Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	scripture_n	tradition_n	2,838	5	9.5550	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30330	A collection of several tracts and discourses written in the years 1678, 1679, 1680, 1681, 1682, 1683, 1684, 1685 by Gilbert Burnet ; to which are added, a letter written to Dr. Burnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pool's secret power, the history of the power treason, with a vindication of the proceedings thereupon, an impartial consideration of the five Jesuits dying speeches, who were executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.; Selections. 1685	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1685 (1685)	Wing B5770; ESTC R214762	83,014	140

in any one age it hath been believed That St. Peter had power from Christ which he left to the See of Rome by which his Successor in it can depose Kings then this must be an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence of equal authority with any thing written in the Scriptures To these General Considerations about the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition I shall add Two other about the Nature of Supreme and Soveraign Power By which we may judg of what Extent the Popes Power must be if he have an authority to depose Kings and transfer their Dominions to other persons First When the Soveraign Powers proceed in a Legal way against its Subjects If either they abscond so that they cannot be found Or have such a Power about them that the Sovereign cannot bring them to punishment He may declare them Rebels and set Prices on their Heads And in that case it is as lawful for any Subject to kill them as it is for an Executioner to put a condemned Person to Death These being the several ways the Law provides in those several cases So when a Pope deposes a Prince He may as lawfully set on private Assassinates to kill him as oblige his Subjects to rise with open force against him For if the Pope has a Power over him to depose him this clearly follows from the Nature of Sovereign Power and it is the Course that sometimes must be followed when the Rebel can be no other way brought to deserved punishment and if the Pope has the power of deposing then a Prince who after such a Sentence carries himself as a King is a Rebel against his Supreme Lord And is also an Usurper For his Title being destroyed by the Sentence He has no authority over his Subjects and therefore may be as lawfully killed as any Rebel or Usurper Secondly The Supreme power may in cases of great necessity when the thing is in it self materially just pass over such Forms as ought in ordinary Cases to be observed I need not tell you That in a great Fire Subordinate Magistrates may blow up Houses But doubtless the Supreme Power of all as a King in an absolute Monarchy and such is the Papal Power if these Opinions be true may dispence with some Forms when the Matter is in it self just and if the chief design of a Law be pursued the circumstantial parts of it may upon extraordinary occasions be superseded Therefore if the Pope is Supreme over all Kings and has this deposing Power Then though by the Canon a King ought to be first a Year Excommunicated for his Heresy or favouring Hereticks and at the Years end he may be Deposed by the Pope There are also other Rules for Excommunications tho the Summary way in some cases may be used yet all these are but circumstantial and lesser Matters The design of that Law is That no Heretical Prince or favourer of Heresie be continued in his Power The other are but Forms of Law that cannot be indispensibly necessary in all cases Besides the very Canon Law teaches that when there is both a Notorietas juris Facti Summary proceedings are Legal when then it is Notorious that the Doctrines of the Church of England for Instance are Heretical and that the King is an Obstinate Favourer of these Heresies and will not extirpate them Summary and Secret proceedings are justifiable There is no hope that Bulls Breves or Citations would do any good in this case These would on the contrary alarm the State and bring all the Party under great hazards Therefore from the Nature of Supreme Power it is most justly Inferred That though there have been no publick Sentence of Deposition according to the Forms of the Canon Law yet all these may be dispensed with and a Secret and Summary one may do as well These Positions are such that I cannot fansie any just Exceptions to which they are liable and from all these laid together the Inference will undeniably follow That according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the power of Deposing Kings is lodged with the Pope by a Divine Authority and that by consequence private persons may conspire to take away the Life of a King so deposed Even though there be no publick Sentence given about it But before I bring the Evidence for all this I shall desire the Reader will a little reflect on the Positions I have laid down in which he will find an Answer to all the Exceptions that can be made against the following Evidence By the first The Authority of the Church being the same in all Ages he will see it is to no purpose to pretend these were dark Ages So that what was done in an ignorant time cannot oblige the World when things are seen in a better light But if the Church has an Authority from Christ that shall last till the end of the World it must be the same in all ages The Ignorance of the age is a very good answer when made by a Protestant but can signifie nothing in a Papists Mouth By the second Of the Churches authority in setling Moral Rules for practice it appears how fond that distinction is which they make between a Canon and a Decree It is true a Decree about a particular Case in which there is some matter of Fact may be wrong according to their Principles and yet the authority of the Church remain entire For instance