Evidence of those places of Scripture from which they deduced them 5. Since those of that Communion object a National Synod to the Protestants this may be turned back on them with greater advantage in some points established by Councils which they esteem not only General but Infallible In the Third Council of the Lateran it was decreed That all Princes who favoured Hereticks did forfeit their Rights and a Plenary Indulgence was granted to all that fought against them In the Fourth Council at the same place it was decreed That the Pope might not only declare this forfeiture but absolve the Subjects from their Oaths of Obedience and transfer their Dominions upon others In the First Council at Lions they joyned with the Pope in thundring the Sentence of Deposition against the Emperour Frederick the First which in the preamble is grounded on some places of Scripture of which if they were the Infallible Expositors then this power is an Article of Faith And in the last pâ—ace the Council of Constance decreed That the Faith of a Safe-Conduct was not to be kept to an Heretick that had come to the place of Judgement relying on it even though he would not have come without it When Crueltâ— Rebellion and Treachery were thus decreed in Courts which among them are of so sacred an authority It is visible how much greâ—ter advantages we have of them in this point than any they can pretend against us 6. For the Synod of Dort I will not undertake the Apology neither for their Decrees nor for their Assertions and will not stick to say that how true soever many of their Conclusions may be yet the defining such mysterious matters as the order of the Divine Decrees and the Influences of Gods Grace on the wills of men in so positive a manner and the imposing their Assertions on all the Ministers of their Communion was that which many as sincere Protestants as any are have ever disliked and condemned as a weakening the Union of the Protestant Church and an assuming too much of that authority which we condemn in the Church of Rome For though they supposed that they made their definitions upon the grounds of Scripture so that in this sense the authority of the Synod was meerly Declarative yet the question will still recur Whether they understood the passages which they built on right or not And if they understood them wrong then according to Protestant principles their Decrees had no such binding authority that the receding from them could make one guilty either of Heresie or Schism The Sixth Method IS to shew them that the Roman Church or that Church which acknowledges the Pope or the Bishop of Rome the Successor of S. Peter to be her Head all the World over is the true Church Because there is no other besides her that has that undoubted mark which is a perpetâ—al Visibility without Interruption since Christ's time to this day This is a Method common to all the Catholicks and is very well and briefly set forth in the little Treatise of the true Church joyned to that of the Peaceable Method This is that of which S. Austin makes most frequent use against the Donatists and chiefly in his Book of the Vnity of the Church and in his Epistles of which the most remarkable passages relating to this matter are gathered together by the late Arch-bishop of Rouen in the first Book of his Apology for the Gospel in which he handles this matter excellently well One may add to this Method the Maxims of which Tertullian makes use in his Treatise of Prescriptions against the Hereticks and also Vincentius Lyrinensis in his Advices It is enough to say on this occasion that those two Treatises may satisfie any that will read them without prepossession in order to their forming a just Iudgement of the true Church of Iesus Christ and of all those Societies that would usurp that name Remarks THis Method is so common that there was no reason in any sort to give Mr. Maimbourg the honour of it unless it was that the Assembly intended to do him this publick honour to ballance his disgrace at Rome But let us examine it 1. This asserts that no other Church has a perpetual Succession without interruption but that which derives it from Rome which is so contrary to what every one knows that Mr. Maimbourg was certainly inspired with the Spirit of his Order when he writ it Do not all the Greek Churches and all the Churches that have their Ordination from them all from the Northern Empire of Muscovy to the Southern of the Abassines together with all those in the East derive from the Apostles by an uninterrupted series For till the Authority of the Church of Rome is proved which is the thing in question their being declared Schismaticks or Hereticks by it does not interrupt this Succession 2. The Church of England has the same Succession that the Church of Rome had in Gregory the Great 's time to wave the more ancient pretensions of the Brittish Churches and the Bishops of this Church being bound by one of their Sponsions made at their Consecration according to the Roman Pontifical to instruct their flock in the true Faith according to the Scriptures they were obliged to make good this promise Nor can it be pretended that they have thereupon forfeited their Orders and by consequence their Succession 3. The Succession of the Church of Rome cannot be said to be uninterrupted if either Heresie or Schism can cut it off It is well known that Felix Liberius and Honorius to name no more were Hereticks and if Ordinations by Schismaticks or unlawful Usurpers