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
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
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 Oâ—…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 Feâ—… 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
said upon that Head than for any of the rest They pretend the Popes set up first the Empire of the West Then gave the Princes of Germany the Right of choosing the Emperor and does still give the Imperial Crown upon the Emperors Swearing an Oath of Homage to them according to the verse under that Insolent Picture set up by Pope Innocent the 2d In the Lateram of the Emperor lying prostrate at his feet and receiving the Crown from him Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dante Coronam But all these Surrenders were made use of only to strengthen the great pretention they had of being Christs Vicars and St. Peters Successours which from the end of the 11th Century till the beginning of the 16th for above 4 Ages together was as Authoritatively asserted by Popes as positively taught by Divines and as tamely received by the whole Church Emperors and Kings not presuming to contradict it as any other Article of Faith And for proofs of this we need appeal to no other witnesses than those 3. great Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron who may be presumed to have understood the Doctrine of their own Church better than any body else The First of those through his whole work strains his Industry to discover as many Instances as he can of it and never parts with any without expressing the particular satisfaction he had in so pleasant a Discovery I shall only set down what he says on the two 1st occasions that he met with When he takes notice of Gregory the Great 's priviledges formerly mentioned he adds You see Reader That the Popes can make Laws to which if Kings themselves do not yield Obedience they shall lose their Kingdoms Upon the first Deposition made by Gregory the 3d. He adds The Faithful in the West being awakened by this Thunder do immediately fall from the Obedience to Leo adhering to this Apostolical Pope So this Gregory left a worthy Precedent to Posterity that Heretical Princes be not suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if having been often admonished they continue to persist obstinately in their Errors Such strains as these do so often occur afterwards that they can scarce be reckoned It is well known what advice he gave P. Paul the 5th in the quarrel with the Venetians applying the voice to St. Peter Arise and Kill to the case in hand and that with his Insolent Paraenesis to that Republick are clear Evidences of his sence in this matter What Bellarmin taught more shortly and obscurâ—…ly in his Controversies was afterwards made more plain both by his Writings about the Translation of the Roman Empire upon the Interdict of Venice and against King Iimes and William Barklay And Cardinal Perrons Eloquent speech against the Bill put in by the Third Estate of France for Condemning those pretensions of a Deposing Power shews us not only his own sense but the sense of the whole Clergy of France in whose name he delivered it He calls the Contrary Opinion a Doctrine that breeds Schisms a Gate that leads unto all Heresie and so detestable that he and his Fellow Bâ—…shops will choose to burn at a Stake rather than consent to it He affirming That all the parts of the Catholick Church and of the Church of France in particular and all the Schools of Divinity till the coming of Calvin held the affiâ—…mative and says That no where in France since the Divinity Schools wâ—…re set up can they find any one Doctor Divine or Lawyer any Decree Council or Sentence of Parliament or any one Magistrate Ecclesiastick or Politick who had held that in case of Heresie or Idolatry Subjects might not be absolved from their Oaths of Fidelity to their Princes It is true at first he spake more modestly and pretended the thing was problematical and so was not fit matter for an Oath but when that modester Strain tho it tended all to depress the Regal and exalt the Papal Power had so far prevailed with the King that he ordered the matter to be laid aside and not to be further insisted on They were not satisfied with this but made a new Address in the Name of the Clergy and the Cardinal spake now in a higher tone asserting formally the Popes indirect Power in Temporalâ—… and that all who maintained the contrary were Schismaticks and Hereticks even those of the Parliament it self and did plainly threaten the King That if he did not raze all the Proceedings out of the Register the Clergy would leave the Assembly and Excommunicate all who denied the Popes Power of Deposing And if the King would not suffer them to execuâ—…e these Censures they would proceed upon their hazard tho they were to suffer Martyrdom for it For which zeal they received a Brave from the Pope giving them his solemn Thanks for what they had done desiring them to persevere in the same mind So we have in this â—…stance not only Cardinal Perrons own mind but the sâ—…nse of the whole