Dioclesian though he set up Inscriptions ob deletum nomen Christianum Constantius or Valens but only for a Julian whose Apostasie and Wickedness is fingular in Ecclesiastical History and the like of whom in all probability can never be expected again Nay Sir this disloyal principle will not let Christian snbjects pray for the death of a Julian though he tyranizes never so much over their bodies goods and liberties if he do not blaspheme Christ and persecute the Church of God with a diabolical spite against the evidence of Divine Miracles It leaves the Christian subjects of all Tyrants but such as are Julians indeed under the obligation of praying for them according to the Apostle's direction and the practice of the Primitive Christians which the Author of Jovian hath so much insisted upon and commended and his Prince must be a Julian indeed a Julian in all circumstances before he can be so much as tempted to pray against him for he doth not say that he would pray but that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed And it had been happy for the Christian world if the chief Pastors and Bishops and Councils and Doctors and Casuists of that which you call the Catholick Church had never taught any principle more disloyal than this Now Sir I beseech you to tell me how much disloyalty there is in this principle which secures all Infidel Heretical and Apostate Princes against the Prayers of their Christian subjects unless they be in all degrees as bad as Julian and secures even Julians themselves against all resistance and how much disloyalty there is in a man who by his principles will pray for all Tyrants but such an one as Julian was according to the Author of Jovian Sir I would to God you and your Doctors would declare as much Loyalty as this and I desire you to tell me that suppose a Roman Catholick Prince should become a Julian indeed and take up the methods of that Apostate whether you think his Roman Catholick Subjects would be tempted to pray for his destruction and if they should do so and no more do you think they would transgress any rule of Christian Loyalty Answer me these two questions sincerely and possitively and if your answer to the last be affirmative give your arguments for your Opinion and I dare engage the Author of Jovian shall submit to your reasons or answer them For I am confident he hath no fondness for his Opinion to which it is evident he was led by his great Charity for the Bishop and Church of Nazianzum And though in apologizing for them he hath asserted that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed yet he is so Loyal a Person that I believe he would overcome the temptation and only forbear praying for him as having sinned the sin unto death After which Apology you will suffer me to tell you that your Reflections will hardly be called an answer to the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome because in them you have not said a word to some material points of Controversy between you and us stated in that Book out of the Trent-Council and Catechism as if either the right were on your Adversaries side which I suppose you will be loath to acknowledge or his reasonings were unworthy your second thoughts which I suppose you will not own and if you do few wise men will acquiesce in your Sentiments for you wholly praetermit reflecting upon the Chapters of the Eucharist of Indulgences of satisfaction ex condigno of keeping the Scriptures and Prayers in an unknown Tongue of communion in one kind and of adding the Apocrypha and traditions to the holy writ with some others which being some of the most material points in difference between your Church and ours will either deserve some new thoughts or you will allow us to say that that book cannot be thought an answer which in silence passes by or leaps over so many weighty things that make up so much of the Controversy You assure us * Refl p. 5. that the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World over as to its definitions of Faith though it be not wholly received in some places as to its other decrees which relate only to discipline Where I shall not ask what you mean by the Catholick World for I am well assured that you mean all Christians of the Roman persuasion which is a very narrow notion of the Catholick World excluding all other Christians from being Members of the Catholick Church but those of your own Opinion so that neither the Greek Church nor the rest of the Eastern Christians are in your sense any more Catholicks than the Church of England and the rest of the Protestants though antiently any man or Church of men were called Catholick because they agreed with the whole Catholick Church in Faith but now the holy Catholick Church of Christ must lose its name if it agree not with the particular Church of Rome but I would willingly know of you whence any particular Church hath that power that it may receive a general Council as you call that of Trent in some things and not in others I thought that the highest authority of the Church on Earth had been a general Council and if so why its definitions in matters of discipline should not be received and observed by all particular Churches is to me a great question for I cannot but see that one of these two things must follow from your Opinion either that Councils and Popes are fallible for if they are deceived in one Opinion such as that of the power of the Church to depose Princes why may they not be deceived in another such as Transubstantiation or Purgatory or else that they are infallible in greater matters only and then to me it is a great wonder that they should erre in things of less moment and I never yet understood but that if general Councils could decide matters of Doctrine but that they had also as great a power in matters of discipline for if it be a lawful preface to the decrees of all Councils as your men say Visum est spiritui sancto nobis then the holy spirit is doubtless their guide in matters of discipline as well as in matters of Doctrine I am sure that the Antient Councils took upon them to decide both by their authority and all Christians thought themselves oblig'd to follow their dictates so the first general Council of the Apostles bound up all Christians from eating things strangled and Blood so the Council of Nice determin'd the precise day when Easter should be celebrated as well as the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and so also the second general Council made Constantinople a Patriarchate as well as Rome to go no further And I find no persons disputed those constitutions though only in matters of Discipline and
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
