into the State of Salvation but why should he be counted subject to the Government of a Communion quite opposite to That into which he is Baptiz'd does a Protestant commit a Mortal Sin every time he eats Flesh on a Fasting day or omits to hear Masse on a Holyday when neither Masse nor perhaps that Holyday is allow'd by his Church We know whoever loves God above all things is in the State of Salvation but not of External Communion till he actually submit to it and me thinks it seems obscure that I should be interpreted to submit to the Government of a Church of such a Discipline by my very being Baptiz'd into a Church of a contrary one Besides Followers of those who began the Division are not in the same form of Church-Condemnation with those who began it much lesse when they are born of such Parents and bred up in a Country where such Tenets have so long and uncontrolledly been establish'd that many perhaps may hold them without being guilty of holding them Wherefore I humbly intreat your Learning to instruct me VII Whether You have read any Authors that expressely say a Magistrate so Circumstantiated may be Depos'd by the Pope especially since I remember not one Instance Ancient or Modern of any such Prince so treated THE Examples of deposing Princes being without any certain Rule sometimes by the Pope sometimes by the Nobility sometimes by the People sometimes by an Eminent Subject sometimes by a powerful Stranger And the ground pretended being sometimes Religion sometimes some other Cause give me leave to consult your judgement VIII Whether those Examples may not all be resolv'd Either by the General Answer that Fact makes no Right Or that they were practis'd without any ordinary and acknowledg'd Jurisdiction but only by way of common Reason and natural Prudence which teaches us in extremities to cast about and relieve our selves in the best and hopefullest way we can according to our Circumstances FOr though by this Almighty Maxime of Extreme and Lawlesse necessity even Popes themselves as well as other Governors have sometimes been deposed yet I clearly believe neither Popes nor Councils nor Kings nor Nobles nor People nor Strangers have any Dormant Commission from Heaven that constitutes in any of them a Formal and Authorotative Tribunal to decide Jurisdictionally who shall be Pope or King To make this distinction on which the whole controversy chiefly depends unmistakably plain and evident let me parallel the grand Instances of Popes and Kings with the litle ones of private persons when we say as I think every Christian does that 't is Impious and Heretical to hold One Neighbour can take away the life of another though he never so much deserve it in Reference to what power do we speak is it not to that kind of power which is ordinarily Created by Commission can we be fairly interpreted to mean some odd extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend our own lives against his otherwise unavoidable Assaults So when we speak of a Power and Authority to depose Kings we are plainly to understand a Power and Authority vested in St. Peter and his Successors by Commission from Christ This and this only I conceive is the Authority we are commanded to abjure and unlesse such a Divine Commission be shewn I cannot see why to assert such a power in the Pope is not Impious and Heretical as much and far more than the instance of private Murther Especially the Oath so particularly expressing its chief intent to be the exclusion of the Popes pretences and prevention of the mischiefs naturally apprehended from the Supreme and all-Commanding Jurisdiction of a Foreiner Having perus'd some Authors who confidently say never any Orthodox Divine maintain'd this transcendent power in the Pope nor ever any such practices appear'd for above a thousand years after Christ though the Christians long before that time had both strength enough to do it if they had had a Will and Zeal enough to have will'd it if they had thought it lawful I cannot but suspect this Doctrine of Novelty till you be pleas'd to inform me IX What Eminent Writers there are in the first thousand years after Christ who expresly hold this Tenet of the Popes Authority to Depose Princes THis I am apt to conceive so much the more improbable to be found because neither S. Tho. nor Card Bellarmine cite any Antienter Authors than Gregory the seventh whose Papacy is of a younger date than that we speak of Much younger yet is the Council of Lateran nor can it with the least colour of truth be alleg'd for any more than a Canonical Constitution and perhaps not so much till the difficulties concerning it be clear'd which I leave to the Doctors and only contend 't is at best no more else the Defenders of Papal Deposition were bound to believe its Decree in this point as an Article of Faith and condemn the French Universities as Heretical and separate from their Communion if then it be only an Ecclesiastical Canon 't is well enough known such Laws are not Obliging but where they are receiv'd and where they are received may on just grounds be again rejected However even where that Canon is admitted if any where it be no fair Interpreter can extend it to reach so high as Soveraign Princes to whom this respect is generally by the Canonists esteem'd due that unlesse They be expresly nam'd they are not by implication understood to be comprehended in any penal or restrictive