his Opuscula.  
Salmeron Tom. 4. p. 413.  
Fr. Romulus Resp. ad Apol. (Ed. 1591.) p. 41, 42, 43.  
Cardinal Perron in his Oration to the third Estate at Paris tells us, That unless this Doctrine were approved, it follows that the Church of Rome for many ages hath been the Kingdom of Antichrist and Synagogue of Satan.   And to let you see that his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects are no Honester than the rest of the World, I appeal to two very late Writers of our own Country.  
Some years since three Treatises were published under the Title of The Jesuits Loyalty: The Author of the first roundly asserts (what the other two slily insinuate) this Deposing Doctrine, and proves it by as great Authority, as they can bring for any Article of the present Roman Faith.  
The other is an English Jesuit too; and he (without any mincing of the matter) tells us this Doctrine was long ago taught by almost all Orders and Professions, Seculars, Regulars, 
(B) See D. Stilling fleets Answer serveral late Treatises, in the Preface.   
And whether they teach the Pope's Power to be direct or indirect 'tis all one; for if Princes may be deposed in some cases; if there be no standing Court (Independent on that at Rome) which is to Judge when it is necessary to depose them; they had as good tell us in plain terms, that no Prince is to wear his Crown any longer, than the Pope and other Princes, or his own Subjects will give him leave; that the Pope never wants Authority to depose a King, but when he wants strength or courage, a fair excuse or a fit opportunity. 
(C) Bellar. recognit. lib. 5. de Pont. c. 8. Ecclesia non semper privat Principes dominio; vel qui a vires non habet, vel qui a non judicat expedire.  And therefore there is no reason, why they should have the reputation of moderate men, that seem to restrain and qualify the abuse of the Popes direct temporal power, or to write against it with some pomp and vanity; when indeed they do but abuse the world with a distinction, which serves only to veil the impiety of the former assertion, and make Princes secure and inapprehensive of their danger.  
Again, the assertors of the Pope's indirect Power are not agreed, whether a Prince may forfeit his Crown for misgovernment, or unfitness to govern, or whether only for Apostasy or Heresy?  
The Doctrine of deposing Kings for misgovernment is approved by the Authentic Canon Law of the Roman Church. 
(D) Decret. par. 2. Can. Alius Caus. 15. qu. 6. Zacharias Regem Francorum, non tam pro suis iniquitatibus, quam pro eo, quod tantae potestati crat inutilis, à regno deposuit.   
If a Prince become a manifest Apostate, he falls from all power and dignity, in the Judgement of all their approved Divines and Canonists. 
(E) Parsons or Creswel (or both) under the name of Philopater Sect. 2. n. 157.   
That a Prince may be deposed for Heresy, is so generally received, that those very persons of the Roman Church, which have written against it in other cases, do except the case of Heresy. And 'tis observable that in their General Council of Lions (wherein Frederick the Emperor was deposed for Heresy) his Advocate endeavoured to vindicate him from the guilt of that crime, but neither the Emperor nor he excepted against the power of the Church to depose him in the case of Heresy.  
3. This is the Doctrine of the General Councils and lawful Representatives of the Roman Church, as the Reader may find in the Margin. 
(F) Conc. Lat. 4 c. 3 an. 1215. de haereticis. tom. 28. p. 161, 162. Conc. Lugdun. an. 1245. tom. 28. p. 424, etc. Conc. Constant. tom. 29. an. 1414 p. 458.  I know the Council of Trent made no express Decree about the deposing of Princes; but he that considers the State of Christendom at that time; how many Princes had been already driven out of the Roman Church, and how many more were ready to follow them, will rather wonder they said so much, than that they durst say no more. For though it was no time for them to speak their minds, yet so true were the Fathers of that Council to their Master at Rome, as to keep up his claim to a temporal power over Princes. For did they not make bold to Excommunicate and deprive Emperors, Kings, and Princes of all their Dominions held in Fee of the Church? 
(G) Council Trident. tom. 35. Sess. 25. c. 19 in the Decree against Duels.  By this Canon (saith a Royal Author) the Kingdom of Naples had need look well to itself. 
(H) K. James his works. p. 449.  For one Duel it may fall into the Exchequer of the Roman Church, because that Kingdom payeth a relief to the Church as a Royalty or Seignory that holdeth in Fee of the said Church.  
And had not the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, need look well to themselves too? For if we believe the Popes and their dependants, they are the Dominions of the Church; the Pope is our Sovereign Lord, the King is but his Vassal; and did not King John grant to Pope Innocent and his Successors, the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, and receive them back again, upon paying yearly a relief to the Church? Did not Innocent the Third, and Innocent the Fourth call the Kings of England their Vassals? 
(I) Mat. Paris (Ed. Lon. 1640.) add an. 1216. p. 280. & add an. 125. p. 272.  Did not the Pope declare to Queen Elizabeth's Resident that England was held in Fee of the Papacy? 
(S) History of the Reformation part 2. P. 374.  Since his Majesty's restauration, the Louvain Divines insisted on this title of the Pope to the King's Dominions, and it seems his Holiness was well enough pleased with it. 
(M) History of the Irish Remonstrance. p. 117. and p. 101. placuit Pontifici; reservat in sua tempora. 
Baronius endeavours to make out the Pope's title. Tom. 12. ad an. 1159. & add an. 1172. And Spondanii, Continuat. Baronii Paris 1658. tom. 1. p. 327. add an. 1299. Bellarmine Apol. pro resp. etc. ed. 1610. p. 33, 34, 35. That the Kingdoms of England and Ireland are Tributary to the Pope.    
Again, did not the Fathers of Trent confirm all the Canons of Popes and Councils in favour of Ecclesiastical persons and liberties, and against the insringers of them? 
(N) Concil. Bid. Sess. 25 de Ref. c. 20.  Did they not take care to preserve the Authority of the Roman See in all things? 
(O) Conc. Trid. Sess. 25. de Ref. c. 21.  And confirm the Capitula of the Council of Lateran, in which the deposing Power is asserted?  
But that I may not seem to conceal any thing which our Adversaries have to say for themselves, I do acknowledge that three plausible exceptions are made to these testimonies.  
1. They say, the forecited Canon is not an Act of the Fourth Council of Lateran, but of the Pope only.  
But if we may value the Judgement of the Council of Trent, or of a Synod of our own Nation above the opinion of some private men, we must conclude, that this Decree was the Act of the greatest Council which the Church of Rome hath to boast of.  
For the Council of Trent divers times refers to the Capitula in question, as the Acts of the General Council of Lateran. 
(P) Conc. Trid. de Ref. Sess. 5. c. 2. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 10. Sess 13. c. 9 to Conc. Lat. c. 21. Sess. 24. c. 1. to Conc. Lat. c. 51. Sess. 25. c. 8. to Conc. Lat. c. 12. 
Concil. Oxon. an. 1222. (Conciliorum tom. 28.) c. 24. refers to Conc. Lat. 4. c. 20. c 28. to Conc. Lat. c. 47. c. 29. to Conc Lat. c. 66. c. 33. to Conc. Lat. c. 15, 16, 17.   And so doth the Council of Oxford, held a few years after that of Lateran.  
2. Others allowing this to be the Act of the Council, pretend it is to be understood of inferior Feudatory Lords, not of Sovereign Princes.  
I would not affix a more odious sense o●… the Fathers of that Great Council, that their Decrees do import; but when I consider by what Spirit they were acted, what Antimonarchical Doctrines they taught, I cannot easily be induced to a belief of their honesty in this matter. For they strictly forbidden all Clergymen (not possessing Temporalties or Secular honours) to swear Allegiance to Secular Powers. 
(Q) Conc Lat. 4. c. 43. p. 125. (tom. 28.)  They denounce the terrible sentence of Excommunication against such Magistrates as demand any Tribute of Churchmen. 
(R) Conc. Lat. 4. c. 46. p. 197, 198.  They make another Decree (wherein the Approbation of the Council is expressed) equally destructive of the Rights of Princes; which must either extend to Sovereign Princes, or else it was made to no purpose. I mean the Decree, in which all the Princes of Christendom are required to be at peace with one another for four years, under pain of Excommunication, and loss of their Dominions. 
(S) p. 119, etc. In the beginning of the Decree are these words; Sacro approbante Concilio definimus, etc.— Et qui acquiescere forte contempserint, per Excommunicationem in personas, & interdictum in terras arctissimé compellantur, etc. Quod si forte censuram Ecclesiaticam vilipenderint, poterunt noniimmeritó formidare, ne per authoritatem Ecclesiae circa eos, tanquam perturbatores negotii Crucifixi, saecularis potentia inducatur.   
But to come to the matter in question; If the temporal Governor being required and admonished by the Church, shall neglect to purge his Country from Heresy, (and we know the meaning of that Word) let this be signified to the Pope, that from henceforth he may declare his Subjects free from their Allegiance, and give away his Land to be possessed by Catholics, etc.— Saving the Right of the Principal Governor, if he gives no hindrance and impediment in the matter; but nevertheless let the same Law be observed towards them who have no Principal Governors over them. Thus the Council of Lateran.  
If this Canon be not to be understood of Sovereign Princes, as well as subordinate Lords and Deputy Governors, what doth the Council mean by that expression, ‛ Nevertheless let the same Law be observed ' towards them, who have no Principal Governors over them? Do not those words plainly import thus much; Let their Dominions be given away in the same manner?  
What doth the Council mean by that other Expression, Saving the Right of the Principal Governor, if he gives no Impediment? If he do, it seems his Countries are to be given away too.  
Did not the Pope's challenge and execute a power of Deposing Sovereign Princes (as well as Subordinate Lords) before the Sitting of this Council? And would any man of common Sense have given (at least) so fair a pretence for the continuance of this Power, if they were not well enough pleased with it?  
3. It is pretended that the deposing of Frederick the Emperor in the Council of Lions was no Act of the Council.  
Against which I have these things to say.  

1. This Assertion is wholly precarious; for I do not find so much as one plain and positive Testimony in favour of it.  
2. The Decree for the recovery of the Holy Land, wherein Princes are enjoined to keep the Peace under pain of Excommunication and Interdicting their Kingdoms, is expressly said to be made with the approbation of the Council. 
(T) Concil. Lugdun. (tom. 28.) p. 445. Sacro approbante Concilio.   
3. The Emperor was deposed after mature deliberation had with the Council. 
(V) Nos super premissis cum fratribus nostris & Sancto concilio deliberatione praehabita diligenti, etc. In the History of the Council. 
The same words are in the Pope's Constitution. Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1. p. 64.  
In M. Paris (Ed. Lond. 1640) p. 772. An. 1245.  
Platina p. 220. Omnium consensu Imperio & Regnis privatur.  
And Bellar. Tract. de pot. sum. Pont. adversus Barclaium (in opuse. p. 845.) haec sententia est summi Pontificis, toto approbante Concilio, hoc est tota consintiente & laudante Christianorum Praesulum Universitate.    
4. If the Council had favoured the Emperor, there can be no reason, why he should appeal from that to another General Council, and not rather from the Pope to that Council. 
(X) History of the Conncil p. 458, 459. (in the 28th. Tom of the Council.    
3. But it is time to proceed to the last Proof, which is from the Public Offices and Breviaries of the Roman Church.  
St. Peter's Universal Monarchy (which is the Foundation of the Pope's Power over Princes) is expressly taught in the Roman Breviaries. 
(Y) V Briviarium Rom. ex Decreto S.S. Concil. Trid. ristitutum, Pii 5. jussu editum, Et Clementis 8. auctaritate recognitisni. (Ed. Ant. 1614) In Fisto Petri & Pauli Jun. 29. p. 710. Tu es Pastor Oviun, Princeps Apostoloruni, tibi tradidit Deus omnia regna mundi; & ideo tibi tradite sunt claves regni celorum. 
In Festo Petri ad Vincula Aug. 1. p. 741 Tibi tradidit Deus omnia regna mundi.  
Sihneron (Ed. Col. Agrip. 1602) tom. 4. p. 410. Expounds these words of the Breviary in the same sense; viz. Of the Pope's Temporal Power.   And how can any man be a true Son of that Church, which doth not join in her public Offices? How can he say Amen to those Prayers, which he believes do contain any false Doctrine in them?  
And now let it be considered, That this Doctrine hath been taught by all the approved Writers of the Roman Church, and by the Authentic Canon-Law; by the General Councils, and by the Public Breviaries.  
And this is no mere Speculative Doctrine, but a kind of State-Engine fitted to raise and support the Papal Monarchy; Have not the Bishops of Rome made use of it, as often as it was in their Power and served their Interest? Have they not trampled on the Necks of Princes, and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance? Disposed of their Crowns and Dominions, animated their own Subjects and other Princes to take up Arms against them? Cast them out of the Church and out of their Kingdoms? Yea so true have they been to this Principle, that not only such as were very Prodigies of Pride and Tyranny, but even the more prudent and moderate Popes have so often put it in practice, that the troubles and Confusions, the Wars and Treasons which have followed in Christendom, make up a great part of the History of some Ages. 
(Z) See the Catalogues of Princes excommunicated and deposed by Popes in their own Authors. V.G. Bellar. de R. Pont. l. 5. c. 8. Bzovius de Pont. Rom. c. 46. p. 613. to 620. 
Paul the third Excommunicated and deposed our Henry the Eighth. Bullarium tom. 1. p. 619.  
Pius the Fifth Excommunicated and Deposed Queen Elizabeth, tom. 2. p. 305.  
Clement the Eighth sent two Breves into England to debar King James from succeeding to the Crown. See King James his Works. p. 257.    
And yet after all the Complaints and Sufferings of Princes under this Usurped Power, not the least care is taken (either by the Church or Court of Rome) to secure their Rights.  
Why did not the Council of Trent make a plain and Honest Explication of the Pope's Power and the Rights of Princes, when they had so fair an opportunity to vindicate themselves and their Religion? And in what request this Doctrine is at Rome, may appear from hence; that since the breaking out of the Popish Plot in England, the present Pope was pleased to condemn sixty five Propositions, but (as great a Scandal as their Religion lay under amongst us) could not find in his heart to speak one unkind word of this Doctrine. 
(A) A Decree made at Rome March 2. 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists.   
I know some private persons, and some Assemblies of Churchmen (of the Roman Communion) have at some times taught the contrary Doctrine; but it concerns them, not me to reconcile their Determinations with the Doctrine of their Church. However I will say these three things.  
1. They have been such as were overawed by Princes, or in expectation of Favours and Preferments from them.  
2. They have been censured and excommunicated by the Teaching Governing part of the Church, and (as much as in them lay) shut out of her Communion.  
3. Where Princes Excommunicated and deposed for other real or pretended Crimes have procured any Advocates to plead for them; yet they have either excepted the case of Heresy, or not undertaken to prove the Unlawfulness of deposing Princes for it.  
2. The next thing to be considered is the Doctrine of King-killing.  
Concerning which the late Lord Stafford did indeed declare, That if he were of any Church whatsoever, and found that to be its Principle, he would leave it.  
But this Patron of the Roman Cause did not think fit to acquaint us with that expression of his Lordship, (in the printed Trial p. 53.) As to the Doctrine of King-Killing, and absolving Persons from their Allegiance, I cannot say the Church of Rome does not hold it, I never heard it did hold it, it may be it does, it may be not, I say not one thing or other.  
From which words we may learn these two things.  

1. That his Lordship knew not that the Church of Rome had any where condemned this wicked Doctrine.  
2. That the English Priests and Confessors do not plainly and honestly difavow and condemn it, or instruct their Proselytes in the Principles of Loyalty.   
Indeed the Church of Rome hath not in express terms asserted the Lawfulness of putting Kings to death; but there is so little difference between the deposing and putting Kings to death, that whosoever allows of the one, can be no Enemy to the other, if he understand the Consequences of his own Doctrine. For when a King is deposed by any lawful Authority, he is a King no longer. If he take up Arms to recover his Dominions, you may fight against him with as good a Conscience as against an Usurper.  
And will a King be so tame, as to lay down his Crown at the Popes or his People's Feet? Will he suffer himself to be stripped of his Royal Dignity without striking a stroke, or soliciting the Assistance of other Princes?  