and upon some considerations those other Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government are obligatory i. e. upon condition tho not absolutely and withal you tell us as freely that if the Deposing Doctrine had been as evidently declared in former Councils as ever Purgatory or Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet with you it should be no Article of Faith Which way of arguing tho it be very generous seems to me to destroy your distinction of matters of Faith and matters of Discipline for if the Lateran Council had defin'd the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and requir'd the belief of it under the penalty of an Anathema as the Trent-Council did Purgatory and Transubstantiation then either you must have believ'd as the Council required or else in matters of Faith defin'd by a general Council a man may think himself not bound to believe them and if so I see no other reason why any other man may not as well refuse to believe Purgatory and Transubstantiation upon your own principles But if we allow of your distinction in your own sense I suppose you will hardly allow another man to make the like deductions and think himself at Liberty to follow his own dictates for if so then the half communion Priests Marriages Prayers in Latin the Popes Supremacy and many other such points being matters of Discipline every man by parity of reason may give himself a dispensation to believe contrary to the definitions of Councils if you allow your self a liberty to believe the Princes cannot be deposed though it were defin'd as matter of Faith in a general Council And it is remarkable that for the better understanding of this distinction you recommend * Refl p. 10. Card. Bellarmine to us who I am sure makes the Popes personal infallibility his superiority to a general Council and his power of deposing Princes matters of Faith But to allow of your distinction between matters of Doctrine and matters of Discipline and that in matters of Faith from the definitions of a general Council no man ought to vary but in matters of Discipline though defined by the same Cooncil a man is left at liberty pray tell me seriously is every man left at liberty or some men only If every man then the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine have as much right on their side as you have for the private spirit is not to be your guide in your Church any more than in ours and the assertors of that deposing power have Councils on their side and Popes and many private Doctors and if you tell me that you are not to follow your own prudence but the Doctors of the Church where you live in what a general Council hath not decided as matters of Faith then you must change Opinions with the climate you live in as Pere Cotton said of himself that in France he believ'd a general Council to be above the Pope but in Italy that the Pope was above a general Council for if you inquire in France whence I suppose you have your principles as well as your arguments they will tell you now that the Pope hath no superiority over Kings and that they have condemn'd Sanctarellus his book and burnt Mariana's but if you inquire in the Neighbouring Countries they will tell you the contrary it is well known what the belief of Italy is in this point and for Spain the Inquisition at Toledo Jan 10. 1683. condemn'd the late censure of the Sorbon and in the Low-countries D'Enghien a Professor of Louvaine hath written in defence of the Popes power over Princes against Natalis Alexander and positively averrs that the French Opinion is either Heresie or next to Heresie and that more Authors in your Church assert than deny the Deposing Doctrine the present Pope urging that and several other Universities to censure the Decrees of the French Assembly V. d'Engbien p. 549. c. Jucieu Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallel to 2. part 3. ch 3. An. 1682. Among whom it is observable that the University of Doway prayed the King of France their new Master to whom they were lately made Subjects that he would not force them to change their Doctrine lest they should be accused of taking up a new Theology with a new Soveraign and if you go into Hungary the Clergy there also condemn'd the Doctrine of the French Bishops as erroneous and schismatical Oct. 24. 1682. and when the Arch-Bishop of Gran the Primate of lower Hungary wrote against the Propositions of the said French Assembly an order was given to the Sorbon to censure the Arch-Bishop's Book which they refused to do but upon this condition that they might be allowed to condemn the propositions as if extracted out of some other Author which looks like a fine fetch of Sophistry And now †Pap. misrep p. 50. Where is three times the number who disown this Doctrine of deposing to them that own it as you say Whereas besides what hath been above mention'd the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance p. 13. says that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and even there of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Joh. Parisiensis Gerson c. And is it not an argument of the great care which your Church hath taken of the Persons and Interests of Princes which are sacred that every Writer of your Church whether Priest or Lay-man shall have liberty freely to publish his thoughts about the rights of Soveraigns and whether their Subjects or the Pope may depose them As if the Doctrine of Obedience to Superiors were such a slight indifferent thing that a man may with safety to his Religion and Conscience believe either that the Pope may or may not absolve Subjects from their Obedience A wise man would think that there were a greater necessity to define such a point upon which the safety of Kings and their Kingdoms depends than to define the precise manner of our blessed Saviour's presence in the Sacrament which had it never been defin'd while all Christians acknowledge him to be there might have been the occasion of much peace and happiness to Chistendom And if you plead that some men among us have asserted the Deposing Doctrine to this your * Ch. 20. p. 75. Adversary hath given you a full answer For until you can show that our Archbishops Bishops and inferior Clergy in Convocation have owned any such Doctrine or countenanc't such men in asserting it you say nothing to the purpose for we damn the Doctrine by whomsoever vented and our superiors are ready to censure the assertors of it if they durst appear openly Nor is it enough to say that this hath been done by the French
truth the title was so proper to Princes that the Kings of the Philistim were always called Abimelech i.e. my Father the King by a general name whatever their proper name was Now I am loath to judg that those Fathers made use of an instance of a Subject called Father by his Servants that the Example might limit the Doctrine to subjection to inferiour Magistrates when had they inserted the Example of David it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Soveraign Princes And whereas the Fathers of the same Council who were concern'd in the Catechism use to quote such places of the Antients as they thought pertinent to the Subject treated of they having * Ibid. § 17. quoted Rom. 13.1 to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers confirm the Doctrine only by the testimony of Tertullian who it is true speaks plain and to the purpose omitting St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and others on the place who have told the World that by every Soul in St. Paul are meant Priests and Bishops as well as Laymen nay the Pope himself as says St. Bernard but this probably would have unriddled the Mystery and exposed a Doctrine which they were not willing to disown the Catechism like the Canons leaving every man in many such things a great latitude so that in short I desire you to answer this Question Either Rebellion is against a Moral Law or not if it be then the Pope cannot dispence with it and then how happens it that so many things of lesser moment were decided in the Trent Council while this was forgotten or past by If it be not against a Moral Law then by your