in the deposing a Prince or condemning a Man for Heresie the Church may either by false Witnesses or mistaking a Man's words be drawn to pass an unjust Sentence by reason of a mis-representation of the Fact But that is nothing to the purpose here where a Decree is made as a perpetual Rule of Practice this must be of the same authority of a Canon about any article of Faith Otherwise it will follow that the Church may mislead the People in matters indispensably necessary to Salvation For such is the Obedience to the Ten Commandments By the first way of judging of the Tradition of the Church from what the most received Writers in any age deliver as the Doctrine of the Church it will appear That the Schoolmen and Canonists are as competent Conveyers of Tradition from the twelfth age downward as the Fathers were from the sixth Age upward and laying this for a Principle That the Church is the same in all Ages they are really more competent Witnesses than the Fathers were First Because they write more closely to the subject they have in hand they consider what is said for or against an Opinion in a more exact manner than the Fathers did who being carried with the heat they are sometimes in go off from the purpose and generally affect Eloquence which is the most improper Stile for nice Matters Whereas the Schoolmen write in a blunt way only considering the purpose they are about coyning the most barbarous words they can light on when they

of their Church This latter I undertake to make out from the undeniable Maximes to which all of that Communion are bound to adhere There are Two Principles which I may well call the Fundamental Principles of the Roman Church since all Opinions that are not inconsistent with them can be tollerated among them But whatever strikes at these must needs be Abominated as Destructive of that they call The Catholick Faith The one is The Authority of the Church The other is The Certainty of Tradition If then the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and by consequence Killing them for if they are justly deposed it 's as just to kill them as to kill any Usurper is such that without denying the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition it cannot be denied then all men must resolve either to acknowledg it or to renounce their Subjection to a Church that must needs believe it About the Authority of the Church Two things are to be observed that serve for clearing what I design to make out The First is That the Church in any one Age has as much Authority as ever it had or can have in any other Age For if Christs Promises together with the other Arguments they bring for the Authority of the Church be good they are alike strong at all Times and in all Ages And therefore though in writing Books of Controversies they muster up Authorities out of the former Ages because we profess we pay little esteem to the latter Ages Yet among themselves all Ages are alike and the Decrees of them are of equal authority Secondly The Authority of the Church is as little to be disputed in moral matters that fall under practice as in Articles of Faith that only fall under Speculation and in a word The Church must be the Infallible Expounder of the Ten Commandments as well as of the Creed All the Arguments from Christs Promises from the hazard of trusting to our private Reasonings and the Necessity of Submitting to a publick Judg are by so much the more concluding in Practical matters as it is of more Importance That Men think aright in Practical than in Speculative Opinions If then there arises a Question about a Moral matter or the Exposition of any of the Commandments The only certain Decision must be expected from the Church For instance a Question arises about Images Whether it is lawful to use them in the Worship of God upon the seeming Opposition which the worship of them has to the 2d Commandment Since the Church has once Determin'd that it may be lawfully used it is Heresie to deny it on this pretence that we fancy it is contrary to one of the Commandments So if a Controversie arise upon the Fifth Commandment How far a King is to be acknowledged if the Church has determined the Limits of that it is Heresie to carry it further If also another Question arise how much the Sixth Commandment obliges It must be carried so far and no further than the Determination of the Church allows I confess by the Doctrine of that Church even a General Council may err in a point in which any matter of Fact is included Because they may be deceived by a false Information But in a General Rule about Morality and the Extent of any of the Ten Commandments The Decision of the Church must either be certain and for ever Obligatory or the whole Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Church falls to the ground Concerning the Certainty of Tradition the general Opinion of that party is That Tradition is an Infallible Conveyance of Divine Truth and that whatever any Age of the Church delivers to another as derived from Christ and his Apostles must be received with the same Veneration and Obedience that we pay to the Holy Scriptures And for the ways of distinguishing a Tradition of the Church from any Imposture or Novelty There be four of them The first That is the most doubtful is That the greatest and most esteemed Doctors in any Age deliver as a Divine Truth Nor is it necessary that they formally say This is a Tradition but if many of them mention an Opinion and declare their own assent to it this passes as a sufficient proof of the Tradition of any Age of the Church So in all points of Controversie between them and us the greatest part of their Writers some few later and suspected ones only excepted think they have sufficiently justified their Church when they bring Testimonies out of any of the Writings of the Fathers that seem to favour their Opinion and will call it unreasonable for us to