Doctrine proving it from Scripture and Tradition and condemned the contrary as erroneous in Faith pernicious to Salvation wicked folly and madness and inflicted Censures on them that held it 2. That Popes have in the highest Tribunals of the Church deposed Soveraign Princes and absolved their Subjects from their Allegiance and this with the advice and consent of their Councils and not onely Patriarchal but sometimes even General 3. That Popes and General Councils by them confirmed have denounced Excommunication to such as should obey their Princes after such Sentence of Deposition and Absolution of their Subjects from their Allegiance 4. That a General Council confirmed by the Pope hath made a Cannon-law regulating the manner of Deposing Princes in some case and absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance 5. That all Catholick Divines and Casuists that have treated of it from the first to the last after Calvin's time in all the several Nations of Christendom have asserted this power of the Pope without so much as one contradicting it in all that time 6. That all Catholick Emperours Kings yea even they that were deposed States Magistrates and Lawyers and finally all the Catholicks in the world for the time being have by tacit consent at least approved and received this Doctrine of Popes Divines and Casuists and these Censures Canons and Practices of Popes and General Councils This is enough in all Conscience if it be well proved as I think truly the greatest part of it is to prove the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and when there is so great and potent a Party among themselves who appear so zealous in this Cause I cannot understand what fault the Doctor committed in charging them with that which they are so ambitious to be charged with If it be a Calumny Popes and Councils Divines and Casuists and Lawyers are the Authors of the Calumny not those who believe it upon their report who are the properest Judges what authority it is they challenge and all the world knows what it is they exercise as often as they can There is indeed an Answer given to this Treatise by one of those Catholick Divines as they call themselves who will not own this to be the Doctrine of the Church I read it over with great zeal and expectation to see it confuted which I profess I should have been very glad to have seen fairly done for I take no pleasure in the Errours and Mistakes of any Church and I think he has proved that those Kings and Emperours who were deposed did not like the Deposing Doctrine as any one would guess and I confess I thought it at first a bold attempt in the Author of that Treatise to prove the contrary which is the onely matter of fact wherein he has apparently the better of his Adversary but as for other matters excepting the Opinions of all Catholick Divines and Casuists before Calvin which may admit of some debate he yields it all and laughs at his Adversary for taking so much pains to prove what no body denies viz. that Popes have taught this Doctrine that Popes and Councils have made such Decrees and have actually executed them upon Kings and Emperours and that their most eminent Divines and Casuists have defended this Doctrine and justified such Decrees and Practices but yet he says all this does not prove it to be the Doctrine of their Church nor de fide Now this does not concern the Doctor who did not meddle with their Church nor Articles of Faith but asserted that the Popish Religion is not Loyal and that in some cases it teaches Subjects to Rebel Now if the Doctrine and Decrees of Popes and Councils be no part of the Popish Religion whether they be in a strict sence Articles of Faith or not if the Decrees of Councils to depose Heretical Princes or the Favourers of Hereticks and to absolve their Subjects from their Allegiance do not teach Subjects to Rebel in such cases then indeed the Doctor may be mistaken especially if it be any comfort to a deposed Prince that he is deposed by vertue of a Decree of Popes and Councils but yet the Popes power of Deposing Princes is no Article of Faith But yet it may be of good use to set this matter in a clear light and to hear the utmost that can be said to vindicate the Church of Rome from teaching so pernicious a Doctrine as this And what the Answerer to the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance says is contained in a narrow compass and I shall reduce it into as easie a method as I can The truth is I generally like what he says very well and think he has proved that it ought not to be the Doctrine of the Church and that no man is bound to believe it whatever Church teaches it but I think he has not proved that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome He frankly acknowledges that this Deposing Doctrine has been taught by Popes and has been decreed by General Councils which our Remonstrancer denies let us hear then how he vindicates the Church of Rome from teaching such a Doctrine and truly I cannot find that he ever attempts it 1. He says indeed this is not