truth the title was so proper to Princes that the Kings of the Philistim were always called Abimelech i.e. my Father the King by a general name whatever their proper name was Now I am loath to judg that those Fathers made use of an instance of a Subject called Father by his Servants that the Example might limit the Doctrine to subjection to inferiour Magistrates when had they inserted the Example of David it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Soveraign Princes And whereas the Fathers of the same Council who were concern'd in the Catechism use to quote such places of the Antients as they thought pertinent to the Subject treated of they having * Ibid. § 17. quoted Rom. 13.1 to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers confirm the Doctrine only by the testimony of Tertullian who it is true speaks plain and to the purpose omitting St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and others on the place who have told the World that by every Soul in St. Paul are meant Priests and Bishops as well as Laymen nay the Pope himself as says St. Bernard but this probably would have unriddled the Mystery and exposed a Doctrine which they were not willing to disown the Catechism like the Canons leaving every man in many such things a great latitude so that in short I desire you to answer this Question Either Rebellion is against a Moral Law or not if it be then the Pope cannot dispence with it and then how happens it that so many things of lesser moment were decided in the Trent Council while this was forgotten or past by If it be not against a Moral Law then by your own principles the Pope may dispence with it and what then becomes of all Obedience when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. shall fill the Chair And tho the Council would not condemn the Deposing Doctrine yet why had not the Authors of the Index Expurgatorius censured such dangerous Books for if we may judg of the sense of the Trent Council by its Catechism tho made after the Council broke up why may we not judg of its sense by the Index which was ordered to be made at the same time c. by the same men who composed the Catechism In which Index more than a few passages are expunged that interfere with the Papal Grandeur but not one poor sentence condemn'd that is destructive to the Rights of Princes Here also pray suffer me to mind you of a bold assertion of a private man as you are and which I am sure as things are now you cannot accomplish * Introd p. 11. for you undertake that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such principles and practices i. e. in your own words of such principles as destroy the peace of Nations with Fires and Massacres and rob Soveraigns of their Crowns and Subjects of their Liberties for I am sure there was a time when all Roman-Catholicks were not of that mind when the League was rampant against Henry 3. and 4. of France in which one of them actually fell and by the principles of which the other also was murthered not to mention what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5. and our King John suffered and when the Parisian and Irish Massacres were sufficient proofs to the contrary Nor is it possible even now to make good your promise since I have told you already what the belief of the Spanish Netherland and Hungarian Churches are in this point besides what the Italians hold Now against all this Doctrine you have nothing to object but that this Doctrine hath been condemn'd * Pap. misrepr p. 51. in France by the Ecclesiasticks there and by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictiers c. all which Universities are within the one Kingdom of France so that tho there be no need of considering the Argument because it is only the sentiment of one National Church against the rest of what you call Catholick Christendom if I make it appear that the French Church hath not always been of this belief and perhaps is not so now then all that you say upon that Topick will be far from proving your assertion while withal I profess that if what I am about to say doth not reach so far as a conviction and be only a well-meant Essay yet the cause which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it because the main position about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments and authorities And to evince this I shall pursue the method which the famous * Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallele part 3. ch 3. Monsieur Jurieu hath laid down adding here and there my own observations If therefore this be and always hath been the Doctrine of the Gallican Church then you have stated your argument aright but if it hath not been always their belief then the present Gallican Church may be as well mistaken as the former and if so where is its authority besides if the French Church do condemn the Deposing Doctrine and all the rest of the Catholick World do assert it then the Tradition is not on the side of the French Church though never defin'd as a matter of Faith by a general Council Now to prove that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church I shall produce one remarkable instance and that is the deposition of Childerick and the introducing of Pepin the first King of the second race into his Throne and I shall briefly tell the story out of the French Historian * Girard du Haillan de l'Estate c. l. 1. m.p. 66 c. that I have now by me who relates that Pepin after his Conquest of the Sarazins did so honour and reverence the Clergy and repair'd so many of their Temples that had been ruined that the most holy men of that time thought him a Saint whereupon aiming at the Crown and finding nothing stick in his way but the Oath which the French had given to their King he sent to the Pope whom he had before obliged for his dispensation Pepin having already gained the greatest part of the Nobility Ecclesiastick's and Commons to his party the Pope readily granted a dispensation the Clergy as well as the Nobility and Commons acquiesc't in what was done acknowledging Pepin for their rightful King and thrusting Childerick into a Monastery and so do Paulus Aemilius and others also relate the story and among them Cardinal Perron and * Ch. Childeric 3. An. 751. Monsieur Mezeray says that this was very likely done in that general Assembly held in March An. 751. The Bishops being there in great numbers and Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz in the head of them who declared to the rest of the Assembly the validity of the Pope's answer and he intimates the reason why they complied so readily with Pepin because he gave