reject these because they only deliver their own opinion and do not call it the Tradition of the Church but conclude That many Writers in any age asserting an Opinion it may well be looked on as the Tradition of that Age. But because this is more liable to exception there is another way that is more infallible to judg of Tradition and that is by the conveyance of the See of Rome which they judg the chief Depository of the Faith and for which they fansie they have so many proofs from the high things some of the Fathers have said about the dignity of that See Now if these conclude any thing it must follow That whatever has been delivered in any Age by a Pope as conveyed down from Christ or his Apostles must either be so indeed or the See of Rome is not a faithful Transmitter of Tradition But there is yet a more certain way of judging of Tradition by what the chief Pastors of the Church have delivered when assembled in a general Council This being the Supreme Tribunal in the Church there can lie no appeal from it Nor can the Doctrines delivered or approved by it be questioned For instance If it were under debate How the Tradition about Transubstantiation can be made out in the Thirteenth Century it is needless to seek any other evidence than That one Almerick is condemned for denying it and in Opposition to that it was formally established in a general Council This is as much as can be had and he were very unreasonable that were not satisfied with it So if it be asked How can the Tradition of the Doctrine of Deposing Kings and giving away their Dominions in the same Century be proved The Answer is plain That same very Council decreed it Upon which a great Prince was deposed and his Dominions were given to another These are the Common Standards by which Traditions are Examined But to these a new one has been lately added which is indeed a much shorter and nearer way And that is whatever the Church holds in any one age as a Material point of Religion she must have received it from the former age and that age from the former and so it climbs upwards till the days of the Apostles If this be a certain Track of Tradition by which we may infallibly trace it Then for instance If

think them the fittest to express their Notions Secondly They were divided into two famous Schools among whom there were great heats the Scotists and Thomists So that if either of these had asserted any thing that was not the received Doctrine of the Age they lived in the other Party had such Emulation against them that they would not have failed to have laid them open as they did in the matter of the Immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin Whereas the Fathers writing only against Hereticks or other Enemies to Christianity they might have mistaken somethings without so publick a discovery as was likely to happen among the Schoolmen 3dly The Schoolmen wrote on purpose to deliver the Doctrine of the Age in which they lived to those who were to succeed them Their Books being generally the Divinity Lectures they read either in Colledges or Religious Houses to their Scholars whereas the Fathers wrote upon Emergent Occasions either Letters or Treatises to private Persons regarding more the present than the succeeding Age. In which we cannot expect that exactness that is to be looked for in a Publick Lecture Upon all which I assume That allowing the Church to have the same Authority in all Ages the Schoolmen are more competent Witnesses of the Tradition of the Church in their Ages than the Fathers were in theirs By the second Rule for judging of Traditions from the Conveyance of the See of Rome it does undeniably follow That the Popes from Gregory the Sevenths time downward were as sure Depositories of the Traditions of the Church as were the Popes from Gregory the First his time upward They were both alike Christ's Vicars and St. Peters Successors So that all the high words that the Fathers bestow on the See of Rome were either Complements in which they are not wanting or were said because of the worth of the Bishops whom they had known in that See But if they be to be understood in that sence in which the Writers of Controversy obtrude them on us then it will follow manifestly that as to the Conveyance of Tradition P. Gregory the 7th is as much to be believed when he says any thing in the Name of St. Peter or of Christ as any of the Popes are For in the Preamble of Bulls and Breeves the Reasons are given of what follows which are most commonly vouched from Apostolical Authority and Tradition So let the Pope be ever so ignorant or so corrupt in his Manners what he asserts to be Apostolical Tradition must be either received as such or the authority of that See is overthrown therefore they must either cease to press us any more with tht Authority of the See of Rome or acknowledg that all the Popes Declarations which they make about Traditions are to be received It is an Answer to be made use of only to ignorant Persons to say These Depositions were the Deeds of some Popes who might be ill Men and the Church is not concerned to justify them I confess whether this or that Deposition was justly or lawfully made is a personal thing in which only the Pope who decreed it is concerned But if he declares in the Preamble that the Power of deposing upon those reasons is grounded on an Apostolical Tradition then the See is concerned in it for either he declares true or false if the former then that Power of deposing comes from Apostolical Tradition if they acknowledge he declares false then we are not any more to be urged with the Authority of that See as the certain Depository of the Traditions of the Church By the third Mark to judge of the Tradition of any age from the Decision of a General Council it appears that the Decisions of the fourth Council of Lateran are as Obligatory as the Decrees of the first Council of Nice the Church