the Doctrine of the Church and we believe it is not if by Church he means the Universal Church of all Ages but yet it may be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which teaches a great many Doctrines which the Primitive and Apostolical Churches never heard of and therefore though it be true what he says That all the Ages before Gregory the Seventh were positively against the Deposing Doctrine That this was a Doctrine brought in in the Eleventh Century against the Judgement and Practice of Ten before That the Fathers were not of this mind and a great deal to this purpose yet this does not prove that the present Church of Rome does not teach this Doctrine which is plain matter of fact to be seen in the Decrees of their Popes and Councils as he himself acknowledges Thus he proves That this Doctrine is not an Article of Faith For two things are necessary to make an Article of Faith First That the Point have been originally revealed by Christ And Secondly That this Revelation have been preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform Practice of the Faithful and if any of these conditions are wanting he denies any engagement of the Church in these concerns or that the Church has believed taught or practised this Deposing Doctrine that is to say If any Church teaches such Doctrines as have not the true Characters of Articles of Faith she does not teach true Articles of Faith but yet such Doctrines may be Articles of Faith in the Church of Rome though they be not Articles of the Catholick Faith for if no Church can make Articles of Faith for her self which are not Articles of the Catholick Faith then no Church can be guilty
of Heresie for she never can have an heretical Faith if nothing can be the Faith of the Church but what is Catholick which indeed is the only expedient I know of in the World to prove the Church of Rome not to be guilty of Heresie but then it will justifie all other Churches as well as the Church of Rome I thought all different Churches or Communions of Christians had been distinguisht from each other by their Articles of Faith and Ecclesiastical Policy their Canons or Laws of Discipline and if I would know what is the Doctrine Government or Discipline of the Church of Rome or of the Church of England I must not enquire either what the Scripture teaches or what was taught many Ages since by the Primitive Fathers but must examine the Authentick Records of these Churches the Decrees of Popes and Councils their Articles and Canons for it is impossible to know what is believed and practised in the Church of Rome or England at this day but by such Records What is the true Catholick Faith and what is the Faith of the Church of Rome or of the Church of England are two very different Questions and must be proved different ways we must learn the Catholick Faith of the Church from the Doctrine of the Scriptures or the Writings of the Primitive Fathers but we must learn the Faith of the Church of Rome or England or any other Church by their own Writings confirmed by the highest Authority that is in such a Church And therefore as we must learn the Doctrine of the Church of England from our Articles and Canons so we must learn the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by the Definitions Decrees Constitutions Canons of Popes and Councils whose Authority is received and acknowledged in the Church of Rome and as he who renounces the 39 Articles or any of them does so far separate from the Church of England and renounce its Authority and Communion so do those who renounce the Decrees and Definitions of Popes and Councils so far forth renounce the Church of Rome the Doctrine Government and Discipline of it And as it would be absurd to say That the Church of England does not renounce Transubstantiation because this Author thinks it is a Catholick Doctrine so it is equally absurd to say That this Doctrine of Deposing Princes is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though taught by Popes and Councils that is by the highest Authority of that Church because this Author believes That notwithstanding what Popes and Councils say it is not the Doctrine of the Universal Church in all Ages which is a good reason indeed to prove That we ought not to receive such Doctrines though taught by the Church of Rome but is no proof that this is not taught by the Church of Rome Thus it is nothing to the purpose as far as we are concerned in this Controversie Whether Popes or Councils be Fallible or Infallible Whether what they decree be an Article of Faith or not Whether it be true or false for if the Popes and their Councils be the highest Authority in the Church of Rome we must learn from them What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome be it true or false as we do what the Doctrine of the Church of England is from the Articles and Canons agreed on in Convocation though we do not pretend that the Convocation is Infallible or that what they determine must be true because they determine it All the little not to say senceless