A Vindication OF A PASSAGE IN Dr. Sherlock's SERMON PREACHED Before the Honourable House of Commons May 29. 1685. FROM THE Remarks of a late pretended Remonstrance By way of Address from the Church of England To both Houses of Parliament Imprimatur C. Alston R. P. D. Hen. Episc. Lond. a sacris Domesticis Julii 6. 1685. LONDON Printed for I. Amery at the Peacock in Fleetstreet and A. Swalle at the Vnicorn at the West-end of St. Paul's Church-yard 1685. A VINDICATION OF A Passage in Dr. Sherlock's Sermon c. WHen I first saw that Pamphlet which bears the Title of A Remonstrance by way of Address from the Church of England to both Houses of Parliament with some Remarks upon Dr. Sherlock's Sermon I was not so curious to examine the Contents of that Paper as to see what he had to say against that Sermon which received so great an Approbation from the House of Commons and turning over the Page I was soon directed by the Margin to the place where I find these words prickt out for the subject of his Remarks I deny not but some who are Papists in some junctures of affairs may and have been very Loyal but I am sure the Popish Religion is not the English-man may be Loyal but not the Papist and yet there can be no security of those mens Loyalty whose Religion in any case teaches them to Rebel Now this being an Address from the Church of England which is so well acquainted with Popish Loyalty any one would in reason have expected that the Doctor should have received a Reprimand for touching that Cause so gently and in my Conscience had any one attacked him there he would have found more trouble and been put to more shifts in vindicating the Personal Loyalty of Papists than in proving that the Popish Religion does not teach Loyalty which is the Accusation brought against him by the Author of this Remonstrance that he charges the Popish Religion with being Disloyal though some who are Papists may be Loyal And I should have wondered at the discretion of this Writer had he given any Specimen of Wit or Understanding in any thing else that he would engage in so baffled a Cause The better way had been to have thanked the Doctor for his Complement and to have left the Doctrine of their Church to have shifted for itself But I confess I have so great a kindness for the Doctor that I am unwilling he should continue under so scandalous an Imputation of having charged the Church of Rome with any Doctrines which she dishowns which had at all times been very wicked but at this time had been folly and madness and therefore not to enter into the Merits of the Cause which this Writer has given no just occasion for I shall onely very briefly consider what he urges in vindication of the Popish Loyalty The first Argument he uses to prove that their Religion does not teach them to Rebel is because they themselves though they are very zealous for their Religion deny that it does Do both in their publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that their Religion teaches no such Doctrine and that they are ready to maintain and practise true Loyalty with the hazard of their Lives and Fortunes As for their practising true Loyalty I shall civilly wave that because the Doctor has thought fit to do so and therefore it is no Argument against him for it is no new thing for men to act contrary to the Principles of their Religion and sometimes to be better than their Religion in its just consequences teaches them to be as I charitably hope many Roman Catholicks are But who are these men and what is their Authority who teach that the Deposing Heretical Kings or those who are Favourers of Hereticks is no Doctrine of the Church of Rome I say the Deposing Doctrine for I grant they do not teach Rebellion by that name for when a Prince is deposed by the Authority of their Church they absolve their Subjects from their Fealty and then it is no Rebellion to Rebel And I wish our Author had not some such reserve in those doubtful terms Rebelling and True Loyalty for to resist and dethrown a deposed Prince is not Rebellion according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome nor to defend him True Loyalty But does this Gentleman think we have no other way of knowing the Doctrine of their Church but by what they say is the Doctrine of their Church Suppose some of these Sayers be so ignorant that they know not what is the Doctrine of their Church some so crafty as to conceal it some so heretical as to deny it and to be censured and excommunicated for it at Rome what does their saying so or so signifie to us who have the authentick Decrees of their Popes and Councils They are very angry with us when we alleadge the Testimonies of their private Doctors though of the greatest Note and Eminency among them whose Writings have been published with the greatest Authority and received with the greatest Applause and yet they have the modesty to send us to an Irish Remonstrance and the Writings of P. W. or to the renowned Author of the Roman Catholick Principles to learn the Doctrine of the Church of Rome admirable Vouchers for the Church of Rome some of whom at least are no better than Apostates themselves and are condemned for such at Rome Suppose we should be perswaded by the Authority and Rhetorick of this Author that the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine and should assert it against all the Jesuits in the World and one of them