own principles the Pope may dispence with it and what then becomes of all Obedience when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. shall fill the Chair And tho the Council would not condemn the Deposing Doctrine yet why had not the Authors of the Index Expurgatorius censured such dangerous Books for if we may judg of the sense of the Trent Council by its Catechism tho made after the Council broke up why may we not judg of its sense by the Index which was ordered to be made at the same time c. by the same men who composed the Catechism In which Index more than a few passages are expunged that interfere with the Papal Grandeur but not one poor sentence condemn'd that is destructive to the Rights of Princes Here also pray suffer me to mind you of a bold assertion of a private man as you are and which I am sure as things are now you cannot accomplish * Introd p. 11. for you undertake that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such principles and practices i. e. in your own words of such principles as destroy the peace of Nations with Fires and Massacres and rob Soveraigns of their Crowns and Subjects of their Liberties for I am sure there was a time when all Roman-Catholicks were not of that mind when the League was rampant against Henry 3. and 4. of France in which one of them actually fell and by the principles of which the other also was murthered not to mention what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5. and our King John suffered and when the Parisian and Irish Massacres were sufficient proofs to the contrary Nor is it possible even now to make good your promise since I have told you already what the belief of the Spanish Netherland and Hungarian Churches are in this point besides what the Italians hold Now against all this Doctrine you have nothing to object but that this Doctrine hath been condemn'd * Pap. misrepr p. 51. in France by the Ecclesiasticks there and by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictiers c. all which Universities are within the one Kingdom of France so that tho there be no need of considering the Argument because it is only the sentiment of one National Church against the rest of what you call Catholick Christendom if I make it appear that the French Church hath not always been of this belief and perhaps is not so now then all that you say upon that Topick will be far from proving your assertion while withal I profess that if what I am about to say doth not reach so far as a conviction and be only a well-meant Essay yet the cause which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it because the main position about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments and authorities And to evince this I shall pursue the method which the famous * Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallele part 3. ch 3. Monsieur Jurieu hath laid down adding here and there my own observations If therefore this be and always hath been the Doctrine of the Gallican Church then you have stated your argument aright but if it hath not been always their belief then the present Gallican Church may be as well mistaken as the former and if so where is its authority besides if the French Church do condemn the Deposing Doctrine and all the rest of the Catholick World do assert it then the Tradition is not on the side of the French Church though never defin'd as a matter of Faith by a general Council Now to prove that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church I shall produce one remarkable instance and that is the deposition of Childerick and the introducing of Pepin the first King of the second race into his Throne and I shall briefly tell the story out of the French Historian * Girard du Haillan de l'Estate c. l. 1. m.p. 66 c. that I have now by me who relates that Pepin after his Conquest of the Sarazins did so honour and reverence the Clergy and repair'd so many of their Temples that had been ruined that the most holy men of that time thought him a Saint whereupon aiming at the Crown and finding nothing stick in his way but the Oath which the French had given to their King he sent to the Pope whom he had before obliged for his dispensation Pepin having already gained the greatest part of the Nobility Ecclesiastick's and Commons to his party the Pope readily granted a dispensation the Clergy as well as the Nobility and Commons acquiesc't in what was done acknowledging Pepin for their rightful King and thrusting Childerick into a Monastery and so do Paulus Aemilius and others also relate the story and among them Cardinal Perron and * Ch. Childeric 3. An. 751. Monsieur Mezeray says that this was very likely done in that general Assembly held in March An. 751. The Bishops being there in great numbers and Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz in the head of them who declared to the rest of the Assembly the validity of the Pope's answer and he intimates the reason why they complied so readily with Pepin because he gave
dictum And this I write to you because you appear the Advocate of your Party while I acknowledge that I make these Proposals onely as a private Person though I doubt not but all the Prelates of the Church of England would rejoyce to see so much done towards the healing of the Breaches of Christendom Amen And here I thought to have put a period to this Essay had not your Vindication of your Reflections come to my hands upon which I cannot but bestow a few Remarks while your learned Adversary will take care of a more full Reply In which among other things you undertake to †Protest Popery c. p. 16. prove by several instances That our Church is guilty of mis-representing yours because it impeaches the Papists of Idolatry in the worshipping of Images and we acknowledge that she does so impeach you but withal we affirm that there is a great difference between what is spoken by any man or any Society of men in a Homily or Sermon and what is thetically laid down as an Article or maintain'd in disputation you your selves as well as we being often forc'd to make use of this distinction to salve many Sayings of the Fathers that they were spoken not Dogmatically but Rhetorically but we need not depend on this Answer for our Homily does not speak of the Canons of your Councils but of the received Opinions and Practices of your Church Now that 't is a current Opinion among many of your School-men That the Image ought to have the same Worship with the Prototype I have already proved out of Cardinal Bellarmine and that the Practice of the Common People in this case was very disallowable and much like the Idolatry of the Heathen as I understand the Trent-Council is the Complaint in †Sess 25. de Imag. general of those Fathers and of some other of your Writers in particular so that herein the Homily speaks but the sence of your own Authors and with Justice censures the Usages of the People of your Communion And if what your * Ibid. Council says be true That the Idolatry of the Heathens did consist in their putting their trust in their Idols he who considers how much more Worship there is paid to the same Images of the Blessed Virgin at Loretto Monferrat c. than to other her Images elsewhere which can as well put the People in mind of the Mother of God as those famous Shrines will be perswaded that the generality of your Communion put their trust also in the Image as did the Heathens in their Idols