Distinctions which this Answerer uses tend only to prove That what is decreed by Popes and Councils is not therefore the Doctrine of the Church that is of the Universal Catholick Church unless it have the confirmation of Catholick Tradition which I will easily grant him but yet it may and must be the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome if it be determined by all the Authority that is in that Church For that is the Doctrine of any Church which is agreed on and determined by the highest Authority in it and I know no greater Authority in the Church of Rome than that of Popes and Councils and therefore the Deposing Doctrine being defined and decreed by Popes and Councils as he himself acknowledges must be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome 2. No says this Answerer Councils have made a Canon for the Deposing heretical Princes but have not defined That the Pope or Council have Authority to do it Councils use to define those things which they intend we should be obliged to believe To make a Canon is one thing to define is another Decreeing and Supposing are plainly not defining and therefore this Deposing Doctrine is no Article of Faith in the Church of Rome nor are they bound to beleive it because though it has been decreed it has not been defined in any Council An admirable Apology for the Church of Rome The Council of Lateran says this Answerer made a Decree concerning Deposition the Council of Lyons assented to an actual Deposition therefore they were both perswaded they or the Pope had power to depose I for my part see not what more can be made of it And for my part I see not what more need be made of it to justifie the Doctor or any one else who charges the Church of Rome with the Deposing Doctrine He may dispute with his Adversary if he pleases Whether such a Deposing Canon prove the Deposing Doctrine to be an Article of Faith but I think it is much at one Whether a Prince be deposed by an Article of Faith or by a Decree or Canon If that Canon which decrees the Deposing of Princes and Absolving their Subjects from their Allegiance teaches Subjects to rebel and the Church of Rome has made such a Canon as evidently they have if Roman Catholick General Councils be the Representative of that Church I think it does not mend the matter much whether the Deposing Doctrine be an Article of Faith or not And yet I am not satisfied but that to decree what shall be done includes a virtual Definition of that Doctrine on which that Decree is founded To decree that an heretical Prince shall be Deposed signifies something more than a bare Definition that an Heretical Prince may be deposed and I believe all mankind who have not lost common sense by Metaphysical Subtilities have always taken it for granted That a Decree includes a Definition Nay to decree without a Definition supposes the Deposing Doctrine whereon the Decree of Deposition is founded to be so universally received and acknowledged that there was no need of an express Definition which I think ties it as hard upon the Church of Rome as any Definition could do The Sum is this This Answerer acknowledges That Popes and Councils have decreed the Deposing Doctrine but will by no means grant that this is the Doctrine of the Church there by meaning the Universal Church of all ages nor that they
are bound to believe it and I readily grant him all this but do still averr That it is the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome which is all that I intend to prove for I never thought it was the Doctrine of the true Catholick Church or that any Christian ought to believe it As the Church of Rome is distinguished from other Communions of Christians we have no other way to learn what she teaches but from Popes and Councils who are the highest Authority in that Church and they teach the Deposing Doctrine and therefore those who live in Communion with that Church and own its Authority must own it too Those who disown this Doctrine so far disown the Authority of the Church of Rome and may be the better Subjects for being the worse Papists which I think is no great Commendation to that Religion 3. Now since Popes and Councils have decreed and thereby defined the Deposing Doctrine and this Answerer does and must believe the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church I desire to know how he can avoid that Inference That this Deposing Doctrine ever since it has been decreed by Popes and Councils has been the Doctrine of the Church For is not the Church of Rome the Church still since it decreed the Deposing Doctrine and is not a General Council the Representative of the Church of that age wherein this Council is held And are not the Decrees of such a Council then the Doctrine of the Church No says our Answerer I do not understand how the Church can be engaged unless she proceeds on those Grounds on which alone a Church as a Church or Congregation of Faithful can proceed Which he there tells us is a revelation by Christ preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform practice of the Faithful that is by that exploded Oracle of Infallible Tradition But If any or all of those who make the Church believe not or act on other grounds than these I conceive they believe and act not as a Church or as faithful but as Men or Scholars or in some other Capacity The truth is when Councils leave their proper work defining and declaring to Posterity the Faith received from their Ancestors and fall to discoursing or rather acting on discourses formerly made they are not in strict formality Councils I mean in that propriety in which they are held to be Infallible but men assembled to be a Council and proceeding now not as a Council but as so many men And must this pass for good Catholick Doctrine that all the men in the Church may err and yet the Church cannot err which preserves Infallibility in the Church by as great a Miracle as the species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament without a Subject But I beseech you When are General Councils Infallible When they decree and define what is Infallibly true Right And thus the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury or York are as Infallible as any General Council Nay any private Christian is as Infallible as either if he adhere to Infallible Tradition But I thought it had been Catholick Doctrine That a General Council are no longer to be considered as men but as the Church representative which is under the Conduct and Influence of an Infallible Spirit to secure them from Error But it seems even a General Council may err only then they err not as a Council but as Men but how shall we know when they are a Council and when they are Men Truly this is not to be known till they have made their Definitions and Decrees and then if they be agreeable to Catholick Tradition they acted as a Council if not they were only Fallible Men. But who shall be Judge of this Who is the Keeper of this Câ—tholick Tradition Why every Man must judge for himself It is the sence written in the hearts of the Faithful and appearing in their Actions The Writing foretold by the Prophet Jerem. 3. in the bowels and hearts of the house of Israel And thus I hope in time our Quakers may be good Catholicks The Sum then of his Argument whereby he proves That the Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the Church though it be taught by Popes and General Councils is this That the Pope is not Infallible at least that his Infallibility is but a probable Opinion That General Councils are not the Church but Fallible Men when they err and Infallible only when they do not err That though Popes and Councils and all the Men in the Church teach this Doctrine yet the Church does not teach it Now Whether these Propositions be true or false I enquire not but desire all good Catholicks to observe That they must renounce the Infallibility and Authority of the Popes and General Councils of the Church of Rome or acknowledge the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church This Distinction between the Church and the Men of the Church destroys all the Visible Authority of the Church and leaves every man at liberty to judge for himself What is Catholick Tradition which is so loose a Principle that a Doctor of the Church of England would be ashamed of it let them no more talk of a Visible Church if the whole Visible Authority of the Church be not the Church if all those men in whom the teaching and governing Authority of the Church resides whether Popes and Councils may teach such Doctrines and yet the Church not teach them does the Church cease to be a Church when it teaches any thing contrary to Catholick Tradition Then it seems there was no Church during all the time of those Popes and Councils which taught the Deposing Doctrine nor is there any Roman Catholick Church to this day wherein these Doctrines are still taught and will be so till those Decrees of Popes and Councils be repealed which teach these Doctrines Or are they a Church and yet the Church not teach what they who are the Church teach with all the Authority of a Church Or are they a Church and no Church at the same time Is not the Sentence which a Judge pronounces by the Authority of a Judge a Judicial Act though it be contrary to Law And by the same reason Are not the Decrees of the Council which is the Church representative the Acts of the Church though they be contrary to Catholick Faith and Tradition Does a Judge cease to be a Judge or the Church to be the Church when they pronounce false And if not Are not such false Judgments or erroneous Decrees the Acts of the Judge or of the Church still Let him but tell me Whether he will have a Church or no Church and he shall find me very civil in granting either but how this Doctrine will relish with good Catholicks I cannot guess In short these men who will not allow the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though they acknowledge it to have been decreed by Popes