Pope pleases So that we see that even this seeming Enemy of the Deposing Doctrine dares not openly condemn it but leaves it as a probable Opinion and what 't is not necessary to speak of so that every Pope hath still his liberty to declare any Prince a Heretick and then to proceed to Excommunicate and to Depose him after which a Clement a Ravilliac or any other Assasine may proceed to murther him because he himself also is left at liberty to believe that the Pope is in the right when he hath deposed a Prince and that he ought as much as lies in him to obey him in bringing such Criminals to condign punishment At last †Protest Pop. p. 29. you tell us That a man may be admitted into your Church notwithstanding his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine and the Pope's Infallibility but as they are stated by the Representer i. e. not as Articles of Faith But this seems to imply that no man of your Communion shall dare to condemn the Doctrines which must still be look'd on as probable and disputable so that the safety of Princes and Kingdoms and the guidance of the Church in matters of Faith which depend on the plain stating of the Pope's Power and Infallibility must still be left at the mercy of opinionative men who may take liberty to dispute and write about these great and weighty points pro and con as themselves think fit And whereas your Adversary quotes Bellarmine and Canus That General Councils cannot erre even in Decrees of Discipline and Government decrera morum when they relate to things necessary to Salvation and concern the whole Church you * Protest Pop. p. 32. deny that the Deposing Doctrine is of that nature But are not the plain Offices of Morality necessary to Salvation as well as Articles of Faith If not then nothing but Infidelity damns a man and if a man's Faith be Orthodox it is no matter for his Conversation If they are necessary is not Obedience to Princes one of the moral Commands of God And if so is not the practice of that Obedience necessary to Salvation and is not Disobedience which necessarily follows the Deposing Doctrine a great sin And if so destructive of the hopes of Salvation And that it concerns the whole Church is easily proved because Princes are its Nursing-Fathers and what Evils have fallen upon your own Church by such rash Attempts some of your own Authors will tell you is plain from the instance of Henry VIII Besides the whole Christian Church and its Welfare is concern'd in the Doctrine for though all the Princes of Christendom have never been deposed at once yet what is done in one Country may be done throughout all Christendom and so the whole Church actually concern'd in the sad effects of the Doctrine And had the Empire been as intire under Henry IV as it was under the elder Emperours his Deposition had actually concern'd the whole Church And because you call that assertion that the Pope hath not condemn'd the no-deposing Power because he wants power so to do an Oracle and say you look for an Argument to prove it It is plain from History that those Popes who have been rich and stout and powerful have adventured on the practice of Deposing while others of lower Spirits less Wealth and Haughtiness have been afraid of the Attempt we are not ignorant what the Dictates of Pope Gregory VII are and how busie he was being back'd by the Countess Maud who supported him with her interest nor what Innocent III Sixtus V and some others have done in imitation of him Nor is it unknown to the World what Pope Paul V. thundered against the Republick of Venice What Pius V. did here in England and Innocent X. in Ireland during the Rebellion there for what was it that encouraged those hot Popes to go so far but that they thought their interest at least in the Church-men so great that the Countries would immediately have shaken off their Soveraigns And what is it that causes the present Pope to spare the French King about the Regale but that he is afraid of him and knows he wants power to compel him Nor need the Argument seem so ridiculous to you since Cardinal Bellarmine a man from whom most of your Writers borrow all their Materials doth not onely affirm that the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours did not take up Arms against them because they wanted power but avers against Barclay †Tom. 3. Oper. c. 6 7 8. p. 874 c. that the ancient Popes did not exert their Authority against the Emperours Constantius and Valens c. not because they had no right sed quod Reges c. but because without great damage the Church could not compel them but that the Popes did exert their Authority against Leo Isauricus Henry IV. and Childeric because they were able to compel them That Jusian was very powerful and attended with many armed Legions against which an unarm'd Multitude signified nothing that it was a falshood that all his Army were Christians and that St. Gregory affirms that the Church made use of no other Remedy but her Tears quia decrant vires because she wanted strength to resist the Tyranny So that pray answer your own Cardinal or else acknowledge that your Adversary speaks such Oracles as may be confirm'd from some other Topick besides the authority of the Assertor And now I shall put a period to these Remarks when I have minded you of two things which are your own Concessions 1. That * Protest Pop p. 6 7 17 18. upon the confideration of what is here charg'd the salvation of every Roman Catholick's Soul depends that their Eternity is at stake and that if Popery be guilty of what your Answerer says it is it cannot enter into your thoughts that there is any room for it or its Followers in Heaven That all our Martyrs died for a good Cause and are doubtless in Heaven That such Tenents bid open defiance to true Honesty and Christianity strike at the World's Redeemer and are impossible to be entertain'd by any who is one degree above a Beast These are the Conclusions I acknowledge of a wise a modest and a good man but then it behoves you seriously to consider whether this Charge be not true and whether your Adversary be not to be acquitted of wronging your Church of which the impartial Reader will be the most competent Judge and withal to think whether those School-men and other Writers of your Communion that do own all the Doctrines charg'd upon you be not by your own Verdict Men of no Honesty no Religion and but one degree above Beasts For by this Concession every unbyast person is able to satisfie himself which is the true Religion that which allows its Followers to assert the Doctrine of Deposing Princes to pay Religious Worship to Images to expect more than intercession from Saints Angels