be to be annulled which was judged in the case of Photius and was often practised at Rome then the many Schisms and unjust usurpations that have been in that See will make the Succession of their Orders the most disputable thing that can be especially during that Schism that lasted almost forty years all the Churches of that Communion having derived their Orders from one or other of the Popes and if the Popes at Avignon were the Usurpers then let the Gallican Churches see how they can justifie the series of their Ordinations To all which may be added the impossibility of proving a true Succession in Orders if the Vertue of the Sacraments depends on the Intention of him who officiates since secret Intentions are only known to God 4. The ground on which the Donatists separated from the Orthodox Churches being at first founded on a matter of Fact which was of the pretended Irregularity of those who ordained Cecilian which they afterwards defended upon this that the Church could be only composed of good men and that the Sacraments were of no Vertue when dispensed by ill hands all that S. Austin says is to be governed by this Hypothesis against which he argues And it being once granted that the Church was not corrupted neither in Doctrine nor Worship we are very ready
up by the Earth So that by this diversity of the punishments one may know that Schism is a greater crime than Idolatry We may likewise see how upon the same subject he exhorts the Donatists to renounce their wicked Schism in his â—71 Epistle in which among other things he has those excellent words Why will you tear the Lords garments and why will you not with the rest of the World leave that Coat of Charity entire that is all woven of one Thread which even his Persecutors themselves would not rend And a little after this You pretend that you would avoid that Cockle that as you alledge is mixt among us and that before the time of Harvest whereas indeed it is you your selves that are this Cockle for if you were the good grain you would bear with it and would not separate your selves from the Corn of Jesus Christ. We need only change the name Donatists into Calvinists This is it that shews to what degree the Church ever was and ever must be acknowledged to be Infallible since we must submit to its Decisions and the Fathers have established this so strongly that one ought never to separate from her and that one is by so much the more obliged to continue united to her because she never refuses to hear the Remonstrances made to her by her Children Remarks 1. IT was observed before how unreasonable it was to build much on â—n Allegory but on this occasion the Allegory is so clearly forced that it gives just cause of Suspicion that the cause is weak that must be supported by such Arguments For our Saviour makes it so plain that the Harvest is the end of the World that the Reapers are Angels and that upon his last coming they shall gather together the wicked and cast them into Hell and that the Righteous shall shine in Heaven That the applying this to a General Council in which Heresie shall be condemned is such a fetch that it must be confessed they have as easie Consciences as they have warm Fancies that are wrought on by it 2. As for that which S. Austin drew from this against the Donatists who justified their Separation on the account of the sins of those who were in the Communion of the Church it was as pertinent as this is strained for the ground of the Schism being only the mixture of the Cockle with the Wheat nothing could be more strongly urged against them But it is quite out of the present Controversie between them and us who do not separate for this mixture but finding the Wheat it self so much corrupted took care to cleanse it 3. We freely acknowledge the great sin of Schism and the severe punishment due to it but for all the severity of the punishment inflicted on Corah and his Partners we do not doubt but when the Temple was so defiled by Idolatry under the Kings that polluted the Altar and the Courts of the Lords House with Idols it was not only no sin but a commendable piece of Religion in such cases to have withdrawn from so impious a Worship This is our present case and if what we object to their Worship is true then our Separation from it is as necessary a Duty as is the preserving of our lives from Poysons or Infectious Diseases 4. The true scope of that Parable seems to be a reproof to the Violence of such Church-men as are too apt to condemn and pluck up every thing that they think to be Cockle and when the declaring what is Cockle is lodged with them they will be sure to count every thing such that does not please them And then that same heat that makes them judge those opinions to be Cockle sets them on to root them out with such violence that much good Wheat is in danger to be pluckt up Therefore to repress this our Saviour commands them under that figure to let both grow till the end of the World that is not to proceed to extremities and to rigorous Methods but to leave that to God who will judge all at the last day If this were well considered it would put an effectual stop to that Spirit of Persecution which ferments so violently in that Church The language of which is always this Let uâ— go and pluck up the Tares or that of the two Disciples who would have called for Fire from Heaven and because Heaven will not answer such bloody demands they try to raise such Fires on Earth as may burn up those whom