having the same power in all Ages If it be said it was only a Council of the Western Church the like may be objected against the first General Council which were generally made up of Eastern Bishops and very few of the Western Bishops sat in them And if we esteem a Council General because it was received by the Church then the whole Church of Rome having received that Council it must be acknowledged to be General as much as any ever was But to this others answer That a Council is only Infallible when a thing is decreed by it according to the Tradition of the Church If this be true the whole Controversie between the Roman Church and us about the authority of Councils is decided on our Side For if a Council has only authority to declare Traditions then it is free for every Person to examine whether this Declaration be according to truth or not And if it be found that it is not so they may lawfully reject such Decisions For instance in the second Council of Nice the worship of Images was established upon a mock-shew of Tradition and yet all the World knows there were no Images allowed in the Church the first four Ages after Christ and even in the sixth Age P. Gregory declared That though they might be in the Church yet they ought not to be worshipped Nor was there any contest about it before the eighth Century This being thus examined and found to be True then according to the foregoing Answer that Decision was of no force though made by the second Council of Nice In a word if this Maxime be true That Councils are only to be submitted to when they decree according to Apostolical Tradition then they have no Authority in themselves and their decisions can have no more force than this That it may seem probable that they were not mistaken and in an Ignorant Age even this probability will vanish to nothing No Body will reject the Decision of a Council when the Decrees are just and right But if i●… be upon that score alone that they are to be submitted to then none are bound by them before they have examined them And if upon a Search it appear they decreed against Tradition then their Decrees are to be rejected So it is apparent this Answer does plainly according to their Principles lay the foundation of all Heresie since it gives every Man a right to question the Decrees of a General Council Besides How can those Persons be assured that the fourth Council of Lateran did not decree according to Tradition The Acts of that Council are lost so we cannot know upon what reasons they made their Decrees And it cannot be said that because there is no mention made of any Tradition in the Decree that therefore they considered none It is seldom found that the reasons of any Decree are put with it But we may reasonably enough believe that they followed the Method in this Council that had been used in some former ones particularly in the second Council of Nice which was this a Writing was read penned perhaps by the Pope or a Patriarch in which

the Tradition of the Church was confidently alledged and some Quotations were brought and very oft out of some later Writers The Paper was no sooner read than a loud and often repeated Shout of applause followed without any further search or canvasing about these Authorities And upon that the Decree was made This was the practice both of the second Nicene and of some more ancient Councils whose Journals are hitherto preserved and where the Journals are lost we have reason to believe they followed the same method so that it is very probable there might have been some such Writing read in the Council of Lateran And if they did not found their Decree upon Tradition they were much to blame for they had as venerable a Tradition as either the second Council of Nice or some other Councils had a practice about 150 years standing from the days of Pope Gregory the VII so that it is not to be denied but they had as good authority from Tradition to make this Decree as to make most of the other Decrees on which they insist much in the Books of Controversies that are written by them By the fourth Rule of judging about Tradition the matter is yet much plainer for if the generally received Belief of any Age of the Church is a good Thread to lead us up to the Apostles times then there needs no more be said For it is certain that for near four Ages together this was the universally received Doctrine of the Church of Rome And the opposition that some Princes made to it was condemned as Heresy Rebellion and every thing that was evil And it is remarkable that both O●…kam that wrote much for the Emperors cause against the Pope and Gerson and Almain no great favourers of Papal power are cited by Cardinal Perrow as acknowledging the Ecclesiastical power of deposing if a Prince were guilty of spiritual crimes So that the Controversies in this matter that were managed between the Writers for the Popes and Emperors were not whether the Pope in cases of Heresy might depose a Prince but were concerning two things very remote from this The one was whether the Pope had a direct Temporal power over all Kings by which as being Lord of the Fe●… he could proceed upon any Cause whatsoever against a King and take his Dominions from him To this indeed Gregory the 7th pretended tho more covertly and Boniface the 8th more avowedly There was great Opposition made to this by many Writers but at the same time they all agreed on it as an undeniable Maxim That the Pope had an indirect Power over Princes by which in the Cases of Heresy he might excommunicate and depose them nor was there so much as any Debate about it A second thing about which there was some Controversy was whether the Particulars that fell under debate came within the Head of Heresy or not So in the Case of Princes giving the Investitures into Bishopricks the Pope brought it in within the Head of Heresy and condemned those Persons as Simoniacks The Writers on