Pope Martin the Fifth in his Bull for confirmation of this Council speaks very home to the Case That all Hereticks and their followers of both Sexes and those who hold and defend such Heresies or communicate with such Hereticks publickly or secretly in Religious Offices or any other way though they shine in the Dignity of Patriarchs Arch-Bishops Bishops Kings Queens Dukes or any other Ecclesiastical or Secular Title shall be pronounced Excommunicate in the presence of the People every Sunday and Holy-day And that the Archbishops Bishops and Inquisitors shall by our Authority diligently inquire concerning them who hold defend or receive such Heresies and Errours of what Dignity State Preheminence Degree Order or Condition soever they are and if they be found quilty shall by the foresaid Authority proceed against them by punishments of Excommunication Suspension Interdict as also of deprivation of their Dignities Offices and Benefices Ecclesiastical and also of their Secular Dignities and Honours and by any other Penalties Sentences Ecclesiastical Censures which they shall judge fitting even by taking and imprisoning their Persons and executing upon them any corporal Punishments with which Hereticks use to be punished according to the Canonical Sanctions This is the Council which our Author tells us expresly declares that the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes excommunicated for Heresie is damnable and heretical as being contrary to the known Laws of God and Nature and yet for ought I can perceive by this Bull the greatest Emperour in the world if he be a Heretick or a Favourer of Hereticks if the Pope have as much power as authority may be burnt as John Huss and Ierom of Prague were by this Council The account of that Article Quilibet Tyrannus in short is this The Duke of Burgundy had caused Lewis Duke of Orleans to be murdered Johannes Parvus a Divine of Paris to justifie this action defended that Proposition That a Tyrant might be killed by any of his Subjects without expecting the Sentence or Command of any Judge which Mariana asserts to be certainly true and that the onely difficulty is to know who is a Tyrant So that this is a true Commonwealth-Principle like the seventeenth Article of John Wickleff which was condemned also in this Council Populares possunt ad suum arbitrium dominos delinquentes corrigere The people may correct their Lords or Governours when they do amiss according to their own will and pleasure And this I grant is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which reserves this power wholly to it self though it has been defended by many Jesuits such as Mariana and Suarez from whence our late Rebels learnt their Maxims of Government But these two Questions ought to be carefully distinguished or else we may indeed injure the Church of Rome Whether the People have an inherent right in themselves to Depose or Punish or Murder Tyrannical Princes and whether the Pope have authority to Depose Princes for Heresie or other causes and to Absolve their Subjects from their obedience The first is not the Doctrine of the Church though it be of many Jesuits but is expresly condemned by this Council though Mariana truly observes that the condemnation of this Proposition Quilibet Tyrannus is not confirmed by the Popes Bull as the condemnation of the Articles of Wickleff and Huss expresly is which gives some suspicion that he did not much like it especially considering what Gerson tells us that this Doctrine of Johan Parvus was branched out into nine Articles and he was very zealous to have had them all distinctly condemned but could not obtain it and therefore complains Errorem illum non sufficienter sed valdé diminute damnatum esse That this Errour was not sufficiently but very imperfectly condemned which he attributes to that kindness many of them had for the Duke of Burgundy However I do not find this Doctrine defined in any of their General Councils and it is condemned though Gerson says imperfectly in this and therefore is not to be accounted the Doctrine of the Church of Rome But as for the Popes Deposing power it is not onely asserted by Jesuits but decreed by their Councils and therefore must be accounted the Doctrine of their Church But our Author proceeds That no Catholicks as Catholicks believe that the Pope hath any direct or indirect authority over the Temporal Power and Jurisdiction of Princes so that if the Pope shall pretend to absolve or dispence with his Majesties Subjects from their Allegiance upon account of Heresie and Schism such Dispensation would be vain and null and all Catholick Subjects notwithstanding such Dispensation or Absolution would be still bound in Conscience to defend their King and Country at the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes even against the Pope himself in case he should invade the Nation And yet we see that Popes challenge this Deposing power and their Councils own and decree it and where to find the Roman Catholick Faith but in the Decrees of their Popes and Roman Catholick General Councils I cannot guess And if we may take and leave what we please of their Councils and