valid as the intention of the Priest makes the Sacrament Some other of the same Order have given dispensations for the breach of the Moral Law * Theol. mor. to 1. l. 7 c. 20. n. 281 c. Escobar says positively virtute bullae potest votum non peccandi mutari i. e. that a man may break his Vow of not sinning by virtue of a Bull and he instances in the committing of Fornication he †Tr. 7. ex 4. n. 118. also says That a man may Lye even to his Confessor that a man may promise a general Confession and yet not confess all his mortal sins quia quamvis mentiatur id tamen parum refert ad Confessarii judicium i. e. for tho he Lye yet that hath little or no relation to the Judgment of his Confessor Now to these proofs probably you will object that this is not the Opinion of the Church but of private men to which I answer that had it not been the Opinion of your Church when those Books were written such men would never have been allowed to be Confessors which no man can be unless by the allowance of the Pope the Bishop of the Diocess c. though it is well known that the Jesuits then were and still are as Eminent for being Confessors as any other Order in your Communion and perhaps more and this notwithstanding their owning these damnable Doctrines as both you and I agree to call them Nor is it enough to say that the Book of Escobar after having been 39 times printed for an excellent Book which is an argument it was much bought and much valued was the 40th time printed only to be censured and condemn'd by the French Bishops which the poor Jansenists lookt upon to have been a condemnation both of the Author and his Opinions whereas they found at last to their cost that themselves were censured at Rome as the criminals nor that the present Pope being more wise and moderate than some of his Predecessors hath condemnd those Doctrines which vindicates us that we have not unjustly charg'd the men of your Church with such Doctrines among which propositions if you consult the 26 and 27 it is asserted That a man may either being askt or of his own accord say and swear that he did not do a thing which he really did and yet by vertue of a secret meaning be neither a lyar nor perjured And that this he may do as often as it is necessary or profitable to save his Body Honour or Estate or for any other good end For this is to acknowledge that your Church for a long time heretofore conniv'd at or allow'd of the breach of plain moral commandments since the man in authority that doth not prohibit the sin that he may hinder seems to injoyn it I also observe 1. That according to your Opinion whatever the Pope and Cardinals or other Bishops do either allow or condemn is not binding as to the Faith since the infallibility is lodg'd no where but in a general Council 2. If we look into the Censure there is nothing relating to the breach of Oaths given to Princes which is the highest trust in temporal matters and withal that the propositions are not condemn'd as contrary to the Laws of God and Nature as assertions that promote impiety and injustice but ut minimum tanquam scandalosas praxi perniciosas which is the manner of expression that Alexander 7. makes use of in his censure An. 1665. as at least scandalous and pernicious to practice and therefore to be condemn'd which whether this doth not look like a trick and juggle because you have encouraged me to use the word you your self shall be the judge for notwithstanding this censure whenever the scandal ceases which no one knows how soon that may be and they are judg'd no longer pernicious the propositions may be again owned and maintained 3. It is moreover observable that whereas former Popes have allowed these Tenents and Practices without condemning them who knows but the Successors of the present Pope may when they please licence anew the propositions which are now condemn'd 4. That some such thing hath been formerly done your * Ch. 26. m. p. 90. Adversary hath given you an instance which you did not think fit to meddle with nor to reflect upon out of Archbishop Abbot's †P. 11. Preface to his six Lectures where you will find that Pius 5. the same Pope who authoriz'd the Trent-Catechism gave his resolution to some of the English Missionaries that whenever any of them were called before a judge in England he might either refuse the Oath or Swear and answer sophistically potest Catholicus tractus coram haereticis vel recusare juramentum quod est prudentius vel sophisticè jurare sophisticè respondere suis interrogationibus And if you look into the Book called Foxes and Firebrands you will see there that Heath the Jesuit had a Bull with him dated An. 1. of the same Pius 5. allowing him to preach what Doctrine the Society of the Jesuits should order him for the dividing of the Protestants and not to instance in the dispensation given by Eugenius 4. and his Legate Card. Julian to Ladislaus King of Hungary to break his League with the Grand Signior for which he was so severely punisht in the unfortunate Battel of Varna and some other such examples the Examination of Mr. Garnet is a very plain proof of this our assertion for though some men call these little arts equivocation and mental reservation as if they were small or no sins yet you fairly and honestly condemn both alike and I know few wise and good men but look upon both as alike sinful and perhaps the equivocation the more so because the design is more cunningly laid to deceive And now I am talking of the Jesuits I think fit to mind you that whereas you seem to say * Pap. misrepre p. 69 70. that it is a scandal upon your Church to affirm that 't is more lawful to be drunk on a Fasting day than to eat flesh I have met with a Casuist †Escobar tr 1. ex 13. n. 74 75. of your commumunion who will not allow a man to eat Flesh on a Fasting day but as to drink gives great indulgence when he says that a man may drink Wine even in great quantity and if he happen to be drunk immoderatio potest temperantiam violare sed non jejun ium He may transgress the Laws of Temperance but he does not transgress the Laws of Fasting After this I will not decide the controversy between your Adversary and your self whether the story of S. Perpetua's Vision be seriously related or droll'd on who pay a great veneration to all Antient writings and can hardly think that a Martyr in view of an Eternal Crown of happiness would indulge to any thing that is light or deserves to be exposed but I have some things to
