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
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
and upon some considerations those other Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government are obligatory i. e. upon condition tho not absolutely and withal you tell us as freely that if the Deposing Doctrine had been as evidently declared in former Councils as ever Purgatory or Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet with you it should be no Article of Faith Which way of arguing tho it be very generous seems to me to destroy your distinction of matters of Faith and matters of Discipline for if the Lateran Council had defin'd the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and requir'd the belief of it under the penalty of an Anathema as the Trent-Council did Purgatory and Transubstantiation then either you must have believ'd as the Council required or else in matters of Faith defin'd by a general Council a man may think himself not bound to believe them and if so I see no other reason why any other man may not as well refuse to believe Purgatory and Transubstantiation upon your own principles But if we allow of your distinction in your own sense I suppose you will hardly allow another man to make the like deductions and think himself at Liberty to follow his own dictates for if so then the half communion Priests Marriages Prayers in Latin the Popes Supremacy and many other such points being matters of Discipline every man by parity of reason may give himself a dispensation to believe contrary to the definitions of Councils if you allow your self a liberty to believe the Princes cannot be deposed though it were defin'd as matter of Faith in a general Council And it is remarkable that for the better understanding of this distinction you recommend * Refl p. 10. Card. Bellarmine to us who I am sure makes the Popes personal infallibility his superiority to a general Council and his power of deposing Princes matters of Faith But to allow of your distinction between matters of Doctrine and matters of Discipline and that in matters of Faith from the definitions of a general Council no man ought to vary but in matters of Discipline though defined by the same Cooncil a man is left at liberty pray tell me seriously is every man left at liberty or some men only If every man then the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine have as much right on their side as you have for the private spirit is not to be your guide in your Church any more than in ours and the assertors of that deposing power have Councils on their side and Popes and many private Doctors and if you tell me that you are not to follow your own prudence but the Doctors of the Church where you live in what a general Council hath not decided as matters of Faith then you must change Opinions with the climate you live in as Pere Cotton said of himself that in France he believ'd a general Council to be above the Pope but in Italy that the Pope was above a general Council for if you inquire in France whence I suppose you have your principles as well as your arguments they will tell you now that the Pope hath no superiority over Kings and that they have condemn'd Sanctarellus his book and burnt Mariana's but if you inquire in the Neighbouring Countries they will tell you the contrary it is well known what the belief of Italy is in this point and for Spain the Inquisition at Toledo Jan 10. 1683. condemn'd the late censure of the Sorbon and in the Low-countries D'Enghien a Professor of Louvaine hath written in defence of the Popes power over Princes against Natalis Alexander and positively averrs that the French Opinion is either Heresie or next to Heresie and that more Authors in your Church assert than deny the Deposing Doctrine the present Pope urging that and several other Universities to censure the Decrees of the French Assembly V. d'Engbien p. 549. c. Jucieu Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallel to 2. part 3. ch 3. An. 1682. Among whom it is observable that the University of Doway prayed the King of France their new Master to whom they were lately made Subjects that he would not force them to change their Doctrine lest they should be accused of taking up a new Theology with a new Soveraign and if you go into Hungary the Clergy there also condemn'd the Doctrine of the French Bishops as erroneous and schismatical Oct. 24. 1682. and when the Arch-Bishop of Gran the Primate of lower Hungary wrote against the Propositions of the said French Assembly an order was given to the Sorbon to censure the Arch-Bishop's Book which they refused to do but upon this condition that they might be allowed to condemn the propositions as if extracted out of some other Author which looks like a fine fetch of Sophistry And now †Pap. misrep p. 50. Where is three times the number who disown this Doctrine of deposing to them that own it as you say Whereas besides what hath been above mention'd the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance p. 13. says that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and even there of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Joh. Parisiensis Gerson c. And is it not an argument of the great care which your Church hath taken of the Persons and Interests of Princes which are sacred that every Writer of your Church whether Priest or Lay-man shall have liberty freely to publish his thoughts about the rights of Soveraigns and whether their Subjects or the Pope may depose them As if the Doctrine of Obedience to Superiors were such a slight indifferent thing that a man may with safety to his Religion and Conscience believe either that the Pope may or may not absolve Subjects from their Obedience A wise man would think that there were a greater necessity to define such a point upon which the safety of Kings and their Kingdoms depends than to define the precise manner of our blessed Saviour's presence in the Sacrament which had it never been defin'd while all Christians acknowledge him to be there might have been the occasion of much peace and happiness to Chistendom And if you plead that some men among us have asserted the Deposing Doctrine to this your * Ch. 20. p. 75. Adversary hath given you a full answer For until you can show that our Archbishops Bishops and inferior Clergy in Convocation have owned any such Doctrine or countenanc't such men in asserting it you say nothing to the purpose for we damn the Doctrine by whomsoever vented and our superiors are ready to censure the assertors of it if they durst appear openly Nor is it enough to say that this hath been done by the French