Clergy of France I do not think it necessary to enquire further into the opinion of later Writers tho it were easie to shew that to 〈◊〉 day both the Court of Rome the whole Order of the Jesuites the Writers both of Controversies and Cases of Conscience and the Expositors of Scripture do as oft as occasion offers assert the power of Deposing Kings to be still in the See of Rome And tho some few Writers of that Religion since Barkelay and Widdrington's time both of the English and Irish Nation have adventured to deny this power théy have been censured for it and branded with Heresy This has been so notorious in the matter of the Irish Remonstrance that I need say no more of it But whether the Writers of this Age allow it or not they are bound according to their Doctrine about Tradition to acknowledg it since two of the Characters of Tradition are found to agree to it For it has been delivered in several Ages of the Church as true Catholick Doctrine by all the publick Doctors in these times so that either This is a Tradition of the Church or That is not a true mark of Tradition nor is it a certain conveyance of Truth if we may be thus deceived in a clear Tradition for four Ages successively It does also appear that if the See of Rome be a faithful Depositary and Transmitter of Church Traditions this must be one since it is delivered to the world by so many Popes in the names of St. Peter and St. Paul and founded on the Power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing granted to St. Peter But I shall next shew how the third mark of Tradition the Authority of General Councils agrees to this Doctrine When this Doctrine had been so well spread over Europe then the Popes found it was safe to trust it to the judgment of such an Assembly as they esteemed a General Council And they proceeded in this matter after
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-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
The Third Branch of the Christian Religion is the Worship of God and that chiefly the use of the Sacraments For the Worship of God let it be considered that we pray to God and praise him only for all these things about which the Scriptures command us to address to him Our worship is in a Language that all the people understand and so are edified by it according to St. Paul who has enlarged so much on this matter in a whole Chapter that it is strange how any who acknowledg the Authority of that Epistle can deny it Our Liturgies are such that the Romanists cannot except to any part of them Our ceremonies are few and these be both decent and useful So that in all the parts of our Worship we do so exactly agree to the Rule of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church that they cannot blame us for any one Rubrick or Collect in it But for their worship It is in a Language not understood by the people who to be sure can receive no Edification from that they understand not nor can they say Amen to such Devotions This is as it were in spite to St. Paul who took special care that as long as his Authority was in any esteem in the Church such an abuse should never creep into it Nor is there a shadow of Authority for such a practice from the Primitive Church in which for many Ages the Worship was still in the vulgar Tongues Next their Worship is so overcharged with many Rites and Ceremonies that the seriousness of Devotion must needs be much alloyed by them A great part of the Worship is so whispered as if they were muttering Spells Their Books of Exorcisms are the most indecent things that can be full of Charms and other ridiculous Rites And for the Pontifical and Ceremonial of their Church they may match with Heathenism for Superstition Their Offices are so various and numerous and the Rubricks seem so full of disorder that a man may as soon learn a Trade as know all the several parts of them How this can be reconciled to the Simplicity of the Gospel or the Worshipping God in spirit and truth may be easily judged by those who can compare things For the Sacraments we have the Two that Christ Instituted Baptism and the Lords Supper And for Pennance Confirmation Ordination and Marriage we have them also among us as they were appointed by Christ and his Apostles though we do not call these Sacraments For Extream Unction we find no warrant at all for it as a sacred Ordinance and we are sure the Church for many Ages did not think of it For Baptism it is done among us in the very Form our Saviour appointed and this they do not deny But among them they cannot be assured that they are at all Baptized since according to the Doctrine of the necessity of the Intention of the Priest to the Being of a Sacrament they cannot be assured of it for an Atheistical Priest can spoil their Baptism so that unless they can be certain of that which is impossible for them to know I mean the Intention of the Priest they are not sure that they were ever truly Baptized But for the Lords Supper if any person will so far trust his own Reason and senses as to compare all the Warrants we have in Scripture for that Ordinance with the Practice of our