Christ's Vicar and not to a petulant Colledge consisting of a few passionate corrupted persons yet the Pope liked the censure too well to condemn it Besides two or three dissenters in so great a body signifie nothing for had it been in an Assembly of the Clergy or in a General Council the majority would easily have out-weighed so small a number of contrary Votes and if the Syndick Faber's asserting the Right of Princes makes this no Decree of the Sorbon then the Syndick Richer's assertion An. 1611. in his Book de Ecclesiastica politicâ potestate is enough to prove that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical nor were the Sorbonists wanting to countenance this their assertion ordering Boucher and others to preach up the Authority of the Pope in such cases and the Justice of the King's Deposition and there was a Book written in defence of the Censure the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton by others more likely to to be the above named Boucher de justa abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear that the Assistants of the League lookt on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion it is remarkable that the Duke of Parma left his own and the publick concerns in Flanders in a very ill posture only that he might re-enforce the League and relieve Paris which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who besieged it And now we are come to the Times that succeeded the Parricide of Henry the Great who tho never so heartily reconciled to the Church of Rome was never forgiven the sin of his first Apostasie as they called it till his death in the minority of whose Son Lewis 13. When the third Estate would have past a Law that the King was deposable for no cause whatever the Clergy violently opposed it and ordered the Cardinal de Perron to make a Speech against it which after they had examin'd and approved of in the Chamber Ecclesiastick they attended him to the convention of the three Estates where he pronounc't it An. 1615. which Speech our King James learnedly answer'd in his declaratio pro jure regio where you may see it proved that the Cardinal took upon him to assert that the Pope or the Church had power to depose Princes and that it was universally owned in France ever since their Schools had been opened and the event made it appear what the design of the Speech was after which the third Estate saw it impossible to go on with their design successfully and so declin'd it and whatever F. * Vb. supr c. ult Maimburge says to the contrary yet his own argument confirms what I assert That when this difference happened between the Clergy and the third Estate the two Chambers as he calls them the Clergy inform'd Pope Paul the 5. in their answer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 1615. Angebamur non mediocriter c. That they were troubled above measure to see Catholicks transported with an undiscreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith where you may observe that the deposing power is acknowledg'd by them to be a matter of Faith earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent though you deny it to be so which did not belong to the third Estate who were Lay-men and Lawyers but withal they confess that the determination of this point did belong to the Church i. e. to themselves and the Pope omnem hanc authoritatem penes Ecclesiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi praeesse voluerit By which it is plain that that Speech was not one Doctors Opinion only as Monsieur Maimbourge affirms but the Opinion of the whole Chamber Ecclesiastick or their whole Clergy And that the French Church afterward owned the Opinion of that Speech seems plain because the general Assembly of the Clergy An. 1665. gave the Abbot Gentil 6000. Livres to collect the Memoirs of the Gallican Church which were afterward solemnly reviewed by several Bishops and Abbots and then publisht among which this Speech of Cardinal de Perron is printed and approved the whole scope of which Maimbourge himself confesses is inconsistent with the independent right of Princes and their exemption from any deposing power It is true this Speech that so few years since was Printed among the Memoirs with so much applause and approbation is now ordered to be left out of them which is so far from being an argument to incline any man to acquiesce in the judgment of such a Church that it may justly affright him from confiding in such volatile changeable men who in such weighty matters vary their Opinions so often from one extreme to another And the reason is plain the French Bishops following the dictates of that Court so that since the quarrel about the Regale they have sought to stoop the Pope and probably to make his Election depend on the present French King as it did antiently on Charles the Great And of this I could give some likely proofs but that the digression would be too long But against all this it is objected That under the present King Lewis 14. the Sorbon An. 1663. condemn'd even the indirect Power of the Pope over Princes and asserted that the King of France hath no other Superiour but God to which we answer