I would not imitate the uncharitable Spirit of the Roman Church, whilst I am writing against it; nor dare I charge all men with the Consequences of their own Doctrines; but I am sure, many of the greatest Divines and Casuists of that Church have both seen and vindicated them, and I do not find that the rest are able to confute them.  
But (saith Cardinal Perron in his forecited Orations) a King deposed, being once Reform and become a new Man, may be restored to the lawful use and practise of his Regality  
And what if he will not reform? what if he be more hardened in disobedience than Childerick was, and prefer his own Honour and Conscience above the Bull of a Pope, or the Act of a Rebellious Faction in his own Kingdom? truly than he may lose his Head (as well as his Crown) notwithstanding any care the Church of Rome hath taken of him. If he take the Field, so may his Enemies; it may be they have been before hand with him.  
But suppose the poor disarmed man (a King you cannot call him if he have no right to the Crown) be not able to raise Forces, and therefore resolves to trudge to his Holiness, and there bareheaded,  (as we know who did) humbly beg Absolution of the Pope: Perhaps he may be in a good Humour; grant him Absolution upon such terms as he did Henry the 4th. that he submit himself to the Judgement of an Assembly of the States.  
But what if it be now too late to reform? It may be his Kingdoms are already given away to another; (for the Popes are free enough in giving what is none of their own) or perhaps the Estates of the Kingdom have turned it into a Commonwealth.  
In Fine, Princes deposed from their Sovereignty are liable to so many hazards, that they have seldom survived their deprivation, unless it were in exile or in a Prison.  
But I must pass over the Juggle and Equivocations of men of King-killing Principles. Ask them if it be lawful to kill a King? They tell you no; and many of them call God to Witness the Integrity of their Hearts and Loyalty of their Practices.  
But if a King fall from the Faith, and become an Enemy to God's Church and People; If he do (regis personam exuere) turn Tyrant, and abuse his Power to the hurt of the Church and Commonwealth; If he be deposed (for his Sins against God and man) by the Pope, or the Estates of his Kingdom; Then he ceases to be a King any longer; he is to be used as a public Enemy; the Tyrant, the man of Blood, the Apostate, the Haeretique may be put to death without killing the King. And (to do them Justice) I confess some of them are so kind to a King, that they will not allow any private person to put him to death; but he that is Commissionated by the Pope, or Subordinate Magistrates is no private person in the sense of these men.  
This is the Divinity of those Politicians and Divines, which either promoted the hellish Murder of the late King, or afterwards wrote in Vindication of it: And there are scarce any Treasonable Positions or Distinctions; Precedents or Arguments, to be found in their Books or Pamphlets, which are not either expressly contained, or (at least) to be paralleled in the Works of the Jesuits and other Romish Doctors. They are not for killing a King! but before they put him to death they will be sure to Un-King him; and he shall suffer not as a King, but as a Malefactor. They will not resist the Authority of a King; but if he betray the Trust reposed in him, the wicked Person placed in Authority, may be punished not as a King, but as a Tyrant.  
To look for an express determination of this Point in the General Councils of the Roman Church, is to seek it where there can be no reason to expect it; but the General Councils have taught the World the distinction between the King's Person and Authority; and according to their Principles, a lawful Prince doth by his Wickedness, or Misgovernment, fall from his Authority, and cease to be a King. 
(B) 
Concil. Gen. Ludg. Conciliorum Tom. 28. p. 431. Memoratum Principem, (Fredericum) qui se imperio & regnis omnique honore ac dignitate reddidit tam indigaum, quique propter suas iniquitates à Deo ne regnet vel imparet est abjectus, etc.  
And Milton speaks not only the sense, but the very words of the Jesuits. Pro pop. Angl. def. p. 103. Jus Populi communi ab injusto Regum dominatu assererem, non id quidem Regum odio, sed Tyrannorum, etc.  
P. 104. Evincere potestis, non vos, amentia aut furore percitos Regem trucidasse, sed amore libertatis, religionis, justitiae, honestatis, patriae Charitate accensos Tyrannum punisse.    
If the Councils speak doubtfully, or in general terms, Whom should the People resort unto for Instruction, but their Confessors? What Books should they consult, but such as are published with Authority and approbation of the Governing part of the Church?  
And as the Roman Church hath left the particular Directions for Conscience and Practice, to the Practical Divines and Casuists; so (above all others) the Jesuits have for many years been entrusted with the conduct of men's Souls, and bore the greatest sway in his Majesty's Dominions.  
At their first coming over (which was about an hundred years ago) they quickly insinuated themselves into the Affections of some of the prime Nobility, and of multitudes of the Common People. 
(C) , de Schism. Angl. p. 188.  Within twenty years after they had almost devoured all the Secular Clergy 
(D) See the Important Considerations by the Secular Priests, An. 1601.  And since his Majesty's happy Restauration, they made their boasts, That many of the Roman Catholic Nobility and Gentry were Penitents of the Society. 
(E) See the Jesuits Paper, presented to divers Persons of Honour, and printed 1662.   
I know one of the Jesuits (not long since Executed for High Treason) did with his dying breath declare, That the King-killing Doctrine was falsely charged upon the Jesuits.  
In Answer to which bold Assertion, I will only say these two things: 

1. That most of the Divines of that Order (which have had occasion to treat of this Argument) do expressly teach, That a lawful Sovereign Prince may in some cases be put to death: i. e. If he fall from the Faith, and endeavour to pervert his Subjects; If he abuse his Power, and Rule in a Tyrannical manner; If he be Excommunicated and Deposed by the Pope, or declared a public Enemy, and deprived by the Estates of his Kingdom.  
2. That amongst a great number of Books written by Jesuits, and Licenced according to the Rules of the Society, I could never meet with one, which hath freely and sincerely condemned this Doctrine. 
But (saith Cardinal Perron) never any Pope went so far, as to give consent or Counsel for the desperate Murdering of Princes.     
1. And yet the first Christian Bishop, that ever approved of the Murder of a lawful Sovereign Prince, was Gregory the first.  
2. The Fundamental Principles of Treason against Kings and Princes, were laid by Zachary, Gregory the Seventh, etc.  
3. The Rebellion against Henry the Third and Fourth of France, was encouraged and abetted by the Bishops of Rome, 
(F) Cambden Eliz. par. 2. p. 13. ed. Lond. 1627. Cum Rex problem non haberet, nec habiturum spes ulla esset, & regnum Navarro, & post Condeo Reformatae religionis propugnatoribus jure deberetur, Pontificii Principes, Pontifice & Hispano consciis, conjurationem pernitiosam oecultè inierunt sub Religionis Catholicae tuendae velo, nomine S. Unionis, sive Ligae, ad Regem pissundandum, publicam, in illum invidiam accendendo, & ad Reformatam religionum funditùs extirpandam, praevertendo legitimam in regno successionem.   
For the Leaguers in that Kingdom (under a pretence of Zeal for the Roman Catholic Religion) entered into a wicked Combination against their Sovereign; And Gregory the 13th harkened to their Proposals with much reaediness 
(G) Davila, (An. 1576): P. 452.  But Sixtus the Fifth Excommunicates the next Heir of the Crown, declares him uncapable of the Succession, absolves his Vassals from their Oaths, and Excommunicates all such as adhered to him. This Declaration of the Pope pierced Henry the Third very deeply, without whose Privity it had been propounded in the Consistory, subscribed by the Cardinals, posted up and published. 
(H) Davila, l. 7. p. 574, 575.   
Three years after his Holiness writes Letters to the Duke of Guise (the Head of the League) full of infinite Praises; compares him to the holy Macchabees, (the Defenders of Israel) exhorts him to fight for the advancement of the Church, and total extirpation of the Hugonots 
(I) Davila, l. 9 (An. 1588.) p. 715.   
Afterwards the Pope publishes a Monitory against the King 
(L) L. 10; p. 811.  And that infamous Regicide which embrued his hands in the Royal Blood, Murdered Henry the Third without killing the King, which was now unkinged by the Pope.  
Upon the News of the King's Murder, the Pope makes a Panegyric Oration, and solemn. Thanksgiving in the Consistory; and in his Canting Sermon perverts the Holy Scriptures, admires the wonderful Providence of God in the death of his Anointed, compares the Bloody Fact to the Mystery of the Incarnation, and extols the Traitor above Eleazar. 
(M) Thstanus, l. 96. p. 461.   
This Speech was printed at Paris, An. 1589. by the Authority of the Holy League, and with the approbation of three Doctors of the Loyal College of Sorbonne.  
Our Countryman Parsons (though he will not own the Speech which goes about under the Pope's name) acknowledges, that Sixtus, in a secret Consistory, upon the first News of the Fact, did utter a certain Speech in admiration of the strange Providence of God, in chastising by so unexpected a way, so foul and impious a Murder, as that King had committed upon a Prince and Cardinal, without any form of Judgement. 
(N) Parson's discussion of the Answer of Mr. Barlow, printed 1612. permissu Superiorum.   
And Bellarmine (who could not be ignorant of what passed in the Consistory at that time) when it was urged against him by King James, first endeavours to shilt it off, but without any positive denial, and at length does what he can to vindicate it. 
(O) Resp. ad Apol. etc.   
How the Popes assisted the Leaguers with Men and Money against Henry the Fourth, may be seen in Davila, whom I cited before.  
4. Since Cardinal Perrons time, a Pope and his Counsel (as a Reverend Author of our own Church assures us 
(P) Du Moulin Answ. to Phi lanax. etc. P. 59  gave Consent and Council for the taking away the life of (an Excellent Prince) King Charles the First.  
'Tis indeed below the dignity and policy of the Popes, to do the drudgery of putting Kings to death, or venturing their Necks for the Good old Cause; but they can fight against Princes with Bulls and anathemas; hire Soldiers with Money, or with Indulgences; invade their Dominions with their own Soldiers, or with the Forces of Roman Catholic Kings; stir up Insurrections within their Kingdoms, or authorise their own standing Army of Jesuits, Monks and Friars to kill them with the approved Catholic Weapons, with Pistol or Poison.  
And if to bless God for exalting a Regicide to his Master's Throne; if to furnish Rebels with Principles and Precedents; if to sanctify Rebellious Leagues; if to extol the Murderers of Princes, and to give Advice for the cutting them off, do not prove that the Doctrine of King-killing is the Principle of Popes, (or Heads of the Roman Faith) than we may quit the Rebels in the late times, and even the most infamous High Court of Justice.  
Lastly, by the Authentic Laws 
(Q) Decret. par. 2. Can. Excom. Caus. 23. qu. 5. Non eos homicidas arbitramur, quos adversus Excommunicatos zelo Catholicae matris ardentes, aliquos corum trucidâsse contigerit. The Title of the Cannon is, Non sunt homicidae, qui adversus Excommunicatos zelo matris Ecclesiae armantur.  of the Roman Church, any furious Zealot may kill an Excommunicate person; and if it come into the Pope's head to let his Thunderbolts flee abroad, then that which we call High Treason may deserve a Crown of Martyrdom.  
Whether his present Majesty be by name Excommunicated at Rome, or not, I am not concerned to inquire; but I am sure he lies under the General Excommunication of the Bulla coenae 
(R) Of this Bull, see Cherub. Bullar. Tom. 3. p. 250, 251. and Tom. 4. p. 354, 355. Filliutius quest. Mor. Tom. 1. Tract. 16.  and 'tis a received Rule, That the Supreme Power may in great necessity dispense with the Formalities observed in ordinary cafes. If it be notorious that a King is an Heretic, and an obstinate Favourer of Heretics, then secret and summary proceed against him are warrantable, and the issuing out of Bulls and Citations would but alarm a Prince, and expose the Romish Faction to the severity of the Laws.  
But since all those matters of form are only circumstantial; since the design of the Law is to bring Heretical Princes under the consequences of the Church's Censures, there can be no reason, why the Circumstantial parts of it may not be superseded upon extraordinary Emergencies.  
Thirdly, I proceed to the Massacring their Neighbours, and destroying their Native Country with Fire and Sword, when the interest of their Religion requires it.  
When the interest of their Religion requires it?  
But what if they be not able to root out the Haeretiques?  
The Roman Catholic Religion is so good natured and kind (to us shall I say, or themselves?) as to let us live, when they are not in a Condition to destroy us. 
(S) See Bellar. de Laici●, l. 3. c. 22. Cum autem in particulari, etc. Philop. Sect. 2.160. Si vires habeant ad hac idoneas, etc. 
Greg. 13. Facultates concessae R. Personio & E. Campiano pro Anglia, Ap. 14. 1580. Túdemúm quando publica ejusdem Bullae Executic fieri poterit.  
And Ribadeneira de Principe l. 1. c. 26. p. 178, 179. (Ed. 1603.)    
We have not forgotten the Memorable Saying of Henry the Fourth of France. Henry the third (that was but a Favourer of Haeretiques, or at most haeretically affected, after the issuing out of the Pope's Monitory against him, fetched a Deep Sigh, and said, It was a hard case, that he which had fought for Religion should be excommunicated, because he would not suffer his own. Throat to be cut by his Rebellious Subjects; when they that bade sacked Rome, and kept the Pope Prisoner, had never been brought under that Censure. Sir (said the King of Navarre) but they were victorious: Let your Majesty endeavaur to conquer, and be assured the Censures shall be revoked; but if we be overcome, we shall all die condemned Heretics. 
(T) Davila, l. 10. An. 1589. p. 811.   
Again: It must be noted, that there are other ways of rooting out Haeretiques besides Fire and Sword. What think you of rooting them out by degrees, without noise or tumult; by demolishing their Temples, seizing on their Estates, perverting their Children, forcing thousands of them to leave their Native Country, and exposing the rest to Violence and Rapine? 
(V) It was Campanella's Advice to the King of spain (then aspiring to the Monarchy of the West) to proceed in this method against Haeretiques. cap. 11. p. 69, 70. Contzen (the Jesuit) was of the same mind. Coutzen polit. c. 18. p. 103. etc. (Ed. 1629.) The Book is dedicated to Ferdinand the Emperor, under this Head; Modus reducendae verae Religionis.   
But these things being premised for the right stating of the question, let us come to the resolution of it.  
And is there indeed such a Religion to be found in the World, that teaches men to Massacre their Neighbours, and destroy their native Country with Fire and Sword? A Religion which transforms men into Wolves and Tigers! A Religion which teaches men to kill their Brethren for God's sake, and please God by doing the works of the Devil! I speak it with grief and shame, that Popery (abstracted from common Christianity) is such a Religion. I will not here insist on the Gunpowder Treason, the horror of Queen Mary's days, the dreadful stories of the Inquisition, the Parisian and Irish Massacres, the infinite slaughters of the poor Albigenses, and Waldenses, the more than Heathenish barbarities exercised on millions of the Americans upon the account of Religion; these would afford matter for an entire History, and therefore I shall sum up what I have to say under four heads.  
1. The Church of Rome doth (as much as in her lies) damn all Heretics; make them the members of the Devil (I speak their own words) whilst they live, and send them to hell when they die.  
The fourth General Council of Lateran damns all Heretics; and what doth that Council mean by Heretics, but all such as do not submit to the Roman Faith, (as it is there set down) and particularly all which do not own the monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which that Council makes an Article of Faith. 
(X) Conc. Lat. 4. c. de fide Catholica. et c. 3. de Haretlcis.   
Besides the general Anathemaes of the Councils, all Heretics are solemnly cursed every Maundy Thursday. Good God that any thing which is called Religion should teach or allow men to damn their Brethren, even whilst they are commemorating our blessed Saviour who died for them! But I do not wonder that they should condemn our bodies to be burnt, who condemn our souls to everlasting fire. 
(Y) Decret. Greg. l. 5. tit. 7. de Haereticis c. 3. Nullatenús dubites, omnem haereticum vel Schismaticum cum diabolo & angelis ejus, aeterni ignis incendio participadum, nisi ante finem vitae Catholicae fuerit incorporatus & redintegratus Ecclisiae, etc. And what the Canon Law understands by Heretics you may see c. 9   
2. All Christians are enjoined by the Church to endeavour the extirpation of Heretics to the uttermost of their power, as they desire to be accounted Christians.  