clause a Civility allow'd even to Cardinals whom I cannot think any disinteressed Considerer will preferr before Kings As for reason which I confess where 't is evident needs no Antiquity to gain my assent I have not met with any that bids so fair towards satisfaction as this argument If the Ends be subordinate to one another the Facultyes are But the End of Civil Power temporal happiness is subordinate to the End of Spiritual Power eternal happiness Therefore the Civil Power is subordinate to the Spiritual Let all this be suppos'd as true though there want not distinctions by which some endeavour to relieve themselves in this point too I only enquire how this Spiritual Superiour must proceed when the Temporal Magistrate intolerably misdemeans himself I think He is confin'd as his very Name imports to Spiritual punishments as suspension from Sacraments Excommunication c. But that they 'l say is not sufficient nor the Church compleatly furnish'd with means proportionate to its end unless it can depose a Prince that deserves it To which I answer First The argument is of so wild unlimited a Consequence that should they instead of Depose say Kill or whatever other mischief they please to invent they might in Rigor with the same Reason defend it Secondly Though in some sence it be true the Spiritual Power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its End yet are we not oblig'd to say it can remove all impediments and
of the Kings of Denmark is absolutely lawful as being an omitted Case and so not at all forbidden Observing that in this whole Controversy the main Bulwark wherein the Defenders of the Popes Prerogative in Temporals fortifie themselves and think to pacify the Civil Powers is a certain famous Distinction whose plain and literal sense I understand well enough but cannot find in it if impartially examin'd a title to make so great an Impression as is pretended I humbly intreat your quick and strong Eye to look a little seriously into the Question and teach me XI What difference there is as to any real effect in Government between acknowledging a direct immediate Power in the Pope to Depose Princes or only an indirect and mediate One IS it not almost all one in it self and altogether all one in mischief whether my eyes be beaten out with a direct stroke of a Tennis-Ball or by Bricol Are not our Laws still equally Penal both to direct and indirect Offenders will any of us allow a slandering tongue than which nothing is more frequent or more intolerable to Caluminate freely on condition his poysonous darts come only glancing and not be level'd point-blank against us Here they perhaps will say I mistake the Case For were only the Exercise of this Power mediate and indirect they would confesse my similitudes had something of Argument but the very Power it self say they is in its Intrinsick nature no more than mediate and indirect which widens much the sides of the distinction nor do any of my Interrogations offer to confute it When I have first declar'd I intend not to meddle with such slender Entityes as Relations metaphysically consider'd I shall betake my thoughts to what I conceive more pertinent to our purpose the Moral Notion and enquire what influence on humane actions a direct Power gives its Posseâ—or more than an indirect If they answer by the one He can punish his Inferiours as he pleases by the other not I reply That is the notion of an absolute and perfectly arbitrary Government not precisely of a direct Power which not only may sometimes be limited but almost always is has not the Emperour a direct Authority over the German Electors Is not the Pope direct Superiour of the Christian Bishops yet which of them can either One or the Other deprive or punish at his meer pleasure I they say 't is a Power as strongly Commanding as the direct but is not in the same line the â—piritual being of a quite different Order from the Temporal I confesse these are pretty terms to entertain subtile heads and amuze simple ones but to a down-right prudent Examiner I believe they 'l prove of very little serious Signification nay though the Causes be contrary to one anothers if they produce the same effect they make with me the same argument Naturalists say that Cold immediately condenses by directly crushing the Body it incloses whereas Heat first extenuates and then draws away the subtiliz'd parts and after the grosser shrink together of themselves and so condenses too but mediately and indirectly and these are words that sound well enough but when we come to practical application and find that too much Sun as well as Frost so dryes and hardens the Earth that it choaks our seed and kills our flowers what good does our fine distinction what does our Mediately and Indirectly avail us Nor is the Effect only the same whether the Popes power be call'd direct or indirect since each way he really dethrones the Prince but the end to both of his direct-Spiriâ—ual and indirect-indirect-Temporal Authority is the same since He is bound to manage the last only in ordine ad Spiritualia and the first ad Edificationem which two phrases seem to me no ill Synonimas one of another These are some of the reflections that have made me doubt though there may be and I think I see it some Speculative difference between the two manners of Title yet in practise very little if any at all When all this is said and far more which I think not uneasy