that the same Colledge did in the days of the League maintain the contrary as I have formerly proved and at last the Sorbon is not the Representative of the French Church nor can it be imagined says the * Ch. 5. p. 14. Author of the second Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance That those men who took upon them to vary from the Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome would ever go about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Opinion either as an Article of Faith in it self or as a Rule of Faith to others But the Objection is strengthened That the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church did decree the same to which we †V. Jurieu ubi supr answer that the Declaration was made but by thirty or forty Prelates within the verge of the Court whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined But put the case that this had been decreed in a full and free National Synod yet neither could this have establisht an indefeasible right for I remember that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the King's Supremacy was decreed and establisht by our Bishops even by Gardiner Bonner c. who in all other things were zealous Catholicks and yet I suppose you will be loath to grant that for that reason the King had a just Right to that Supremacy And this also serves to answer your Objection from the Determinations of the French Vniversities against the Deposing Doctrine because not onely the greatest part of the Vniversities of
Pope pleases So that we see that even this seeming Enemy of the Deposing Doctrine dares not openly condemn it but leaves it as a probable Opinion and what 't is not necessary to speak of so that every Pope hath still his liberty to declare any Prince a Heretick and then to proceed to Excommunicate and to Depose him after which a Clement a Ravilliac or any other Assasine may proceed to murther him because he himself also is left at liberty to believe that the Pope is in the right when he hath deposed a Prince and that he ought as much as lies in him to obey him in bringing such Criminals to condign punishment At last †Protest Pop. p. 29. you tell us That a man may be admitted into your Church notwithstanding his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine and the Pope's Infallibility but as they are stated by the Representer i. e. not as Articles of Faith But this seems to imply that no man of your Communion shall dare to condemn the Doctrines which must still be look'd on as probable and disputable so that the safety of Princes and Kingdoms and the guidance of the Church in matters of Faith which depend on the plain stating of the Pope's Power and Infallibility must still be left at the mercy of opinionative men who may take liberty to dispute and write about these great and weighty points pro and con as themselves think fit And whereas your Adversary quotes Bellarmine and Canus That General Councils cannot erre even in Decrees of Discipline and Government decrera morum when they relate to things necessary to Salvation and concern the whole Church you * Protest Pop. p. 32. deny that the Deposing Doctrine is of that nature But are not the plain Offices of Morality necessary to Salvation as well as Articles of Faith If not then nothing but Infidelity damns a man and if a man's Faith be Orthodox it is no matter for his Conversation If they are necessary is not Obedience to Princes one of the moral Commands of God And if so is not the practice of that Obedience necessary to Salvation and is not Disobedience which necessarily follows the Deposing Doctrine a great sin And if so destructive of the hopes of Salvation And that it concerns the whole Church is easily proved because Princes are its Nursing-Fathers and what Evils have fallen upon your own Church by such rash Attempts some of your own Authors will tell you is plain from the instance of Henry VIII Besides the whole Christian Church and its Welfare is concern'd in the Doctrine for though all the Princes of Christendom have never been deposed at once yet what is done in one Country may be done throughout all Christendom and so the whole Church actually concern'd in the sad effects of the Doctrine And had the Empire been as intire under Henry IV as it was under the elder Emperours his Deposition had actually concern'd the whole Church And because you call that assertion that the Pope hath not condemn'd the no-deposing Power because he wants power so to do an Oracle and say you look for an Argument to prove it It is plain from History that those Popes who have been rich and stout and powerful have adventured on the practice of Deposing while others of lower Spirits less Wealth and Haughtiness have been afraid of the Attempt we are not ignorant what the Dictates of Pope Gregory VII are and how busie he was being back'd by the Countess Maud who supported him with her interest nor what Innocent III Sixtus V and some others have done in imitation of him Nor is it unknown to the World what Pope Paul V. thundered against the Republick of Venice What Pius V. did here in England and Innocent X. in Ireland during the Rebellion there for what was it that encouraged those hot Popes to go so far but that they thought their interest at least in the Church-men so great that the Countries would immediately have shaken off their Soveraigns And what is it that causes the present Pope to spare the French King about the Regale but that he is afraid of him and knows he wants power to compel him Nor need the Argument seem so ridiculous to you since Cardinal Bellarmine a man from whom most of your Writers borrow all their Materials doth not onely affirm that the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours did not take up Arms against them because they wanted power but avers