Now to vindicate your Church from Idolatry in this case though you †Protest Pop. p. 33. acknowledge That you do give Religious Honour to Images yet you say That that Honour cannot be called Idolatry unless it makes a God of that to which it is paid But does not the Second Commandment as we reckon them forbid the worshipping of the true God by an Image And do not the worst of Idolaters say That they do not worship the Image but the God who is represented by it Doth not Celsus say so much on the behalf of the Gentile Idolaters to Origen * Lib. 7. p. 373. Orig. contr Cels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who but a perfect Fool thinks an Image made of Stone or Timber of Brass or Gold to be a God c. And for the Jews when they fell into Idolatry in the Wilderness by worshipping the Golden Calf they onely worshipt it as a representation of the true God for the Feast that was set apart for it is called †Exod. 32.5 a Feast held to Jehovah which is the incommunicable Name of the onely true God And the like might be said of the Calves in Dan and Bethel But perhaps you are of the opinion of some men of Eminence in your own Communion and whose Books have never been that I know of condemn'd who think that the Worship of the Golden Calf was not Idolatry for so Moncoeus in his Aaron Purgatus exprefly affirms as * c. 7. p. 49. Greg. de Valentia in his Apologetic for Idolatry a bold Title for a Book written by a Christian Priest argues from 1 Pet. 4.3 that because the Apostle doth forbid unlawful Idolatries abominable Idolatries as our Translation renders it that therefore there is some Idolatry that is lawful which is that of the Worship of Images But you object †Protest Pop. p. 34. that we our selves are by this Argument guilty of Idolatry by bowing to the Altar and to the Name of Jesus and by kneeling at the Sacrament Whereas I must tell you that we bow not to the Altar but towards it toward the East where the Christian Altar always used to stand and toward which part of Heaven the Primitive Christians used to direct even their private Devotions nor do we bow to the Name but at the Recital of the Name of our blessed Saviour so that we pay no Religious Worship to the Altar or to the Syllables of that Venerable Name as you confess you do to Images and when we kneel we profess we do not worship the Sacramental Elements nor the Body and Bloud of Christ hid under the Accidents of Bread and Wine but we kneel because then we pray and we worship God to whom we direct our Prayers so that these actions are not external acts of Adoration to any thing that is seen or heard but onely to God But by this way of arguing I perceive the Cause wants assistance when you borrow Arguments from our Dissenters to assault our Church with for these are their little Objections that have been so often hist off the Stage You further tell us That it is the intention of the Person who pays the Worship that makes the Worship either idolatrous or lawful And if so pray tell me if a Christian in the East Indies should go into a Pagod and bow down before one of their Images and pay it in all respects the same outward Adoration that its most bigotted Votaries offer it and at the same time intend his Worship towards the blessed Trinity does this man by virtue of his intention escape the guilt of Idolatry And I put you this Question the more willingly because some of your Jesuits have determined it in the affirmitive and acquit the votary of Idolatry and I would willingly know your Opinion for if you consult the †Let. 5. p. 61. Edit Lat. Colon. An. 1658. Provincial Letters the Author of them will tell you that the Jesuits in China and other places of the Indies taught the People that they might publickly worship the Idols of the Country Cacin choan and Keumfucum so they directed this Adoration of theirs intentionally to the Image of our blessed Saviour hid under their Cloaths and that this is no Calumny the same Author says * P. 62. That the Practice was complain'd of and censured at Rome July 9. An. 1646.
But notwithstanding that Censure if your way of arguing be good the Practice is still lawful Now to evade your Adversaries Argument That intention cannot alter the nature of actions which are determin'd by either Divine or Humane Law you shift the force of the reasoning by making a Plea from the same Principle for the Quakers and probably it is well done of you to turn Advocate for a Sect which owes its Original to the Jesuits and other Emissaries of your own Church because if intention cannot alter the nature of actions determined by Law no Oaths can be lawful nor the payment of civil Honour allowed of because the Scripture says Swear not at all and let your communication be yea yea nay nay and you shall not be called Master c. And the Answer would signifie something if you could shew us any place of Scripture where such Worship hath been paid to Images notwithstanding the divine determination to the contrary as we can shew you for the allowance of those things which you object for we there read that notwithstanding the prohibition the Apostles did allow of the Title Lord or Sir or Master for St. Philip exprest no dislike when †Johan 12.21 the Greeks gave him that appellation nor St. Paul and Silas * Acts 16.30 when the Jaylor at Philippi treated them with the same Language And by Swear not at all c. the Holy Writ onely forbids vain and rash Swearing and Perjury and double Dealing c. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths which says the Apostle are the end of all strife After which you will do well to shew any place of Holy Scripture that countenances the Worship of Images and we shall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reason for it is not the intention of the Person commanded but of the Lawgiver that makes an action lawful for did a mans own intention legitimate his actions that are otherwise forbidden by any Law divine or humane then a man may do evil that good may come there of expresly against St. Paul a man may commit Murther Sacriledge and every other gross sin as some men have done and plead for himself that he intended nothing but Reformation and the advancement of Religion as the men in our Saviour's time persecuted the Apostles to death with an intention to do God service but the intention of the Lawgiver when made known is that which legitimates the actions of the subject either in matters purely civil or in matters of Religion of which latter sort is the Worship of Images which I shall acknowledge to be lawful when you shall have shewn that it is agreeable to the intention of our supreme Law-giver But the further management of this Argument I leave to your other Antagonist while I observe that †Protest Pop. p. 25. you shift him off with no other Answer but this That a Question or two is in his opinion a confutaof the Reflecter because you are ask'd Whether all your Representations are conformable to the sense of the Trent Council and Catechism which I have already proved they are not particularly in the Doctrine of the assistance of Angels and Saints which you say consists onely in their Prayers while the Council and Catechism besides their Intercession mention their Merits and Aid And whereas when he objects against the Pope's licensing the Bishop of Condom 's Book that Canus with judgment avers That whatever the Pope determines privately maliciously and inconsiderately