Church and theirs they will soon see who agree most to them Christ took Bread which he blessed and gave saying This is my Body which is given for you He also took the Chalice and said Drink ye all of it c. All this we doe and no more so that it is indeed a Communion among us and those who have read the account that Iustin Martyr gives us of the Rites in the Communion in his days would think he were reading the very Abstract of our Office But in the Church of Rome besides the less material things of the Form of the Bread the Consecration of Altars and Vessels with the numberless little devices in the Canon of the Mass that they seem not of such importance let these considerable changes they have made be looked into 1. They have brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation against the clearest Evidence both of sense and reason against the nature of a Sacrament and its being a Memorial of Christs Death and that by the very words of Consecration the Bread and Wine are Christs Body and Blood as the one was given for us and the other shed for us on the Cross and not as he is now at the Right hand of God The belief of this crept in by degrees from the eighth Century in which it was first set on foot but much contradicted both in the Eastern and Western Church and was not fully setled till the 13th Century We are sure it was not the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome Constantinople Asia Antioch nor Africk in the 5th and 6th Centuries by express Testimonies from the most esteemed Authors of that time Gelasius Chrysostom Ephrem Theodoret and St. Austin 2. They deny the Chalice to the Laity against the express words of the Institution and contrary both to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church for 1300 years 3. They have declared the Priests saying Mass to be an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Dead and the Living though the Scripture plainly says That Christ was once offered for us It is true the Primitive Church used the words Sacrifice and Oblation as our Church yet does but their meaning by that was only in the general sense of these terms as Prayers Praises and Alms are called Sacrifices 4. They have brought in a new piece of Worship which is the hearing of Mass without receiving the Sacrament and it is now the great Devotion of their Church Though by the Institution it is as express as can be that the Consecration is only in order to its being a Communion And by the Apostolical Canons which some in their Church believe to be the work of the Apostles and are by them all acknowledged to be a Collection of the Rites of the first Ages all persons that were present at the Worship and did not communicate were to be severely censured 5. The adoring the Sacrament the exposing it on the Altar and carrying it about in solemn Processions to be worshipped as they are late Inventions so if Transubstantiation be not true they are by their own confession the grossest Idolatries that ever were And are not these considerable variations from the first Institution of this Sacrament As for their own Sacraments though there is no reason to equal them to either of these that were instituted by Christ yet some of them we use as they were at first appointed Persons Baptized are Confirmed with Imposition of hands the only Ceremony used by the Apostles We allow the use of Confession and do press it in many cases and give the benefit of
is certain that the Design of Revealed Religion was to give men clearer Notions of these Moral perfections to press them by stronger Arguments and encourage our Endeavours by suitable Rewards and punishments So that if any Religion contradict these Moral Duties we are sure it is false for the Revelation of God's will must be designed to make us better than we would otherwise be following barely the Light of Nature and not worse If then the Church of Rome over-throws Morality and contradicts any of the Ten Commandments we are sure it is not of God And how far it has done this they may judge by these Particulars First Whatever Church offers cheap and easie pardons for sin does take off so much from our sense of the evil of sin We cannot have a very ill opinion of any thing that is easily forgiven Now what are the Popes Pardons Indulgences Jubilees Priviledged Altars the going of Pilgrimages the saying of some Collects the wearing of Agnus Dei's Peebles or other such like trash but so many Engines to root out of mens minds any deep horrour or great sense of sin Is not this the very thing which the People of the Iews of old offered at to bring Thousands of Rams Ten Thousand Rivers of Oyl their First born or the fruit of their Body to offer for their sins All which were rejected in the name of God in these words I will shew thee O man what is good and what our Lord requireth of thee Verily to do Iudgment and to love mercy and to walk solicitous with thy God This is a Moral matter and unchangable therefore whoever go to beat down the sense of sin by the offer of Pardon on any other terms but the sincere change of a mans life destroy Morallity which is the Image of God