against Barclay †Tom. 3. Oper. c. 6 7 8. p. 874 c. that the ancient Popes did not exert their Authority against the Emperours Constantius and Valens c. not because they had no right sed quod Reges c. but because without great damage the Church could not compel them but that the Popes did exert their Authority against Leo Isauricus Henry IV. and Childeric because they were able to compel them That Jusian was very powerful and attended with many armed Legions against which an unarm'd Multitude signified nothing that it was a falshood that all his Army were Christians and that St. Gregory affirms that the Church made use of no other Remedy but her Tears quia decrant vires because she wanted strength to resist the Tyranny So that pray answer your own Cardinal or else acknowledge that your Adversary speaks such Oracles as may be confirm'd from some other Topick besides the authority of the Assertor And now I shall put a period to these Remarks when I have minded you of two things which are your own Concessions 1. That * Protest Pop p. 6 7 17 18. upon the confideration of what is here charg'd the salvation of every Roman Catholick's Soul depends that their Eternity is at stake and that if Popery be guilty of what your Answerer says it is it cannot enter into your thoughts that there is any room for it or its Followers in Heaven That all our Martyrs died for a good Cause and are doubtless in Heaven That such Tenents bid open defiance to true Honesty and Christianity strike at the World's Redeemer and are impossible to be entertain'd by any who is one degree above a Beast These are the Conclusions I acknowledge of a wise a modest and a good man but then it behoves you seriously to consider whether this Charge be not true and whether your Adversary be not to be acquitted of wronging your Church of which the impartial Reader will be the most competent Judge and withal to think whether those School-men and other Writers of your Communion that do own all the Doctrines charg'd upon you be not by your own Verdict Men of no Honesty no Religion and but one degree above Beasts For by this Concession every unbyast person is able to satisfie himself which is the true Religion that which allows its Followers to assert the Doctrine of Deposing Princes to pay Religious Worship to Images to expect more than intercession from Saints Angels
IMPRIMATUR Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc Lond. a Sacris April 6. 1686. REMARKS UPON THE REFLECTIONS Of the Author of Popery Misrepresented c. ON HIS ANSWERER Particularly as to the Deposing Doctrine In a Letter to the AUTHOR of the Reflections Together with some few Animadversions on the same Author's Vindication of his Reflections LONDON Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1686. SIR IT is not any distrust of the Abilities of your former Adversary which have sufficiently made him known nor an overweening Opinion of my own undertaking that hath engaged me in this Controversie but a design to serve the Interests of Truth and to assure you that you have not yet convinc't the World that your Character of your Religion as you represent it is so just and exact or your Reasonings so cogent but there is something perhaps material and of weight to be objected to both and I shall follow the Method that * Refl p. 1. you profess to like to reason as closely as I can with all moderation and calmness without making any Reflections but such as cannot be avoided when I treat of some Subjects among which I dare undertake none shall personally concern you tho you will allow me to tell you you have not so carefully followed your own praescriptions when you impeach our †Refl p. 2. Church in general reckoning her Books of Homilies among those Books that have misrepresented Popery and in particular charge your learned and modest Adversary with the * P. 3 4 18. same crime and too liberally bestow your Characters on him charging him †Refl p. 6. with wronging you and imposing upon his Reader with * P. 16 17 18. Sophistry with understanding neither Law nor Logick and with being insincere and using tricks but probably the Answer hath made you angry and men in a passion cannot forbear hard Language I do acknowledge that it is severe dealing to pick up all the extravagant passages in private Authors and to father them on the whole Church no Church of whatever denomination being without both evil men as to their Morals and opinionative men as to their Tenets but withal I must say that it is one thing to cite Quotations from all sorts of Authors and another thing to cite Men of Eminence and Authority in your Church and such whose Station Learning and Repute were as great as ever the Bishop of Condom's or Monsieur Veron's whom yet you rely upon as you also sometimes quote other men of your Communion to confirm your Opinions whose Books also have come into the World with Licence and Priviledge and Commendations of the Authors and whose Assertions have never been condemned after they have been publisht and some of them probably Members of that very Trent-Councel which you stick to for the Articles of your Faith and in matters of fact which cannot be forreign to the Controversies between your Church and ours there is a necessity of having recourse to such Writers as I shall be often forc't to do in these Remarks And that I may consider every thing methodically that belongs to this Topick I cannot but observe your * Refl p. 13 14. Reflections on the Opinions of some Eminent men in our Communion which say you we are unwilling to have charg'd upon our Church For the first which you charge on your Antagonist That good works of justified persons are not free I must say that either I misunderstand your Adversary or you do misrepresent him for when †Ch. 6. p. 43. Ed. 3. he says That what we pretend