About the latter end of the Twelfth, and beginning of the Thirteenth Century, Dominick and his brethren persuaded the Civil Magistrates in France to burn all such as were condemned for Heresy; and that their cruelties might be acted by a Law, the Holy General Councils, promised their blessing and protection to them that should root them out, Decreed that all Heretics should be delivered up to the Secular Magistrate, who (if he refused to do his duty) should be compelled to it by Ecclesiastical Censures, by absolving his Subjects from their Allegiance, and by giving away his Dominions to other Princes. 
(Z) Conc. Lat. 3. (Council tom. 27) c. 27. de haereticis. (this was an. 1180. Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. de baereticis an. 1215.  And even that sober piece of Popery (as the Council of Constance is called) invited J. Husse and Jerome of Prague, (two good and learned men) thither, to dispute with them for their Religion, whom they quickly silenced with the Catholic Arguments of fire and faggot.  
Thus a Romish General Council (and that none of the worst of them) owned the most inhuman cruelty and breach of public Faith, in the sight of the Sun.  
From whence we learn these two points of R. Catholic Divinity.  

1. That no Secular Prince hath any right to promise safety to Heretics.  
2. If he do, the Church may declare his promise null and void, and demand justice against them, notwithstanding the most solemn promise to the contrary. And what greater honour can be done a Sovereign Prince, than to be made the Church's Executioner?   
3. All the Bishops in the Roman Church are bound under pain of perjury, to destroy their Christian brethren. 
(A) In the Oath before cited (which every Bishop takes at his Consecration) Is this clause; Haereticos, Schismaticos et rebelles Domino nostro v●… Successoribus praedictis pro posse persequar & impugnabo.  A very fit employment for Spiritual Fathers!  
4. By the Laws of the Roman Church all men condemned for Heresy are to be put to death. 
(B) Haeretiques condemned by the Church are to be delvered up to the Civil Power; (Animadversione debita puniendi pro viribus extirminare, &c,) Conc. Lat. 4. c. 3. 
But what the Punishment is▪ all men know which have read the History of the Council of Constance. In i●…is persistens (J. Husse) apatribus de baeresi damnatus, vivus exastus est. In the History of the Council. Council. tom. 29. p. 238.  
Vid. Decret. Greg. 9 l. 5. tit. 7. de Haereticis. Sexti Decretal. l. 5. tit. 2. de Haereticis. Extrav. Com. l. 5. tit. 3. de Hersticis.    
Indeed the Church could only damn the Souls; the burning the Bodies of Haeretiques belongs to the Civil Power; for if they refused to abjure, or were relapsed, they were to be delivered to the Secular Arm, and the Magistrates were to burn them in some public place.  
In the Second year of Henry the Fourth (King of England) a Law was made, whereby if any Haeretiques being convict did refuse to abjure, or after Abjuration did fall into relapse, they were to be left to the Secular Court according to the Holy Canons; and the Major, Sheriffs or Bailiffs (after the Sentence) were to receive and cause them to be burnt in an high place before the People. But the common course of the Law, was to certify into the Chancery the conviction of an Haeretique, upon which the Writ De Haeretico comburendo was issued out for the burning of him. Afterwards all Civil Officers were sworn to use their utmost diligence and power for the destroying of Errors and Heresies, and to assist the Ordinaries and their Commissaries in their Proceed against them.  
In Queen Mary's Reign hundreds of the Clergy and Laity, were burnt alive upon no other account but their Religion; there was nothing else either in their Accusation, or in their Sentence. 
(C) See Statut. ●…n. 2. Hen 4. c. 15. An. 25. Hen. 8. c. 14. Also the History of the Reformation, etc. (An. 1679.) part. 1. lit. 1. The Writ for burning of Archbishop Cranmer may be seen in the second part of the same History, l. 2. In the Collection of R. cords, Numb. 27.   
4thly and Lastly, I consider his Lordship's Declaration; That he acknowledged the King his lawful Sovereign, and knew no Authority on Earth could absolve him from his Allegiance.  
That the General Councils of the Roman Church have arrogated to themselves a Power of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance to Sovereign Princes, is so evident from the forecited Testimonies, that I need not trouble either the Reader or myself with transcribing the Decrees of those Councils; but to the former authorities I will only add that of the third Council of Lateran, which did expressly absolve the Subjects of Princes from their Oaths of Allegiance. 
(D) Conc. Lat. 3. c. 27, de Haereticis. (Council. tom. 27.) p. 461. Relaxatos autemse noverint a debito fidelitatis & hominii, etc.   
Whether that Council did include Sovereign Princes in that Decree or not is not material; for since the Rights of Inferior Princes are properly their Sovereigns; to absolve Subjects from their Allegiance without ask the Sovereign's leave, is to deprive the Sovereigns of their due.  
That this Power hath been challenged and executed by divers Popes upon Sovereign Princes, (as well as Subordinate Lords) and particularly upon Henry the 8th. and Queen Elizabeth, is notorious to all the World; and they did no more than the Laws of the Roman Church allow. 
(E) Decret. par. 2. caus. 15. qu. 6. c. 4. Nos Sanctorum, etc. Decret. Greg. l. 5. tit. 7. c. 16.  I know not why the Roman Catholics should call this an Usurpation of the Popes; when they are entrusted by the General Councils with the Interpretation and Execution of all their Decrees.  
But what need I insist on the proof of this Proposition? When his Lordship (in the printed Trial) declared, He could not say the Church of Rome does not hold it, only he never beard it did. And a learned Author of that Church in Answer to this Charge saith; ‛ As to the Pope's Power of absolving Subjects, I beg leave is wave such curious Controversies. 
(F) See Dr. Stilling fleets Answer to several late Treatises, (1674) in the Preface, where his words are cited.   
Thus I have endeavoured to give a clear and satisfactory Account of these four great Questions; and proved my Assertions by as good Law as any is in the Roman Church at this day. I know nothing that can invalidate the Testimonies which I have produced, unless they can show, either that I have misquoted any of the Laws, or mistaken the Sense of them; that they have been condemned or abrogated by some public Act of the Church, binding to all persons of that Communion; or else that the same Principles which oblige the Roman Catholics to receive the other Articles of Faith (wherein we differ from them) do not also oblige them to receive these Canons and Decrees.  
But if none of these things can be proved, then let all men judge, Whether the Treasons and Seditions in other Countries, especially the late bloody Wars in England, and Hellish Murder of the Lords Anointed may by the same reason be imputed to the Protestant Religion; as Queen Mary's Cruelties, the Powder Plot, the Irish Barbarism, the French Massacre, and many other Instances of Popish Malice and Bloodiness from former Examples may be charged on the Roman Church and Religion?   

CHAP. IU.  
Testimonies of the Loyalty of the Roman Church and Religion, considered.  
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 Rheims, on Rom. 13.  
The fourth, from the Censure of the Doctors of the Faculty of Sorbon, against a Book of Sanctarellus.  
LEst this might seem a merely extorted Profession of a despairing Man, 
p. 44.  My Lord endeavoured to prove by several convincing Testimonies, he had ever been Instructed and Educated in the same Sentiments, as the established Doctrine of the Roman Catholic 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 Caesar's; &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 deuce, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, is not disputed among any sort of Men that I know. But how shall a Roman Catholic 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 Saviour commands us, to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; 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) See the Rhemists' Annotations on St. Math. 22.21.   
In their Annotations on St. Math. 17. they roundly tell us, that Caesar hath no right to any payments from the Clergy. 
(B) Rhem. Annot. 8. St. Mat. 17.26. Though Christ, tò avoid scandal, paid Tribute; yet indeed he showeth, that himself ought to be free from such payments, as also his Apostles, and in them the whole Clergy, etc. Which Exemption and Privilege being grounded upon the very Law of Nature itself; &c. 
And in Hebrews 5.1. in all Matters touching God, his Service and Religion, the Priest hath only Charge and Authority; as the Priest Temporal is the People's Governor, Guide and Sovereign, in the things touching their worldly Affairs.    
And one of the Holy General Councils 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) Conc. Lat. 3. c. 19 p. 455, 456. Ne Laici imponant Ecclesiis onera. And in the Margin we have Gen. 47. quoted.   
2. His second Testimony was taken from the Authority of the General Council of Constance, (to which all Roman Catholics are bound to submit) the 15th Canon and definition of which Council is, Quilibet Tyrannus potest, & debet licitè, & meritory, occidi, etc. Every Tyrant lawfully and meritoriously may, and aught to be killed by any Vassal or Subject whatsoever, even by hidden Treacheries, and subtle Flatteries 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 Supreme Temporal Monarches over Inferior Princes subordinate to them.) This Doctrine the Synod declares to be erroneous in Faith and Manners, and the same as Heretical condemns, etc.  
The Council condemned this Proposition! 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 Catholics 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 Heretics was notoriously Patronised and put in practice by this Council: For the Emperor 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 Conduct) cast into Prison. This being done in the Emperor's absence, he comes to the Council, argues the case with them; upon which they pass that In famous Decree contained in the 19th Session; from which it is plain, that in the case of Heresy, no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any persons whatsoever. And this Act of the Council so fully satisfied the Emperor's Conscience, that he looked on himself as discharged from his obligation, and not only concurred in the Sentence against the Prisoner, but gave order for his Execution.  
J. of Prague was trepanned by a safe Conduct granted by that Council; and being unacquainted with their Arts and Treachery, ventures to Conftance, where understanding the Juggle of his Adversaries, he thought to shift for himself by flight, but being taken was burnt to death.  
Again, The Council of Constance Excommunicates and deprives of all Secular honour and dignity, all that should presume to hinder Sigismond from meeting with the King of Arragon, whether they be Kings, Dukes, Princes, etc. 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 Catholics 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 Catholic meaning of it.  
Tell them of the Council of Constance, It meddles not (saith one 
(D) Suartz. def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 4. p. 417. ) with Heretical Princes Excommunicated and Deposed 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 public Authority (saith a Second 
(E) Greg. de Valentia, Tom. 3. disp. 5. qu. 8. punct. 3. In his resolution of this Question; utrùm liceat privato cuilibet civi occidere Tyrannum? ;) that is, by the Commonwealth, as himself expounds it.  
This Decree extends not to Tyrants, which conspire against the Public good, or against the Roman Catholic Religion; (saith a Third 
(F) Verone Apol. par. 2. c. 13. .)  
A Commonwealth that is oppressed by a Prince ruling Tyrannically, may, and aught to have recourse to a Superior Prince, as the Pope of Emperor, for the punishment of him; but if this remedy cannot be had without danger, the Commonwealth may by her own Power pass Judgement on such a Prince; and if he be incorrigible, either depose him, or put him to death, (saith a Fourth 
(G) Dom. Bannes' Scholast. Comment. Tom. 4. p. 174. (Ed. 1614) qu. 64. Act. 3. )  
Another wrote a Book in the time of the French League 
(H) I mean Bouchier the French Jesuit, in that Treasonable Book which I quoted before. , 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 condemned by Public Authority.  
Lastly, our Countryman Parsons justifies the Doctrine of Bouchier; and because Mr. Morton is charged with misrepresenting his sense, let us take Parson's Account of Bouchier's meaning 
(I) Parsons in his quiet and sober reckoning, etc. p. 318, 319, 321. .  
He holdeth, That a Private man may not kill a Tyrant, which is not first judged and declared to be a Public 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 condemned and declared any Tyrant for a public 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 public Authority of the Commonwealth, as doth the Executioner that cutteth off a Nobleman's Head by Order and Authority of the Public Magistrate.  
These are not the Opinions of private Doctors; their Books are Licenced according 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 alleged as an Argument of Roman Catholic Loyalty.  
And are not Kings and Princes wonderfully 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 Soldiers against him with Money, or with Indulgences; He may invade his Country with his own Armies, or with the Forces of Catholic Princes; he may stir up a Rebellion within his Dominions, or Authorise his own standing Army of Jesuits, Monks, and Friars, to kill him with the approved Catholic Weapons, with Pistol or Poison. Lastly, the Commonwealth (by its own, or the Pope's Authority) 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 declaring against the kill of Kings by any private Subjects. 
(L) We do hold it impious, and against 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 dearest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked. Irish Remonstrance in F. Walsh his History, p. 8.   
3. P. 45. My Lords third Testimony was taken from the Annotations upon Rom. 13. in the English Catholic Edition of the New Testament, set forth by the College of Divines at Rheims. The words are these, upon the Text, He that resisteth, etc. ver. 2. Whosoever resisteth, or obeyeth not his lawful Superior, in those Causes wherein he is subject to him, resisteth God's Appointment, and sinneth deadly, and is worthy to be punished, both in this World by his Superior, and by God in the next life; for in Temporal Government and Causes, the Christians were bound in Conscience to obey even the Heathen Emperors.  
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 Catholics only most humbly obey both according to God's Ordinance; the one in Temporal Causes, and the other in Spiritual.]  
(In the Rhemish Testament it is the (not some) Protestant's of our time, etc.)  
A mighty Testimony of Roman Catholic Loyalty! You are not to resist your Lawful Superior! But if a Prince be lawfully deposed, than he is no longer your Lawful Superior. If you be Clergymen, than he is none of your Sovereign, and you are none of his Subjects.  
In those Causes wherein you are Subject to him! But what if a King challenge (as by the Word of God he may) the Supreme Government in all causes Ecclesiastical 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 Protestants extol only the Secular Power; We acknowledge the King to be Supreme Governor in all Causes and over all Persons within his Majesty's 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 Doctrine. But for the Loyalty of the Rhemish Divines, I refer the Reader to some of their Annotations, as they are cited in the Margin. 
(M) The Rhemish Testament was see forth by that Traitorous Seminary of English Papists, and printed at Rheims 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 expressly is ordained by Christ and the Holy Ghost.  
The exemption of the Clergy is asserted Annot. on S. Matth. 17.26.  
The Pope's Infallibility, Annot. on S. Luke 22.31. And in the Margin they say, Popes may err personally, not judicially or definitively.  
The Pope's Supremacy, Annot. on S. John 21.17.  
And on 1 Pet. 2.12. They say, Although all Power be of God, and King's Rule by him, yet this is no otherwise, than by his ordinary Concurrence and Providence.   He that desires to see a true Character of the English Seminaries, may consult a Treatise penned by the direction of one of the greatest Statesmen, and wisest men of his Age, under this Title; The Execution of Justice in England, etc. 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 Sanctarellus, 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 Obedience; and that is hath been always the Custom in the Church; and for other Causes also, as for Faults, if it be Expedient; if the Princes be Negligent; for the insufficiency and unprofitableness of their Persons. Likewise, 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 Transgressors of Divine and Humane Laws, especially if the Crime be Heresy. 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, Whatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth, etc. to be understood not only of the Spiritual, but of the Temporal Power, etc. The Faculty (after mature deliberation) disapproved and condemned the Doctrine contained in these Propositions, and other like Expressions in the same Chapters, as new, false, erroneous, and contrary 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 revised and approved by persons of greater Authority in the Roman Church, than the Divines of Sorbon. 
(N) Alegambe Bibl. script. soc. Jes. in the life of Sanctarellus gives us this Character of him, Vir moribus apprimé religiosis & modestissima mansuetudine. 
The Title of the Book is A. Sanctarelli soc. Jes. Tract. de Haeres. etc. Ed. Romae. 1625. In the Licence 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.   It was printed at Rome permissu Superiorum, approved by three Divines of the Society, licenced 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 Jesuits.  
2. Since the breaking out of the Popish 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 shown before) but did not speak one word against the Power of deposing Princes, though it was asserted in the same Divines and Casuists with the 65 Propositions. And whether the Judgement of his Holiness, or of the Divines of Sorbon be of greater value with Roman Catholics, 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 public Authority and Approbation?  
4. There are no Propositions in the places censured by the Sorbonists, which he might not justify by the Principles of the Bishops of Rome, the most correct Editions of the Canon Law; and in the Sentence of Excommunication and Deprivation 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) In the General Council of Lions (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, quodcunque ligaveris, etc. S. March. 16. 