they call the Tares Not knowing what the true Spirit of Christianity is and that the Son of Man came not to destroy mens lives but to save them And forget that our Saviour commanded them to let the Tares grow till the Harvest But this is one of the mischiefs that follows the humour of expounding the Scriptures fancifully That the plain meaning of clear Texts is neglected while forced and Allegorical expositions are pursued 5. When it is clearly proved that the majority of the Pastors of the Church is Infallible then we shall acknowledge that all Separation from them is simply unlawful But till that is done we can no more think it a sin when in obedience to the Rules of the Gospel we withdraw from such false Teachers as corrupt it Then it were for Common Subjects to refuse to obey the Subordinate Magistrates when they clearly perceive that they have revolted from their duty to their Supream Authority And since we are warned to beware of false Teachers we know no other way to judge of them but the comparing their Doctrine with that which is delivered to us in Scripture The Fourteenth Method IS for the Confirmation of the former In order to which we must ask the Calvinists upon all their Articles that which S. Austin asked of the Donatists when the Church reconciled to her self Hereticks that were penitent without re-baptizing them For Example Whether was the Church still a True Church or not when before the Schism was made Iesus Christ was adored in the Holy Eucharist If she was the true Church then none ought to have separated from her for any practice that was authorized by her If she was not the true Church from whence came Calvin out of what soil did he grow or out of what Sea was he cast or from which of the Heavens did he fall From whence are these Reformers come From whom have they received their Doctrine and the authority to Preach it Let those who follow them consider well where they are since they can mount no higher than to those for their Original For us we are secure in the Communion of that Church in which that is to this day universally practised that was also practised before Agripinus 's time and also in the interval between Cyprian and Agripinus And afterwards he subjoyns these excellent words that are Decisive But neither did Agripinus nor Cyprian nor those that have followed them though they
and theirs is the affirmative and since all Negatives especially in matters of Religion prove themselves it falls to their share to prove those Additions which they have made to our Faith and to the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures 3. Though this is a sure Maxime yet our Plea is stronger for there are many things taught by them against the express words of Scripture as their worshipping Images their noâ— drinking all of the Cup their worshipping of Angels their not worshipping God in a tongue which the unlearned understand and to which they can say Amen their setting up more Mediatoâ—â— between God and us than one Whereas S. Paul exhorting us to make Prayerâ— to God tells us there is one Mâ—diâ—tor which shews that he spake there his single Intercession with God on our behalf 4. We do not only build our Doctrine upon some few passages of the Scripture in which perhaps a Critical Writer might easily raise much dust but upon that in which we cannot be so easily mistaken which is the main scope of the whole New Testament and the design of Christianity which we believe is reversed in their Church by the Idolatry and Superstition that is in it 5. As for the particulars which they call on us to prove as they are very few so scarce any of them is of the greatest consequence The first is a speculative point about which we would never have broke Communion with them For the second that we receive Christ only by Faith if the third is true that the Sacrament is still Bread then that must be also true Now S. Paul calls it so four several times as also our Saviour calls the Cup the Fruit of the Vine As for our denying Purgatory it is a Negative and they must prove it Nor should we have broken Communion for their opinion concerning it if they had not added to that the redeeming Souls out of it with Masses by which the Worship is corrupted contrary to the institution of the Sacrament And for the last in the sense in which many of them assert it we do not raise any Controversie about it for we know that God rewards our good works or rather crowns his own Grace in us The fifth Method IS the Peaceable Method and without dispute founded on the Synod of Dort which all the pretended Reformed Churches of France have received and which has defined according to the Holy Scripture that when there is a dispute concerning any Controverted Article between two parties that are both within the true Church it is necessary to refer it to the judgement of the Synod and that he who refuses to submit himself becomes guilty of Heresiâ— and Schism Now if we will run back to the time in which the dispute began concerning any Article for instance that of the Real Presence both the parties in thâ— debate as well the Ancestors of those of the P. R. Religion as ours were in thâ— same Church which was the true Church for there was no other before the Sâ—paration which was not then made Then their Ancestors who would not submit to the Iudgement of the Church and have separated from her on no other account but because she had condemned their sentiments were Schismaticks and Hereticks And those who at