to merit by must be our own free act for these are his words and not as you quote them citing for it the Authority of the Jesuit Coster's Enchiridion and adds That therefore the works of justified persons cannot be said to be their own free acts because the power of doing them depends upon Divine assistance and being done by the power of God's grace which could never have been done without it cannot be for that reason truly meritorious he is so far from giving an account of the Doctrine of our Church that he proves from the principles of your own that if good works be done only by the Grace of God and made acceptable only through the merits of Christ they cannot be truly said to be meritorious because not the free acts of them that do them When Mr. Thorndyke allows of prayers for the Dead though you quote no Book of his for that Assertion he does no more than in some sense our Church allows when it prays for a joyful Resurrection in her Office at Funerals and whatever the good man might add else of his own was but his private Opinion as is also his notion that the Eucharistical Sacrifice is truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross propitiatory and impetratory as well as the other which I take upon your credit not having the Book by me out of which you cite the Opinion however we assert that Mr. Thornayke never owned Prayers for the Dead as you do but in the sense of some of the Antients for he denied Purgatory upon which you ground your Prayers for the Dead and that our Blessed Saviour is really present in the Sacrament is the Doctrine and Belief of the Church of England and did not you limit that Real Presence to Transubstantiation there would be no difference between you and us in that point I cannot but observe your disingenuous manner of treating the Author of Jovian in charging him with a disloyal principle who hath given as many Instances of his Loyalty in the most difficult times as any man of his station and were there no other the writing of that excellent Treatise in that critical juncture is an undeniable evidence of it when by defending the Succession and the Doctrine of Non-resistance he acquired the ill will and displeasure of all the disloyal Party Why did not you nor any other of the English Roman Catholicks write then in the defence of those Doctrines against the disloyal and rebellious Doctrines of Julian The Press was open for you and perhaps there was reason for your not answering of them * Praefat. Billarm ante tractat de potestate summi Pont. adversus G. Barclay because the generality of the Writers of your Church agree with that Author in his principles of disloyalty Well but you have found out one disloyal principle in Jovian but are you sure of it It is not your saying It is a disloyal principle that makes it to be so and therefore I must desire you and those that perhaps are misled by you to read the Book from p. 139. to p. 152. out of which you have cited the passage and then you will find it to be such a disloyal principle Theod. on Rom. 13.1 as will not allow any Christian subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray for the death of a Nero
Christendom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his first Wife which the Pope and perhaps you would not allow to be lawful but withal the two most famous Vniversities of England which to us are equivalent to all those in France and the most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom when this Question was propos'd to them An aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliae Pont. Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero Whether the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom more than any other forreign Prelate The Answer was generally return'd in the Negative Besides who knows not that the generality of men speak as their hopes of Preferment lead them and that there was a great truth in that Observation of Aeneas Sylvius That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority and few for the Authority of a Council because a Council gave no Dignities nor Benefices but the Pope did And I should be glad to see the present French Clergy deal with the present Pope when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes as their Predecessors did with Gregory the Fourth who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperour Lewis the Debonaire and his Sons promoted the Rebellion and was suspected to come with a designe to excommunicate the Emperour and his Bishops for they protested †Ant. Anon vit Ludovici Pii Si excommunicaturus ad veniret excommunicatus abiret i. e. That if the Pope came to excommunicate them they would excommunicate him for acting contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons And at last we have Advice given us * Nouvel de la rep de Lettres An. 1685. p. 716 c. That June 26. An. 1683. at Clermont in Auvergne the Jesuits publickly maintain'd four Theses in opposition to the decision of the French Clergy An. 1682. 1. That although they call their Theses Explanations of the Doctrine of the Gallican Church the first Article of the Decree did not diminish the special Authority of the Church over Kings and Princes Christian 2. That the second Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church 3. That by the third Article they intended not to take from the Pope the Soveraign Power of dispensing with Canons c. 4. That by the fourth Article they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibility in matters of Faith Which Theses as far as I know yet pass uncensured And the Jansenist who goes under the name of René Clerc Tonsuré à l'Archevesque de Paris in his System of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracted from their Memoires proves that the French Bishops are not such Friends to Crowned heads as they would appear to be and that they take the Power from the Pope onely to place it in themselves affirming That the French King cannot be judged by a Council except the French Bishops be there implying that then he may be judged as if the last resort were to them and that the Declarations of the Pope against their King ought not to be obeyed till the Kingdom consent thereunto so that if the Kingdom consent the Deposition is lawful with other such Positions And the same Author affirms That whereas some English Gentlemen Decemb. 