the other side denied this pretending it was a Civil Matter and a right of the Crown The like Debates fell in when Princes were sentenced on any other account The Authority of the Sentence in the Case of Heresy was not controverted all the Question was Whether the Point under debate was Heresy or not And concerning these things any who have read the Writings in the great Collection made of them by Goldastus will receive an easy and full Satisfaction By which it appears that the Popes Power of deposing Kings in the Case of Heresy was the received Doctrine of the Church for several Ages and by consequence it must be looked on as derived down from the Apostles If the Doctrine of any one Age of the Church can lead us backward in a certain Track to discover what it was in the Apostles days By the first Position about the Nature of Supreme Power it is apparent that in the Case of Heresy a Prince deposed by the Pope if he stands out against the Sentence may be as lawfully killed as any Tory or Moss-Trooper or Bantito may be for he is a Rebel against his Lord and an Usurper over the People from that day forward And therefore tho Mariana told a Secret too publickly yet it cannot be denied to be a certain Consequent of their Principles It had been indeed more discreetly done to have ordered this only to be infused unto Peoples Consciences by their Confessors in secret And for Mariana tho the Book in gross is condemned as they give out yet the Opinions set down in it are not censured But Suarez writing against K. Iames tells him in plain Terms That a King who is canonically deposed may be killed by any man whatsoever This was not only published with an ordinary License but the whole University of Alcala declared every thing in it to be according to the Doctrine of the Church Valentia tho he disguises it a little yet says That an Heretical Prince may by the Popes Sentence be deprived of his Life Foulis cites ten more Doctors for the same Opinion of killing Kings by private persons I do not build upon the Assertions of these Jesuits as binding Authorities in that Church but make use of them to shew that some of their own eminentest Writers acknowledg the force of this Consequence which is indeed so evident that nothing but good Manners and some small Care not to provoke Princes too much by such bare-faced Positions keeps others from asserting it Few Princes are so tame as Childeric was to go into a Monastery after they are deposed Therefore this Doctrine is but a lame provision for the Churches Security from Heresie if the Lawfulness of killing does not follow that of deposing Kings And it was so generally received that it is told of Gerson that he was at great pains to get it declared that no private Cut-throat might kill a King and that by consequence it was only the Popes Prerogative to order them to be destroyed By the second Position about the Nature of Supreme Power that in extraordinary Cases Forms of Law may be superseded It is also clear that tho we know nothing of any Sentence of Deposition given out against the King yet he is not a whit the safer for he lies under an yearly Curse every Maundy Thursday The Notoriousness of his Heresy will sufficiently justify a particular Sentence without any further Process or Citation according to the Maxims of the Canon Law And there may be for ought we can know as valid a Deposition as Parchment and Lead can make it already expeded And if it be not yet done we are sure it may be done very suddenly and will be done whensoever they see any probability of Success Bellarmine hath very sincerely told us the Reason why Heretical Princes are not deposed because the Church has not strength enough to make such

do hinder him in his Iourney he is ipso facto deprived of all Honour Dignity Office or Benefice whether Ecclesiastical or Secular So here the indirect power over Princes by which they may be both deposed and punished is plainly assumed It is true that same Council did indeed Decree That no Subject should murther his King or Prince upon which some of our English and Irish Writers who condemn these practices think they have great advantages That Decree was procured by Gersons means who observing that by the many Rebellions that had been generally set on by Popes the Persons of Princes were brought under such contempt that private Assassinations came to be practised and in particular that of the Duke of Orleance by the Duke of Burgundy Therefore to prevent the fatal consequer ces which were like to follow on that and to hinder such practices for the future he with great earnestness followed that matter And tho it had almost cost him his life it is like from some of the Duke of Orleance his Faction who were resolved on a Revenge yet at last he procured it But this was only a Condemnation of private Cut-throats And the Article condemned had a pretty Reservation in it for it strikes only against Subjects killing their Prince without waiting for the Sentence of any Iudg whatsoever So if a Sentence be past by the Spiritual Judg then this Condemnation notwithstanding a Prince may be Murthered And the other Decree of that Council passed in the same Session shew they had no mind to part with the Deposing Power Besides the Answer to this Decree is clear It is acknowledged by the Defenders of the contrary opinion That it is not lawful in any case to kill a King but when one that was a King is no more such but becomes a Rebel and an Usurper then it is lawful to kill him Pursuant to the Decree made at Constance a Council met at Siena ten years after in which all the former Decrees made against Hereticks are confirmed and the Favourers or Fautors of Heresie are delared liable to all the pains and censures of Hereticks and by consequence to the chief of them all Deposition After that came the Council of Basil which ratified the forementioned Decree made at Constance about General Councils