Also M. Paris, ad An. 1245. p. 672.    
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 reputation, and was esteemed the Bulwark of Regal Authority; but ever since the rise of the Jesuits, many of their Determinations 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 queries 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 Conscience Arm and Unite themselves, collect and raise Money for the Defence and Preservation of the Roman Catholics in that Realm, against the wicked Counsels and Practices of the said King, and all other his Adherents, and against the breach of Public Faith committed by him at Bloys, to the prejudice of the said Roman Religion, and Edict of Holy Union, and the natunal Liberty of the Assembly of the three Estates of that Kingdom? After mature deliberation upon the said Articles, it was concluded nemine refragante, That the said People were discharged from the said Oath of Allegiance; and that they may with asase Conscience 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 Apostolic See. 
(P) Davila l. 10. And Fowlis History of Romish Treasons (Ed. 1671.) p. 530, 551.    
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, containing 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 publicly whipped, the said Bodille took occasion thence to kill the King, for which he is commended by Historians, and therefore may not the injury done to a better than Bodille, viz. to a brave Prince (Guise) be also avenged?  
The Doctors of Sorbon having read over 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 public 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, others were drawn up for the Catholic Leaguing Princes. 
(Q) Fowlis, p. 537.   
An. 1590. The Royalists had spread abroad such Propositions as these; That Henry of Bourbon (the lawful Heir of the Crown) might or aught to be King; that the People might with a safe Conscience adhere to him and pay him Tribute; That the Pope had no Power to Excommunicate the King; That an Haretique, though relapsed and put out of the Communion of the Church, may have right to the Crown of France. All which Propositions were presently condemned by the Faculty of Sorbon. 
(R) Spondani Contin. Baronii tom. 2. ad An. 1590. (p. 860.) par. 3. Sorbonici Theologi in publicis turbis ad rerum instantium statum vota sua accommodare coacti, rogatu Faederatorum & Cajetani impulsu, nec non Cardinalis Montalti, ipsiusquemet Pontificis literis, ad fidem & religionem tuendam, & unionem confirmandam incitati, parts suas interponentts congregati sanxerunt, propositiones quae passim a pluribus seminabantur; viz. Henricum Borbonium regis titulo infigniri posse aut debere, tuta conscientia es adbarere, ac decimas & vectigalia persolvere debere, etc. Has & tjusmodi enuntiationes damnantes, etc.   
An. 1629. They publish a Decree, That for the Future the Ancient and Laudable Practice be revived; that every Bachelor of Divinity swear to observe the Decrees of the Popes of Rome. 
(S) Spondani Contin. Baronii Tom. 2. (p. 982.) add Ann. 1629. par. 10.   
An. 1647. The Sorbonists, in Answer to a Question sent to them in Writing from the Jesuits in England, resolved that it was Lawful for the Roman Catholics to work the Change in the Government by making away the King. 
(T) Du Moulin Answ. to Philanax, p. 59   
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 significative they might be of their Loyalty to the French King, they do not reach the Case of his Majesty's Roman Catholic 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 Declarations of Sorbon did neither protest against Equivocation; nor descend to the particular Cases, either of Excommunication, or the pretended Exemption of Clergymen, or Condemnation of the Contrary Doctrines, etc. 
(V) Hist. of the Irish Remonstrance p. 662, 663, and 678.   
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 Pamphleteers were at Animating those of England against their King?   

CHAP. V.  
The Fifth Testimony of the Loyalty of the Roman Church from a late Treatise of a Romish Priest.  
The Principles of that Treatise examined.  
Of the Principles and Authority of the General Councils of that Church.  
Of licensing men to lie and for swear themselves.  
Of the Doctrine of Aequivocation and mental Reservation; with a brief Account of the Propositions lately censured at Rome.  
Of the Simplicity and Godly Sincerity of the Roman Church.  
Of the Design of dividing the Papists.  
Of the Distinction between the Church and the Court of Rome; the grounds of that Distinction examined and confuted.  
Of Dispensations, etc.  
[P. 46. MY Lords Fifth Testimony was taken from a little Treatise, writ (as my Lord said) by a Priest of the Church of Rome, and entitled, Roman Catholic Principles, in reference to God and the King. 
(A) In the printed Trial p. 53. There is lately come out a Book, written by a Priest of the Church of Rome, tried for his life for being in the Plot, but acquitted, etc.  The chief Contents of which Treatise, because it in short explains the  Principles, and clears the Objections usually made on this Subject, I shall here insert in the Authors own Words.]  
In answer to which I shall briefly examine all the Passages of this little Treatise, which may seem to vindicate the Romish Faith and Religion from the imputation of Disloyalty.  
In the beginning he tells us: We abhor, we renounce, we abominate such Principles: (Of Treason, Rebellion, Murder, etc.)  
But of this I shall speak in its proper place.  
That a Priest of the Church of Rome should (before God and the World) deny the plainest matters of Fact is an Argument either of the grosseft Ignorance of his own Religion, or (which I rather suspect) of the most exact skill in the Arts of Prevarication.  
V G. [I have been instructed (saith he) in the Articles of my Faith, and I acknowledge the lawful Authority of General Councils; yet I profess I never learned or sound asserted in any of them any such Principles.]  
A Speech of so much assurance, that were it not for dis-believing my own Senses, I might be apt to give credit to it. But I would fain know how he proves, that there are any such things in the world as the Decrees and Canons of Councils? Or that Transubstantiation and Communion in one kind were ever taught in any of them? Or that these words, Hoc est Corpus meum are in their Bibles?  
If men's Senses are not to be trusted in plain sensible Matters, he will hardly prove any of these things; but if they are, than it is evident that such Principles are asserted in some of their General Councils.  
What follows p. 47. shall be considered afterwards.  
[P. 47, 48. Paragraph 1. Of the Catholic Faith and Church in General.]  
Which Paragraph doth not fall within the compass of my present Design.  
[Paragraph 2. Of Spiritual and Temporal Authority.]  
[P. 48, etc. General Councils (which are the Church of God Representative) have no Commission from Christ to frame new matters of Faith, but only to explain and ascertain unto us, what anciently was, and is received and retained, as of Faith in the Church, upon arising Debates and Controversies about them. The definitions of which General Councils, in matters of Faith only, and proposed as such, oblige, under pain of Heresy, all the Faithful to a submission of Judgement.  
[It is no Article of Faith to believe that General Councils cannot err, either in matters of Fact or Discipline, etc. Hence it is deduced, If a General Council (much less a Papal Consistory) should undertake to depose a King, and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; no Catholic, as Catholic is bound to submit to such a Decree.  
Hence also it followeth; The Subjects of the King of England lawfully may, without the least breach of any Catholic Principle, renounce even upon Oath the Doctrine of Deposing Kings Excommunicate for Heresy, etc.]  
General Councils are the Church of God Representative!  
And hath the Church of God (diffusive) entrusted them with a Power of concluding in some things and not in others; or of obliging particular persons so far and no further? Where hath the Church of Rome warranted any such distinction (as this Author makes) between matters of Faith and Practice; or confined the whole Power of General Councils to matters of Faith only? Lastly, suppose there were (as indeed there is not) some ground for such a distinction; yet why must Transubstantiation be a matter of Faith; and the deposing of Princes be none, when both came out of the same Forge, the General Council of Lateran? How doth it appear that the Council did not propose this as matter of Faith, as well as the other?  
But I will appeal to the General Council of Constance; both because the Author of the Controversial Letters, urges a Decree of that Council to prove, That the Church of Rome teaches the Duty to Princes to be a direct point of Faith; 
(B) Controvers. Let. (Ed. 2. 1674.) p. 36.  And because we are told, That all Roman Catholics are bound to submit to the Decrees of the Council of Constance. 
(C) Staffords Memoirs, p. 44.   
And doth not this Council challenge a Power immediately from Christ, which all persons of whatever state and dignity are bound to obey; both in things pertaining to Faith, and the extirpation of Schism, and the General Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members? 
(D) Concil. Const. (Concil. tom. 29. p. 257.) Ipsa Synodus in spiritu Sancto congregata legitimé, Generale Concilium faciens, Ecclesiam Catholicam militantem repraesentans, potestatem a Christo immediaté habet, cui quilibet cujuscunque status vel dignitatis, etiamsi papalis, existat, obedire tenetur in his, quae pertinent ad fidem & extirpationem dicti Schismatis, & Reformationem generalem Ecclesiae dei in Capite & Membris.  Did not this Council define against an Error in Practice, ('tis their own expression) challenge a Power of dispensing with the Institution of Christ, and even of Excommunicating all such Presbyters as should presume to obey his Institution rather than their Decree? 
(E) Conc. Const. Sess. 13. (p. 372, 373.) Hot Generale Concilium declarat, decernit, & definite contra hune errorem; (viz. Of the people's receiving the Sacrament in both kinds, and after Supper) quod licet Christus post coenam instituerit, & suis discipulis adminiftraverit sub utraque specie panis & vini boc venerabile sacramentum, tament hoc non obstante, etc. praecipit sub poena Excommunicationis, quod nullus Presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis & vini.   
And now to bring this whole matter to a short Issue; By whatever Arguments this Author can prove that Roman Catholics as such are bound to receive the Sacrament in one kind only; by the same it may be proved;  
1. That if a General Council (or a Papal Consistory by Authority derived from a General Council) should depose a King, and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance, all Roman Catholics as such are bound to submit to such a Decree.  
2. That the Subjects of the King of England may not, without breach of a Roman Catholic Principle, renounce the Doctrine of deposing Kings Excommunicated for Heresy.  
I confess there is a Roman Catholic Principle (of Aequivocation and Mental Reservation) by the benefit of which they may renounce the deposing of Kings, but so they may the receiving the Sacrament in one kind also.  
P. 49. Nor do Catholics as Catholics believe, that the Pope hath any direct or indirect Authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes, etc.  
This he asserts with his usual confidence, gives Bellarmine the lie, and outfaces all the Arguments and Authorities of the Cardinal and others, without offering at the least proof of his Position.  
[It is an Article of Catholic Faith, that no Power on Earth can licence men to lie, to forswear and perjure themselves, etc. on pretence of promoting the Catholic Cause or Religion.  
But let him prove, (if he will prove any thing to the purpose) That it is an Article of Roman Catholic Faith to believe;  
Either that there are no Venial Sins; (such as do not put a man out of the Favour of God, and hazard his Salvation.)  
Or that an Officious Lie is a Mortal Sin, in their account.  
Or that that which otherwise would be a Lie or Perjury, may not in some cases, be excused by a Mental Reservation or Equivocation.  
[The Doctrine of Equivocation, however wrong fully imposed on the Catholic Religion, is neither taught nor approved by the Church, as any part of her Belief.]  
But if this be not a part of the Practical Divinity of the Roman Church, either she hath none at all, or else hath not let the World know where to find it. Indeed it is not taught in their General Councils; for they do not use to descend to particular Rules of Conscience and Practice; but it is taught by the generality of those Divines whom the Church hath entrusted with the Souls of men.  
Are either the Books censured, or the Authors punished? Are not the Books published with Approbation, and those Authors most countenanced which maintain this Doctrine? Hath the Church given any Caution, or made any Declaration against it? And if after all this the Church doth not approve of it, what must become of the Souls of the people? May not the most erroneous and pernicious Doctrines and Practices prevail in the Church, whilst the greatest part of it follow their Guides, and think they are bound to believe as the Church believes?  
I know 'tis commonly called the Jesuitical Art of Equivocation; but though they have extended the Practice of it further; though they have polished it with more dexterity, and defended it with more subtlety than others of that Communion; yet I must needs say, Parsons spoke one great Truth, when he told us this Doctrine hath been received in the Roman Church for 400 years.  
The Principal Cases wherein the Divines of the Roman Church allow of it, are these that follow.  
If a man be charged with a secret Crime, which cannot be proved by clear evidence; If the Judges before whom he appears be Incompetent; (as all ours in England are) If it were told him in Confession, or if he hath been absolved by a Priest; If it be necessary to the obtaining some great good, or the avoiding some great evil.  
And what a man may safely say, he may safely swear: What he may deny in a Court of Judicature, he may deny at his Execution; For if that which otherwise would be a Lie, is saved by a mental Reservation, there can be no danger in swearing to it; in standing upon our own vindication, and making the most serious Appeals to Heaven at the point of death.  
Besides, suppose it were unlawful to equivocate in any case whatsoever; yet if it be not a Mortal Sin; if a thousand Venial Sins cannot damn a man; I know no reason why they should not venture upon it to save their own Lives, or the Honour of their Religion.  
In fine; This Doctrine hath been expressly avowed by the Holy See; those Divines which declaim against it with most seeming bitterness in other cases, allow of it in that of Confessions; those few Divines which have written against it, are charged with singularity or heresy. But he that desires to see the Doctrine of Equivocation and Mental Reservation justified by the greatest Authorities of the Roman Church, may consult any of the Authors cited in the Margin; 
(F) Lessius de Antichristo in Opuse. (Ed. 1626.) p. 773. 
De Justitia & Jure, c. 42. Dub. 9 n. 47, 48, p. 626, etc. Bonacina tom. 2. Disp. 4. qu. 1. punct. 12. Fr. Tolet. De instruct. Sac. l. 4. c. 21. & l. 5. c. 57 Eudaemon Joannes Apol. pro Garnetto, c. 2. Azorias Institut. Mor. l. 11. De Jure jurando. c. 4. J. de Dicastillo Tract. de Juram. Disp. a. dub. 12. See also Is. Casaub Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum. Parsons in his Treatise of Mitigation. And in his quiet and sober Reckoning with M. Morton.  
The Judgement of Pope Pius the 5th. Abbot de Mendacio Pras. p. 9 etc. And p. 39, 40.   whose Books are licenced and approved by their Superiors, or other Eminent Divines.  
And now it were easy to give an Answer to the Decree made at Rome (March 2. 1679.) against some Propositions of the Jesuits and other Casuists; that Decree being so very lame and defective, that we are not at all secured by it from the pernicious effects of this Doctrine; for  
1. The Propositions condemned are the 27th and 22th. and though I did believe those two Propositions to be false, yet I might equivocate in some of the Principal Cases before mentioned.  
2. They are not condemned as evil or impious in themselves; contrary to the Laws of God and Nature; and consequently the Censure or Condemnation is not indispensable.  
But what if a man be barred the use of Equivocation and Mental Reservation? What if he voluntarily, or by the command of his Judges do renounce them?  
I answer, If they be lawful in other cases, there can be no reason why they should be sinful in this.  
V G. You are commanded to tell all you know of such a Matter; Your Answer is, I know no more than I have told you: i.e. with this Reservation, That I am bound to tell you. And being further required to speak without a Mental Reservation, why may you not still answer, I do not make use of any Mental Reservation? i.e. So as I am bound to tell you. This second Answer is defensible upon the same Principles with the first. So Garnette was required by the Lords Commissioners, to answer without Equivocation; yet he denied a certain Truth upon his Salvation, and with the most bitter and solemn Imprecations: 
(G) Is. Casaub. Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum p. 117.  And this was no more than was Lawful by the Principles of Parsons, Soto, Ja. a Graffiiss, Bonacina, etc.  
[On the contrary, Simplicity and Godly Sincerity are constantly recommended by her (the Roman Church) as truly Christian Virtues, necessary to the conservation of Justice, Truth and Common Society.]  
But doth this Author think we never read the Acts of their Famous Council of Constance? I am sure J. Husse and Jerome of Prague felt the sad effects of the Simplicity and godly Sincerity (which are but other names for breach of public Faith) of the Roman Church.  
Having thus examined the Principles of this little Treatise so far as they fall under our present Debate, it will be no hard matter to discover the Fraud and Hypocrisy of his Discourse p. 47. which deserves a distinct Consideration.  
The question between us is, Whether the denial of the Principles (charged on the Roman Catholics) be a sufficient Justification of their Innocence?  
This Author seems to join with us in a just abhorrence of them.  