is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See you rejoyn that the Pope's private determination of any Opinion doth not hinder it from being the judgment of the Apostolick See unless it be also determined maliciously and inconsiderately I cannot understand Canus in that sence but that whatever is determined either privately or maliciously or inconsiderately is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for if this be not so then a private determination how malicious soever it can be so it be upon due consideration may be the judgment of the Apostolick See And who knows but the present Pope's allowance of the Bishop of Condom's Book may be the product of malice of his spleen against the French Hereticks as he calls them for whose Extirpation he hath so solemnly by his Letters thanked the French King And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgment why may not Favour Affection or Fear when they interpose in such Determinations render them equally invalid And if so why may not the reason of the present Pope's not censuring the French Clergie in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes be his fear lest that Victorious Prince should either set up a Patriarch of his own in France or by an Army establish his Right in Italy and make the Pope depend on him for his Election But to confirm the Authority of the Bishop of Condom's Book you say That it was printed at Rome translated into divers Languages and attested by the Pope and divers Cardinals c. Will you allow of all that hath been publish'd for Catholick Doctrine at Rome with the same or the like approbation Were not Cardinal Baronius's Annales to instance onely in one Book printed at Rome in the Press belonging to the Vatican-Palace Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epistle in commendation of the Author and the Work Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals Was it not translated into Italian German Polish and other Languages and the two first Tomes of it into Arabick Now if such a Recommendation be sufficient to make known the Sentiments of your Church then how comes it to pass that those Ecclesiastical Annals are not received in France in those things relating to Regal Power nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily And if you do allow of the Annals you must not onely interfere with the fore-named Churches of your Communion but you must also acknowledge what you will be loath to own that the Pope hath a right to dispose of his Majesties Kingdoms as in truth that Cardinal hath intituled him to almost all the other Kingdoms of the World by name It is also observable that the Bishop of †P. 50. Edit Noviss Condom when he speaks of the Pope mentions the Primacy but for the Deposing Doctrine he says It is not necessary to speak of it adding in general That all Catholicks acknowledge a Head establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which those who love Concord among Brethren and Ecclesiastical Vnanimity will most willingly acknowledge By which expression every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point and it is no wonder that the Pope though he does believe his own Power of Deposing Princes doth approve of this Book for the Phrase of conducting the whole Flock of Christ is as easily to be construed as pasce oves meas to signifie the Deposing of Princes whenever the
IMPRIMATUR Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc Lond. a Sacris April 6. 1686. REMARKS UPON THE REFLECTIONS Of the Author of Popery Misrepresented c. ON HIS ANSWERER Particularly as to the Deposing Doctrine In a Letter to the AUTHOR of the Reflections Together with some few Animadversions on the same Author's Vindication of his Reflections LONDON Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1686. SIR IT is not any distrust of the Abilities of your former Adversary which have sufficiently made him known nor an overweening Opinion of my own undertaking that hath engaged me in this Controversie but a design to serve the Interests of Truth and to assure you that you have not yet convinc't the World that your Character of your Religion as you represent it is so just and exact or your Reasonings so cogent but there is something perhaps material and of weight to be objected to both and I shall follow the Method that * Refl p. 1. you profess to like to reason as closely as I can with all moderation and calmness without making any Reflections but such as cannot be avoided when I treat of some Subjects among which I dare undertake none shall personally concern you tho you will allow me to tell you you have not so carefully followed your own praescriptions when you impeach our †Refl p. 2. Church in general reckoning her Books of Homilies among those Books that have misrepresented Popery and in particular charge your learned and modest Adversary with the * P. 3 4 18. same crime and too liberally bestow your Characters on him charging him †Refl p. 6. with wronging you and imposing upon his Reader with * P. 16 17 18. Sophistry with understanding neither Law nor Logick and with being insincere and using tricks but probably the Answer hath made you angry and men in a passion cannot forbear hard Language I do acknowledge that it is severe dealing to pick up all the extravagant passages in private Authors and to father them on the whole Church no Church of whatever denomination being without both evil men as to their Morals and opinionative men as to their Tenets but withal I must say that it is one thing to cite Quotations from all sorts of Authors and another thing to cite Men of Eminence and Authority in your Church and such whose Station Learning and Repute were as great as ever the Bishop of Condom's or Monsieur Veron's whom yet you rely upon as you also sometimes quote other men of your Communion to confirm your Opinions whose Books also have come into the World with Licence and Priviledge and Commendations of the Authors and whose Assertions have never been condemned after they have been publisht and some of them probably Members of that very Trent-Councel which you stick to for the Articles of your Faith and in matters of fact which cannot be forreign to the Controversies between your Church and ours there is a necessity of having recourse to such Writers as I shall be often forc't to do in these Remarks And that I may consider every thing methodically that belongs to this Topick I cannot but observe your * Refl p. 13 14. Reflections on the Opinions of some Eminent men in our Communion which say you we are unwilling to have charg'd upon our Church For the first which you charge on your Antagonist That good works of justified persons are not free I must say that either I misunderstand your Adversary or you do misrepresent him for when †Ch. 6. p. 43. Ed. 3. he says That what we pretend to merit by must be our own free act for these are his words and not as you quote them citing for it the Authority of the Jesuit Coster's Enchiridion and adds That therefore the works of justified persons cannot be said to be their own free acts because the power of doing them depends upon Divine assistance and being done by the power of God's grace which could never have been done without it cannot be for that reason truly meritorious he is so far from giving an account of the Doctrine of our Church that he proves from the principles of your own that if good works be done only by the Grace