truth the title was so proper to Princes that the Kings of the Philistim were always called Abimelech i.e. my Father the King by a general name whatever their proper name was Now I am loath to judg that those Fathers made use of an instance of a Subject called Father by his Servants that the Example might limit the Doctrine to subjection to inferiour Magistrates when had they inserted the Example of David it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Soveraign Princes And whereas the Fathers of the same Council who were concern'd in the Catechism use to quote such places of the Antients as they thought pertinent to the Subject treated of they having * Ibid. § 17. quoted Rom. 13.1 to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers confirm the Doctrine only by the testimony of Tertullian who it is true speaks plain and to the purpose omitting St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and others on the place who have told the World that by every Soul in St. Paul are meant Priests and Bishops as well as Laymen nay the Pope himself as says St. Bernard but this probably would have unriddled the Mystery and exposed a Doctrine which they were not willing to disown the Catechism like the Canons leaving every man in many such things a great latitude so that in short I desire you to answer this Question Either Rebellion is against a Moral Law or not if it be then the Pope cannot dispence with it and then how happens it that so many things of lesser moment were decided in the Trent Council while this was forgotten or past by If it be not against a Moral Law then by your own principles the Pope may dispence with it and what then becomes of all Obedience when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. shall fill the Chair And tho the Council would not condemn the Deposing Doctrine yet why had not the Authors of the Index Expurgatorius censured such dangerous Books for if we may judg of the sense of the Trent Council by its Catechism tho made after the Council broke up why may we not judg of its sense by the Index which was ordered to be made at the same time c. by the same men who composed the Catechism In which Index more than a few passages are expunged that interfere with the Papal Grandeur but not one poor sentence condemn'd that is destructive to the Rights of Princes Here also pray suffer me to mind you of a bold assertion of a private man as you are and which I am sure as things are now you cannot accomplish * Introd p. 11. for you undertake that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such principles and practices i. e. in your own words of such principles as destroy the peace of Nations with Fires and Massacres and rob Soveraigns of their Crowns and Subjects of their Liberties for I am sure there was a time when all Roman-Catholicks were not of that mind when the League was rampant against Henry 3. and 4. of France in which one of them actually fell and by the principles of which the other also was murthered not to mention what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5. and our King John suffered and when the Parisian and Irish Massacres were sufficient proofs to the contrary Nor is it possible even now to make good your promise since I have told you already what the belief of the Spanish Netherland and Hungarian Churches are in this point besides what the Italians hold Now against all this Doctrine you have nothing to object but that this Doctrine hath been condemn'd * Pap. misrepr p. 51. in France by the Ecclesiasticks there and by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictiers c. all which Universities are within the one Kingdom of France so that tho there be no need of considering the Argument because it is only the sentiment of one National Church against the rest of what you call Catholick Christendom if I make it appear that the French Church hath not always been of this belief and perhaps is not so now then all that you say upon that Topick will be far from proving your assertion while withal I profess that if what I am about to say doth not reach so far as a conviction and be only a well-meant Essay yet the cause which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it because the main position about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments and authorities And to evince this I shall pursue the method which the famous * Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallele part 3. ch 3. Monsieur Jurieu hath laid down adding here and there my own observations If therefore this be and always hath been the Doctrine of the Gallican Church then you have stated your argument aright but if it hath not been always their belief then the present Gallican Church may be as well mistaken as the former and if so where is its authority besides if the French Church do condemn the Deposing Doctrine and all the rest of the Catholick World do assert it then the Tradition is not on the side of the French Church though never defin'd as a matter of Faith by a general Council Now to prove that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church I shall produce one remarkable instance and that is the deposition of Childerick and the introducing of Pepin the first King of the second race into his Throne and I shall briefly tell the story out of the French Historian * Girard du Haillan de l'Estate c. l. 1. m.p. 66 c. that I have now by me who relates that Pepin after his Conquest of the Sarazins did so honour and reverence the Clergy and repair'd so many of their Temples that had been ruined that the most holy men of that time thought him a Saint whereupon aiming at the Crown and finding nothing stick in his way but the Oath which the French had given to their King he sent to the Pope whom he had before obliged for his dispensation Pepin having already gained the greatest part of the Nobility Ecclesiastick's and Commons to his party the Pope readily granted a dispensation the Clergy as well as the Nobility and Commons acquiesc't in what was done acknowledging Pepin for their rightful King and thrusting Childerick into a Monastery and so do Paulus Aemilius and others also relate the story and among them Cardinal Perron and * Ch. Childeric 3. An. 751. Monsieur Mezeray says that this was very likely done in that general Assembly held in March An. 751. The Bishops being there in great numbers and Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz in the head of them who declared to the rest of the Assembly the validity of the Pope's answer and he intimates the reason why they complied so readily with Pepin because he gave