[Let those in God's Name, if any there be, of what Religion soever, who hold such Tenants, suffer for them; why should the Innocent be involved with the Guilty? There is neither Reason nor Justice in it.]  
I confess the Design of dividing the Papists, and making a difference between men of loyal and disloyal Principles is very charitable; even great and good men are apt to believe that to be practicable, which they earnestly desire, and I know none which would not be glad to see a prudent and safe way found out, for making a discrimination between the Innocent and the Guilty.  
But the Dispute among those of out Church is not whether there be any Loyal and Honest men of the Roman Communion; nor yet whether they deserve more Favour than other Papists; but whether we can find out a safe and certain way to distinguish between men of Honest and Seditious Principles?  
It is agreed on both sides; 

1. That there are some good men of that Communion.  
2. That the Righteous ought not to be as the Wicked.  
3. That we can have no security from the Principles of their Religion.    
Those very persons who are for dividing the Papists acknowledge, That none of them can be truly good and loyal, but such in whom common reason or common Christianity prevail above their Religion; that all the Reason we can have to believe that they will do us no hurt, if they are truly conscientious persons, is only this; That we may hope they do not yet know their Church's Sense in this matter; at present they do not know the repugnancy between their Duty to Princes, and the Principles of their Communion.  
And if so, how we shall discover whether these men think themselves more obliged to their Duty to their King and Country, than to the Judgement and Interest of their Church, I am yet to learn.  
But I cannot (without too great a digression) enter upon this Debate, which would afford matter enough for an entire Discourse.  
And yet I cannot pass by a very plausible pretence, which some Roman Catholics of late have very much insisted upon, to vindicate themselves and their Religion.  
A Roman Catholic Peer maintained a Distinction (some years ago) in the House of Lords between the Catholics of the Church, and those of the Court of Rome, part of whose Speech I will here transcribe. My Lords, Give me leave to remind you what kind of Catholic I am; that is a Catholic of the Church of Rome, not a Catholic of the Court of Rome: A distinction (if I am not much deceived) worthy of your memory and reflection, whenever any severe Proceed against those whom you call Papists shall come in question, since Catholics of the Court of Rome do only deserve that Name. 
(H) E. of Bristols Speech in the House of Peers March 15. 1673.   
The Publisher of his Lordship's Speech refers us to the Dedication of Peter Walsh his History for a Proof of the Reasonableness of this Distinction. And if this Distinction be just and reasonable, (as they say it is) than it must be acknowledged, that a man may be a true Son of the Roman Church; that he may understand and act according to the Principles of that Religion, and yet abhor the Abominations of the Court of Rome, of its Adherents and Flatterers. I am therefore obliged to examine the Grounds of this Distinction, because it is inconsistent with the Principles laid down in the beginning of this Treatise: For though I do not involve every person of the Romish Religion in the guilt of those horrid Doctrines and practices; yet I charge them on the Roman Church, and all such as both understand and act in conformity to her Principles.  
I have perused and considered the Dedication of F. Walsh his Book; and yet I cannot see, that we are beholden to that Church for the Goodness and Loyalty of any Roman Catholics, but either to their Lukewarmness in Religion, or to their Ignorance of the natural Tendency of its Principles; either to the prevalence of common Reason and Christianity, or of their natural Dispositions above their Religion. Nor can I understand what they mean by the Church of Rome distinct from the Court, where this Church is to be found: What Judge of Controversies she hath established, what Judicatory she hath erected, to which an Appeal may be made from the Court of Rome; or how they can maintain an external Communion with the Church, if they lie under the Censures of the Court of Rome? I speak of such times, when no General Council is to be had, and (according to the present constitution of the Roman Church) we are not like to see another so long as the World endures. But waving these difficulties, I shall endeavour to make the whole Matter obvious to a common Understanding. Let us therefore put that very Case which we find in the Dedication of F. Walsh his History.  
It is too evident from the Dedication and History of his Remonstrance, that they which offer his Majesty the least Pledge of their Duty and Allegiance are in danger of being Censured, and (as much as lies in the Court of Rome) cast out of the Communion of the Church. The Irish Remonstrance was condemned in formal Terms as Unlawful, Detestable, Sacrilegious, yea in effect as Schismatical and Heretical by the public Letters of the Internuntio●'s, and of the Roman Cardinals de propaganda Fide. They have not ceased for many years last past to persecute and defame the few remaining constant Ecclesiastical Subscribers; they have kept them in continual chase with Monitories, Citations, Depositions, Excommunications, and even public affixion or Posting of them. Of all which there was no Cause pretended, but a manifest Design to force them to renounce their Allegiance. 
(I) F. wals●… Ep. Ded. p 2, 3.   
And though some Romanists in Ireland continued Loyal to the King during the late Rebellion in these Kingdoms; yet they were all Excommunicated for their Honesty by the Pope's Nuntio and his Irish Clergy; 
(L) The Pope's Bull against the Loyal Irish Cathol●… was dated Rome Aug●… 1665. by which they are required to do public Penance their Obedience to the King. Walsh Ep. Ded. p. 31.32.  And that Sentence being judicially ratified at Rome, we were very lately assured, that many of them then continued under it. 
(M) Considerations touching the true way to suppress P etc. (Ed. 1677.) p. 44.   
Besides, The Author of the Controversial Letters (in his 8th. Letter) acknowledges, That the Court of Rome and its Dependants are so diligent in suppressing all Books written against the Pope's Power; that a private man cannot write without hazard of a Censure on his Book, and possibly on his Person. Were not Barclay and Widdrington formerly condemned at Rome for opposing the Pope's Power of Deposing Princes? And have not those few English and Irish Writers, (which have since had the boldness to speak the Truth) been branded and censured for that unpardonable Crime?  
And now I shall bring this whole Matter to a short Issue.  
1. The Church Diffusive is no Body Politic, nor can do any Act as such: It can neither judge of Persons or Causes but as assembled in a Council; and what if a General Council (after all the Complaints of the injured Parties) be hindered or deferred for many years; and for many more sometimes assembled, sometimes dissolved, as the Council of Trent was? During the Intervals of Councils, there is no Authority that doth or can act in contradiction to the Court of Rome; for neither the Church Representative, nor the Authentic Laws of the Church have entrusted any Judicatory (Independent on that Court) with the Exposition or Execution of the Canons and Decrees of the Church. No Council can be called but by the Pope's Authority; 
(N) Decret. par. 1. dist. 17. c. 5. The Title is, Non est Concilium, sed Conventiculum, quod sine sedis Apostolicae auctoritate celebratur.  And in the Intervals of Councils all matters of Importance are to be referred to the Papacy by the Laws of the Roman, Church. 
(O) Decret. par. 1. Dist. 17. c. 5. Majores vero & difficiliores quaestiones (ut sancta Synodus statuit & beata consuetudo exigit) ad sedem Apostolicam semper referantur.   
I know the Council of Constance decreed, That General Councils should for ever be held once in ten years, and made (as they thought) a sufficient Provision for the Observation of that Canon; 
(P) Concil. Constant. Sess. 39 p. 577. (tom. 29.) Et Conciliis Generalibus & provisione erga futura schismata.— quem terminum louse at summo Pontifici de fratrum suorum S. R. Ecclesiae Cardinalium Consilio ob emergentes forté casus abbreviare, (sed nullatenús prorogetur.  but how easily the Court of Rome hath eluded the force of their Decree all the World knows.  
2. Suppose a General Council should be called, yet (according to present Constitution of the Roman Church) it cannot act in opposition to the Court of Rome. For, not to insist on the great Numbers of Monks and Friars, of Canonists, and such like Creatures and Vassals of the Papacy, with which their Councils are filled; all the Bishops (who have Decisive Votes in Councils) are under an Oath of as absolute Allegiance to the Pope, as any Subject in Christendom is to his Natural Prince. For proof hereof I appeal both to the Roman Pontifical, (where the Oath is to be seen 
(Q) Pontif. Rom. p. 59, 60.  and to F. Walsh himself, to whom the Catholics of the Church of Rome refer us. 
(R) F. welsh in the Dedication of his History p. 19 All the Bishops bind themselves (at their Consecration) Liege-men to his Holiness, by the strictest Oath that could be sworn or penned, especially being the Pope himself is the only Interpreter thereof. 
See also the History, part 1. p. 513.  
In this Oath (among other things) they swear to defend the Roman Papacy, and the Regalities of St. Peter; to observe with all their might the Rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolical Decrees and Commands; (by which are undoubtedly meant the Pope's Canons and Commands.)   They are bound by this Oath, to observe (at least) all the Canons that are already set forth and enjoined; and are not many of those Canons destructive of the Rights of Princes? Is there the least notice taken in this Oath of the Obedience due to them?  
And though the Papal Usurpations have been for some Ages lamented and complained of by the better part of the Christian World, yet the Church of Rome hath not used any effectual means to prevent them, as she was bound both in Prudence and Conscience to do, if she had no mind to let the Pope keep up their Pretensions to them. Besides, when it was desired, that the Pope would dispense with this Oath at the Council of Trent, and leave the Bishops to the freedom of their Consciences, the Motion was rejected, as not only F. Paul; but Cardinal Pallavizine himself acknowledges. 
(S) Pallavi. Hist. Cone. Trid. Tom. 2. p. 366.367. (Ed. 1670.)   
3. If any Decrees of General Councils should chance to prove prejudicial to the Papacy; they shall signify no more than his Holiness please. For if the Pope think fit to dispense with them, or to interpret them according to his own mind, who can help it? Was not the Order of the Jesuits set up against a Decree of one of their General Councils? 
(T) Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1, p. 654. Paul the third in his Bull of approbation of that Order hath this expression; Non obstantibus Generalis Concilii, & Faelicis recordationis Gregorii Papae 10. acquibusvis aliis Constitutionibus & Ordinationibus Apostolicis, caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque. The Council to which he refers is that of Lateran under Innocent the third; c. 13. De Novis Religionibus prohibitis, where 'tis expressly said, firmiter prohibemus, ne quis de caetero novam Religionem inveniat, etc.  Are not all men (by the Laws of the Church) bond to resort to the Pope for the Sense of their Decrees? 
(V) Decret. par. 1. dist. 17. c. 4. Quoties aliqua de Universali Synodo aliquibus dubitatio nascitur, ad recipiendam de eo quod non intelligant rationem, aut sponte two qui salutem animae suae desiderant, ad Apostolicam sidem pro recipienda ratione conveniant, aut si forté it a obstinati & contumaces exteterint, etc.   
4. To put this matter out of all doubt I add, That whatever pretences there might be for this Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome before the Council of Trent; yet they are utterly destroyed by that Great Oracle of the present Roman Church. For the Fathers of that Council tamely gave up the Cause, betrayed their own and their Church's Liberties, abetted the Usurpations of the Court of Rome, took away the Legality of Appeals from that Court to a General Council, and the Superiority of their own Power to that of the Papacy; they enjoined all the Beneficed Clergy to take an Oath of Obedience to the Pope, made him the Judge and Interpreter of all their Decrees, provided that all Writers should either speak for the Court of Rome, or be silent.  
What was the Issue of this goodly Convention, but the confirming the Pope in his Usurped Power, the enslaving the Consciences of the Clergy, and leaving the whole Christian World (of that Communion) under an impossibility of ever having a Free General Council? 
(X) History of the Church of Trent by F. Paul l. 8. an. 1563. 
Conc. Trid. Sess 25. Decret. de Ref. c. 2. c. 5. c. 21. de libt. prohibit. reg. 10. etc.  
And Card. Pallavizine Hist. Conc. Trid. tom. 2. p. 367.    
And now let all Wise and Impartial men judge, whether the Distinction between the Church and Court of Rome be not utterly insignificant, as to those purposes, for which it is commonly produced?  
[Object. Hereunto some Persons stick not to say, That Dispensations, and I know not what Indulgences and Pardons, whereby to legitimate the Crimes of Lying and Forswearing, when the Interest of our Church requires it, are a main part of our Religion; and by Consequence the Denial of our Principles is no sufficient Justification of our Innocence.]  
I have not leisure to discourse of their Dispensations, Indulgences and Pardons; But that Dispensations have been granted from Rome to legitimate these Horrid Crimes we are assured by Persons of unquestionable Credit.  
Whether the Generality of the English Papists in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, had any Dispensations for the Dissembling their Religion, and coming to our Churches, I know not; but not long after The very Dispensations were intercepted in Scotland, and shown to the King; by which they were allowed to Promise, Swear, Subscribe, and do what else should be required of them, so as in Mind they continued firm, and did use their Diligence to advance in secret the Roman Faith. 
(Y) spotswood's, History of the Church of Scotland, ad an. 1580. p. 308.  And sure it was not without Reason on the Irish Remonstrants part, That they left out that Clause in their Formulary (which was contained in the Oath of Allegiance,) viz. That the Pope cannot dispense with this Oath.  
We know, no less Person than Laynez (the General of the Jesuits) declared in the Council of Trent, That to say the Pope cannot by Dispensations disoblige him, who is Obliged before God, is to teach men to prefer their own Conscience before the Authority of the Church 
(Z) History of the Council of Trent, l. 8.  And Laynez was so far from being called to an Account for that bold Assertion, that he was Honoured and highly complimented by the Fathers of that Council.  
In short, The Bishops of Rome have presumed to alter the Nature of Things, to absolve in some Cases from the Obedience of God himself; to grant Pardons for the greatest Sins against the Divine Majesty, and to Licence Incestuous Marriages against the Law of God and Nature.  
But the Highpriest did not use to let out Goliahs' Sword but upon Extraordi-Occasions; It may be these Dispensations are not very commonly and frequently sent over hither, for many Papists do not need them; some are not fit to be trusted with them; and 'tis not always for the Interest of the Roman Church and Religion to grant them.   

CHAP. VI  
Of the late Lord Staffords Declaration and Address to the House of Peers, concerning a Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants, and a Toleration for the Papists.  
1. Of the Comprehension for the Dissenting Protestants.  
Three Propositions concerning Comprehension.  
'Tis neither the Duty nor Interest of any Roman Catholics (continuing true to their Principles) to promote a firm and lasting Union of Protestants.  
What Influence the Romish Agents had on the first Separation from our Church.  
Of the late Declaration of Indulgence.  
2. Of the Toleration for the Papists. Of their endeavours to procure a Toleration under Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First, the late Usurped Powers, and his present Majesty.  
What the Design of that Faction is in endeavouring to procure a Toleration.  
They have been the worse for Favour and Indulgence, as is evident from their Behaviour towards Queen Elizabeth, King James, King Charles the First, and his present Majesty.  
This Chapter concluded with the Protestation of King Charles the First  
[P. 52, 53. MY Lord's Declaration before the House of Lords after his Condemnation.  
That there had been at divers times endeavours used, and Overtures made to obtain an Abrogation, or at least a Mitigation of Severities against Catholics, but this to be procured no otherwise, than by Legal and Parliamentary means. That he himself went to Breda, whilst the King was there, and propounded 100000 l. in behalf of the Catholics, to take off the Penal Laws: That after the King came in, there was a Bill brought into the House, in Favour of Catholics, but it was opposed by my Lord Chancellor Hid. (With some later Proposals and Expedients, etc.) These he avouched were the chief, and only Designs he ever had, or knew of amongst Catholics, for promoting their Religion.]  
[In his former Address to the Court p. 41. he declared; That it was ever indeed his Opinion, that an Act of Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants, and a Toleration for Roman Catholics (yet so as not to admit them into any Offices of Profit or Dignity) would much conduce to the Happiness of the Nation; but this not otherwise to be procured or desired, than by a free Consent of the King, Lords, and Commons, in Parliament assembled: That he never read or knew of Coleman 's Letters or Consultations for Tolerations till he saw the Letters themselves in the Printed Trial.]  
[In the Printed Trial p. 201. My Lords, I believe that after that all of all Religions had Meetings amongst themselves to endeavour to get that Toleration which they proposed humbly to your Lordships, there I will never deny, that my Opinion was, and is, That this Kingdom can never be happy till an Act of Parliament pass to this effect: It was my Opinion then, and I did endeavour it all I could that the Dissenting Protestants might have a Comprehension, and the other (those of the Church of Rome) a Toleration.]  