should answer in the very words of this Remonstrance What reason has any man to say that our Religion does not teach us to Rebel that is to Depose and Murder Heretical Princes when we who are so jealous of our Religion that we voluntarily suffer the loss of our Estates our Liberties and our Lives rather than renounce the least tittle of it do both in our publick Writings and private Discourses declare and maintain that our Religion does teach the Deposing Doctrine and that we are ready to maintain and practise it with the hazard of our Lives and Fortunes What a fine case are we in now when the Doctrine and Practice of the Jesuits proves that the Deposing Doctrine is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the Doctrine and Practice says our Author of some other nameless Party proves that it is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and yet I see no reason why the Jesuits may not pass for as good Catholicks as any other Order amongst them nor why Baronius and Bellarmine and Suarez c. may not be thought as good Catholick Doctors as some few late Writers This Argument then will prove nothing because it proves both parts of a contradiction to be true that the Deposing Doctrine is and is not the Doctrine of the Church
and Councils go upon these Principles 1. That Popes and Councils may and have decreed such Doctrines as are contrary to Scripture and Catholick Tradition 2. That no good Catholick is bound to own such Doctrines though decreed by Popes and Councils 3. That the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome is not the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4. That men are good Catholicks not by adhering to the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome but of the Scriptures expounded by Primitive and Catholick Tradition All this I firmly believe they are the very Principles on which our Reformation is founded and by which we justifie our selves against the Innovations of the Church of Rome but though these principles will justifie the Reformation yet they will not prove That this Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the present Church of Rome Let us then now return again to our Remonstrancer and having got rid of the Council of Constance and proved That it is so far from condemning that it hath approved and confirmed the Deposing Doctrine What remains is nothing but Insinuation and Address without the least appearance of an Argument but let us hear what it is and he proceeds thus I say seeing Roman Catholicks do thus generally declare their Loyalty I think they ought no more in Justice to be charged with disloyal Principles for the extravagancy of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them than I am to be charged with the Principles of the like Disloyalty and Injustice because some of my Children have been for the Bill of Exclusion and others who communicated with me have written scandalous Pamphlets Narratives c. tending to Treason and Rebellion This is spoke in the Person of the Church of England and a very fair Speech he has made for her wherein there is not any one thing fairly represented For 1. the Doctor does not charge Loyal Papists with disloyal Principles only says That the Popish Religion is not Loyal but it is possible that many Papists may not believe this to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as many of them profess not to do others may abhor the Doctrine and renounce the Authority of the Church of Rome in this particular though they hold Communion with her in her Worship others may have such a Natural and Inbred Loyalty such a Love to their Prince and Country as antidotes them against the Infection of bad Principles now these men may be Loyal as the Doctor acknowledges and may act upon very Loyal Principles too but they are not the Principles of the Popish Religion and there is some hazard that while men embrace a Religion and own the Authority of a Church which teaches the Deposing Doctrine they may be corrupted by their Religion when there happens any competition between their Loyalty and Religion which is all the Doctor asserted and which any disinterested Person would have thought as inoffensive as it is true And since this Passage has raised such an unjust clamour against the Doctor I shall only observe what just reason there is for such a Jealousie after all their declarations of Loyalty in that some very few excepted they obstinately refuse the Oath of Allegeance which there can be no colourable pretence for but that they will not forswear the Deposing Doctrine and there is reason to suspect That those who will not abjure so pernicious a Doctrine may be perswaded to practise it when time serves Pope Paul the Fifth An. 1606. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls That the Oath of Allegeance established by Parliament 3. Jac. salvâ fide Catholicâ et salute animarum suarum praestari non posse cùm multa contineat quae fidei ac saluti apertè adversantur cannot be taken without violating the Catholick Faith and injuring the Salvation of their Souls as containing many things which are manifestly contrary to Faith and Salvation Now as the Author of the First Treatise against the Oath of Allegeance well observes p. 11. there are not in it multa many things to which this censure is possibly applicable unless this be one That the Pope hath no power to depose the King or absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegeance Now when in Obedience to the Pope the Roman Catholicks to this day obstinately refuse this Oath Is there not reason to suspect that they are not clear in this point and then let any man judge what security there is of their Loyalty 2. He says it is unjust That they should be charged with Disloyal Principles for the extravagancies of some few of that vast body and those censured and condemned too by them This I must acknowledge would be very unjust but it is not true Those whom he calls a few are no less than Popes and General Councils and their most eminent Divines Schoolmen Casuists Canonists for several ages who neither were nor could be censured because they were the Highest Authority in the Church whereas in truth it is only some few who have taught the contrary and those indeed have been censured and excommunicated at Rome as some English Chatholicks can inform him 3. He makes the Church of England say That some of her Children were for the Bill of Exclusion If he would have passed for a Church of England man he should have observed a better Decorum in personating the Church and not have made her say such things as no Ingenuous Papist would affix to her If ever the Loyalty of the Church of England was tried it was in that Affair which she had no other Interest but a sense of Duty to oblige her to and I know not any one man who was firm and stedfast to the Church but was so to the Succession too though he underwent the Imputation of being a Papist or Popishly inclined for it It is sufficiently known that the prevailing party of these Houses of Commons who were for the Bill of Exclusion were ready prepared to accommodate and comprehend away the Church of England and he might with equal truth and honesty have charged the Rebellion of 41 on the Sons of the Church of England as the Bill of Exclusion But this is so barefaced a Calumny that it confutes it self and shames its Author 4. Let us then consider What comparison there is between the case of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England or Whether there be the same reason to charge the Church of England with disloyalty that there is to charge the Church of Rome The Church of Rome teaches the Deposing Doctrine by all the Authority that is in that Church the Church of England teaches the strictest Obedience to Princes without any reserved cases and threatens eternal Damnation to all Rebels how religious soever their Pretences are Those who teach the Deposing Doctrine speak the sense of the Church of Rome are her true and genuine Sons those
are bound to believe it and I readily grant him all this but do still averr That it is the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome which is all that I intend to prove for I never thought it was the Doctrine of the true Catholick Church or that any Christian ought to believe it As the Church of Rome is distinguished from other Communions of Christians we have no other way to learn what she teaches but from Popes and Councils who are the highest Authority in that Church and they teach the Deposing Doctrine and therefore those who live in Communion with that Church and own its Authority must own it too Those who disown this Doctrine so far disown the Authority of the Church of Rome and may be the better Subjects for being the worse Papists which I think is no great Commendation to that Religion 3. Now since Popes and Councils have decreed and thereby defined the Deposing Doctrine and this Answerer does and must believe the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church I desire to know how he can avoid that Inference That this Deposing Doctrine ever since it has been decreed by Popes and Councils has been the Doctrine of the Church For is not the Church of Rome the Church still since it decreed the Deposing Doctrine and is not a General Council the Representative of the Church of that age wherein this Council is held And are not the Decrees of such a Council then the Doctrine of the Church No says our Answerer I do not understand how the Church can be engaged unless she proceeds on those Grounds on which alone a Church as a Church or Congregation of Faithful can proceed Which he there tells us is a revelation by Christ preserved by an uninterrupted and uniform practice of the Faithful that is by that exploded Oracle of Infallible Tradition But If any or all of those who make the Church believe not or act on other grounds than these I conceive they believe and act not as a Church or as faithful but as Men or Scholars or in some other Capacity The truth is when Councils leave their proper work defining and declaring to Posterity the Faith received from their Ancestors and fall to discoursing or rather acting on discourses formerly made they are not in strict formality Councils I mean in that propriety in which they are held to be Infallible but men assembled to be a Council and proceeding now not as a Council but as so many men And must this pass for good Catholick Doctrine that all the men in the Church may err and yet the Church cannot err which preserves Infallibility in the Church by as great a Miracle as the species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament without a Subject But I beseech you When are General Councils Infallible When they decree and define what is Infallibly true Right And thus