of God and made acceptable only through the merits of Christ they cannot be truly said to be meritorious because not the free acts of them that do them When Mr. Thorndyke allows of prayers for the Dead though you quote no Book of his for that Assertion he does no more than in some sense our Church allows when it prays for a joyful Resurrection in her Office at Funerals and whatever the good man might add else of his own was but his private Opinion as is also his notion that the Eucharistical Sacrifice is truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross propitiatory and impetratory as well as the other which I take upon your credit not having the Book by me out of which you cite the Opinion however we assert that Mr. Thornayke never owned Prayers for the Dead as you do but in the sense of some of the Antients for he denied Purgatory upon which you ground your Prayers for the Dead and that our Blessed Saviour is really present in the Sacrament is the Doctrine and Belief of the Church of England and did not you limit that Real Presence to Transubstantiation there would be no difference between you and us in that point I cannot but observe your disingenuous manner of treating the Author of Jovian in charging him with a disloyal principle who hath given as many Instances of his Loyalty in the most difficult times as any man of his station and were there no other the writing of that excellent Treatise in that critical juncture is an undeniable evidence of it when by defending the Succession and the Doctrine of Non-resistance he acquired the ill will and displeasure of all the disloyal Party Why did not you nor any other of the English Roman Catholicks write then in the defence of those Doctrines against the disloyal and rebellious Doctrines of Julian The Press was open for you and perhaps there was reason for your not answering of them * Praefat. Billarm ante tractat de potestate summi Pont. adversus G. Barclay because the generality of the Writers of your Church agree with that Author in his principles of disloyalty Well but you have found out one disloyal principle in Jovian but are you sure of it It is not your saying It is a disloyal principle that makes it to be so and therefore I must desire you and those that perhaps are misled by you to read the Book from p. 139. to p. 152. out of which you have cited the passage and then you will find it to be such a disloyal principle Theod. on Rom. 13.1 as will not allow any Christian subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray for the death of a Nero
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
them a great share in the Government It is true what our King †Declaratio pro jureregio p. 19. James observes that the elder Historians Ado Viennensis c. say that the States had dethron'd Childerick and only got the Popes consent to it and confirmation of it and so does * Vbi supr Mezeray and Monsieur †Prerogat of the Church of Rome and her Bishops ch 29. Maimburge who is zealous in the case against the Papal power of deposing but which way soever Childerick were deposed his deposition is a confirmation of what I undertake to prove for if the Pope did it and the French Clergy consented or the three Estates in France did it of which the Clergy are the first and the Pope consented it is all one the matter of Fact being plain that they both thought it lawful to depose their Prince for a less crime than Heresie because he was dull and unfit for Government And we also know that when the Line of Pepin was laid aside and Hugh Capet the first King of the third Race came to the Crown there was a right Heir of the Carolovinian or second Race of Kings alive viz. Charles Duke of Austratia or Lorrain who was also laid aside by the consent of the States of which the Clergy were the chiefest it being * Vb. supr an 752. Monsieur Mezeray's observations that Charles of Lorrain the last Male of the Line of Pepin was deprived of the Crown as Childerick had been and the same †Id. an 987. judicious Historian elsewhere gives an account how it was done that Charles being a Vassal to another King and a stranger to his own Country Hugh Capet being very powerful and esteemed was Proclaimed King at Noyon in an Assembly of the Lords and in a little while after Anointed and Crowned by the Archbishop of Rheims not one of those who were present at either Solemnity claiming for Charles but all giving their Oaths as well in writing as by word of mouth to his Enemy and when Archbishop Arnold Brother to Charles was taken with him the Bishops of France Assembled in Council at Rheims degraded him of his Prelature for breaking his Oath to King Hugh whereas all his crime was the assisting Charles of Lorrain who was his lawful Prince But to come nearer home In the time of the League it is very plain that the Ecclesiasticks generally declared for the Leaguers and allowed of the deposition of the two Kings Henry 3. and 4. And whereas you may object that some Popish Bishops and many of the Popish Nobility continued with Henry 3. to his death and after that execrable parricide with his Successor Henry 4. yet D'Avila * An. 1589. the Bishop of * An. 1589. Rhodez and * An. 1589. Mezeray to name no other Historians say that after that barbarous assassinate the Catholicks who were the greater part of the Army met and though some few were for adhering to the King without any conditions yet the greatest part thought themselves bound to observe Divine before humane Laws as they phras'd it and at last both parties united in one upon these terms that they would declare the King of Navarre King of France upon condition that he would change his Religion since it would be strange to their consciences and to the whole Christian World that one should be establisht King of France who was no Catholick whereupon many Prelates in the Camp declining even this moderate course the agreement was made by a writing mutually signed wherein the King swears and promises upon the word of a King to cause himself to be instructed in the Catholick Religion within six Months c. and to maintain the Catholick Religion c. and yet at last this did not please all but many went over to the Leaguers Now here you see all the Bishops of France for they were all either of the party of the League and it is not doubted what their Opinion was or of the Court party were of Opinion that the King of France should not be acknowledg'd their rightful Soveraign unless he declared for the Roman Catholick Religion nor would his own party admit him till he had so promist and sworn as the Leaguers would not admit him when he had so done and this is worth the remembring that his own party thinking he would dally with them set him a certain number of days wherein to give them his resolution and in all their conferences with the Leaguers the Popish Lords who were Friends to Henry 4 made this their Apology And upon these terms says D'Avila the Duke of Mayenne himself promist by Villeroy his Agent to acknowledge him the King of France though at the same time the Pope's Legate and the Sorbon had made a Decree that no agreement should be made with the Hereticks and particularly with Henry of Bourbon by which passage you may see what was the Opinion of the Society of the Sorbon at that juncture as by what else was done you may know the Opinion of the Prelates And further the Bishop of Rhodez confesses That if the Duke of Mayenne the head of