Government till the Popes began to assert their Authority in opposition to general Councils And whereas * Refl p. 6. you say that your Adversary wrongs you and imposes upon his Reader by saying that you give your private sense and Opinion only of the Articles of your Religion contrary to the Bull of Pius 4. pleading in your own behalf that you expound the Canons of the Trent Council according to the Catechism set forth by the order of the Council and the Pope as if both of them allowed of it I must say that this cannot be for the Council never saw the Catechism and consequently could never approve that they never saw unless they also were bound to exercise an implicite Faith for though they ordered a * Sess 18. Sess 25. Catechism to be publisht having observ'd how much the Protestants prevailed against their Church by their constant Catechizing they left it wholly to the Pope to see it done and to give it authority and this the Author of the Prolegomena to the Paris Edition of that Catechism An. 1671. fairly acknowledges * Proleg 2. 3. affirming that after the dissolution of the Council An. 1563. several Fathers were summon'd to Rome to make this Catechism among whom the principal man was S. Barromée as you call him Archbishop of Millan we are also told that Cardinal Seripandus made the explanation of that Article one holy Catholick Church Michael Medina of another c. and that after it was finisht it was An. 1566. offered to Pope Pius 5. for his approbation who committed the examination of it to Cardinal Sirlet who taking to himself the assistance of other learned men examined both the matter and language of it after which the Pope gave his approbation and ordered it to be printed by Paulus Manutius confirming it by his Bulls And Possevine tells us that Gregory the 13. made this Catechism the rule by which he reformed the Canon Law so that if Refl p. 6. you interpret the Canons of the Council by the Catechism then the Canons depend upon the Catechism for their meaning and the sense of the Catechism upon the Pope who gave it suthority by which deduction it appears that your Rengion is still built not on the Council but on the Pope and perhaps it was for this reason that the Italian Bishops in their Synods as do the Synods of Roven and Aix in France call it not the Trent but the Roman Catechism for in truth so it is Against all which I know only this to be objected that the same men that made the Canons made the Catechism which is hardly true as to every particular person but to that I answer that I believe you will not averr that the same men have the same assistances in a Council and out of it so that were the assertion true yet the one being done in Council had the assistance of the Blessed Spirit as you hold to assist the Compilers which I presume you will not say that the same men had when out of the Council And if this be so then does not this make the Pope judge of Controversies of Faith For say you the Church must interpret Scripture and interpret Articles of Faith declared in Councils which Church must either be the Church Representative or the Pope now to hope for a general Council upon every emergent dispute in matters of Faith is a vain exspectation and if so you will do well to show us any other judge in such cases but the Pope unless every particular Church must judge for it self or every private person be his own director and then where is the interpretation of the Church Catholick Now if the Pope be the Judge how know we but the next Pope may require the belief of the Deposing Doctrine and expound the passages of former Councils that look that way as Articles of Faith what would you do in that case especially if the generality of the Ecclesiasticks should side with him as they did in the case of the Emperour Henry 4. and of our King John and in their Synods declare for the Ecclesiastical Monarchy and upon this supposition how know we but that although the present Pope hath confirm'd the Bishop of Condom's Book another Pope may condemn his mincing the Articles of Faith for we do not want Instances of Popes who have rescinded not only one anothers Acts and Ordinations but one anothers Decrees even in what they have called matters of Faith although I must confess what is very observable that though very many Popes have asserted the Ecclesiastical Power over Princes and their Right of Deposing them we never read of one of them that condemned the Doctrine You further say * Refl p. 7. that though the Trent Council mention the Aid and Assistance of the Saints and Angels over and above their Prayers yet it means no other Aid but that of their Prayers which seem to me not so agreeable to the words of the Council †Sess 25. which are That it is good and useful ad sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere to fly to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Now I cannot believe that the Fathers of that Council would have explain'd a particular act by two more general words nor when they had mention'd in particular Prayers would they I believe have afterward inserted in general their Aid and Assistances unless the Aid and Assistances were distinct from their Intercession and this is agreeable to your allowed Prayers in your Missal where you beg God * Dec. 6. in fest S. Nicol. ut ejus meritis precibus c. that by the merits and prayers of St. Nicolas you may be deliver'd from the flames of Hell And again †Jul. 6. Octav. SS Petri Pauli That by the merits of St. Peter and St. Paul you may attain the glories of Eternity where the Merits and Intercessions of the Saints are manifestly distinguisht as they are also in the Trent-Catechism * Part. 3. praecept 1. n. 24. where in the Margin there is this Note The Saints help us with their Merits and in the body of the Catechism these They always pray for the happiness of men and God confers many benefits upon us eorum merito gratiâ for their merits and sake and truly were we assured that the Guardian Angels could hear us I see no reason why we should scruple any more to pray them to protect us against the Devil and all other Enemies that may hurt us than to beg them to intercede for us to God and this also is agreeable to the Catechism †Vbi supr n. 18. Your next Reflection * p. 8. is about the merit of good works and your self and adversary are agreed that Can. 32. Sess 6. of the Council of Trent there is no mention of the qualification of Merit with respect to dependance on God's grace goodness and promises but both in