the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury or York are as Infallible as any General Council Nay any private Christian is as Infallible as either if he adhere to Infallible Tradition But I thought it had been Catholick Doctrine That a General Council are no longer to be considered as men but as the Church representative which is under the Conduct and Influence of an Infallible Spirit to secure them from Error But it seems even a General Council may err only then they err not as a Council but as Men but how shall we know when they are a Council and when they are Men Truly this is not to be known till they have made their Definitions and Decrees and then if they be agreeable to Catholick Tradition they acted as a Council if not they were only Fallible Men. But who shall be Judge of this Who is the Keeper of this Câ—tholick Tradition Why every Man must judge for himself It is the sence written in the hearts of the Faithful and appearing in their Actions The Writing foretold by the Prophet Jerem. 3. in the bowels and hearts of the house of Israel And thus I hope in time our Quakers may be good Catholicks The Sum then of his Argument whereby he proves That the Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the Church though it be taught by Popes and General Councils is this That the Pope is not Infallible at least that his Infallibility is but a probable Opinion That General Councils are not the Church but Fallible Men when they err and Infallible only when they do not err That though Popes and Councils and all the Men in the Church teach this Doctrine yet the Church does not teach it Now Whether these Propositions be true or false I enquire not but desire all good Catholicks to observe That they must renounce the Infallibility and Authority of the Popes and General Councils of the Church of Rome or acknowledge the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church This Distinction between the Church and the Men of the Church destroys all the Visible Authority of the Church and leaves every man at liberty to judge for himself What is Catholick Tradition which is so loose a Principle that a Doctor of the Church of England would be ashamed of it let them no more talk of a Visible Church if the whole Visible Authority of the Church be not the Church if all those men in whom the teaching and governing Authority of the Church resides whether Popes and Councils may teach such Doctrines and yet the Church not teach them does the Church cease to be a Church when it teaches any thing contrary to Catholick Tradition Then it seems there was no Church during all the time of those Popes and Councils which taught the Deposing Doctrine nor is there any Roman Catholick Church to this day wherein these Doctrines are still taught and will be so till those Decrees of Popes and Councils be repealed which teach these Doctrines Or are they a Church and yet the Church not teach what they who are the Church teach with all the Authority of a Church Or are they a Church and no Church at the same time Is not the Sentence which a Judge pronounces by the Authority of a Judge a Judicial Act though it be contrary to Law And by the same reason Are not the Decrees of the Council which is the Church representative the Acts of the Church though they be contrary to Catholick Faith and Tradition Does a Judge cease to be a Judge or the Church to be the Church when they pronounce false And if not Are not such false Judgments or erroneous Decrees the Acts of the Judge or of the Church still Let him but tell me Whether he will have a Church or no Church and he shall find me very civil in granting either but how this Doctrine will relish with good Catholicks I cannot guess In short these men who will not allow the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though they acknowledge it to have been decreed by Popes
who allow Subjects in any case to rebel contradict the Doctrine of the Church of England and therefore it is as unjust to charge the Church of England with the Treasons and Rebellions which are committed contrary to her declared Doctrine as it is just to charge the Church of Rome with such practices as she her self decrees and teaches If Roman Catholicks be loyal to a deposed and excommunicated Prince no thanks to the Church of Rome for it who forbids them to be so If any in Communion with the Church of England be disloyal this is no fault of the Church which teaches Loyalty And since he has been pleased to mention the Bill of Exclusion I would desire him to tell me at his leisure What Roman Catholick Nation who had all the Power in their hands would have suffered a Protestant Prince to have succeeded quietly to his Throne We know how it fared with Henry the Fourth of France notwithstanding the Parliament of Paris burnt Mariana's Book and what Henrician Hereticks in those days signified But our Church teaches better and the true Sons of the Church practise better and will never repent of what they have done though they be unjustly reproached by Fanaticks for doing it and as unjustly charged by as kind Remonstrating Friends as any Rome affords with opposing it And now I come to his convincing Argument That the Papists do not hold such pernicious Doctrines That he sees so many Kings and Princes in other Countries no less jealous of their Lives and Authorities than others who yet profess and maintain that