be good Catholicks still I see no reason why we may not reject the Decrees of their Councils about Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images and continue as good Catholicks as they are who renounce the Authority of their Councils as to the Deposing Doctrine I am sure the Council of Constance would have condemned these men for Hereticks who should presume to reject any Doctrine which this or other General Councils had determined for in the Bull of Martin V. in the Articles of Inquiry after Hereticks they were to ask them this Question among others Whether he believed that what this holy Council of Constance representing the Vniversal Church hath approved and doth approve in favour of the Faith and the salvation of Souls is to be held and approved of all Christian people and what it hath and doth condemn as contrary to Faith and good Manners that is to be held and believed and professed by them to be condemned It were easie to multiply Testimonies to this purpose as the Deposition of the Emperour Frederick II. in the General Council at Lyons by Pope Innocent IV. the Breve of Paul V. to the English Catholicks against taking the Oath of Allegiance but my Author has given no occasion to proceed any farther He appeals to the General Council of Constance and I joyn issue with him here and leave it to every man to judge whether that Council has decreed the King-killing Doctrine or Murder of Princes Excommunicated for Heresie to be damnable and heretical The first of those three Treatises against the Oath of Allegiance which are published by the Title of The Jesuits Loyalty proves at large that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome by several very material Arguments 1. That Popes have taught it as sound
and Councils go upon these Principles 1. That Popes and Councils may and have decreed such Doctrines as are contrary to Scripture and Catholick Tradition 2. That no good Catholick is bound to own such Doctrines though decreed by Popes and Councils 3. That the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4. That men are good Catholicks not by adhering to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome but of the Scriptures expounded by Primitive and Catholick Tradition All this I firmly believe they are the very Principles on which our Reformation is founded and by which we justifie our selves against the Innovations of the Church of Rome but though these principles will justifie the Reformation yet they will not prove That this Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the present Church of Rome Let us then now return again to our Remonstrancer and having got rid of the Council of Constance and proved That it is so far from condemning that it hath approved and confirmed the Deposing Doctrine What remains is nothing but Insinuation and Address without the least appearance of an Argument but let us hear what it is and he proceeds thus I say seeing Roman Catholicks do thus generally declare their Loyalty I think they ought no more in Justice to be charged with disloyal Principles for the extravagancy of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them than I am to be charged with the Principles of the like Disloyalty and Injustice because some of my Children have been for the Bill of Exclusion and others who communicated with me have written scandalous Pamphlets Narratives c. tending to Treason and Rebellion This is spoke in the Person of the Church of England and a very fair Speech he has made for her wherein there is not any one thing fairly represented For 1. the Doctor does not charge Loyal Papists with disloyal Principles only says That the Popish Religion is not Loyal but it is possible that many Papists may not believe this to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as many of them profess not to do others may abhor the Doctrine and renounce the Authority of the Church of Rome in this particular though they hold Communion with her in her Worship others may have such a Natural and Inbred Loyalty such a Love to their Prince and Country as antidotes them against the Infection of bad Principles now these men may be Loyal as the Doctor acknowledges and may act upon very Loyal Principles too but they are not the Principles of the Popish Religion and there is some hazard that while men embrace a Religion and own the Authority of a Church which teaches the Deposing Doctrine they may be corrupted by their Religion when there happens any competition between their Loyalty and Religion which is all the Doctor asserted and which any disinterested Person would have thought as inoffensive as it is true And since this Passage has raised such an unjust clamour against the Doctor I shall only observe what just reason there is for such a Jealousie after all their declarations of Loyalty in that some very few excepted they obstinately refuse the Oath of Allegeance which there can be no colourable pretence for but that they will not forswear the Deposing Doctrine and there is reason to suspect That those who will not abjure so pernicious a Doctrine may be perswaded to practise it when time serves Pope Paul the Fifth An. 1606. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance established by Parliament 3. Jac. salvâ fide Catholicâ et salute animarum suarum praestari non posse cùm multa contineat quae fidei ac saluti apertè adversantur cannot be taken without violating the Catholick Faith and injuring the Salvation of their Souls as containing many things which are manifestly contrary to Faith and Salvation Now as the Author of the First Treatise against the Oath of Allegeance well observes p. 11. there are not in it multa many things to which this censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Now when in Obedience to the Pope the Roman Catholicks to this day obstinately refuse this Oath Is there not reason to suspect that they are not clear in this point and then let any man judge what security there is of their Loyalty 2. He says it is unjust That they should be charged with Disloyal Principles for the extravagancies of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them This I must acknowledge would be very unjust but it is not true Those whom he calls a few are no less than Popes and General Councils and their most eminent Divines Schoolmen Casuists Canonists for several ages who neither were nor could be censured because they were the Highest Authority in the Church whereas in truth it is only some few who have taught the contrary and those indeed have been censured and excommunicated at Rome as some English Chatholicks can inform him 3. He makes the Church of England say That some of her Children were for the Bill of Exclusion If he would have passed for a Church of England man he should have observed a better Decorum in personating the Church and not have made her say such things as no Ingenuous Papist would affix to her If ever the Loyalty of the Church of England was tried it was in that Affair which she had no other Interest but a sense of Duty to oblige her to and I know not any one man who was firm and stedfast to the Church but was so to the Succession too though he underwent the Imputation of being a Papist or Popishly inclined for it It is sufficiently known that the prevailing party of these Houses of Commons who were for the Bill of Exclusion were ready prepared to accommodate and comprehend away the Church of England and he might with equal truth and honesty have charged the Rebellion of 41 on the Sons of the Church of England as the Bill of Exclusion But this is so barefaced a Calumny that it confutes it self and shames its Author 4. Let us then consider What comparison there is between the case of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England or Whether there be the same reason to charge the Church of England with disloyalty that there is to charge the Church of Rome The Church of Rome teaches the Deposing Doctrine by all the Authority that is in that Church the Church of England teaches the strictest Obedience to Princes without any reserved cases and threatens eternal Damnation to all Rebels how religious soever their Pretences are Those who teach the Deposing Doctrine speak the sense of the Church of Rome are her true and genuine Sons those
who allow Subjects in any case to rebel contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England and therefore it is as unjust to charge the Church of England with the Treasons and Rebellions which are committed contrary to her declared Doctrine as it is just to charge the Church of Rome with such practices as she her self decrees and teaches If Roman Catholicks be loyal to a deposed and excommunicated Prince no thanks to the Church of Rome for it who forbids them to be so If any in Communion with the Church of England be disloyal this is no fault of the Church which teaches Loyalty And since he has been pleased to mention the Bill of Exclusion I would desire him to tell me at his leisure What Roman Catholick Nation who had all the Power in their hands would have suffered a Protestant Prince to have succeeded quietly to his Throne We know how it fared with Henry the Fourth of France notwithstanding the Parliament of Paris burnt Mariana's Book and what Henrician Hereticks in those days signified But our Church teaches better and the true Sons of the Church practise better and will never repent of what they have done though they be unjustly reproached by Fanaticks for doing it and as unjustly charged by as kind Remonstrating Friends as any Rome affords with opposing it And now I come to his convincing Argument That the Papists do not hold such pernicious Doctrines That he sees so many Kings and Princes in other Countries no less jealous of their Lives and Authorities than others who yet profess and maintain that Religion and think themselves secure by their Principles when they dare not trust the Calvinist The Church of Rome you know Sir never wants Miracles and it may be this is none of the least For my part I dare not pretend to give a Reason Why any man professes that Religion