But how comes a zealous Papist too have so much kindness for Dissenting Protestants? Were I a Dissenting Protestant, I should very hardly be persuaded, That those men, which (ever since the Reformation) have endeavoured to undermine the Foundations of our Religion, are now become Friends to the Protestant Interest. I should call to mind Coleman's Declaration after Sentence given against him; That possibly he might be of an Opinion, that Popery might come in, if Liberty of Conscience had been granted.  
I should be afraid of helping to break in pieces the established Religion and Government; lest when they have gotten the Power into their Hands, they should betake themselves to their old Arguments of Fire and Faggot.  
But to return, I shall take occasion from his Lordship's Declaration, to give a brief Account of the Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants, and the Toleration for the Roman Catholics, so far as they of the Romish Party are concerned in them.  
1. I begin with the Comprehension for Dissenting Protestants.  
If by Comprehension be meant such a Settlement, as tendeth to a firm and lasting Union of Protestants; and is consistent with the Security of the Reformed Religion, the Honour of our first Reformers, and the establishment of the Church of England; in short, such a Settlement as may show that the present Terms of Communion with our Church are not unlawful; I say, if this be the meaning of Comprehension, let it be considered.  
1. That Private Persons (of how great Eminency soever) can only make Proposals to their Lawful Superiors, for the Laws are still in force, and cannot be altered by any Authority less than that by which they were Enacted.  
2. That divers very Eminent Persons of the Church of England have made the most fair and equal Proposals for the Satisfaction of all wise and peaceable men, which are consistent with the Honour and Safety of the best established Church in Christendom.  
3. Since the Alteration of the Established Laws (concerning the Preservation of our Church and Religion) is one of the weightiest Considerations in the World; since it is impossible to gain all Parties without receding too far from the first Principles of the Reformation; there is something to be done by the Dissenters before they can reasonably hope for an Alteration of the present Constitutions. I mean, it should be known what kind of Alteration is desired, and for whom, what sort of men will be gained by it, and what number of them?  
When they which make such loud outcries and passionate Expostulations for Union have gone thus far; then may our Governors understand what Measures are fittest to be taken; i. e. Whether it be expedient to make any Alterations; and if it be, how far to Alter for the sake of Peace and a firm Union of Protestants? Private Persons may judge of the Lawfulness of things imposed by Authority; but it is an Argument of Pride and Immodesty for private persons to think themselves Competent Judges of the necessity or expediency of Laws.  
But this is not the Design of the leading Faction of the Roman Church. I grant they may be for promoting a seeming Union among Protestants, (call it by what name you please) but it must be such a one as will only serve a present turn, and is inconsistent with a lasting Settlement; such a one as tendeth not to the lessening but the increasing our Differences, and will in the conclusion ruin the beauty if not the very being of the Church of England. 
(A) See the Letter of Advice given to F. Young, concerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon his Majesty's Restauration. The first Advice is, To make the Obstruction of Settlement the great Design, especially upon the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom. 
The Letter is cited by the Dean of S. Paul's in his Preface to the Unreasonableness of Separation.   A Church, against which as their Attempts have been more frequent, so they have been carried on with more Art and Industry, than against any Church in the Christian World. A Church that is free from Impostures and Innovations, from Superstition and Enthusiasm, which are the principal Ingredients of Popery. A Church that endeavours to reduce all things to their Ancient Limits; and so long there can be no room for Papal Usurpations. And I appeal to all wise men, Whether it be either the Interest or Duty of the Romish Faction, (continuing true to their Principles) to strengthen or repair such a Church as this, which they are bound to pull down or break in pieces? All the Service that I could ever find they did the Church of England was to raise and support Sects and Factions amongst us, to creep in among them under various disguises; to weaken the Government, to lay us open to the Assaults of Foreign and Domestic Enemies, and to bring us into such a disorder and confusion as was more likely to end in Atheism or Popery, than in the Union of Protestants.  
If we look back as far as the first beginning of the Separation from our Church, we shall see many strong probabilities, that the busy Factors for Popery (the Jesuits and Jesuited Papists) had a great Influence on it; and what advantages they have ever since made of our unnatural Heats and growing Schisms, we are not wholly ignorant. They knew the safest (though not the quickest) way to reduce their Religion, was by fomenting domestic Factions; And when some of the Exiles (in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign) returned home with a dislike of some things in our Church, they laid hold of this Opportunity of dividing the Protestants, and inflamed the differences in hope of making them destroy one another and fall a Prey to the common Adversary. Whilst Harding, Sanders, and others (of the Roman Communion) attacked our Church on one side; (saith a learned and faithful Historian) Coleman, Butten, Hallingham and others were as busy on the other.  
And it hath been lately published to the world, (from the Lord Burleighs Papers) that Faithful Commin a Dominican Friar, and Thomas Heath (a Jesuit) were employed by the Pope and Jesuits under the disguise of zealous Protestants to draw men off from the Communion of the Church of England. Such wonderful Friends are the Emissaries of Rome to order and unite amongst English Protestants!  
But I will conclude this Head with the Declaration of Indulgence An. 1671/2; concerning which the Author of the Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country tells us, That when the War was to be made with Holland, the Lord C. advised to quiet all Dissenters in Religion at home, with granting the Declaration of Indulgence; and the E. of S. though a man of Principles and Interest opposite to the other, presently closed with his Advice.  
And Coleman owned that the Fatal Revocation of this Declaration for Liberty of Conscience was that to which the Papists owed all their late Miseries and Hazards. We all know that from this time Licenses were accepted, and Meeting-houses built; People were withdrawn from the Parochial Assemblies, and Books written to justify their Practices upon such Principles, as naturally lead to endless Separations, and the destroying the very being of our Church: Whole Herds of Priests and Jesuits have lurked in these Kingdoms, and the Roman Church hath had a most plentiful Harvest amongst us. If this be called the Uniting of Protestants, it must be by the same Figure, by which the destroying men's Rights is called the defending their Liberties.  
2. I come to consider the Endeavours which have been used by the Roman Catholics to procure a Toleration for themselves.  
At Queen Elizabeth's first coming to the Crown the Pope threatened to Excommunicate her; the Emperor and other Foreign Princes moved by their Ambassadors for a free and open Exercise of the Roman Catholic Religion. 
(B) Cambden Eliz. ad an. 1558.   
In King James his time Cardinal Bellarmine roundly tells his Majesty, That if he desired to consult his own and his People's Safety, he must give Liberty to their Religion. 
(C) Bel. Resp. ad. Apol. (Ed. C●…. Agripp. 1610.) p. 21. Si ●ex secure regnare, & vitae suae ac suorum consulere cupit, sinat ca●…os frui antiqua possessione religionis suae.   
And the Lord Herbert in a Letter to the King An. 1623. tells him; The Pope will never grant his Consent to the Marriage of the Prince with the Infanta of Spain, unless his Majesty grant some not able Privileges and Advantages to the Roman Catholics in his Dominions: He adds, The King of Spain would never insist on obtaining these Privileges, but that he desires to form a Party in your Majesty's Kingdoms, which he may always keep obsequious to his will, etc. 
(D) Cabala. printed 1654.   
In the beginning of King Charles the First his Reign, the Irish Papists taking advantage of the Emptiness of the King's Treasury, proffered to maintain Five Thousand men at their own Charge, if they might enjoy a Toleration; but that Motion was crushed by the Bishops. The Project failing in Ireland, the English Papists offered (but with no better Success) to buy the free Exercise of their Religion at the expense of maintaining a certain proportion of Ships. 
(E) Fuller's Church History, l. 11. p. 128, 129.   
It is well known how that restless Faction fed their Disciples with continual expectations of a Change, and though these two Excellent and Pious Princes did inviolably maintain the established Protestant Religion, yet they gained this mighty Advantage, that notwithstanding all the Writings and Speeches, Declarations and Protestations of King James against Popery, the Fears and Jealousies of his Subjects (occasioned only by some short Relaxations) were never cured in his days. And in the Reign of King Charles the First, whatever Indulgence either the Gentleness of his own Disposition prompted him to, or the necessity of his Affairs extorted from him, was looked upon as the Effect of his Majesty's Inclination to Popery. For though the War was raised by discontented, covetous, and ambitious men, and carried on by a leading Faction, yet it was necessary to make Religion a Stalking Horse to their Interest; and the Imputation of Popery was the great Engine, by which they rendered the King and his Adherents odious, and robbed him of the Hearts of his People; for by this Suggestion they abused the credulity of many well-meaning (but intemperate) Zealots; persuaded them to engage in the Defence of the Protestant Religion, and kept others so long from his Majesty's Assistance, till they too late saw and lamented their own weakness, and the Treachery of a lesser but more active party, whom they had followed in the Simplicity of their hearts.  
Not long before the Murder of the King, many Jesuits and other Priests daily flocked into this Kingdom, and so far insinuated themselves into some prime Commanders of the Army and others of the House of Commons (than at the Devotion of the Army) that they were in a fair way to obtain their share in that Toleration or Liberty of Conscience which was so agreeable to the Judgement of the Times, as Mr. Gatford saith upon his own immediate knowledge. 
(F) England's Complaint, p. 17, 18.  And Mr. Prinne (in the Appendix to his forecited Speech) tells us, that after the Army had imprisoned and removed his Majesty to bring him to Trial, They voted at their General Council of War (carried by two Voices,) That the Papists should have Free Liberty and Toleration of Conscience, and all Sequestrations and Forfeitures as Papists only, taken off.  
Under the Usurped Powers they offered to renounce their Loyalty and Allegiance to the Royal Family for ever, upon condition of a free Toleration of their Religion: And certainly those times of disorder and confusion gave them a mighty advantage for the re-establishing their Religion in England, when Episcopacy was voted down; (and 'tis well known what rejoicing that Vote brought to the Romish party) the Defender of the Faith put to death; (and we are not ignorant with what Joy and Triumph the news of his death was received in the English Convents and Seminaries) The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy repealed, and it was put to the Vote in the Little Parliament, Whether all the Parochial Ministers should not be put down at once?  
What endeavours have been used since his Majesty's Happy Restauration to procure or purchase a Toleration, Mr. Coleman and the late Lord Stafford have informed us.  
And yet some men ask, Why may not Roman Catholics enjoy the Freedom of their Consciences and Religion?  
But they have never read, or never considered Colemans' Trial, and the Collection of Letters lately published. What made him lament the Fatal Revocation of the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience? What is the meaning of such Expressions as these; That if they could carry the Design of getting an Act for Liberty of Conscience, they should in effect do what they list afterwards? That the prevailing in these things would give the greatest blow to the Protestant Religion here, that ever it received since its Birth? That they had a mighty Work upon their hands, no less than the Conversion of three Kingdoms; and by that perhaps the subduing of a Pestilent Heresy, which had domineered over a great part of the Northern World a long time? 
(G) And yet the Author of Staffords Memoirs, (p. 10.) would persuade us, That the Letters of Mr. Coleman and others do only show, that they desired perhaps in some measure a Liberty of Conscience; yet without confronting, much less destroying the King or Government.   
And the Lord Stafford himself acknowledged before the House of Peers, That if he had known any such Design, as Colemans' Letters do hint, he would not have continued in England. 
(H) See the Printed Trial p. 292.   
How miserably then are those poor men imposed upon, that think the Design (at least of the Active Men) of this Faction was merely to enjoy the Freedom of their Consciences, or the private Exercise of their Religion? It is not the Ease of their own Consciences, but a Power to lay insupportable Burdens on other men's Consciences which they aim at. What they call Indulgence and Toleration is indeed Rule and Dominion; they first strengthen their own party, and weaken the Established Religion and Government by all the Arts of Fraud and Treachery; and when they have once gotten the Power into their Hands, they deprive all others of the Enjoyment of their Religion and Consciences; and this is notorious in all places where they have had Strength and Opportunity to compass their Designs.  
Indeed some good-natured People are willing to believe, that they are a very harmless and peaceable sort of Creatures; and others (that pretend to some kind of Insight into Mysteries of State) look upon an Indulgence as the best way to oblige and make them sure to the Government.  
But it were no hard matter to prove that the former are very much mistaken in their Charity, and the latter in their Politics. All the Connivance and Favours of our Princes (since the Reformation) have been so far from making them true to the Crown, that they have always been the worse for Indulgence.  
In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, she treated them with the greatest Mercy and Clemency, which had dealt most Insolently and Cruelly with her before she came to the Crown. For the first ten years of her Majesty (by the Confession of the Secular Priests) 
(I) Important Considerations, etc.  the State of Catholics in England was tolerable, and after a Sort in some good quietness. Parsons and Creswel (the Jesuits) tell her Majesty, That in the beginning of her Kingdom, she dealt something more gently with Catholics; that none were then urged by her, or pressed either to her Sect, or to the denial of their Faith; all things seemed to proceed in a far milder course, no great Complaints were heard of.  
Yea her Majesty suffered Bonner (that Man of Blood) after all his Butcheries, quietly to live and die amongst us; Heath to live securely at his own House in Surrey; Tonstall, Thirlby and Fecknam to live in ease and freedom; she reserved Pensions to such of the Popish Clergy, as quitted their Benefices by Resignation. 
(L) Hist. of the Reformation, part. 2. p. 396. etc.   
In Fine, some Roman Catholics were highly obliged, none provoked by any greater Severity than the requiring of 12 d. a Sunday for not coming to Church; and yet they were continually giving fresh Proofs of their Loyalty and Gratitude to the Queen, by dispersing of Libels against her Person, Crown and Dignity; procuring of Bulls from Rome, fomenting of Treasons and Conspiracies at home, or tampering with the King of Spain to invade her Majesty's Dominions, as (besides our Writers) their own Secular Priests do acknowledge. 
(M) Important Considerations, etc.   
King James at his first coming to the Crown of England, was so far from putting the Laws in Execution against the Papists, that he remitted the Arrears of their Penalties in Queen Elizabeth's time, and pardoned divers of the Conspirators; he suffered them to enjoy their Estates and Consciences, and admitted divers of them to Places of Trust and Honour. But for a Testimony of their prodigious Ingratitude, I refer you to that Royal Author.  
The King himself avowed it to the whole Christian World, That such was his Mercy and Clemency to them, as not only the Papists grew to that height of Pride, in confidence of his Mildness, as they did directly expect, and assuredly promise to themselves Liberty of Conscience, and Equality with other of his Subjects in all things; but even a Number of the best and faithfullest of his Majesty's Subjects, were cast in great Fear and Amazement of his Course and Proceed, ever Prognosticating and justly Suspecting that Sour Fruit to come of it, which shown itself clearly in the Powder Treason.  
How many did I honour with Knighthood (they are his Majesties own Words) of known and open Recusants? How indifferently did I give Audience and Access to both sides, bestowing equally all Favours and Honours on both Professions? How free and continual Access had all Ranks and Degrees of Papists in my Court and Company? How frankly and freely did I free Recusants of their Ordinary Payments?— My General Pardon extended to all convicted Priests in Prison, whereupon they are set at liberty as good Subjects; and all Priests that were taken after, were sent over and set at Liberty there, (after a Proclamation, That all Priests that were at Liberty might go out of the Country by such a Day.) But time and Paper will fail me to make Enumeration of all the Benefits and Favours that I bestowed in general and particular upon Papists; in recounting whereof every Scrape of my Pen would serve but for a Blot of the Pope's Ingratitude and Injustice in meating me with so hard a measure for the same. 
(N) King James his Works, p. 253.   
Grant them an Indulgence; they will move for an open Toleration. Give them a Toleration, they will aspire to an Equality with other (Protestant) Subjects; and then all the Art and Policy of Rome shall be employed to get the Power into their own hands.  
I know nothing that could exasperate them under King Charles the First, his Majesty's Goodness and Clemency to them gave occasion to a wicked and malicious Imputation, of his being popishly affected, and what requital they made his Sacred Majesty I have already showed.  