to do still there remain two grand Objections The Supreme Pastor has engag'd his Authority and our duty obliges us to obey His Commands Our Predecessors have refus'd the Oath and suffer'd for refusing and our honour is concern'd to follow their steps To which with your permission I offer this answer Since by the Popes forbearing the French we evidently see such Prohibitions depend on particular and occasional Considerations not only lyable to be misapprehended by others but to be alter'd in themselves certainly it very ill becomes our Reverence to the Authority of the Pope or respect to the Memory of our Ancestors to fear they would wilfully persist in a discover'd Errour and not change their proceedings when they should see the grounds on which they proceeded were chang'd Nor even then when the Pope's Brief forbad the Oath did there want a just number of Catholicks if my books say true who humbly represented their Motives to his Holinesse why they doubted his Prohibition was not obliging as being grounded on mistaken and incertain Suppositions A privilege permitted to all and most of all to Ecclesiastical Subjects who are not Govern'd by the Sword but the Pastoral Staff either to obey or give good reason why they do not and this without the least suspition of boldly examining their Superiors Commands with the Judgement of Authority but exercising only what the meanest Vassal may Loyally practise towards the greatest Prince their natural Reason and Judgement of Discretion And here I must confesse my self inclin'd to think it very probable that the whole businesse was untruly represented to the Pope for can we doubt but Card. Bellarmine was acquainted with the Informations given to his Holynesse or that they Both agreed not in their sence concerning our Case let us then see what his Eminence says in his Letter to Mr. Blackwell Arch-Priest of the English Clergy where having alleg'd that Antient Instance of mingling together the Images of the Emperors and of the false Gods to entangle the Christians with this Dilemma that either they must bow to Jupiter and Commit Idolatry or not bow to Cesar and be guilty of high Treason He ads Tale aliquid in juramento c. Some such thing me thinks I see in this Oath they offer you which is so fraudulently contriv'd that none can profess their Civil Subjection to the King and Detest all Treason against Him but he must needs perfidiously Renounce the Supremacy of the See Apostolick And again Nam si rem totam c. If you will diligently examine the whole matter you 'l see 't is no small thing which by that Oath is brought into danger but one of the Capital and Fundamental Points of our Faith and Catholick Religion And quite throughout the whole Letter He still supposes the Design of the Framers of this Oath how covertly soever they expresse themselves to be That
or Mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God THE LETTER SIR AS your Civility has taught me I may have any thing of you for asking so my own Experience teaches me nothing is more easy than to ask Unless it be to doubt or to be ignorant two qualities so common and so little implying any conceit of sufficiency in their Owner that I hope you will neither accuse me of Presumption while I only seek what I profess not to know nor of Imprudence while I seek where I know I am most like to find Your peircing Eye has both read what others say and penetrated what they maintain Your generous mind neither hopes nor fears can corrupt and if they could your happy Condition secures you from both To you therefore I confidently come and without any farther Compliments which you are too wise to expect and I too uncourtly to give I humbly desire your free and speedy judgment in these few Seasonable and Important Questions Some say the Pope by direct and immediate sentence can depose Princes Others he can only Excommunicate directly and depose by Consequence Some say he can depose only Princes Subject to the Church Others Infidels too Some say he has power to do this only in order to Spirituals Others absolutely without that Restriction Some say the Crime must be Heresy or Apostacy Others extend his Jurisdiction to more and even all Cases And there are who say He cannot depose at all neither any of these ways nor for any of these Persons nor for any of these Causes In favour of which last Position not to speak of particular Authors 't was my fortune lately to meet with a Censure of the Faculty of Paris and some publick and solemn Decrees made by that and divers other Universities of France Of which the better to entitle my self to beg your Judgment I here send you a shott Extract On purpose omitting the French King and Parliaments Prohibition and Arrests as Lay-arguments of little and perhaps too little weight with some that dispute this point A Decree of the University of Paris made by the Rector Deans Proctors and Batchelers of the said University in a General Assembly had on the 20th of April 1626. at the Matutinâ— IT having been represented by the Rector that the sacred Faculty of Theology moved as well by their ardent zeal and fidelity towards the Church his most Christian Majesty and his Kingdomes as also by the true and perfect love which they bear to Right and Justice and following therein the illustrious Examples left by their Predecessors in like Cases upon mature Examination of a certain Latine book intituled A Treatise of