as the Maxim faith Lex currit cum praxi this is very plain from the usages of the generality of people in your Church And I am sure to confirm this your way of arguing that I have somewhere read though I cannot now readily light on the place that Scribanius affirms that Adoration of Saints and Images is very lawful because Abraham bowed down to the Children of Heth Gen. 23.7 Surrexit Abraham adoravit populum terrae filios viz. Heth. As it is in the Vulgar Latine And if I must not judge of any man's Idolatry by his outward actions which is your exception then I can never know any man to be an Idolater for a Heathen may fall down before one of his Idols and call upon it for help and yet say that his intention is just and that he only meant thereby to worship the True God which is the excuse made by the men of your Church After this * Refl p. 16. you compare the Power of the Pope to that of Civil Powers as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects but pray deal candidly Do you believe the Pope to have no more Authority in commanding Obedience than Civil Powers have Doubtless you do believe him to have more Authority or else why do so many of your Church refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance which yet you †Cath. princ sect 2. § 4. p. 3. allow to be a lawful Oath for you say they refuse it not for any unlawfulness in the Oath but because the Doctrine of Deposing Princes is therein called Heretical which they cannot allow of as the word is understood in a Catholick sense where you will allow me to observe that for the true notion of Heresie you depend on the Pope's Breve and so allow the Pope to be a Judge in matters of Faith for Heresie is contrary to the Faith and consequently the Deposing Power which the Pope hath determin'd is a matter of Faith and why do they follow the Papal Dictates in those things wherein by the Laws of God and Nations they are bound to submit to their Superiours Here also I observe that when * Popery misrepresented p. 46. you Treat of the Pope's Power you give your self a great latitude when you say That you never scruple to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due Circumstances and according to Law but never tell us what those Circumstances are as your Adversary well remarks which puts me in mind of somewhat which your * Tanner disp 1. de fid q. 4. dub 6. n. 263. Compton in 22. dis 22. § 5. Authors say concerning the Bull of Sixtus 5. prefixt to his Edition of the Vulgar Translation which was afterward recalled by Clement 8. That it was true the Bull was printed with the Bible but that it was not affixt to the Gates of St. Peter 's Church and in the Campo fiore so long as it ought to have been according to the Laws of the Romish Chancery as if such little things as those made Ecclesiastical Decrees more or less valid And now to shew you that your Answerer did not show his Learnlng in discovering that the Popes have dispenc't only with positive Institutions but not with the Moral Law with Lying and Forswearing as if he sought a knot in a Bull-rush and took Sanctuary in a Mystery as you term it by talking only in general terms what think you of the many Dispensations that have been given by former Popes to the Subjects of this and other Kingdoms to break their Oaths of Allegiance and Duty to their Soveraigns the relation between Princes and their Subjects being not grounded on their being Christians but on the Obligation of Civil Society so that a dispensing with the Oath of Allegiance is a dispensing with a Duty of Natural Religion which binds Subjects to obey their Superiours For either Subjection to Princes is a Duty of the Fifth Commandment as we reckon them Honour thy Father and Mother c. or it is not if it be not you will do well to assert it and we shall take care to prove it to be a Duty of that Commandment not only from the Authority of the Antients and from Reason but from the Authority of your own Catechism which †Part. 3. praec 4. § 3. 11.2 § 17 18. says That all persons who are possessors of power or dignity are included under the term Parents which is afterward explain'd by those who have Empire Magistracy or power committed to them who govern the Commonwealth But if to obey Princes be a duty of that Commandment then to dispence with that duty is to dispence with a Moral Law and to dispence with Oaths that bind to that duty is to give men a dispensation to be perjur'd and to forswear themselves And because you tell us * Pap. repraesent p. 47 48. That the Papist is taught in all Books that to Lye is a sin and to call God to witness to an untruth is damnable and that the practices of your Church are according to those praescriptions and that neither the Sacrament nor an Oath of Secrecy can excuse any man from perjury nor did you ever hear of any such thing from any Priests in Sermons or Confessions never read of them in your Books or Catechisms nor saw the practice of any of them in any of your Communion in which words there is some Art used for do you believe that any Priest of your Communion may reveal what he hears in confession against the Laws of your Church which bind him to Secrecy sub sigillo and when you tell us You never read of any such thing either in Books or Catechisms you mean I suppose Books of Devotion for in other Books you may undoubtedly read such Doctrines or else why should the Pope condemn them And when you say You never saw any such thing I hope you mean it never fell within the reach of your particular observation but if you read the account of Mr. Garnet and his accomplices you will find that they took the Sacrament as an Oath of Secrecy to carry on that Hellish design And withal subjoyn * Ib. p. 66. That the present Pope hath condemn'd all Equivocations and Mental Reservations under the penalty of Excommunication latae sententiae by his Decree March 2. 1679. We do still averr that your Church hath given dispensations for Lying and Forswearing and we know not but it may be done for the future For not to instance in the Jesuite Moralists †Filiut to 2. tr 25. n. 325. Sanches oper moral l. 3. c. 10. n. 7. 8. Filiutius Sanches c. their averring That if a man promises any thing and swears to it yet if he do not intend it he may without sin break that promise and that Oath so that the intention of the Swearer among these Casuists makes the Oath