1. An. 1679. addressing themselves to some Doctors of the Sorbon had inclined them to decide for the lawfulness of our Oath of Allegiance the Archbishop of Paris sent to them that it was the King's pleasure they should not decide it which makes it plain that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholick Religion and that an Heretical Prince hath not the same Right with the most Christian And though since that time †V. Caus Valesian append 6. the Sorbon An. 1686. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance with the word Heretical in it yet this is onely an honest acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes by one Colledge of learned men while in the same year the Jesuits at Gaunt in their Provincial Congregation expresly condemn'd the taking of the said Oath And who knows but the Sorbonists of the next Age may do as their Predecessors of the last did in the time of the League contradict all that hath lately been asserted Nor does the Condemnation signifie any thing in your sence since even a General Council cannot define any thing to be heretical unless it be de fide and the belief required under the penalty of an Anathema and when all this is done if the matter be of Discipline or Government you profess you may safely refuse to obey the Council To which Observation I will adde one Remark more That though Monsieur * Apologie pour là Clergie Arnald hath written in vindication of the French Church that they never owned the Deposing Doctrine yet if he be the Author of the Jesuits Morals for though Monsieur Paschal his Nephew have the honour of the Book yet all men be lieve that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it he hath not dealt so ingenuously in this case as he might for when he quotes so many Passages out of the Moralists of the Society what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths to Lye and Equivocate and to break all Trusts Vows and Promises he never so much as touches on the many palpable Propositions in their Books which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes I have little more to subjoyn but this That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church I have observed in that Council some things how cunningly soever the Decrees were contrived and how warily soever they were penn'd which seem not to accord so well with your Catholick Principles For instance 1. †Sess 22. de Sacrif miss can 6. The Council says Si quis dixerit c. If any man shall say that the Canon of the Mass contains any Errours in it let him be Anathema And in another place * cap. 4. the Mass is said to be free from all Errour Now if it be so I suppose some of your Doctrines must fall to the ground being confuted by your Mass As 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation for after the Consecration the Priest calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine Offerimus panem sanctem vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae And afterward desires God to look down upon it as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchizedeck And prays That those things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven For how are these Expressions suited to Christ's Corporeal Presence 2. All the Prayers of the Mass relate to a Communion and so are a consutation of private Mass and yet the Priest in a private Mass when no one but himself receives says Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris c. That as many of us
say relating to that Vision As 1. That it is very probably believed by most learned men that SS Perpetua and Faelicitas were Montanists among whom there were many visions which the rest of the World gave no credit to but this I shall not dispute But 2. I averr that it is very disputable both from the vision it self and from the quotations in St. Austin whether Dinocrates were baptiz'd or no. I know your †Chap. 23. p. 84. Adversary says he was baptized and St. Austin would fain have it so but there is no convincing proof that he was so and the silence of the Writer of that Passion seems to imply that he was not so Now then I urge you with this Dilemma either Dinocrates was baptiz'd or not if he were not baptiz'd as it is very probable because his Father was a very violent Heathen and so in all likelihood would not suffer his Son being so young to be baptiz'd then you have nothing to do with him in Purgatory for tho you have allotted an appartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Christian Parents yet you allow no place there to the unbaptiz'd Children of Heathen Parents who with their Pagan Progenitors are condemn'd to Hell unless we must reckon this story with those other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell or St. Gregory's praying thence the Emperour Trajan which later story the * 〈◊〉 Munster praef ad Evang. S. Matth. Heb. p. 103 4 Jews who themselves allow of a sort of Purgatory make sport of but if he he were baptiz'd as I profess I cannot believe tho St. Austin says so then it seems very hard that a Child of seven years old when few Children are capable of understanding enough to chuse to be wicked should be sent to Purgatory for sins which he knew not of for if that be true which St. Austin says that his