Since his Majesty's Blessed Restauration, they have enjoyed as great a measure of Peace and Liberty, as ever any People did under a Prince of a different Religion. As his Majesty was very tender of their Lives and Fortunes, so his Protestant Subjects have been so far from thirsting after their Blood, that they never gave them any disturbance which was not necessary for their own Safety, till the breaking out of Plots and Designs against the Government awakened the sleeping Laws. Let us appeal to the Testimony of the late Lord Stafford; his words (in the printed Trial p. 200.) are, Since his Majesty's Happy Restauration I do conceive, and I think I may safely say it (for you all know he was Gracious and Good to all Dissenters, particularly to them of the Romish Church) they had Connivance and Indulgence in their Private Houses, and I declare to your Lordships, I did then say to some that were too open in their Worship, that they did play foul in taking more liberty upon them than was fitting for them too, and that brought the Misfortune upon me which I will not name.  
And now a man might wonder at the continual and loud Complaints of Persecution for their Religion and Consciences; and their Restless Endeavours to procure Liberty of Conscience (as they call it) by any Means, at any Price. If ever they wanted Liberty since the Reformation, they may thank themselves for it: They have generally enjoyed the Private Exercise of their Religion; but this is not the meaning of Liberty of Conscience in the stile of our times.  
From these Instances it is evident, That if Kindness and Lenity were the way to oblige the Roman Catholics of these Kingdoms, we had never heard of a Spanish Armada, a Gunpowder Treason; of an Irish Rebellion, or of a Plot against his Sacred Majesty, whom God long preserve; they would have been indeed (what they falsely pretend to be) His Majesty's Loyal and Dutiful Subjects. But I wish they had not taken an effectual Course by the many Conspiracies within this last hundred Years, and by this of equal or greater Horror than the rest, to convince us how easily a Popish Zeal can break through all Obligations of Religion and Gratitude.  
I will conclude this Chapter with the Judgement of our late Royal Martyr, concerning these men and their Religion.  
An. 1642. he called God to Witness, That he would never Consent, upon what Pretence soever, to a Toleration of the Popish Profession, or Abolition of Laws then in force against the Recusants.  
This Solemn Protestation was made by his Majesty, who had too much reason to understand their Tempers and Principles; and though I find it quoted by his Enemies, yet I cannot meet with any Proof that ever he altered his Mind in this Matter.   

CHAP. VII.  
A short Reflection on the foregoing Discourse.  
Some things offered to all such as desire to prevent the Designs of the Papists.  
1. Beware of Seditious Doctrines and Practices.  
A brief Account of them.  
This Consideration recommended to all Protestants; especially to the Dissenters from the Established Church of England.  
Of the Secluded Members; and of the Solemn League and Covenant.  
2. Beware of being Instrumental to the weakening or subverting of the Church of England.  
Popery can never enter into our Church so long as the Established Articles, Liturgy and Government are maintained.  
The Difference between the Ceremonies of the Church of Rome and those of the Church of England.  
Three Corsiderations to them that charge our Church and Episcopal Clergy with Inclining to Popery.  
Some other things propounded to the Dissenters by way of Consideration and Advice.  
The Conclusion of the whole.  
THus far I have endeavoured to lay open the Mystery of Iniquity and Rebellion, as it hath been carried on under a pretence of Zeal for God and Religion.  
I have fairly represented those Doctrines and Principles which strike at the very root of our Established Religion and Government; with the Arts and Instruments which have been used by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church for the Subversion of them. And I know no stronger Argument against the Truth and Goodness of any Religion, than that it supplants Moral Righteousness and serves to be a Bond of Conspiracy; allows of Sedition and Treachery, Injustice and Cruelty. For how can that Religion be from God, which maketh Men unlike to God; as bad or worse than if they were left to the Principles and Inclinations of their own Natures?  
I have proved, That there are no Doctrines or Rules of the Reformed Religion which enjoin or countenance any Seditions or Bloody Practices for the Propagation of it; and there is no reason why those Faults of Ill Men should be imputed to Religion, which proceed either from the Ignorance or the Want of it.  
The True Reformed (i. e. Christian) Reiigion is the strongest Bond of Humane Society, the best Friend in the World to Civil Government; 'tis a better Security to the Throne of a King than all his Treasures and Magazines, all his Guards and Armies: It never licenced any Treasons or Murders, any Insurrections or Massacres, though it were for the best Ends, for God and Religion; and why should such a Religion suffer in our esteem for the Doctrines or Actions of men, which under the disguise of Zeal against Popery have weakened the Reformation?  
Of the Church of England I will only say; It hath established the Righth of Kings upon such sure and unalterable Foundations, that it is the Interest as well as the Duty of the Civil Power to support and defend it.  
But I cannot dismiss this Subject without offering some things by way of Consideration and Advice to all such as (out of a just regard to the Honour of God, and the Tranquillity of this Church and Kingdom) desire to prevent the Designs of our Enemies, and transmit the True Religion to Posterity. I speak to Men that have seen or heard of the Ways and Means, by which the Monarchy and Church of England were once overthrown; to men that have felt both the Calamities of an Intestine War, and the Happiness of a long Peace; and therefore I need not trouble the Reader or myself with those things which are fresh in our Memories.  
We have of late been alarmed with the Apprehensions of Popery, and we are loath to put our Necks under that Yoke which our Fathers were not able to bare. But do we detest Popery for the sake of the Church and Kingdom, as well as our own Estates and Liberties? Do we hate Popery for the Immorality as well as the Destructiveness of its Principles? Are we Zealous for the Reformed Religion, because it teaches us to fear God and honour the King; to be just and merciful to our Brethren, humble and obedient to our Lawful Governors? If these be not the Motives of our preferring the Protestant before the Romish Religion, we better deserve the name of Hobbists, than of Protestants. Protestants and no Christians! Protestants only because 'tis against our Humour or Interest to be Papists! But if we have indeed a greater regard to our Souls than our Fortunes; if we value the honour and security of our Religion above our temporal Concernments, and the common cause of the Reformation above our private Fancies and Passions; then we shall be infinitely fearful of giving any Advantages to our Enemies of Rome, of serving the Designs of the Papists really and eventually (to use the words of a late reverend Author) though not designedly and intentionally.  
1. Then let us beware of those Seditious Doctrines and Principles which were first set on foot, and have been since kept up by the prevailing Faction of the Roman Church. What Doctrines were taught by some of the Popes before the breaking out of an avowed Design for an Universal Monarchy, I have showed already. But for the last six hundred years, all things have been contrived and carried on for the setting up a Kingdom in the Church, to which all the Princes of the Earth are to submit. The Bishops of Rome have usurped upon the Crowns of Kings and Emperors; (under the pretence of a direct or indirect Supremacy over them) Excommunicated and deposed them for Tyranny and Heresy; absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance, and animated them to take up Arms against them. The General Councils of that Church have established Treason by a Law; their Decrees are entered into the Body of the Canon Law, alleged by their Schoolmen, justified by their Divines and Casuists, refined and improved by the Jesuits. And 'tis said, that Buchanan transplanted those Antimonarchical Doctrines (which he had learned of one of these Masters) from the Church into the State; but with this difference only, that he invested the People with that Authority over Princes, which the other had placed in the Pope.  
But (to omit many particulars of lesser moment) these are properly Popish Principles and Jesuitical Tenants, and they have been the main Pillars to support the Papal Interest.  
That the Original of all Civil Power is from the People, and derived from them to the Prince by way of Mutual Compact. That a King is the People's Trustee, and their duty to him only Conditional. That his Person and Authority are separable; and that the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Matters belongs not to him. That the Church hath Power to Excommunicate the King, and (in certain Cases) to denounce Sentence of Deprivation against him; that it is lawful for Subjects to enter into Confederacies and take up Arms against him for their Religion and Liberties; and that the Commonwealth may curb and restrain him, bring him to Trial and Condign Punishment.  
I can hardly meet with any Seditious Antimonarchical Doctrines, or any specious Arguments to maintain them, in the Pamphlets of the last Forty years, but they are either expressly contained in the Writings of the Popes and Jesuits, or at least may be paralleled in the approved Divines and Canonists of the Roman Church. Certainly the Enemy hath sown these Tares in the Field; 
(A) St. Math. 13.28.  The implacable restless Enemy of Rome hath cunningly sown these Principles of Sedition amongst us, and industriously fomented such Practices as are consonant to them.  
And now let all men which call themselves Protestant's consider, That it was not the least part of the Design of our Reformers, to assert and retrieve the Ancient Rights of the Crown; and how can it be for the Honour of the Reformation, to maintain such Doctrines, as naturally tend to the weakening or subverting that Authority which they Established? They have left us a more holy and peaceable Religion than that of the Papists; and if we would show ourselves true Protestants, our Doctrines and Practices must protest against Popery, and prove us better Christians and better Subjects than they.  
If you are Protestants of the Church of England as it is established amongst us, I need only put you in mind, that you have been Educated in a Faith of Loyalty and Obedience; and you can never be tempted by any the most plausible pretences to desert it, without either forsaking or being false to that Church whereof you are Members.  
If you are Dissenters from the Church of England, I know not how it can consist with your Zeal against Popery, to contribute any thing towards the breaking in pieces that Government, which you acknowledge the present (as well as former) Designs of the Papists are leveled against. You glory in the Name of Protestants, but where do you find any one Protestant Church in the World, that hath by any public Act asserted any of these Doctrines?  
I speak not either to Hobbists and Libertines, or to furious and wild fanatics, but only to men of Conscience and Sobriety, to such as (I believe) have a real (though misguided) Zeal for the protestant Religion, for their King and Country: To such as have not forgotten that a War was raised for the Preservation of Religion and Liberty, but ended in the ruin of them both; That an Army turned their Arms against them from whom they received their Commission; 
(B) Prinnes Epistle before his Speech of Decemb. 4. 1648.— It is clear that the very Officers and the Army, being not our Masters but Servants, particularly raised, waged, and engaged by Solemn League and Covenant, among other things, to protect and defend the Parliaments and Members Rights, Privileges and Persons from all force and violence whatsoever, in such manner as both Houses and the Committee of both Kingdoms should approve, cannot pretend the least shadow of Reason or Authority from the Law of God or Man, thus traitorously to seize, imprison and seclude 〈◊〉, without the Houses Licence, before any particular Charge against ●….  That a Covenant was first entered into for the Defence of the King, and afterwards (to the astonishment of many that had taken it) made use of by others against his Person and Authority. 
(C) See the Declaration of the Army at St. Alban, (Novemb. 16. 1648.) presented to the House by the Army Officers, wherein they demand the bringing the King to a speedy Trial. In this Remonstrance they say; Whereas It might be objected, that by the Covenant they were obliged to the Preservation of his Majesty's Person and Authority, it was with this Restriction, In the Preservation of the True Religion and Liberties of the Kingdom; So that, considering Religion and the Public Interest were to be understood the Principal and Supreme Matters engaged for, and the King's Person and Authority as Inferior and Subordinate thereto; And whereas the Preservation of his Person and Authority was not consistent with the Preservation of Religion and the Public Interest, they were therefore by the Covenant obliged against it. 
The Clause in the Covenant to which they refer is Art. 3.  
On the other side, the Secluded Members remind the Army Officers of the Solemn League and Covenant, by which (they say) they were obliged to preserve the King's Person and Dignity from violence; and give this among other Reasons for their Voting the Kings Answer Satisfactory, etc.    
I know 'tis unreasonable to charge men with all the Consequences of their Principles, when they not only declare against those Consequences which are charged upon them, but also protest against them by their Practice, as many Gentlemen did, especially after they were surprised with the Votes of No further Addresses to the King. And therefore I shall not here inquire into the Nature and Tendency of the Covenant, Declaration, Remonstrances etc. of those times, which have been so often quoted both for and against adhering to the King. However all men of Conscience and Loyalty may from hence learn, how easy it is, for a Leading and Potent Faction to strain the Consequences of things, and how little all Arguments signify to them them that have gotten the Sword into their Hands. 
(D) Mr. Baxter in his Preface to the Cure of Church-Divisions. I have seen how confidently the Killing of the King, the Rebellious demolishing of the Government of the Land, the kill of many thousands of their Brethren, the turn and overturnings of all kinds of Rule, even that which they themselves set up, have been committed, and justified, and profanely Fathered upon God.   
To conclude this Head; Let it be the peculiar honour of Papists and Turks to propagate their Religion with Sword and Bloodshed; Let us regulate our Zeal with Prudence, Obedience and Charity, which make up the truly Christian Temper of English Protestants; Let no private Passion or Interest transport us beyond the bounds of our Duty to God and our Allegiance to our Sovereign: For if they do, we shall convince all Impartial men, that we have as little sense of True Religion as our Adversaries of Rome.  
You have seen the Operation of these Principles in the inciting and animating the People to Tumults and Commotions; Evil Principles brought forth Seditious Words, and they were quickly followed with Seditious Practices against the Government: But those Holy Scriptures which (blessed be God) you have in your own Language, forbidden you To curse the King in your thought: 
(E) Eccles. 10.20.  To despise Dominion and speak evil of Dignities: 
(F) St. Judas, ver. 8.  They command you to pray for the King, and for all that are in Authority; 
(G) 1 Tim. 2.1.  and to be Subject, not only for Wrath, but also for Conscience sake. 
(H) Rom. 13.5.   
2. As we desire to keep out Popery, and strengthen the Interest of the Reformation, let us beware of contributing any thing towards the subverting of the Church of England. A Church which is the most Impregnable Bulwark of the Protestant Cause; A Church which hath the Support of Scripture and Antiquity; of purity of Doctrine, and Piety of Devotion; and therefore the busy Factors for the Roman Religion have made use of more Arts and Instruments for destroying this, than any other Church in Christendom. But whether will the misguided Zeal of some men transport them? Whilst one Faction labours to break it in pieces, as the most probable means of introducing Popery; the other strives to overthrow the Constitution of it out of Zeal against Popery! Our Liturgy (for they have not much to say against our Articles of Doctrine) is but the Masse-Book translated into English; Our Church-Government Antichristian, and our Ceremonies but Popish Trumpery! And yet the Compilers of our Liturgy (the Bishops and Episcopal Divines) suffered Martyrdom by the hands of the Papists; they had the Substance of our Liturgy, the same kind of Episcopacy, the same Rites and Ceremonies with us. I do not say, That no Constitutions of our Church are capable of being explained or amended; for what Church under Heaven is perfect in all matters of Doctrine and Worship, of Order and Discipline? But did we lay aside all Prejudices and groundless Disaffections; did we allow to them the same (Favour shall I say or) Common Equity, which is allowed to all other things of Humane Composure, we should not only be freed from the loud clamours of Antichristianism and Popery, but we might assure ourselves that Popery can never enter into our Church, whilst the Established Doctrine and Liturgy, Government and Order are preserved. For 

1. Doth the Church of England impose any other Doctrines as necessary to Salvation, besides That Faith which was once delivered to the Saints? Is our Creed swelled of late by the Addition of any of the new Articles of the Roman Church? 
(I) See Article the 6th. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation. 9th. Of Original Sin. 11th. Of the Justification of Man. 14th. Of works of Supererogation. 15th. Of Christ alone without Sin. 19th, and 20th. Of the Church. 21st. Of the Authority of General Councils. 22d. Of Purgatory. 24th. Of speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the People understand not. 25th. Of the Sacraments. 28th. Of the Supper of the Lord. 29th. Of the Wicked, etc. 30th. Of both Kind's. 31st. of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross. 32d. Of the Marriage of Priests. 34th. Of the Traditions of the Church. 36th Of the Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. 37th Of the Civil Magistrate.  
And Sancta Clara, that went about to reconcile our Articles with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, might as well have attempted to reconcile the Masse-Book with the Alcoran.   
2. As to the Liturgy; How many uncertain Stories and Legends, Responds, Verses, vain Repetitions, Commemorations, etc. have our Reformers cast out? How many Anthems and Invitatories have they cut off, which did break the continual course of reading the Scriptures? How many of the principal points of Popery are countervened in our Liturgy? 