By which Popes Emperors Kings c. that presumed to hinder any from coming to the Council are subjected to Excommunication Interdicts and other Punishments Spiritual and Temporal Last of all came the Council of Trent and tho met ters were at that pass that the Council durst not tread on Princes as others had formerly done lest they should have been thereby provoked to join with the Protestants yet they would not quite lay aside the pretence of a Deposing power but resolved to couch it so into some Decree that it might continue their claim to a Right which they would not part with tho they knew not at that time what to make of it So in the Decree against Duels they declare That if any Emperors Kings c. did assign a field for a Combat that they did thereby lose their Right to that place and the City Castle or other places about it Now it is certain if by their Decrees a Prince may forfeit any part of his Dominion he may be also dispossessed of all the rest since his Title to his whole Territory being one individual thing what shakes it in any part subjects it entirely to him who has such authority over it Here we have found 7 General Councils as they are esteemed by that Church all either expresly asserting the Deposing Power or ratifying former Decrees that had asserted it And from such a succession of Councils it is reasonable to conclude That this Third Character of a Tradition of the Church agrees to it and if General Councils are fit Conveyors of Traditions we have as full Evidence as can be desired for proving this to be a Church-Tradition This last Character of a Tradition is what the whole Body of the Church has held in any one Age. Upon which they say we may calculate that such opinions must have come down from the Apostles since it seems neither credible nor possible that the Belief of the Church could be changed With this Arnold has of late made great noise And as the new Fashions that come from France do please our young Gallants best so some of the Writers of Controversies among us have taken up the same plea here That the whole Church received the Deposing Doctrine in cases of Heresy may be inferred from what had been said The Church is made up of Popes Bishops Priests Of Soveraign Princes and Subjects of all ranks That the Popes believed it none can doubt So many Definitions of Councils shews us as plainly what the Bishops and other Prelates believed the Writing of the Schoolmen and Canonists shew what the rest of the Clergy believed Those Princes who suffered under the Sentences give at least a tacit consent to it since they never question it but study only to clear themselves of the imputation of Heresie The other Princes who made use of the Donations of the Popes shew as plainly that they believ'd it The great Armies that were brought about their Standards must have also believed it and the people who generally deserted the Deposed Prince notwithstanding the great vertues of some of them and the love that Subjects naturally carry to their Princes shew that they believed it So that if St. Iames his Question Shew me thy Faith by thy Works be applied to this particular the Answer will be easie What shall I mention the frequent depositions of Charles the 1st of Henry the 4th of his Son Henry the 5th of Frederick the 1st Philip Otho the 4th Frederick the 2d and Lewis the 4th in the Empire The frequent Depositions in Sicily and Naples the many attempts upon France that terrible Bull in particular of Iulius the 2d against that good King Lewis the twelfth By which besides the Sentence against the King it appears he designed the total destruction of the Nation promising the Pardon of Sin to every one that killed one French Man the frequent Attempts upon England both in Hen. the 2d and K. Iohn's time not to mention their later Bulls of Deposition against K. Henry the 8th and Q. Elizabeth the many Attempts in Spain particularly the deposing the King of Navarre by P. Iulius and the Sentences against Henry the 4th then King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde All these and a great many more with the strange Effects that followed upon them are so clear Proofs of the Worlds believing this Doctrine for many Ages together that if Men had any Remainders of shame left with them they could not deny it And to this day all their Writers maintain it tho perhaps now the greatest part of the Laity know little of it but whenever the Tradition of the Church is

laid before them they are obliged to submit or they fall from the Catholick Faith the chief Branch of which is To believe all the Traditions of the Church And since the Church is the same in all Ages according to their Doctrine the Traditions of any one Age must be as good as the Traditions of any other can be all being grounded on the same Authority And now let all the Reasons that Arnold brings to prove from the Churches believing Transubstantiation in any Age that she must have always believed it be considered and applied with a small variation of the Terms to this Purpose and we shall see if they conclude not as strongly in favour of this Doctrine as for that which he has pursued so much How can it be imagined says he that a Doctrine so contrary to common Sence and Reason could have been so universally received if every Man had not been taught it by those who instructed him in the Faith Will Men easily change their Faith Or tho particular Persons would prevaricate would the whole Clergy conspire to do it Or would the People take it easily off their hands These and many more Topicks of that sort may be so mustered up and set off by a Man of Wit and Eloquence that an ordinary Person would stare and not know what to say The Premises will shew that there is need but of very little Art to change the same Plea and fit it to this purpose with two great advantages beyond what can be fanci'd to be in the other The one is that the generality