the Leaguers had upon the importunity of the Pope c. declared another King of France upon that nomination there was much appearance and likelyhood that all the Catholick Potentates of Christendom would have acknowledg'd that King whom the States should have Elected that the Clergy would have done the like and the Nobility and People who followed not Henry 4. But because he had the Title of King and would have made no conscience to have quitted him for another to whom the States had granted it And at last he subjoins That it was high time for Hemry 4. to enter into the bosom of the Church or to resolve on a War of which possibly he might never see the end These things succeeded the death of Henry 3. But there were many remarkable accidents that preceded it which give you an account of the Opinion of the French Church of that Age. We know the Sorbon is and hath always been accounted the defender of the Gallican Liberties and yet in the * V. D'Avil c. time of the League the whole Colledge except Johannes Faber the Dean and two Senior Doctors unanimously determin'd that Henry 3. by reason of the Murther of the Duke and Cardinal of Guise had forfeited his right to the Crown and that his Subjects were free from their Oath of Allegiance nor were Faber and the other two Dissenters says Jurieu dissatisfied as to the point of Law i. e. Whether the King were deposable or not but as to the matter of fact whether the crimes charged on him were true or not or if true whether they deserv'd so heavy a censure and when the Ambassador of the King of France urged the Pope Sixtus 5. to condemn the determination of the Sorbon with this argument that such a business did belong to
Christ's Vicar and not to a petulant Colledge consisting of a few passionate corrupted persons yet the Pope liked the censure too well to condemn it Besides two or three dissenters in so great a body signifie nothing for had it been in an Assembly of the Clergy or in a General Council the majority would easily have out-weighed so small a number of contrary Votes and if the Syndick Faber's asserting the Right of Princes makes this no Decree of the Sorbon then the Syndick Richer's assertion An. 1611. in his Book de Ecclesiastica politicâ potestate is enough to prove that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical nor were the Sorbonists wanting to countenance this their assertion ordering Boucher and others to preach up the Authority of the Pope in such cases and the Justice of the King's Deposition and there was a Book written in defence of the Censure the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton by others more likely to to be the above named Boucher de justa abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear that the Assistants of the League lookt on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion it is remarkable that the Duke of Parma left his own and the publick concerns in Flanders in a very ill posture only that he might re-enforce the League and relieve Paris which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who besieged it And now we are come to the Times that succeeded the Parricide of Henry the Great who tho never so heartily reconciled to the Church of Rome was never forgiven the sin of his first Apostasie as they called it till his death in the minority of whose Son Lewis 13. When the third Estate would have past a Law that the King was deposable for no cause whatever the Clergy violently opposed it and ordered the Cardinal de Perron to make a Speech against it which after they had examin'd and approved of in the Chamber Ecclesiastick they attended him to the convention of the three Estates where he pronounc't it An. 1615. which Speech our King James learnedly answer'd in his declaratio pro jure regio where you may see it proved that the Cardinal took upon him to assert that the Pope or the Church had power to depose Princes and that it was universally owned in France ever since their Schools had been opened and the event made it appear what the design of the Speech was after which the third Estate saw it impossible to go on with their design successfully and so declin'd it and whatever F. * Vb. supr c. ult Maimburge says to the contrary yet his own argument confirms what I assert That when this difference happened between the Clergy and the third Estate the two Chambers as he calls them the Clergy inform'd Pope Paul the 5. in their answer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 1615. Angebamur non mediocriter c. That they were troubled above measure to see Catholicks transported with an undiscreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith where you may observe that the deposing power is acknowledg'd by them to be a matter of Faith earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent though you deny it to be so which did not belong to the third Estate who were Lay-men and Lawyers but withal they confess that the determination of this point did belong to the Church i. e. to themselves and the Pope omnem hanc authoritatem penes Ecclesiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi praeesse voluerit By which it is plain that that Speech was not one Doctors Opinion only as Monsieur Maimbourge affirms but the Opinion of the whole Chamber Ecclesiastick or their whole Clergy And that the French Church afterward owned the Opinion of that Speech seems plain because the general Assembly of the Clergy An. 1665. gave the Abbot Gentil 6000. Livres to collect the Memoirs of the Gallican Church which were afterward solemnly reviewed by several Bishops and Abbots and then publisht among which this Speech of Cardinal de Perron is printed and approved the whole scope of which Maimbourge himself confesses is inconsistent with the independent right of Princes and their exemption from any deposing power It is true this Speech that so few years since was Printed among the Memoirs with so much applause and approbation is now ordered to be left out of them which is so far from being an argument to incline any man to acquiesce in the judgment of such a Church that it may justly affright him from confiding in such volatile changeable men who in such weighty matters vary their Opinions so often from one extreme to another And the reason is plain the French Bishops following the dictates of that Court so that since the quarrel about the Regale they have sought to stoop the Pope and probably to make his Election depend on the present French King as it did antiently on Charles the Great And of this I could give some likely proofs but that the digression would be too long But against all this it is objected That under the present King Lewis 14. the Sorbon An. 1663. condemn'd even the indirect Power of the Pope over Princes and asserted that the King of France hath no other Superiour but God to which we answer that the same Colledge did in the days of the League maintain the contrary as I have formerly proved and at last the Sorbon is not the Representative of the French Church nor can it be imagined says the * Ch. 5. p. 14. Author of the second Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance That those men who took upon them to vary from the Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome would ever go about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Opinion either as an Article of Faith in it self or as a Rule of Faith to others But the Objection is strengthened That the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church did decree the same to which we †V. Jurieu ubi supr answer that the Declaration was made but by thirty or forty Prelates within the verge of the Court whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined But put the case that this had been decreed in a full and free National Synod yet neither could this have establisht an indefeasible right for I remember that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the King's Supremacy was decreed and establisht by our Bishops even by Gardiner Bonner c. who in all other things were zealous Catholicks and yet I suppose you will be loath to grant that for that reason the King had a just Right to that Supremacy And this also serves to answer your Objection from the Determinations of the French Vniversities against the Deposing Doctrine because not onely the greatest part of the Vniversities of