(L) V G. The Cup in the Holy Eucharist restored to the Laity. The Mediation of the blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Apostles, and Saints departed; the Merit of our good Works; the Sacrifice of the Mass; Transubstantiation, and the Adoration of the Host; five of the Romish Sacraments; Prayer for the Dead; and the Superstitious Ceremonies of Baptism expressly excluded.  But they that make this Objection, I suppose (to say no worse) never read either the Popish or our Service-Book. 
(M) See the former part of the Morning Prayer; the Liturgy, Communion Service, etc.   
3. To come to the Episcopal Government of the Church of England; It is very well known (saith B. Sanderson in the Preface to his Sermons) to many, what rejoicing the Vote (for pulling down of Episcopacy) brought to the Romish Party; how even in Rome itself they sung their Io— Paeans upon the Tidings thereof, and said triumphantly, Now the Day is Ours; now is the Fatal Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England. A thing little considered by them that were for Reforming the Church by the Extirpation of Popery and Prelacy; and opposed the Roman Cause by the Abolition of that Government, which the Strength and Policy of Rome have been so long employed against.    
Do not all Historians agree, That as the Monks and Friars were found to be more serviceable to the Papacy, than the Prelates; so the Popes enlarged their Privileges, granted them Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction, and all the Opposition of the Bishops against them have signified little in the Court of Rome, so long as their Interest and Grandeur were maintained by those Creatures and Vassals of the Roman See.  
V.G. Gregory the 9th. published two Bulls, forbidding all Bishops to exercise any Jurisdiction over them. 
(N) Greg. Dicret. l. 5. tit. 31. c. 16.17, Greg. 9 Universis Ecclesia●am Praelatis.  The following Popes confirmed their Privileges; and though some of them (wearied with the Complaints of the Bishops) confined them within certain Limits, yet others revoked their Constitutions, granted them new and more ample Charters, nulled all former Bulls of Restriction, and Decreed that they were immediately Subject to the Pope, and to none else.  
This Design was all along aimed at in the Institutions of the Regular Clergy; and the Popes and Court of Rome always appeared in it as much as they durst. But the Complaints of the Bishops and Secular Clergy became so Universal, that at length they fixed upon a new project, set up the Order of the Jesuits, (or Spiritual Janissaries) by whom they have ever since exercised an absolute Tyranny over the Bishops as well as the Parochial Clergy and People. The Immunities and Privileges conferred upon them are such as these; To Preach, hear Confessions, open their Schools, without Licence of the Bishops or Universities; to administer Sacraments, and instruct Youth; to Correct, Interpret, Expunge and Burn such Books as they dislike, etc. 
(O) V Bullar. Cherub. tom. 1. p. 653, 154. Where the several Bulls or Charters of Privileges are enumerated.  Thus were the Bishops in the Roman Church stripped of their Authority, the Government of the People committed to mere Priests; and a Jesuit, by Delegation from the Pope, may ordain Priests too as well as the Bishops.  
We see the Pope and Court of Rome are no great Friends to a Popish, and do you think they have more kindness for a Protestant Episcopacy? By whose means did Cranmer and Ridley, Hooper, Farrar and Latimer suffer Martyrdom? Did not those Holy Men exercise the same Power and Jurisdiction then, which our Bishops do at this day? Is the same kind of Episcopacy Popish in our Times, that was Heretical in theirs? Were they esteemed by the Papists their most formidable Enemies, and are their Successors become their Secret Friends? In Fine, How can you give credit to the Popish Plot, and at the same time brand those very persons with the Infamous Names of Papists and Popishly affected, which were to be made Examples of Popish Cruelty? Hath not the first Discoverer of the Plot acquainted you with the Names of them, which were to be put into their Places?  
But I cannot pass over that memorable Passage of B. Hall in his Speech to the House of Peers; Speaking of the base and scurrilous Libels and Pamphlets, wherewith the Governors of the Church had been overborn, and in which Papists and Prelates like Oxen in a Yoke, were matched together; O my Lords I beseech you to be sensible of this great Indignity; do but look on these Reverend Persons; do not your Lordships see here sitting on these Benches, those that have spent their time, their Strength, their Bodies and Lives, in preaching down and writing down Popery; and which would be ready, if occasion were offered, to sacrifice all their old Blood that remains, to the maintenance of that Truth of God, which they have taught and written: And shall we be thus ●…spightfully ranged with them, whom we do thus professedly oppose? 
(P) B. Halls ●…eech, quoted ●…late Book, ●…led, The 〈…〉, the 〈…〉 art, (1682. p. 4, 5.   
But the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England are Popish and Superstitious!  
And yet we have no Adorations of Saints, Angels, or any other created Being's; no Superstitious Consecrations of Bells, Candles, Salt, Water, etc. Hath not our Church put a manifest Difference between Naked Ceremonies and Superstitious Parts of Divine Worship? Don't She reject all Opinion of Merit and Spiritual Efficacy, and expressly declare that they are Things in their own Nature Indifferent and Alterable? In short, Would those men which make this Objection, apply their Minds to the Study of the Popish and Protestant Doctrine, I believe we should hear no more of this Groundless Calumny.  
But to them which fasten this Odious Imputation upon our Church and Churchmen, I will only say these three Things.  

1. It is the highest Injustice and Uncharitableness: For did ever any Order of men writ with more Learning and Judgement, with more Zeal and Vigour against Popery, than the Episcopal Clergy of England have done? Have they not always been the Principal (I had almost said the only) Champions in this Nation to maintain the Protestant Cause? Did they (when under the Heaviest Persecution) ever truck with the Papists for a General Toleration? Or have they (since the Kings Return) endeavoured to procure an Indulgence or Abolition of the Laws against them? Did they not boldly and honestly give the Nation Warning of the Danger of Popery, before the breaking out of the Popish Plot? 
I remember that a few Years since, some Eminent Dissenters from the Church of England, instead of joining with us against the Assaults of a Common Enemy, spoke very kindly of the Common and Innocent Papists, as they were pleased to style them: And yet God forbidden I should either charge this on the Body of Dissenters, or say those very persons were Popish or Popishly affected. I pray God open their eyes to see the Danger of Joining with the Papists for a General Toleration, and taking the same Course to keep out Popery, which the Papists do to bring it in. 
(R) Since the Declaration of Indulgence, a little Book was drawn up by one Man (but with the Consent of several Non-conformists) with a Design to present it to the Parliament, and published under this Title, The Peaceable Design; or an Account of the Non-conformists Meetings, by some Ministers of London, An. 1675. In this Book an Objection is put; But what shall we say then to the Papists? The Answer is, The Papist in our Account is but one Sort of Recusants, and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them, must be held in the same Predicament with those among ourselves, that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer:— But as for the Common Papist, who lives Innocently in his Way, he is to us as other Separatists, and so comes under the like Toleration. 
This Book was reprinted an. 1680. and with some small Alterations.  
Since the breaking out of the Plot Mr. Baxter (as I find him quoted in the forementioned Book called The unreasonableness of Separation; (part 2) tells us; Mr. H. is a Man of Latitude, and tieth himself to no Party or Opinions of other men; and I so little fear the Noise of the Cenlorious, that even now while the Plot doth render them most Odious, say freely; 

1. That I would have Papists used like Men. (I hope this Adrice is needless to English Protestants.)  
2. I would have no man put to death for being a Priest.  
3. I would have no Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo, or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments.       
2. You cannot have forgotten, That they which first joined Popery and Prelacy, quickly saw the Romish Papacy and Scottish Presbytery linked together. 
Presbytery is Babylon, Egypt a Limb of Antichrist, a Tyrannycal Lordly Government, a worse Bondage than that under the Bishops.  
‛ Antichristian Tyranny under the name of a Christian Presbyterian Church-Government'.  
An Episcopal Tyranny exchanged for a Presbyterian Slavery.  
The Presbyterian is a Bloody Vnpeaceable, and Persecuting way.  
Presbytery is more Tyrannical than Episcopacy, because one Tyrant is not so bad as many together.  
The Divines of the Assembly are Antichristian, Romish, Bloody, Baal's Priests, etc.  
This was the Language of the Sectaries in the late Times.   
3. Have you never heard what Advantage Parsons, Kellison and others have made of such Calumnies as these, to the disgrace of the Reformed Religion? Is not this the Way to gratify the Romish Faction? Will they not be emboldened in their Attempts against us and our Religion, when the Governors of our Church and the Body of the Episcopal Clergy are represented as their Secret Friends, or at least as not Hearty and Zealous in the Protestant Cause? Sure it must raise their Hopes of reducing the Romish Religion, to hear that they are now marching towards Popery, which used to be looked upon as their most Formidable Adversaries.   
But so much of this unreasonable and groundless Charge.  
I will now sum up this whole Argument as briefly as I can. You (that dissent from the established Church of England) are concerned in good earnest (as I believe many of you are) to maintain the Reformed Religion against the Abominations of Popery; I would then offer to your consideration, That you cannot reasonably hope to keep out Popery without a National settlement; (for how can a multitude of petty Sects and divided Interests, maintain their ground against the Roman Forces?) that according to the Principles of the present Separation, a National Settlement can hardly be expected.  
V G. If things Indifferent are unlawful in the Worship of God, the same Objection will for ever lie against any Constitutions that should succeed in the room of ours, and you must divide and subdivide to the World's end. The same Principle which first led Men to the decrying of Kneeling at the Sacrament, wearing a Surplice, and the Cross in Baptism; afterwards led them into Independency, Quakerism, etc. They which cried out against the Impositions of our Church, could never set up a better (or any Established) Church, or agree upon one way of Worship and Government among themselves.  
Some of the Dissenters did ingenuously confess (in the late Times) that upon the pulling down the Establishments of our Church, more Sects and Heresies sprang up within a very few years, than were ever known in the Kingdom before. But I will only appeal to the Testimonies of two Eminent Persons of the Presbyterian Persuasion; some of whose words I have transcribed in the Margin 
(S) Gangraena, by Th. Edward's (Ed. 3. 1646.) In the Epistle Dedicatory to the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament. You have, most Noble Senators, done worthily against Papists, Prelates, and Scandalous Ministers, in casting down Images, Altars, Crucifixes, throwing out Ceremonies, etc. but what have you done against other kinds of growing Evils, Heresy, Schism, Disorder, against Seekers, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Brownists, Libertines and other Sects?— You have made a Reformation; but with the Reformation have we not a Deformation, and worse things come in upon us than ever we had before? Were any of those Monsters heard of heretofore, which are now common among us? as denying the Scriptures, pleading for a Toleration of all Religions and Worships, yea, for Blasphemy, and denying there is a God. You have put down the Book of Common Prayer, and there are many among us have put down the Scriptures, etc.— You have cast out the Bishops and their Officers; and we have many that cast down to the ground all Ministers in all the Reformed Churches. You have cast out Ceremonies in the Sacraments, as the Cross, kneeling at the Lords Supper; and we have many cast out the Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, etc.— If Schism, Heresy, etc. be let alone, and rise proportionably for one year longer, we shall need no Cavaliers nor Enemies from without to destroy us. 
Mr. Baxter's Preface to the Cure of Church Divisions. I have long stood by while Churches have been divided and subdivided, one Congregation of the Division labouring to make the other contemptible and odious; and this called, The Preaching of Truth, and the Purer worshipping of God. I have seen this grow up to the height of Ranters in horrid Blasphemies, and then of Quakers, in disdainful Pride and Surliness; and into the way of Seekers, that were to seek for a Ministry, a Church, a Scripture, and consequently a Christ.— I have lived to see it put to the question in that which they called the Little Parliament, Whether all the Ministers of the Parishes of England should be put down at once?    
‛ Two ways especially (said Mr. Baxter, since the Restauration of the King and the Church of England) Popery will grow out of our Divisions.  
1. By the Odium and Scorn of our Disagreements, Inconsistency, and multiplied Sects; they will persuade People, that we must come for Unity to them, or else run mad, and crumble into Dust and Individuals. Thousands have been drawn to Popery, or confirmed in it by this Argument already; and I am persuaded, that all the Arguments else in Bellarmine, and all other Books that ever were written, have not done so much to make Papists in England, as the multitude of Sects among ourselves, etc.  
2. Who knoweth not how fair a Game the Papists have to play by the means of our Divisions?— Who is so blind as not to see their double Game and Hopes; viz. That either our Divisions and Alienations will carry men to such distances and practices, as shall make us accounted Seditious, Rebellious, and dangerous to the Public Peace, and so they may pass for better Subjects than we; or else, that when so many Parties under Sufferings are constrained to beg and wait for liberty, the Papists may not be shut out alone, but have Toleration in the rest. And shall they use our Hands to do their works, and pull their freedom out of the fire? We have already unspeakably served them, both in this, and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder-Plot, and their other Treasons, Insurrections, and Spanish Invasion, etc. 
(T) Defence of the Cure, etc. p. 52, 53, 54. (Printed 1671.)   
But we cannot join with the Church of England (as now Established) with a safe Conscience! and we ought not to provide for the security of our Religion by sinning against God.  
I Answer. Since you are under Laws and Government;  
1. You may (with a safe Conscience) submit to all such conditions of Communion, as you do not believe to be sinful. And either all the Gospel Precepts of Obedience signify nothing at all, or they signify thus much, That you ought to come up to Authority, as far as you can without disobeying the Commands of God.  
2. You may with a safe Conscience make the most favourable construction of all doubtful things, which they are fairly capable of.  
3. You are not bound in Conscience to affront the Established Religion and Government.  
4. You are bound to make Conscience of one Duty, and one Sin as well as another. Are not the Obedience and Peaceableness, doing Justly, loving Mercy, and walking Humbly with God, matters of Duty? Are not Spiritual Pride and Censoriousness, False Accusations and Slander, Schism and Sedition, forbidden by the Law of God?  
Can Men be persuaded thus far (and there is all the reason in the World that they should) they would seek out for Information, and not take up Objections upon trust; they would proportion their Zeal to the nature of things, and yield to a restraint of their liberty (in all things not sinful) for the Peace of the Church; the number of Dissenters would be lessened, and they would join with us in opposing the Common Enemy; they would take the most effectual course to incline their Superiors to pity them, and secure the Peace of their own Consciences.  
But it is time to draw to a Conclusion of the Whole. Let us not express our Zeal against Popery, by Swearing and Hectoring against it, by Cursing and Drinking to its Confusion; by Sedition and Faction, by Vices or Immoralities of what kind soever; for these are the ready ways to bring it in.  
But as the Piety and Zeal of our first Reformers banished Popery out of our Confessions of Faith and Public Offices, so let us banish it out of our Hearts and Lives; and particularly let us sincerely put in practise those Virtues which the Reformed Religion teaches, as opposed to Popery; viz. Serious Devotion to God, and inflexible Loyalty to our Sovereign, Christian Meekness and Charity, Truth and Fidelity toward all Men.  
Let us first make use of all lawful Means, (for the Divine Providence supposeth the use of all honest Means for the prevention of impendent Dangers) and then make our fervent and constant Addresses to the Throne of Grace for a Blessing upon our just Endeavours.  
But what good and wholesome Laws are fit to be made for the strengthening the Protestant Interest, and the keeping out of Popery, doth not become Persons of a private Capacity too nicely to determine.  
I am not speaking to Lawmakers', but to such as are tied up to the Laws in being; nor do I think myself able to determine, what further Laws may be made for the securing the Church and Kingdom (against all future Machinations of the Papists, or promoting a firm and lasting Union amongst ourselves. These Considerations are to be left to Authority.  
In fine, Let us lay aside all private Animosities and secular Ends in matters of Religion, and study the true Celestial Wisdom, which is first pure, then peaceable, mild, and easy to be entreated; full of mercy and good works, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. So shall we confute the Calumnies of the Romish Emissaries, and adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour; engage the Divine Providence to take care of us and our Religion, and be rewarded with the fruit of Righteousness, which is sown in peace for them that make peace.   

ERRATA.  
Pag. 37 lin. 27. read Murderer, p. 49. in the Margin Roffaeus, p. 63. in the Marg. Cherubini, p. 67. in the Margin Spondanus, p. 70. l. 29. Men, p 78. l. 6. after must add not.  
FINIS.