of Mankind is naturally more concerned in the preservation of Temporal things than about nice points of Speculation the one they see and handle every day and are much concerned about the other they hear little of and are not much touched with them So that it is less probable there could be a change made in opinions on which the Titles of Princes and the Peace of Kingdoms depended than about subtil Discourses concerning Mysteries So that the Plea is stronger for the Tradition of deposing Kings than for Transubstantiation A second Difference is That there was a continual Opposition made to the belief of Transubstantiation in all Ages which they themselves do not deny only they shift it off the best they can by calling the Opposers Hereticks but for the deposing Doctrine there was not one Person in the whole World that presumed to bring it in question from the first time it was pretended to till those whom they call Hereticks disputed against it and tho some few others who hold Communion with them have ventured on a canvasing of that Doctrine it is well enough known what thanks they got from Rome nor can they shew any one Book licensed according to the Rules of their Church that denies it And thus the Plea for this Doctrine has a double Advantage beyond that for Transubstantiation Upon the whole matter then if Tradition be a sure Conveyance and if we may pronounce what is truly a Tradition either from the Opinions of Doctors the Constitutions of Popes the Decrees of General Councils and the universal Consent of the whole Church for some Ages then the Doctrine of deposing Kings to which all these agree must be reckoned among Church-Traditions There is but one other Mark that can be devised of a Tradition which is What the Church has taught and believed in all Ages but for a certain Reason which they know very well they will not stand to that They know we do not refuse such Traditions and if only such may be received then the Worship of Images the Prayers to Saints the Worship in an unknown Tongue the Belief of Transubstantiation the Sacrifice of the Mass the denying the Chalice to the Laity the redeeming Souls out of Purgatory with many other things of the like nature will be soon taken off of the File And indeed in this sence the deposing Doctrine is so far from being a Tradition that we have as undeniable Evidences that the Church for the first six Ages knew nothing of it but on the contrary abhorred the thoughts of it as we have that their Church these last six Ages has set it up From which among many other Reasons we conclude that these latter Ages have not been acted with the same Spirit nor followed the same Doctrine that was the Rule of the former Ages There is more than enough said to shew that these Doctrines are a part of their Faith from which they can never extricate themselves but by confessing either that their Church has erred or that Tradition is no true Conveyance when they do either of these they turn their Backs on Rome and are in a fair away to come over to our Church with which purpose I pray God inspire them The mean while it is no wonder if those of that Communion have been guilty of such horrid Plots and Rebellions every where especially in England since Henry the 8th's time There was in his Reign First a Rebellion in Lincolnshire another greater one in the North and some lesser ones after that In Edward the 6th's time there were Risings both in the North and in the West But these succeeded so ill and turned only to the ruine of their own Party that they resolved to try secreter ways in Queen Elizabeth's time in whose long and blessed Reign there scarce passed one year in which there was not some Plot against her Life There was not Matter enough to work upon for raising any considerable Rebellion in England But in Ireland there were more frequent attempts that way It is true the Care and Providence of God was too hard for all their Plots how closely soever laid and they were turned back on themselves not so much to the ruine of the chief Plotters who were wise enough to conveigh themselves out of the way as of many Noble Families that were poysoned with their ill Principles All the Blood which the State was forced to shed lies at their door who were continually giving fresh Provocations And for King Iames not to mention the Conspiracies against him in Scotland nor that Plot of Cobham and Watson upon his first coming to this Crown the Gun-powder Treason was a thing that went beyond all the wicked Designs that had been ever in any Age contrived And when his late Majesty was Embroiled in his Affairs in this Island how did they take advantage from that Conjuncture to break out into a most horrid Rebellion in Ireland joyned with a Massacre of Persons of whatsoever Age or Sex or Condition Which was so far set on by Rome that a Nuncio came publickly to direct their Councils I will not dwell on Particulars that are suffciently known but only name these things to shew That no Reign of any of our Princes since the Reformation has been free from the dismal effects of these Doctrines And for his Sacred Majesty who now Reigns whom God long preserve from their Malice they