as have received the most holy Body of thy Son c. 3. To instance in no more the Prayer for the Dead in this Canon doth not relate to Purgatory for the Priest says Memento Domini c. Remember O Lord thy Servants and thy Handmaids and then names the Persons whom he is to pray for who have gone before us with the mark of Faith and sleep in the sleep of Peace Which are plain demonstrations that those Prayers were made before those new Doctrines and Practices were the Belief and Customs of your Church or else there are Errours in the Mass which the Council under an Anathema forbids any man to affirm 2. The Council declares †Sess 23. cap 4. Episcopos in Apostolorum locum successisse That Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles and if so then there being an equality among the Apostles so there is also among Bishops and where then is the Pope's Supereminent Power as Successor to St. Peter and how is he above his fellow-Bishops if they all succeed the Apostles to use St. Cyprian's Phrase Pari consordio potestatis honoris In an equal right to power and honour 3. The Council * Sess 4. commands the interpretation of Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers and if so we are well assured that the Controversies between us will be easily decided on the side of the Church of England for to the Fathers we are ready to appeal And now after all this suffer me to assure you that though I love your generous dealing in the affixing your Anathema's at the end of your †Popery Mis-repres p. 117 118. Book wherein you deal much more candidly than many of your Brethren yet I cannot but mind you that you have left your self and others by reason of the generality of your Expressions liberty to explain your meaning and therefore I have added some Anathema's agreeable to your own notions of things if I understand you aright to which I should be glad to find that you sincerely say Amen and it is as lawful for me who am but a private person in the English Church as it is for you to do so in the name of the Church of Rome And withal I do engage to make good that all these Opinions which I propose to be condemn'd are maintain'd by some Writers of the Church of Rome 1. He who pays true and proper Religious Worship to Images let him be Anathema Amen 2. Whosoever confides in the Intercession of Saints and Angels as much as in that of Jesus Christ for Salvation let him be Anathema Amen 3. Whosoever believes the blessed Virgin to have as much power in Heaven as her Son and prays to her to command him and begs from her pardon of Sins and the assurance of Salvation let him be Anathema Amen 4. He who does not believe that the Merits of Jesus Christ are the onely meritorious cause of our Salvation let him be Anathema Amen 5. He who believes that a Papal Indulgence doth remit Sins or deliver from eternal Death let him be Anathema Amen 6. He who believes that the performance of Ecclesiastical Penances makes satisfaction for eternal Punishment due to his Sins let him be Anathema Amen 7. He who speaks irreverently of Holy Scripture and calls it Aesop 's Fables a Nose of Wax and unsens'd Characters c. let him be Anathema Amen 8. He who believes that the Church hath power in a General Council or otherwise to make additions to the Christian Faith let him be Anathema Amen 9. He who believes the Pope to have any personal Infallibility either è Cathedra or in Conclave let him be Anathema Amen 10. He who asserts that the Pope or any other hath any power to depose Princes to dispence with their Subjects Allegiance and to authorize them to take up Arms against them either upon the account of Heresie or for any other cause let him be Anathema Amen 11. He who asserts that the Pope or any other hath any power to dispense with any Moral Law of God and to give men a License to Murther Forswear Lye or Equivocate let him be Anathema Amen 12. He who believes any thing contrary to the Word of God to Reason and Antiquity let him be Anathema Amen 13. He who says that men are not bound to the obligation of the Ten Commandments and among them of what we call the Second you a part of the First under pain of eternal Damnation let him be Anathema Amen 14. He who thinks that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks and that Mental Reservation may be used with men of another Perswasion let him be Anathema Amen 15. He who thinks that Attrition is enough to fit a man for Absolution let him be Anathema Amen 16. He who thinks that any thing besides a sincere and true Repentance can bring a man to Heaven let him be Anathema Amen 17. He who believes that the modern Miracles of the Blessed Virgin c. are to be credited as he credits the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles recorded in Scripture let him be Anathema Amen 18. He who thinks Ignorance to be the Mother of Devotion and wilfully hides the Holy Scriptures from the sight and knowledge of the People let him be Anathema Amen 19. He who says a man ought to obey his Superiours whether Civil or Ecclesiastical in things that are sinful let him be Anathema Amen 20. He who maintains any other Doctrines than what were establish'd by Christ and his Apostles and believ'd in the Primitive Church let him be Anathema Amen These I give you as a Specimen and when these are condemn'd I shall think my self much more inclinable to be reconciled than now I am And because you are a private Person and whatever you say is but one Doctor 's Opinion and because your Writers differ where your Infallibility is fixt whether in a General Council or the Pope and if in the Pope whether in his fingle Person or in Conclave you will oblige the World if you use your interest to get these Doctrines Condemn'd by the Pope ex Cathedra and so you will bind the Jesuits and others who believe the Personal Infallibility and by the Conclave of Cardinals for this will bind others of your Communion and by a Council of all the Prelates of your Church and this will bind you the French Church and all others that call themselves Roman Catholicks for unless this be done we are still where we were And I shall tell you that the regaining so considerable a part of the Protestants as the Church of England is out of a state of Schism and Heresie as you are pleased in your great Charity to call it is a Reason weighty enough to summon such a Council and to do what is required towards an Accommodation and till this is done all that you say else is but the sprinkling of a little Holy Water and gratis