valid as the intention of the Priest makes the Sacrament Some other of the same Order have given dispensations for the breach of the Moral Law * Theol. mor. to 1. l. 7 c. 20. n. 281 c. Escobar says positively virtute bullae potest votum non peccandi mutari i. e. that a man may break his Vow of not sinning by virtue of a Bull and he instances in the committing of Fornication he †Tr. 7. ex 4. n. 118. also says That a man may Lye even to his Confessor that a man may promise a general Confession and yet not confess all his mortal sins quia quamvis mentiatur id tamen parum refert ad Confessarii judicium i. e. for tho he Lye yet that hath little or no relation to the Judgment of his Confessor Now to these proofs probably you will object that this is not the Opinion of the Church but of private men to which I answer that had it not been the Opinion of your Church when those Books were written such men would never have been allowed to be Confessors which no man can be unless by the allowance of the Pope the Bishop of the Diocess c. though it is well known that the Jesuits then were and still are as Eminent for being Confessors as any other Order in your Communion and perhaps more and this notwithstanding their owning these damnable Doctrines as both you and I agree to call them Nor is it enough to say that the Book of Escobar after having been 39 times printed for an excellent Book which is an argument it was much bought and much valued was the 40th time printed only to be censured and condemn'd by the French Bishops which the poor Jansenists lookt upon to have been a condemnation both of the Author and his Opinions whereas they found at last to their cost that themselves were censured at Rome as the criminals nor that the present Pope being more wise and moderate than some of his Predecessors hath condemnd those Doctrines which vindicates us that we have not unjustly charg'd the men of your Church with such Doctrines among which propositions if you consult the 26 and 27 it is asserted That a man may either being askt or of his own accord say and swear that he did not do a thing which he really did and yet by vertue of a secret meaning be neither a lyar nor perjured And that this he may do as often as it is necessary or profitable to save his Body Honour or Estate or for any other good end For this is to acknowledge that your Church for a long time heretofore conniv'd at or allow'd of the breach of plain moral commandments since the man in authority that doth not prohibit the sin that he may hinder seems to injoyn it I also observe 1. That according to your Opinion whatever the Pope and Cardinals or other Bishops do either allow or condemn is not binding as to the Faith since the infallibility is lodg'd no where but in a general Council 2. If we look into the Censure there is nothing relating to the breach of Oaths given to Princes which is the highest trust in temporal matters and withal that the propositions are not condemn'd as contrary to the Laws of God and Nature as assertions that promote impiety and injustice but ut minimum tanquam scandalosas praxi perniciosas which is the manner of expression that Alexander 7. makes use of in his censure An. 1665. as at least scandalous and pernicious to practice and therefore to be condemn'd which whether this doth not look like a trick and juggle because you have encouraged me to use the word you your self shall be the judge for notwithstanding this censure whenever the scandal ceases which no one knows how soon that may be and they are judg'd no longer pernicious the propositions may be again owned and maintained 3. It is moreover observable that whereas former Popes have allowed these Tenents and Practices without condemning them who knows but the Successors of the present Pope may when they please licence anew the propositions which are now condemn'd 4. That some such thing hath been formerly done your * Ch. 26. m. p. 90. Adversary hath given you an instance which you did not think fit to meddle with nor to reflect upon out of Archbishop Abbot's †P. 11. Preface to his six Lectures where you will find that Pius 5. the same Pope who authoriz'd the Trent-Catechism gave his resolution to some of the English Missionaries that whenever any of them were called before a judge in England he might either refuse the Oath or Swear and answer sophistically potest Catholicus tractus coram haereticis vel recusare juramentum quod est prudentius vel sophisticè jurare sophisticè respondere suis interrogationibus And if you look into the Book called Foxes and Firebrands you will see there that Heath the Jesuit had a Bull with him dated An. 1. of the same Pius 5. allowing him to preach what Doctrine the Society of the Jesuits should order him for the dividing of the Protestants and not to instance in the dispensation given by Eugenius 4. and his Legate Card. Julian to Ladislaus King of Hungary to break his League with the Grand Signior for which he was so severely punisht in the unfortunate Battel of Varna and some other such examples the Examination of Mr. Garnet is a very plain proof of this our assertion for though some men call these little arts equivocation and mental reservation as if they were small or no sins yet you fairly and honestly condemn both alike and I know few wise and good men but look upon both as alike sinful and perhaps the equivocation the more so because the design is more cunningly laid to deceive And now I am talking of the Jesuits I think fit to mind you that whereas you seem to say * Pap. misrepre p. 69 70. that it is a scandal upon your Church to affirm that 't is more lawful to be drunk on a Fasting day than to eat flesh I have met with a Casuist †Escobar tr 1. ex 13. n. 74 75. of your commumunion who will not allow a man to eat Flesh on a Fasting day but as to drink gives great indulgence when he says that a man may drink Wine even in great quantity and if he happen to be drunk immoderatio potest temperantiam violare sed non jejun ium He may transgress the Laws of Temperance but he does not transgress the Laws of Fasting After this I will not decide the controversy between your Adversary and your self whether the story of S. Perpetua's Vision be seriously related or droll'd on who pay a great veneration to all Antient writings and can hardly think that a Martyr in view of an Eternal Crown of happiness would indulge to any thing that is light or deserves to be exposed but I have some things to