Error cannot be so fatal when it infects a mind that is otherwise sincere as Sin which clearly defaces the Image of God in the Soul We ought not therefore to expect that the Gospel should give any further security against Error than it gives against Sin On the contrary we should rather expect a further security from Sin because it is most hurtful But all the Provision made against Sin is this that in the Scriptures we are warned of the evil of it and are directed to such methods and have the promises of such Assistance that if we use our endeavour we shall not be overcome by sin nor perish in it So as to Error we have the same security The Gospel affords us a very clear light for directing our Belief in the most important things which if we study with due humility and sincerity imploring God for the grace of his holy Spirit for our instruction we shall be preserved from Error And thus the same provision is made against Error that is against Sin And we have no reason to expect more And as it were not fit that Salvation should be offered without obliging men to use their utmost endeavours so it were not fit to give such an easie Remedy against Error as that a man should not need to employ his reason to discover Truth and avoid Mistakes If our Gospel be also hid it is hid in them that perish Therefore that our Searches after Truth may be both encouraged and rewarded God sets it before us in such a Light that it is our own fault if we do not see and follow it But if men will either blindly give themselves up to the conduct of such Guides whose interest it is to mislead them which is the case of the Church of Rome or out of humour or other base ends will invent or follow some erroneous Tenets as other Hereticks do they have themselves to blame and shall bear their own Iniquity but they have no reason to cast the fault upon God or accuse the Scriptures of Darkness or Defectiveness in these things that are necessary to Salvation I come now to the last Prejudice which will require a fuller Discussion because it relates to matter of Fact which as it is better understood so it makes deeper Impressions on people that are not so much wrought on by speculative points as by these things that fall under their senses They first except to the Novelty of our Reformation and always insult with this Question Where was your Religion before Luther To this these things are to be opposed First we turn back the Question and ask them where was their Religion the first six hundred years after Christ Where was the Worship of Images the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Redeeming out of Purgatory of Deposing Princes and of the Worshipping Saints before the Eighth Century If the Reformation be now to be condemned because of its Novelty these things were then to be as much condemned because they were then Novelties Secondly If the Reformation had brought in any new Doctrine its Novelty were indeed a just Prejudice against it but it was only the throwing out of these Corruptions which had been brought in in some dark and Ignorant Ages Thirdly The Doctrine of the Reformed Church is no other than what Christ and his Apostles taught and what the Church believed for many Ages after them And as to the Positive part of it it has been still held by the Church of Rome and is yet acknowledged by them but with so many Additions that there was a Necessity of Reforming these And this is often to be inculcated in them that there is no Article of Faith nor any other material point of Religion among us that is condemned by the Church of Rome They only blame us because we do not in many other points believe as they do and this we ought not to do unless we could see an equal Authority binding us to all alike Another Exception is that in the Reformation we made a Schism and broke the Unity of the Church whereas if there had been any things amiss in the Church they say the Reformers should have endeavoured to remove them without tearing the Body of Christ in pieces But in answer to this we acknowledg if the things complained of could have been continued without sin they ought not to have departed from the Communion of other Churches but when the publick Liturgies and the Worship was found to be full of such Corruptions that without Idolatry and Superstition they could be no longer kept up then it was not time to stay for the leisure of their Neighbouring Churches Yet if there had been any probable hopes that the See of Rome would have concurred in such a Reformation it had been worth staying for as long as was possible But when it was on the contrary apparent that all the most just Remonstrances made to that Court were answered at best with delays and Excuses if not with Excommunications and other censures they had no reason to expect any concurrence from thence So the case being thus put that they discovered such Corruptions in the Worship of God with which they could not comply any longer either they were obliged to Worship God against their Consciences or to lay aside all publick Worship or else to cast out these Corruptions by a Reformation Let any man of good reason judge whether the last of these was not to be chosen There was no Obligation lying on this Church to wait for the pleasure of the Court of Rome or our neighbouring Churches in this matter We are a free and Independent Church we owe a charitable and neighbourly Correspondence to forreign Churches but we are subject to none of them And according to the express Decision of one of the first General Councils in the like case we were no way subordinate to the See of Rome even as it was the Patriarchate of the West Themselves do confess that it is no Heresie to say That See is fallible and therefore we were not obliged to dance attendance at that Court when we discovered the Corruptions with which it had deceived the World but might in our National or Provincial Synods at home examine and Reform whatever errors were among us And the multitude of those who held these errors could be no just ground for delaying any advances towards a Reformation no more than in the ancient Church the Orthodox Bishops when chosen into a See corrupted with Arrianism were obliged because that Contagion was generally spread to make no attempts toward Reformation They Except further That the Reformation was begun here by a vitious Prince King Henry the Eighth who partly out of revenge because the Pope would not grant his desire about the Divorce of his Queen and partly to enrich himself and his Courtiers with the sale of Abbey-lands did suffer these Doctrins first to take head here and therefore they can have no good