Dioclesian though he set up Inscriptions ob deletum nomen Christianum Constantius or Valens but only for a Julian whose Apostasie and Wickedness is fingular in Ecclesiastical History and the like of whom in all probability can never be expected again Nay Sir this disloyal principle will not let Christian snbjects pray for the death of a Julian though he tyranizes never so much over their bodies goods and liberties if he do not blaspheme Christ and persecute the Church of God with a diabolical spite against the evidence of Divine Miracles It leaves the Christian subjects of all Tyrants but such as are Julians indeed under the obligation of praying for them according to the Apostle's direction and the practice of the Primitive Christians which the Author of Jovian hath so much insisted upon and commended and his Prince must be a Julian indeed a Julian in all circumstances before he can be so much as tempted to pray against him for he doth not say that he would pray but that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed And it had been happy for the Christian world if the chief Pastors and Bishops and Councils and Doctors and Casuists of that which you call the Catholick Church had never taught any principle more disloyal than this Now Sir I beseech you to tell me how much disloyalty there is in this principle which secures all Infidel Heretical and Apostate Princes against the Prayers of their Christian subjects unless they be in all degrees as bad as Julian and secures even Julians themselves against all resistance and how much disloyalty there is in a man who by his principles will pray for all Tyrants but such an one as Julian was according to the Author of Jovian Sir I would to God you and your Doctors would declare as much Loyalty as this and I desire you to tell me that suppose a Roman Catholick Prince should become a Julian indeed and take up the methods of that Apostate whether you think his Roman Catholick Subjects would be tempted to pray for his destruction and if they should do so and no more do you think they would transgress any rule of Christian Loyalty Answer me these two questions sincerely and possitively and if your answer to the last be affirmative give your arguments for your Opinion and I dare engage the Author of Jovian shall submit to your reasons or answer them For I am confident he hath no fondness for his Opinion to which it is evident he was led by his great Charity for the Bishop and Church of Nazianzum And though in apologizing for them he hath asserted that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed yet he is so Loyal a Person that I believe he would overcome the temptation and only forbear praying for him as having sinned the sin unto death After which Apology you will suffer me to tell you that your Reflections will hardly be called an answer to the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome because in them you have not said a word to some material points of Controversy between you and us stated in that Book out of the Trent-Council and Catechism as if either the right were on your Adversaries side which I suppose you will be loath to acknowledge or his reasonings were unworthy your second thoughts which I suppose you will not own and if you do few wise men will acquiesce in your Sentiments for you wholly praetermit reflecting upon the Chapters of the Eucharist of Indulgences of satisfaction ex condigno of keeping the Scriptures and Prayers in an unknown Tongue of communion in one kind and of adding the Apocrypha and traditions to the holy writ with some others which being some of the most material points in difference between your Church and ours will either deserve some new thoughts or you will allow us to say that that book cannot be thought an answer which in silence passes by or leaps over so many weighty things that make up so much of the Controversy You assure us * Refl p. 5. that the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World over as to its definitions of Faith though it be not wholly received in some places as to its other decrees which relate only to discipline Where I shall not ask what you mean by the Catholick World for I am well assured that you mean all Christians of the Roman persuasion which is a very narrow notion of the Catholick World excluding all other Christians from being Members of the Catholick Church but those of your own Opinion so that neither the Greek Church nor the rest of the Eastern Christians are in your sense any more Catholicks than the Church of England and the rest of the Protestants though antiently any man or Church of men were called Catholick because they agreed with the whole Catholick Church in Faith but now the holy Catholick Church of Christ must lose its name if it agree not with the particular Church of Rome but I would willingly know of you whence any particular Church hath that power that it may receive a general Council as you call that of Trent in some things and not in others I thought that the highest authority of the Church on Earth had been a general Council and if so why its definitions in matters of discipline should not be received and observed by all particular Churches is to me a great question for I cannot but see that one of these two things must follow from your Opinion either that Councils and Popes are fallible for if they are deceived in one Opinion such as that of the power of the Church to depose Princes why may they not be deceived in another such as Transubstantiation or Purgatory or else that they are infallible in greater matters only and then to me it is a great wonder that they should erre in things of less moment and I never yet understood but that if general Councils could decide matters of Doctrine but that they had also as great a power in matters of discipline for if it be a lawful preface to the decrees of all Councils as your men say Visum est spiritui sancto nobis then the holy spirit is doubtless their guide in matters of discipline as well as in matters of Doctrine I am sure that the Antient Councils took upon them to decide both by their authority and all Christians thought themselves oblig'd to follow their dictates so the first general Council of the Apostles bound up all Christians from eating things strangled and Blood so the Council of Nice determin'd the precise day when Easter should be celebrated as well as the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and so also the second general Council made Constantinople a Patriarchate as well as Rome to go no further And I find no persons disputed those constitutions though only in matters of Discipline and