and upon some considerations those other Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government are obligatory i. e. upon condition tho not absolutely and withal you tell us as freely that if the Deposing Doctrine had been as evidently declared in former Councils as ever Purgatory or Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet with you it should be no Article of Faith Which way of arguing tho it be very generous seems to me to destroy your distinction of matters of Faith and matters of Discipline for if the Lateran Council had defin'd the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and requir'd the belief of it under the penalty of an Anathema as the Trent-Council did Purgatory and Transubstantiation then either you must have believ'd as the Council required or else in matters of Faith defin'd by a general Council a man may think himself not bound to believe them and if so I see no other reason why any other man may not as well refuse to believe Purgatory and Transubstantiation upon your own principles But if we allow of your distinction in your own sense I suppose you will hardly allow another man to make the like deductions and think himself at Liberty to follow his own dictates for if so then the half communion Priests Marriages Prayers in Latin the Popes Supremacy and many other such points being matters of Discipline every man by parity of reason may give himself a dispensation to believe contrary to the definitions of Councils if you allow your self a liberty to believe the Princes cannot be deposed though it were defin'd as matter of Faith in a general Council And it is remarkable that for the better understanding of this distinction you recommend * Refl p. 10. Card. Bellarmine to us who I am sure makes the Popes personal infallibility his superiority to a general Council and his power of deposing Princes matters of Faith But to allow of your distinction between matters of Doctrine and matters of Discipline and that in matters of Faith from the definitions of a general Council no man ought to vary but in matters of Discipline though defined by the same Cooncil a man is left at liberty pray tell me seriously is every man left at liberty or some men only If every man then the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine have as much right on their side as you have for the private spirit is not to be your guide in your Church any more than in ours and the assertors of that deposing power have Councils on their side and Popes and many private Doctors and if you tell me that you are not to follow your own prudence but the Doctors of the Church where you live in what a general Council hath not decided as matters of Faith then you must change Opinions with the climate you live in as Pere Cotton said of himself that in France he believ'd a general Council to be above the Pope but in Italy that the Pope was above a general Council for if you inquire in France whence I suppose you have your principles as well as your arguments they will tell you now that the Pope hath no superiority over Kings and that they have condemn'd Sanctarellus his book and burnt Mariana's but if you inquire in the Neighbouring Countries they will tell you the contrary it is well known what the belief of Italy is in this point and for Spain the Inquisition at Toledo Jan 10. 1683. condemn'd the late censure of the Sorbon and in the Low-countries D'Enghien a Professor of Louvaine hath written in defence of the Popes power over Princes against Natalis Alexander and positively averrs that the French Opinion is either Heresie or next to Heresie and that more Authors in your Church assert than deny the Deposing Doctrine the present Pope urging that and several other Universities to censure the Decrees of the French Assembly V. d'Engbien p. 549. c. Jucieu Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallel to 2. part 3. ch 3. An. 1682. Among whom it is observable that the University of Doway prayed the King of France their new Master to whom they were lately made Subjects that he would not force them to change their Doctrine lest they should be accused of taking up a new Theology with a new Soveraign and if you go into Hungary the Clergy there also condemn'd the Doctrine of the French Bishops as erroneous and schismatical Oct. 24. 1682. and when the Arch-Bishop of Gran the Primate of lower Hungary wrote against the Propositions of the said French Assembly an order was given to the Sorbon to censure the Arch-Bishop's Book which they refused to do but upon this condition that they might be allowed to condemn the propositions as if extracted out of some other Author which looks like a fine fetch of Sophistry And now †Pap. misrep p. 50. Where is three times the number who disown this Doctrine of deposing to them that own it as you say Whereas besides what hath been above mention'd the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance p. 13. says that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and even there of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Joh. Parisiensis Gerson c. And is it not an argument of the great care which your Church hath taken of the Persons and Interests of Princes which are sacred that every Writer of your Church whether Priest or Lay-man shall have liberty freely to publish his thoughts about the rights of Soveraigns and whether their Subjects or the Pope may depose them As if the Doctrine of Obedience to Superiors were such a slight indifferent thing that a man may with safety to his Religion and Conscience believe either that the Pope may or may not absolve Subjects from their Obedience A wise man would think that there were a greater necessity to define such a point upon which the safety of Kings and their Kingdoms depends than to define the precise manner of our blessed Saviour's presence in the Sacrament which had it never been defin'd while all Christians acknowledge him to be there might have been the occasion of much peace and happiness to Chistendom And if you plead that some men among us have asserted the Deposing Doctrine to this your * Ch. 20. p. 75. Adversary hath given you a full answer For until you can show that our Archbishops Bishops and inferior Clergy in Convocation have owned any such Doctrine or countenanc't such men in asserting it you say nothing to the purpose for we damn the Doctrine by whomsoever vented and our superiors are ready to censure the assertors of it if they durst appear openly Nor is it enough to say that this hath been done by the French
