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
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
Christendom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his first Wife which the Pope and perhaps you would not allow to be lawful but withal the two most famous Vniversities of England which to us are equivalent to all those in France and the most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom when this Question was propos'd to them An aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliae Pont. Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero Whether the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom more than any other forreign Prelate The Answer was generally return'd in the Negative Besides who knows not that the generality of men speak as their hopes of Preferment lead them and that there was a great truth in that Observation of Aeneas Sylvius That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority and few for the Authority of a Council because a Council gave no Dignities nor Benefices but the Pope did And I should be glad to see the present French Clergy deal with the present Pope when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes as their Predecessors did with Gregory the Fourth who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperour Lewis the Debonaire and his Sons promoted the Rebellion and was suspected to come with a designe to excommunicate the Emperour and his Bishops for they protested †Ant. Anon vit Ludovici Pii Si excommunicaturus ad veniret excommunicatus abiret i. e. That if the Pope came to excommunicate them they would excommunicate him for acting contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons And at last we have Advice given us * Nouvel de la rep de Lettres An. 1685. p. 716 c. That June 26. An. 1683. at Clermont in Auvergne the Jesuits publickly maintain'd four Theses in opposition to the decision of the French Clergy An. 1682. 1. That although they call their Theses Explanations of the Doctrine of the Gallican Church the first Article of the Decree did not diminish the special Authority of the Church over Kings and Princes Christian 2. That the second Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church 3. That by the third Article they intended not to take from the Pope the Soveraign Power of dispensing with Canons c. 4. That by the fourth Article they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibility in matters of Faith Which Theses as far as I know yet pass uncensured And the Jansenist who goes under the name of René Clerc Tonsuré à l'Archevesque de Paris in his System of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracted from their Memoires proves that the French Bishops are not such Friends to Crowned heads as they would appear to be and that they take the Power from the Pope onely to place it in themselves affirming That the French King cannot be judged by a Council except the French Bishops be there implying that then he may be judged as if the last resort were to them and that the Declarations of the Pope against their King ought not to be obeyed till the Kingdom consent thereunto so that if the Kingdom consent the Deposition is lawful with other such Positions And the same Author affirms That whereas some English Gentlemen Decemb. 1. An. 1679. addressing themselves to some Doctors of the Sorbon had inclined them to decide for the lawfulness of our Oath of Allegiance the Archbishop of Paris sent to them that it was the King's pleasure they should not decide it which makes it plain that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholick Religion and that an Heretical Prince hath not the same Right with the most Christian And though since that time †V. Caus Valesian append 6. the Sorbon An. 1686. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance with the word Heretical in it yet this is onely an honest acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes by one Colledge of learned men while in the same year the Jesuits at Gaunt in their Provincial Congregation expresly condemn'd the taking of the said Oath And who knows but the Sorbonists of the next Age may do as their Predecessors of the last did in the time of the League contradict all that hath lately been asserted Nor does the Condemnation signifie any thing in your sence since even a General Council cannot define any thing to be heretical unless it be de fide and the belief required under the penalty of an Anathema and when all this is done if the matter be of Discipline or Government you profess you may safely refuse to obey the Council To which Observation I will adde one Remark more That though Monsieur * Apologie pour là Clergie Arnald hath written in vindication of the French Church that they never owned the Deposing Doctrine yet if he be the Author of the Jesuits Morals for though Monsieur Paschal his Nephew have the honour of the Book yet all men be lieve that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it he hath not dealt so ingenuously in this case as he might for when he quotes so many Passages out of the Moralists of the Society what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths to Lye and Equivocate and to break all Trusts Vows and Promises he never so much as touches on the many palpable Propositions in their Books which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes I have little more to subjoyn but this That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church I have observed in that Council some things how cunningly soever the Decrees were contrived and how warily soever they were penn'd which seem not to accord so well with your Catholick Principles For instance 1. †Sess 22. de Sacrif miss can 6. The Council says Si quis dixerit c. If any man shall say that the Canon of the Mass contains any Errours in it let him be Anathema And in another place * cap. 4. the Mass is said to be free from all Errour Now if it be so I suppose some of your Doctrines must fall to the ground being confuted by your Mass As 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation for after the Consecration the Priest calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine Offerimus panem sanctem vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae And afterward desires God to look down upon it as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchizedeck And prays That those things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven For how are these Expressions suited to Christ's Corporeal Presence 2. All the Prayers of the Mass relate to a Communion and so are a consutation of private Mass and yet the Priest in a private Mass when no one but himself receives says Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris c. That as many of us