Heresy Schism Apostacy c. and of the Popes power in order to the punishment of those Crimes Printed at Rome 1625. had in the 30. and 31. Chapters of Heresy found these Propositions That the Pope may with temporal punishments chastize Kings and Princes despose and deprive them of their Estates and Kingdomes for the Crime of Heresy and exempt their Subjects from the obedience due to them and that this custome has been always practis'd in the Church c. and thereupon had by a publick just and legal Sentence on the 4th of April Censured these Propositions of that pernicious book and condemn'd the Doctrine therein contain'd as New False Erronious contrary to the Law of God rendring odious the Papal Dignity opening a gap to Schism derogative to the Soveraign Authority of Kings which depends on God alone retarding the Conversion of Infidels and heretical Princes disturbing the publick Peace tending to the ruine of Kingdomes and Republicks diverting Subjects from the obedience due to their Soveraigns and precipitating them into Faction Rebellion Sedition and even to commit Paricides on the sacred Persons of their Princes The Rector Deans Proctors Batchelers and whole University have made this Decree That the sacred Faculty of Theology ought highly to be commended for having given a judgment so Pious so Religious so Wholesome against so wicked and dangerous a Doctrine For having so opportunely held forth to the whole Church but especially to all France the clear light of Antient and Orthodox Doctrine For having so gloriously follow'd the Illustrious generosity of their Predecessors and performed a task not only becoming their particular Profession to defend the truth but deserving the Imitation even of the whole University it self And to obstruct altogether the very entrance of this new and pernicious Doctrine and cause all those who now are or hereafter shall be Members of this University or merit promotion to any Degree therein to remember for ever to form and regulate their Opinions according to the judgment pronounced by that sacred Faculty and keep at utmost distance from the Doctrine so justly proscrib'd and that every one in particular may fly detest abhor it and as well in publick as private Combate Confute and Convince its falsity They do decree that in the next solemn Procession as also annually in the Assembly for the Procession general immediately after opening the Schools in the month of October this Censure shall publickly be read by the Proctor of the University the first business nothing to intervene and recorded in the Registers of each Faculty and Nation and that two Copies hereof written and signed by the hand of the Clerk of the sacred Faculty of Theology shall be kept in the Common Records of the University and the like number be sent as soon as may be to all Superiours of Colleges and Houses to the end all possible care and diligence be us'd to secure all those who frequent or reside in the said Colleges from the corruption and poyson of this pernicious Doctrine and that they never give way that any Person whatsoever presume to say or do any thing contrary to what has so wisely been determined and ordain'd by that sacred Faculty If any Doctor Professor Master of Arts or Scholar resist and disobey or go about in any sort by word or writing on any cause or pretence whatsoever to offer at the least attempt or make the least opposition against this so laudable and legal a Censure let him for a note of Infamy and Ignominy be expel'd depriv'd of his Degree Faculty Rank by a sentence that may for ever cut off all hope of admittance Quintaine Scribe of the University The Censure of the Faculty of Sorbonne dated 4th April 1626. I omit because recited at large in this of the University The like Decrees on the same occasion and against the same Doctrine That the Pope can punish Kings with temporal punishments depose them and deprive them of their Kingdomes and Estates c. were made by these several Universities following All which have lately been printed at Paris in a Collection of divers Acts Censures and Decrees as well of the University as of
the Authority of Head of the Church be transferr'd as to England from the Successor of St. Peter to the Successor of Henry the 8. Which still so much the more evidently appears both by his Quoting Fathers upon the general head of obeying the Pope and acknowledging his Supremacy as also by his comparing Mr. Blackwells Sin in taking the Oath to Peters denying Christ and Marcellinus's Sacrificing to Idols whom at least in some part He says the Arch-Priest imitated Does this Pen run as if it were guided by a Hand well inform'd Is it not highly probable that such Informations were the grounds of the Prohibition Is it not absolutely certain that such grounds being palpable mistakes are no way sufficient to oblige our Obedience Not that we have cause so much to complain of the Brief as of them whose Passionate and perhaps Factious Zeal procur'd it for how can the Pope be inform'd what we Tramontani do but by others and how can He Judge but as he is inform'd since surely we are not to expect such an extraordinary assistance from Heaven to guide his Hand in writing a Letter though in Form of Brief as some pretend for his defining ex Cathedrâ Read but the Bulla Coenae and you 'l find it no impossible thing for the Pope to claim more than a good Subject much lesse a wise King will give