this day succeed them are in the same manner guilty since they follow their opinions And to this they can make no other Answer but that which the Hereticks that have been condemned in all Ages might have made This Method is proved in all its parts in the little Treatise that has been made about it Remarks IT is not unwisely done to call this a Method that is to pass without dispute for it will not bear one And 1. There is this difference between the principles of Protestants and those of the Church of Rome that whereas the latter are bound to justifie whatever has been decreed in a General Council as a rule either of Faith or Manners the sormer are not so tied and much less are they bound by the decision of a National Council though never so solemn It is natural for all Judicatories to raise their own authority as high as they can and so if any Synod has made any such Declaration it lies on them to justifie it but the rest of those who have separated from the corruptions of the Church of Rome are not concerned in it 2. The principle of Protestants with relation to the majority even in a General Council is That when any Doctrines are established or condemned upon the Authorities of the Scriptures those who differ from them and do think â—hat the Council misunderstood the Scriptures are bound to suspect themselves a little and to review the matter with greater application and not to adhere to their former opinions out of pride or obstinacy They are also bound to consider well of their opinions though they appear still to be true yet if â—hey are of that importance that the publishing them is necessary to Salvation for unless it is so the Peace of the Church is not to be rent by them Yet if they are required to profess that they believe opinions which they think false if tâ—ey were never so inconsiderable no man ought to go against his Conscience But if a man after his strictest enquiries is still persuaded that a Council has decreed against the true meaning of the Scriptures in a point necessary to Salvation then he must prefer God to Man and follow the sounder though it should prove to be the much lesser party And if any Company or Synod of Protestants have decreed any thing contrary to this in so far they have departed from the Protestant principles 3. Difference is to be made also between Heresie and Schism in a Legal and a Vulgar sense and what is truly such in the sight of God The Sentence of a Supream Court from which there lies no Appeal makes one legally a Criminal But if he is innocent he is not the less innocent because a hard Sentence is past against him So Heresie and â—chism may take their denominations from the Sentence of a National or General Council But in that which is the sense of those words that makes them Criminal Heresie is nothing but an obstinate persisting in errours contrary to Divine Revelation after one has had a sufficient means of Inâ—truction and Schism is an ill grounded Separation from the Body of the Church So it must be the Divine Revelation and not the authority of a Synod that can prove one who holds contrary opinions to be an Heretick and the grounds of the Separation must be likewise examined before one can be concluded a Schismatick 4. Though the Conclusions and Definitions made by the Synod of Dort are perhaps generally received in France yet that does not bind them up to subscribe every thing that was asserted in that Synod Nor do they found their assent to those opinions on the authority of that Synod but upon the
guilty of which is to worship that as a God which we do believe is only a piece of Bread 2. In this very Article it is plain that our Opinion is the surer side For as to the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament and due preparation for it which is all that we hold concerning it by their own Confession there can be no sin in that whereas if their opinion is false they are guilty of a most horrid Idolatry So there is no danger in any thing we do whereas there may be great danger on their side all the danger that is possible to be on our side is that we do not adore Christ if he is present which may be thought to be want of Reverence But that cannot be reasonably urged since we at the same time adore him believing him to be in Heaven and if this objection against us had any force then the Primitive Church for twelve hundred years must have been in a state of damnation for none of them adored the Consecrated Elements nor has the Greek Church ever done it 3. It is clear this general Maxime of taking the surer sidâ— is against them There is no sin in not worshipping Images whereas there may be a sin in doing it They confess it is not necessary to invocate the Saints and we believe it is sinful They do not hold that it is necessary to say Masses for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and we believe that it is an impious profanation of the Sacrament They do not hold it is necessary to take away the Cup in the Sacrament we think it Sacrilegious They do not think those Consecrations by which Divine Vertues are derived into such a variety of things to be necessary we look on them as gross Superstitions They do not think the Worship in an unknown tongue necessary whereas we think it a disgrace to Religion So in all these and many more particulars it is clear that we are of the surer side 4. We own that Maxime That nothing is necessary to Salvation but what is plainly set down in the Scriptures but this is not to