Religion and think themselves secure by their Principles when they dare not trust the Calvinist The Church of Rome you know Sir never wants Miracles and it may be this is none of the least For my part I dare not pretend to give a Reason Why any man professes that Religion much less Why Princes do so and yet it is not more impossible that men should maintain a Religion against their Interest than believe contrary to their Sences I suppose it is as much against the Interest of Princes to be actually deposed by Popes and Councils as it is to profess a Religion which teaches the Deposing Doctrine and yet when Henry the Fourth was deposed by Gregory the VII and Frederick the Second by Pope Innocent the Fourth in the Council of Lyons and in such other Instances of the actual exercise of this Deposing Doctrine neither the deposed Princes and Emperors nor other Catholick Kings renounced the Communion of the Church of Rome for it and if Kings can be contented to continue in the Communion of that Church which actually deposes Princes nay deposes themselves it does not seem to me so convincing an Argument That the Church of Rome does not teach the Deposing Doctrine meerly because Princes who are jealous of their Lives and Authority hold Communion with it If they can perswade Princes That there is no Salvation to be had in any other Church those who have a mind to be saved must be contented to dispense with some temporal Inconveniencies to save their Souls and indeed they have made the way to Heaven so very easie that it may perswade Princes who love their Pleasures to bear with the Rudeness and Insolencies of Popes And yet no man ever denied but the Papists may be very good Subjects to Popish Princes while they obey the Pope the Pope commands their Subjects to obey them the only danger is when the Pope and the Prince are not of a side whom the Subjects shall obey then the deposed Prince or the deposing Pope and it is no greater wonder that a Popish Prince can more securely trust his Popish Subjects than Calvinists than that a Calvinistical Prince places more confidence in his Calvinistical Subjects than in Papists for generally neither Papists nor Calvinists can endure any Prince but of their own Religion but now any Prince whether Papists or Calvinists may be secure in the Loyalty of the Church of England which reverences the Person and Authority of their Prince whatever his Religion be As for what he adds concerning our present King whom God long preserve there is less reason for him to fear the Deposing Doctrine though he did believe it to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome than for any other Catholick Prince in the World For as the case stands it is FINIS Remonst p. 2. Roman Cathol principles p. 6. Conc. To. 12. p. 144. Suarez Defens fid lib. 6. cap. 4. Concil Constance Sess. 39. Si verò dominus temporalis requisitus monitus ab Ecclesiâ terram suam purgare neglexerit ab hac Haeretica faeditate per Metropolitanum caeteros Comprovinciales Episcopos excommunicationis vinculo innodetur si satisfacere contempserit infra annum significetur hoc summo pontifici ut ex tunc ipse Vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos terram exponat Catholicis occupandum qui eam exterminatis haereticis sine ullâ contradictione possideant in fidei puritate conservent salvo jure Domini Principalis dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum nec aliquod impedimentum opponat eâdem nihilo minus lege servatâ circa eos qui non habent Dominos Principales Concil To. 11. p. 148 149. Edit â—abb Concil Const. Sess. 45. Omnes singulos Haereticos hujusmodi necnon Sectatores ipsarum haeresum errorum utriusque sexùs tenentes etiam defendentes eosdem Haereticis ipsis quo modo libet publicè vel occultè in divinis vel alias participantes etiamsi Patriarchali Episcopali Regali Reginali Ducali aut aliâ quâvis Ecclesiasticà vel Mundanâ praesulgeant dignitate Excommunicatos singulos diebus dominicis festivis in praesentia populi nuntietis per alios nuntiari faciatis Et nihil ominus contra eosdem omnes singulos utriusque sexus hujusmodi errores tenentes approbantes defendentes dogmatizantes ac fautores receptatores defensores eorundem exemptos non exemptos quemlibet ipsorum cujuscunque dignitatis status praeeminentiae gradus ordinis vel conditionis ut praefertur existant auctoritate nostrâ diligenter inquirere studeatis eos quos per inquisitionem hujusmodi defamatos vel per confessionem eorum seu per facti evidentiam vel alias hujusmodi haeresis aut erroris labe respersos reperietis auctoritate praedictâ etiam per excommunicationis suspensionis interdicti necnon privationis dignitatum personatuum officiorum aliorumque beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum ac feudorum quae à quibuscumque Ecclesiis Monasteriis ac aliis locis Ecclesiasticis obtinent ac etiam bonorum dignitatum saecularium ac graduum scientiarum quarumcunque facultatum per alias poenas sententias censuras Ecclesiasticas ac vias modos quos ad hoc expedire seu opportunos esse videritis etiam pèr captiones incarcerationes personarum alias poenas corporales quibus haeretici puniuntur seu puniri jubentur aut solent juxta canonicas sanctiones Conc. Const. Sess. 45 To. 12. p. 271. Richerius Hist. Conc. Gener. part 2. p. 162. Concil To. 12. p. 268. P. 18. P. 10. P. 13. P. 14. Answer to the first Treatise p. 5. Ibid. p. 71. Remonst p. 2.