in man If from this general Consideration we descend to Examine the Commandments in particular we shall find matter enough for a severe Charge against their Church Is not the First Commandment broken when Devotions are offered to Saints which Import their being Omniscient Omnipresent and Almighty that are the Incommunicable Attributes of the God-head and when pardon of sin preservation Grace against Temptations and Eternal life are immediately begged from Saints It is true they say the sence of these prayers is only that we desire their assistance at Gods hands for these blessings But the words of their Offices import no such matter And though for above One Hundred and Sixty Years these things have been complained of and in the Correction of their Offices some of them were cast out yet many of them do still continue In which the plain sence of the words of their Offices is Idolatrous Only they make a shift with another and forced sence put on them to defend themselves from that charge And for such Devotions they can shew no Warrant for the first Thousand years after Christ. The Second Commandment is so openly and confessedly broken by them that many of them maintain it does not all oblige Christians but belonged only to the Jewish Dispensation And in all their Catechisms it is left out which was done very wisely with what honesty let them answer for it was not fit the people should look on that as a Commandment which they saw so notoriously broken throughout their whole Church A great trade being also driven by the breach of it That this was not in the Primitive Church themselves confess all the Books the Fathers wrote against the Idolatry of the Heathens demonstrate this Nor were Images so much as set up in Churches before the Sixth Century And then care was taken that they should not be worshipped and not before the Eighth Century were they worshipped in any place of the Christian Church The Doctrine of the Popes power of Relaxing of Oaths and discharging men from the Obligation of them joyned with the practice of their Popes for above 800 years is as formal an Opposition to the Third Commandment as can be Imagined This was also begun in the Eighth Century The vast multiplication of Holy-days made the Observation of the Lords day of necessity slacken They have destroyed the Order of Societies established in the Fifth Commandment by the Power they allow the Pope to Depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleageance They teach the murdering and burning all Hereticks that is to say all that will not submit to their Tyranny by which Infinite numbers of Innocent persons have been murdered against the Sixth Commandment And these two Doctrines of deposing Princes and putting Hereticks to death were abhorred by the Church for the first Eight ages and were brought in by the Popes since that time The frequent practice of the Court of Rome in granting Divorces on the pretence either of Spiritual kindred or of Degrees not forbidden either by the Law of Nature or the word of God and allowing second Marriages to both Parties upon such Divorces is an avowed breach of the Seventh Commandment The setting on some Princes to Invade other Princes in their just Rights is the Doctrine as well as it has been the practice of their Church for some Ages And as their Popes have wrested many Territories from Temporal Princes so for many Ages they set on Publick Robbery against the Eighth Commandment The Doctrine of Equivocating both taught and practised the breaking of safe Conducts and publick Faith decreed by their General Councils is also against the Ninth Commandment For the Tenth I shall say nothing of it because the meaning of it is not so generally agreed on But thus we see all the Rules of Morality are contradicted by that Church It might be justly added to swell up this Charge that of late there have been Doctrines published to the world by the approved Casuists of that Church with Licence which subvert all Justice destroy all security and take away the most sacred ties of mankind By the Doctrines of Probability and of Ordering the Intention aright there is no crime how black soever but a man may adventure on it with a good conscience These things were long and openly taught amongst them without any Censure And when many of the French Clergy complained of these at the Court of Rome perhaps more out of spite to the Jesuits than zeal for the Truth it was long before these so just Remonstrances were heard And in conclusion a trifling Censure was past on them by which they were declared Scandalous neither Impious nor Wicked and all were forbidden to teach them any more but they stand yet in the Books formerly published with Licence After all these particulars is it to be wondered at if the morals of the men of that Church be vitiated when their Doctrine is so corrupted for peoples practices are generally worse than their Opinions And thus the Second point is made good that in our Church we teach the same Rules of Living that are in the Scriptures which are grosly corrupted by their Doctrines
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