much less Why Princes do so and yet it is not more impossible that men should maintain a Religion against their Interest than believe contrary to their Sences I suppose it is as much against the Interest of Princes to be actually deposed by Popes and Councils as it is to profess a Religion which teaches the Deposing Doctrine and yet when Henry the Fourth was deposed by Gregory the VII and Frederick the Second by Pope Innocent the Fourth in the Council of Lyons and in such other Instances of the actual exercise of this Deposing Doctrine neither the deposed Princes and Emperors nor other Catholick Kings renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome for it and if Kings can be contented to continue in the Communion of that Church which actually deposes Princes nay deposes themselves it does not seem to me so convincing an Argument That the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine meerly because Princes who are jealous of their Lives and Authority hold Communion with it If they can perswade Princes That there is no Salvation to be had in any other Church those who have a mind to be saved must be contented to dispense with some temporal Inconveniencies to save their Souls and indeed they have made the way to Heaven so very easie that it may perswade Princes who love their Pleasures to bear with the Rudeness and Insolencies of Popes And yet no man ever denied but the Papists may be very good Subjects to Popish Princes while they obey the Pope the Pope commands their Subjects to obey them the only danger is when the Pope and the Prince are not of a side whom the Subjects shall obey then the deposed Prince or the deposing Pope and it is no greater wonder that a Popish Prince can more securely trust his Popish Subjects than Calvinists than that a Calvinistical Prince places more confidence in his Calvinistical Subjects than in Papists for generally neither Papists nor Calvinists can endure any Prince but of their own Religion but now any Prince whether Papists or Calvinists may be secure in the Loyalty of the Church of England which reverences the Person and Authority of their Prince whatever his Religion be As for what he adds concerning our present King whom God long preserve there is less reason for him to fear the Deposing Doctrine though he did believe it to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome than for any other Catholick Prince in the World For as the case stands it is FINIS Remonst p. 2. Roman Cathol principles p. 6. Conc. To. 12. p. 144. Suarez Defens fid lib. 6. cap. 4. Concil Constance Sess. 39. Si verò dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesiâ terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac Haeretica faeditate per Metropolitanum caeteros Comprovinciales Episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo pontifici ut ex tunc ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandum qui eam exterminatis haereticis sine ullâ contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure Domini Principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opponat eâdem nihilo minus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos Principales Concil To. 11. p. 148 149. Edit â—abb Concil Const. Sess. 45. Omnes singulos Haereticos hujusmodi necnon Sectatores ipsarum haeresum errorum utriusque sexùs tenentes etiam defendentes eosdem Haereticis ipsis quo modo libet publicè vel occultè in divinis vel alias participantes etiamsi Patriarchali Episcopali Regali Reginali Ducali aut aliâ quâvis Ecclesiasticà vel Mundanâ praesulgeant dignitate Excommunicatos singulos diebus dominicis festivis in praesentia populi nuntietis per alios nuntiari faciatis Et nihil ominus contra eosdem omnes singulos utriusque sexus hujusmodi errores tenentes approbantes defendentes dogmatizantes ac fautores receptatores defensores eorundem exemptos non exemptos quemlibet ipsorum cujuscunque dignitatis status praeeminentiae gradus ordinis vel conditionis ut praefertur existant auctoritate nostrâ diligenter inquirere studeatis eos quos per inquisitionem hujusmodi defamatos vel per confessionem eorum seu per facti evidentiam vel alias hujusmodi haeresis aut erroris labe respersos reperietis auctoritate praedictâ etiam per excommunicationis suspensionis interdicti necnon privationis dignitatum personatuum officiorum aliorumque beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum ac feudorum quae à quibuscumque Ecclesiis Monasteriis ac aliis locis Ecclesiasticis obtinent ac etiam bonorum dignitatum saecularium ac graduum scientiarum quarumcunque facultatum per alias poenas sententias censuras Ecclesiasticas ac vias modos quos ad hoc expedire seu opportunos esse videritis etiam pèr captiones incarcerationes personarum alias poenas corporales quibus haeretici puniuntur seu puniri jubentur aut solent juxta canonicas sanctiones Conc. Const. Sess. 45 To. 12. p. 271. Richerius Hist. Conc. Gener. part 2. p. 162. Concil To. 12. p. 268. P. 18. P. 10. P. 13. P. 14. Answer to the first Treatise p. 5. Ibid. p. 71. Remonst p. 2.