Clergy which is equivalent to an act of our Convocation for the agreement will not hold because the dispute is not between the English and the French Church but between the Church of England and the Roman-Catholick Church in this point now we averr that the whole Church of England damns and disowns the Doctrine of Deposing but you tell us that only a part of your Catholick Church doth so too whereas a far greater part own and defend it we assert that it is Heresie to own the Doctrine but you dare not give it that name lest you offend his Holiness Nay it is plain from experience that so far are the Pope and the great men of your Church from condemning the Deposing Doctrine that those few men among you that have been so just and stout as to assert the rights of Princes have fallen under the Church Censures of which I need quote no more instances than Widdrington of old and F. Barnes if he be yet alive and F. Welsh at this present Excommunicate for affirming it to be the Duty of Subjects to Swear Allegiance to their Prince and to defend him even against the Pope himself and all his Censures whereas we daily see the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine not only live and dye in your Communion without Censure but to be the most thriving men and the soonest preferr'd to dignities So very true is that saying of * Ostens err Suares c. 3. n. 1. p. 918. ad cali to 2. de rep Eccl. Marcus Aut. de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato that the Pope and his followers are not pleased with any thing so much as with the rendring the power of Kings vile weak and contemptible to which I will add and the exposing all who defend it And to convince you that you your self have not that venerable Opinion of the Majesty of Princes and the Duty which their Subjects owe them as you ought I cannot but observe that you not only tell us * Pap. repres p. 50. that it is a disputed point among your Doctors as if it were one of those School-points which you mention p. 72. which may be maintain'd this way or that way without any breach of Faith or injury to Religion but withal that whereas upon every other head of Doctrine or Discipline that you represent you are frequent in quotations out of holy Scripture to prove your assertions how pertinently applyed your Adversary hath consider'd upon this head of the deposing power as also when you treat of it more largely than of any other thing in your * Sect. 2. § 4. p. 3. Roman Catholick principles if that Book be yours you quote not one text against Rebellion you confess that Rebellion against a Prince is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation injurious to Soveraign power destructive to peace and Government and by consequence in his Majesties Subjects impious and damnable where I shall not take notice of your limitation of the proposition to his Majesties Subjects which hath no relation at all to the question whether the Subjects of an Heretical Prince as you account him may not take up Arms against him but why do not you speak out and say it is directly impious and damnable if you will not say it is Heretical being against an express Law of God that binds you to obey even a Nero or a Dioclesian * Rom. 13.5 not only for wrath but for conscience sake that tells you that †1 Sam. 26.9 no man upon any pretence whatsoever can lift up his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless For by your way of arguing if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation may be secured by such a Rebellion and you know the pretence of all Rebels is Liberty and Property and the Government duly setled peace promoted and the Soveraign power i. e. the Monarchy not injured though a particular Monarch may be and yet your Deposing Divines say that it is no injury to an Heretical Prince to depose him but a just Execution of the Laws then a Rebellion may be lawful But upon the principles of the Church of England if all these things could be secured yet no man can be a Rebel but he must be damn'd because the Laws of God forbid Rebellion taking up Arms against a Prince or endeavouring to depose him for as long as the word of God stands firm and the above-cited texts with many others are not blotted out of our Bibles we think it directly damnable and not only by consequence as you do to take Arms against our Soveraign let his Religion be what it will So that upon the whole I cannot but ask you while you have endeavoured to prove Purgatory Invocation of Saints c. from both Scripture and Fathers how happens it that in the defence of the Rights of Princes you quote neither especially when you cannot but remember that the Assertors of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy and his power over Princes are frequent in their doughty arguments from holy Scripture such as God made two great Lights behold here are two Swords Feed my sheep rise Peter kill and eat c. and is there no place to be found in all the sacred Oracles that forbids Rebellion and requires Obedience does not that inspired Book injoyn all Christians * Mat. 22.21 to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar 's and †1 Pet. 2.13 to submit to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake and if you are a Priest are you not requir'd to teach others so to do * Titus 3.1 to put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers to obey Magistrates and to be ready to every good work Is there also nothing in the Fathers that looks this way doth not Tertullian say that a Prince is inferiour only to God doth not Irenaeus aver that by the same power that men are made are Princes constituted Doth not Origen tell Celsus that among the Christians he should not find any act of sedition or tumult notwithstanding all their pressures and persecutions and doth not St. Ambrose say to the Emperor we intreat thee O Prince we do not fight not to multiply quotations And before I leave this head I cannot but remark that whereas the * Part. 3. praecep 4. § 11. Trent Catechism allows that Emperors and Magistrates are called Fathers and so are included in the Commandment Honour thy Father c. which is more than you acknowledge yet they quote no place of Scripture to make this good but the History of Naaman sic Naaman à famulis pater vocabatur where his Servants call him Father which does not look like fair dealing for the Example does not reach the Doctrine unless the Fathers of that Council praevaricate Naaman being a Subject to the King of Syria whereas they might have found without much seeking that * 1 Sam. 24.11 David calls Saul my Father who was his King and in