him there he solemnly excommunicates all Princes who impose on their Subjects new Gabels without leave of the See Apostolick with many other unallow'd pretences From all which we inferr these two plain truths That the Pope may miscommand and when he does so be lawfully disobey'd But to proceed ingenuously with you as I hope and beg you will do with me let us fortify this Objection with the utmost skill and strength we can This Act of Deposing Kings has not only been done by Popes but approv'd by Councils to whose joâ—nt-Authority I confesse a great Reverence is due and therefore beseech you deal candidly with me for I have noâ— any convenience to examine the circumstances of these Histories did they only approve the Fact or declare the Right if the first I shall without staying to dispute it suppose the thing for that time well done and only enquire in reference to what Authority 't was done our Henry the 7. we know did many Acts without declaring the Title by which he did them and the Parliaments approbation still confirm'd them if then they proceeded as by a Commission claim'd from Christ and allow'd in a General Council would not that make the Tenet an Article of Faith and so prove too much since among the Temperate it generally pretends no higher than an Opinion but if they acted only by a Commission deriv'd from Necessity which having no Law is a Law to it self the Consequence little concerns our Dispute who know the Pope Himself has been depos'd yet neither will He admit nor need his Deposers pretend any Jurisdiction or Superiority over Him 't is enough where Necessity over-rules the Law that Necessity Govern in its stead which if true and real may perhaps do much harm but can do no injury As to the other Branch if the Council interpos'd in declaring the Right either they intended it as a Definition and then you must say 't is of Faith which almost every one denyes or as an Ecclesiastical Canon and then I must say it binds only where receiv'd and may be alter'd or repeal'd like other Laws as is already discours'd when we cited the Council of Lateran However in our particular Case nothing is more easy than to Conquer the Objectors of the Popes Briefs with their own weapons for let them tell me are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King while they live and that notwithstanding any Papal Dispensation or whatever other Proceeding to the contrary what signifies this but an expresse renouncing all obedience to the Pope in these â—â—â—â—ts True say they we renounce obedience but not the acknowledgment of his Power we will adhere to the King though the Pope should Depose him but will not say he cannot Depose him What wise and real difference as to Government and the practical part of humane life can we imagine between these two I 'le swear never to obey my Commander and I 'le swear he has no power to command me Speak plain and honestly and either deny his Authority or obey it this motley Hypocrisy will I fear offend both Pope and King and while you disclaim your obedience to the One and the Authority of the Other Neither will confide in you Change but the Person and think what a holy religious man he would be that should solemnly vow never to obey his Superiour how loud soever he preach'd his Authority think what a flat contradiction it is of two Relatives to kill one and keep the other alive think what an uncharitable madness it is that the whole body of Chatholicks be expos'd to ruine and the whole Credit of their Religion be buried in that ruine rather than disavow an Authority which we are ready to swear we will never obey But to dispatch this chief Objection with a shorter word and that still taken out of their own mouths The Pope they say has commanded we should refuse this Oath but do they not too with the same breath say they will absolutely forswear obeying his Commands if they be not prest to renounce his Power and what do we more than disobey him if notwithstanding his Prohibition we accept of the Oath we meddle not with his Authority we only as they profess themselves ready to do deny our Obedience is it not as lawful for us when the King commands to admit this Oath against the Popes will as for them to swear they 'l obey the King let the Pope command what he will As for our Ancestors had they seen the Unanimous Judgment of so many Universities and the publick Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars particularly noted for great enlargers of the Popeâ— power had they examin'd the sense of Antiquity towards Soveraign Princes which acknowledges them Supreme in Temporals and accountable to none but God had they read the learned Treatises compos'd by Catholick writers both of our own and other Nations where this King-dethroning power is absolutely disavow'd had they perus'd the Declarations of the Kings in France and Arrests of Parliaments there by which the Authors who dar'd to assert that Opinion were Condemn'd and their Books burnt by the hand of the Hangman had they done all or any notable part of this they could not certainly but have chang'd their Judgments and no longer both against Reason Authority and their own Interest have wilfully adhered to a Tenet so ill grounded and a practice so ruinous Little of all this I fear did many of our Ancestors reflect on but guiding their Consciences by their Ghostly Fathers and their practice by their Consciences chose that side of the