Father probably carryed him to the Heathen Temples as we will suppose it to be this was the Father's sin and not the Child's and so I cannot see why Dinocrates should be punisht And to confirm my conjecture that he was not baptiz'd I am apt to think that in the Vision the Water * Pass s Perp p. 15. Ed. Oxon. which Perpetua saw her Brother endeavouring to drink of but could not come at was an Emblem of the Waters of Baptism which he seem'd to endeavour after and at last Perpetua her self says * Io. p. 5. that she her self was a Catechumen when she was apprehended and that at that time she had two Brethren both Catechumens now if we reckon Dinocrates for one of those two Brethren of hers or allow him to be dead some time before as I rather conjecture I am strongly inclined to believe that while the Father was an obstinate Pagan the Sister and the other Brothers only Catechumens that this younger Son who was but seven years old when he died was not baptiz'd before he went out of the World now if he were not baptiz'd the Fathers tell you there was no hopes of Salvation for him for to omit St. Austin and the African Fathers I will only instance in two remarkable passages the one for the Western Church out of * De Dog Eccl. c. 74. Gennadius Nullum Catechumenum c. That no Catechumen tho he die in a state of good works which is more than St. Austin says of Dinocrates for he accuses him of Idolatry can attain to Eternal life unless he be a Martyr And for the Eastern Church out of St. Chrysostom †To. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Phi. p. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mourn over those who leave the world without Baptism they deserve your sighs and lamentations they are out of the Kingdom of God among the unrighteous and the condemn'd And now if all your former Arguments will not make us Converts you tell us * Refl p. ult that if a man assent to these Articles as you have stated them he shall have admittance into your Church and probably so for we know you deal very gently with your new Converts till you have secured them but who knows how much further he must go when he is under new Oaths of Obedience to that Church who makes her unwritten Traditions which no man knows till she reveals them to be as much the Rule of Faith and Manners as the Holy Scriptures and consequently binds all her followers to an Implicit Faith to believe whatever she shall reveal And I remember that Mr. Cambden * Annal. an 1560. records a report that once there were more easie terms of Reconciliation proposed by the Pope's Nuncio viz. the allowance of the Sacrament in both kinds and the confirmation of the English Lyturgy and probably many other things so the Papal Supremacy were acknowledged but we are very well satisfied that St. Peter had no more Authority than the rest of the Apostles and that every Bishop by Divine Right is a Successor of the Apostles and consequently hath equal power in the Church of Christ that the making more Sacraments than we are sure Christ instituted is an encroachment upon his Right and that the establishment of your five additional Sacraments is such an encroachment that the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament the Jews till our blessed Saviour's time being the only True Church of God with the uncontroverted Books of the New are the only divinely inspired Oracles and a sufficient Rule of Faith and Manners without the help of the Apocrypha or of unwritten Traditions that General Councils are not infallible much less the Pope either singly or with the Colledge of Cardinals that giving the Communion in one kind is robbing the people of what our Saviour gave them a right to and that Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a contradiction to St. Paul with many other such points which it is now needless to mention for which reason the Members of the Church of England think fit to continue where they are where they enjoy all the forementioned blessings with many others which must necessarily be forfeited when they embrace the Romish Communion Thus have I curforily taken notice of your Reflections in whatever material points you have thought fit to speak to except that very weighty and most material point of the power of Deposing Princes the thorow consideration of which was the first cause of my present undertaking Now you encounter your Adversaries Golath-Argument as you seen in scorn to call it as Card. Bellarmine in the Praeface to his Answer to Barclay says that writing in defence of Princes Barclay came out like Goliah to defie all the Armies of Israel with this distinction * Refl p. 9. that in all Councils there are some Articles of Faith which all Catholicks receive and some Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government which are not absolutely obligatory so that I perceive that in some sort
But notwithstanding that Censure if your way of arguing be good the Practice is still lawful Now to evade your Adversaries Argument That intention cannot alter the nature of actions which are determin'd by either Divine or Humane Law you shift the force of the reasoning by making a Plea from the same Principle for the Quakers and probably it is well done of you to turn Advocate for a Sect which owes its Original to the Jesuits and other Emissaries of your own Church because if intention cannot alter the nature of actions determined by Law no Oaths can be lawful nor the payment of civil Honour allowed of because the Scripture says Swear not at all and let your communication be yea yea nay nay and you shall not be called Master c. And the Answer would signifie something if you could shew us any place of Scripture where such Worship hath been paid to Images notwithstanding the divine determination to the contrary as we can shew you for the allowance of those things which you object for we there read that notwithstanding the prohibition the Apostles did allow of the Title Lord or Sir or Master for St. Philip exprest no dislike when †Johan 12.21 the Greeks gave him that appellation nor St. Paul and Silas * Acts 16.30 when the Jaylor at Philippi treated them with the same Language And by Swear not at all c. the Holy Writ onely forbids vain and rash Swearing and Perjury and double Dealing c. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths which says the Apostle are the end of all strife After which you will do well to shew any place of Holy Scripture that countenances the Worship of Images and we shall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reason for it is not the intention of the Person commanded but of the Lawgiver that makes an action lawful for did a mans own intention legitimate his actions that are otherwise forbidden by any Law divine or humane then a man may do evil that good may come there of expresly against St. Paul a man may commit Murther Sacriledge and every other gross sin as some men have done and plead for himself that he intended nothing but Reformation and the advancement of Religion as the men in our Saviour's time persecuted the Apostles to death with an intention to do God service but the intention of the Lawgiver when made known is that which legitimates the actions of the subject either in matters purely civil or in matters of Religion of which latter sort is the Worship of Images which I shall acknowledge to be lawful when you shall have shewn that it is agreeable to the intention of our supreme Law-giver But the further management of this Argument I leave to your other Antagonist while I observe that †Protest Pop. p. 25. you shift him off with no other Answer but this That a Question or two is in his opinion a confutaof the Reflecter because you are ask'd Whether all your Representations are conformable to the sense of the Trent Council and Catechism which I have already proved they are not particularly in the Doctrine of the assistance of Angels and Saints which you say consists onely in their Prayers while the Council and Catechism besides their Intercession mention their Merits and Aid And whereas when he objects against the Pope's licensing the Bishop of Condom 's Book that Canus with judgment avers That whatever the Pope determines privately maliciously and inconsiderately is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See you rejoyn that the Pope's private determination of any Opinion doth not hinder it from being the judgment of the Apostolick See unless it be also determined maliciously and inconsiderately I cannot understand Canus in that sence but that whatever is determined either privately or maliciously or inconsiderately is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for if this be not so then a private determination how malicious soever it can be so it be upon due consideration may be the judgment of the Apostolick See And who knows but the present Pope's allowance of the Bishop of Condom's Book may be the product of malice of his spleen against the French Hereticks as he calls them for whose Extirpation he hath so solemnly by his Letters thanked the French King And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgment why may not Favour Affection or Fear when they interpose in such Determinations render them equally invalid And if so why may not the reason of the present Pope's not censuring the French Clergie in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes be his fear lest that Victorious Prince should either set up a Patriarch of his own in France or by an Army establish his Right in Italy and make the Pope depend on him for his Election But to confirm the Authority of the Bishop of Condom's Book you say That it was printed at Rome translated into divers Languages and attested by the Pope and divers Cardinals c. Will you allow of all that hath been publish'd for Catholick Doctrine at Rome with the same or the like approbation Were not Cardinal Baronius's Annales to instance onely in one Book printed at Rome in the Press belonging to the Vatican-Palace Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epistle in commendation of the Author and the Work Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals Was it not translated into Italian German Polish and other Languages and the two first Tomes of it into Arabick Now if such a Recommendation be sufficient to make known the Sentiments of your Church then how comes it to pass that those Ecclesiastical Annals are not received in France in those things relating to Regal Power nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily And if you do allow of the Annals you must not onely interfere with the fore-named Churches of your Communion but you must also acknowledge what you will be loath to own that the Pope hath a right to dispose of his Majesties Kingdoms as in truth that Cardinal hath intituled him to almost all the other Kingdoms of the World by name It is also observable that the Bishop of †P. 50. Edit Noviss Condom when he speaks of the Pope mentions the Primacy but for the Deposing Doctrine he says It is not necessary to speak of it adding in general That all Catholicks acknowledge a Head establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which those who love Concord among Brethren and Ecclesiastical Vnanimity will most willingly acknowledge By which expression every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point and it is no wonder that the Pope though he does believe his own Power of Deposing Princes doth approve of this Book for the Phrase of conducting the whole Flock of Christ is as easily to be construed as pasce oves meas to signifie the Deposing of Princes whenever the