Christendom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his first Wife which the Pope and perhaps you would not allow to be lawful but withal the two most famous Vniversities of England which to us are equivalent to all those in France and the most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom when this Question was propos'd to them An aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliae Pont. Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero Whether the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom more than any other forreign Prelate The Answer was generally return'd in the Negative Besides who knows not that the generality of men speak as their hopes of Preferment lead them and that there was a great truth in that Observation of Aeneas Sylvius That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority and few for the Authority of a Council because a Council gave no Dignities nor Benefices but the Pope did And I should be glad to see the present French Clergy deal with the present Pope when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes as their Predecessors did with Gregory the Fourth who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperour Lewis the Debonaire and his Sons promoted the Rebellion and was suspected to come with a designe to excommunicate the Emperour and his Bishops for they protested †Ant. Anon vit Ludovici Pii Si excommunicaturus ad veniret excommunicatus abiret i. e. That if the Pope came to excommunicate them they would excommunicate him for acting contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons And at last we have Advice given us * Nouvel de la rep de Lettres An. 1685. p. 716 c. That June 26. An. 1683. at Clermont in Auvergne the Jesuits publickly maintain'd four Theses in opposition to the decision of the French Clergy An. 1682. 1. That although they call their Theses Explanations of the Doctrine of the Gallican Church the first Article of the Decree did not diminish the special Authority of the Church over Kings and Princes Christian 2. That the second Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church 3. That by the third Article they intended not to take from the Pope the Soveraign Power of dispensing with Canons c. 4. That by the fourth Article they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibility in matters of Faith Which Theses as far as I know yet pass uncensured And the Jansenist who goes under the name of René Clerc Tonsuré à l'Archevesque de Paris in his System of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracted from their Memoires proves that the French Bishops are not such Friends to Crowned heads as they would appear to be and that they take the Power from the Pope onely to place it in themselves affirming That the French King cannot be judged by a Council except the French Bishops be there implying that then he may be judged as if the last resort were to them and that the Declarations of the Pope against their King ought not to be obeyed till the Kingdom consent thereunto so that if the Kingdom consent the Deposition is lawful with other such Positions And the same Author affirms That whereas some English Gentlemen Decemb. 1. An. 1679. addressing themselves to some Doctors of the Sorbon had inclined them to decide for the lawfulness of our Oath of Allegiance the Archbishop of Paris sent to them that it was the King's pleasure they should not decide it which makes it plain that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholick Religion and that an Heretical Prince hath not the same Right with the most Christian And though since that time †V. Caus Valesian append 6. the Sorbon An. 1686. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance with the word Heretical in it yet this is onely an honest acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes by one Colledge of learned men while in the same year the Jesuits at Gaunt in their Provincial Congregation expresly condemn'd the taking of the said Oath And who knows but the Sorbonists of the next Age may do as their Predecessors of the last did in the time of the League contradict all that hath lately been asserted Nor does the Condemnation signifie any thing in your sence since even a General Council cannot define any thing to be heretical unless it be de fide and the belief required under the penalty of an Anathema and when all this is done if the matter be of Discipline or Government you profess you may safely refuse to obey the Council To which Observation I will adde one Remark more That though Monsieur * Apologie pour là Clergie Arnald hath written in vindication of the French Church that they never owned the Deposing Doctrine yet if he be the Author of the Jesuits Morals for though Monsieur Paschal his Nephew have the honour of the Book yet all men be lieve that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it he hath not dealt so ingenuously in this case as he might for when he quotes so many Passages out of the Moralists of the Society what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths to Lye and Equivocate and to break all Trusts Vows and Promises he never so much as touches on the many palpable Propositions in their Books which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes I have little more to subjoyn but this That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church I have observed in that Council some things how cunningly soever the Decrees were contrived and how warily soever they were penn'd which seem not to accord so well with your Catholick Principles For instance 1. †Sess 22. de Sacrif miss can 6. The Council says Si quis dixerit c. If any man shall say that the Canon of the Mass contains any Errours in it let him be Anathema And in another place * cap. 4. the Mass is said to be free from all Errour Now if it be so I suppose some of your Doctrines must fall to the ground being confuted by your Mass As 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation for after the Consecration the Priest calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine Offerimus panem sanctem vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae And afterward desires God to look down upon it as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchizedeck And prays That those things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven For how are these Expressions suited to Christ's Corporeal Presence 2. All the Prayers of the Mass relate to a Communion and so are a consutation of private Mass and yet the Priest in a private Mass when no one but himself receives says Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris c. That as many of us