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
as the Maxim faith Lex currit cum praxi this is very plain from the usages of the generality of people in your Church And I am sure to confirm this your way of arguing that I have somewhere read though I cannot now readily light on the place that Scribanius affirms that Adoration of Saints and Images is very lawful because Abraham bowed down to the Children of Heth Gen. 23.7 Surrexit Abraham adoravit populum terrae filios viz. Heth. As it is in the Vulgar Latine And if I must not judge of any man's Idolatry by his outward actions which is your exception then I can never know any man to be an Idolater for a Heathen may fall down before one of his Idols and call upon it for help and yet say that his intention is just and that he only meant thereby to worship the True God which is the excuse made by the men of your Church After this * Refl p. 16. you compare the Power of the Pope to that of Civil Powers as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects but pray deal candidly Do you believe the Pope to have no more Authority in commanding Obedience than Civil Powers have Doubtless you do believe him to have more Authority or else why do so many of your Church refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance which yet you †Cath. princ sect 2. § 4. p. 3. allow to be a lawful Oath for you say they refuse it not for any unlawfulness in the Oath but because the Doctrine of Deposing Princes is therein called Heretical which they cannot allow of as the word is understood in a Catholick sense where you will allow me to observe that for the true notion of Heresie you depend on the Pope's Breve and so allow the Pope to be a Judge in matters of Faith for Heresie is contrary to the Faith and consequently the Deposing Power which the Pope hath determin'd is a matter of Faith and why do they follow the Papal Dictates in those things wherein by the Laws of God and Nations they are bound to submit to their Superiours Here also I observe that when * Popery misrepresented p. 46. you Treat of the Pope's Power you give your self a great latitude when you say That you never scruple to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due Circumstances and according to Law but never tell us what those Circumstances are as your Adversary well remarks which puts me in mind of somewhat which your * Tanner disp 1. de fid q. 4. dub 6. n. 263. Compton in 22. dis 22. § 5. Authors say concerning the Bull of Sixtus 5. prefixt to his Edition of the Vulgar Translation which was afterward recalled by Clement 8. That it was true the Bull was printed with the Bible but that it was not affixt to the Gates of St. Peter 's Church and in the Campo fiore so long as it ought to have been according to the Laws of the Romish Chancery as if such little things as those made Ecclesiastical Decrees more or less valid And now to shew you that your Answerer did not show his Learnlng in discovering that the Popes have dispenc't only with positive Institutions but not with the Moral Law with Lying and Forswearing as if he sought a knot in a Bull-rush and took Sanctuary in a Mystery as you term it by talking only in general terms what think you of the many Dispensations that have been given by former Popes to the Subjects of this and other Kingdoms to break their Oaths of Allegiance and Duty to their Soveraigns the relation between Princes and their Subjects being not grounded on their being Christians but on the Obligation of Civil Society so that a dispensing with the Oath of Allegiance is a dispensing with a Duty of Natural Religion which binds Subjects to obey their Superiours For either Subjection to Princes is a Duty of the Fifth Commandment as we reckon them Honour thy Father and Mother c. or it is not if it be not you will do well to assert it and we shall take care to prove it to be a Duty of that Commandment not only from the Authority of the Antients and from Reason but from the Authority of your own Catechism which †Part. 3. praec 4. § 3. 11.2 § 17 18. says That all persons who are possessors of power or dignity are included under the term Parents which is afterward explain'd by those who have Empire Magistracy or power committed to them who govern the Commonwealth But if to obey Princes be a duty of that Commandment then to dispence with that duty is to dispence with a Moral Law and to dispence with Oaths that bind to that duty is to give men a dispensation to be perjur'd and to forswear themselves And because you tell us * Pap. repraesent p. 47 48. That the Papist is taught in all Books that to Lye is a sin and to call God to witness to an untruth is damnable and that the practices of your Church are according to those praescriptions and that neither the Sacrament nor an Oath of Secrecy can excuse any man from perjury nor did you ever hear of any such thing from any Priests in Sermons or Confessions never read of them in your Books or Catechisms nor saw the practice of any of them in any of your Communion in which words there is some Art used for do you believe that any Priest of your Communion may reveal what he hears in confession against the Laws of your Church which bind him to Secrecy sub sigillo and when you tell us You never read of any such thing either in Books or Catechisms you mean I suppose Books of Devotion for in other Books you may undoubtedly read such Doctrines or else why should the Pope condemn them And when you say You never saw any such thing I hope you mean it never fell within the reach of your particular observation but if you read the account of Mr. Garnet and his accomplices you will find that they took the Sacrament as an Oath of Secrecy to carry on that Hellish design And withal subjoyn * Ib. p. 66. That the present Pope hath condemn'd all Equivocations and Mental Reservations under the penalty of Excommunication latae sententiae by his Decree March 2. 1679. We do still averr that your Church hath given dispensations for Lying and Forswearing and we know not but it may be done for the future For not to instance in the Jesuite Moralists †Filiut to 2. tr 25. n. 325. Sanches oper moral l. 3. c. 10. n. 7. 8. Filiutius Sanches c. their averring That if a man promises any thing and swears to it yet if he do not intend it he may without sin break that promise and that Oath so that the intention of the Swearer among these Casuists makes the Oath