be carried so far as that it should be impossible by sophistry or the equivocal use of words to fasten some other sense to such passages in Scripture for then nothing can be said to be plain in any Book whatsoever But we understand this of the genuine meaning of the Scriptures such as a plain well-disposed man will find out if his mind is not strongly prepossessed or biassed with false and wrong measures 5. The Confidence with which any party proposes their opinions cannot be a true Standart to judge of them otherwise the Receipts of Mountebanks will be always preferred to those prescribed by good Physicians and indeed the modesty of one side and the confidence of the other ought rather to give us a biass for the one against the other especially if it is visible that Interest is very prevalent in the confident party The Third Method IS to confer amicably with them and to shew them our Articles in the Scriptures and Tradition as the Fathers of tbe first Ages understood both the one and the other without engaging in reasonings or the drawing out of Consequences by Syllogisms as Cardinal Bellarmin and Perron and Gretser and the other Writers of Controversie have done which ordinarily beget endless disputes It was in this manner that the General Councils did proceed and thus did S. Austin prove Original sin against Julian To this end says he O Julian that I may overthrow thy Engines and Artifices by the opinions of those Bishops who have interpreted the Scripture with so much glory After which he cites the passages of the Scripture as they were understood by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian S. Gregory Nazianzene and others Remarks 1. WE do not deny but amicable Conferences in which matters are proposed without the wranglings of Dispute are the likeliest ways to convince people And whenever they shew us their doctrines directly in the Scripture and Tradition we will be very unreasonable if we do not yield upon that Evidence When they give us good authorities from Scripture and Tradition for the Worship of Images and Saints for adoring the Host for dividing the Sacrament for redeeming Souls out of Purgatory for denying the people the free use of the Scriptures for obliging them to worship God in a Tongue not understood by them we will confess our selves very obstinate men if we resist such Conviction 2. The shewing barely some passages without considering the whole scope of them with the sense in which such words were used in such ages and by such Fathers will certainly misguide us therefore all these must be also taken in for making this Enquiry exactly Allowances also must be made for the heats of Eloquence in Sermons or warm Discourses since one passage strictly and philosophically expressed is stronger than a hundred in which the heat of Zeal and the Figures of Rhetorick transport the Writer And thus if the Fathers disputing against those who said that the Humane Nature of Christ was swallowed up by his Divine Nature urge this to prove that the Humane Nature did still subsist that in the Sacrament after the Consecration in which there is an Union between the Elements and the Body and Blood of Christ they do still retain their proper nature and substance such expressions used on such a design leâ—d us more infallibly to know what they thought in this matter than any thing that they said with design only to beget Reverence and Devotion can do 3. The Ancient Councils were not so sollicitous as this Paper would insinuate to prove a Tradition from the Fathers of the first Ages They took great care to prove the truth which they decreed by many arguments from Scripture but for the Tradition they thought it enough to shew that they did innovate in nothing and that some Fathers before them had taught what they decreed We have not the acts of the two first General Councils but we may very probably gather upon what grounds those at Nice proceeded by what S. Athanasius wrote as an Apology for their Symbol in particular for the word Consubstantial which he proves by many consequences drawn from Scripture but for the Tradition of it he only cites four Fathers and none of those were very ancient They are Theognistus Denis of Alexandria Denis of Rome and Origen and yet both that Father Hilary and S. Basil acknowledge that Denis of Alexandria wavered much in that matter and it is well known what advantages were taken from many of Origen's expressions So here we have only two undisputed Fathers that conveyed this Tradition We have the Acts of the third General Council yet preserved and in them we find a Tradition indeed alledged but except S. Cyprian and S. Peter of Alexandria they cite none but those that had lived after the Council of Nice and Pope Leo's Letter to Flavian
to which the Council of Chalcedon assented is an entire contexture of authorities drawn from Scripture without so much as any one citation of any Father It is true there is added to the end of that Letter a Collection of some sayings of six Fathers Hilary Ambrose Nazianzene Chrysostome Austin and Cyril who had all except one lived within sixty years or a little more of that time So it is certain they founded their Faith only on the Scripture and not on Tradition otherwise they had taken more pains to have made it out and had not been so easily satisfied with what a few late Writers had said And thus it may be presumed that all the end for which they cited them was only to shew that they did not broach new and unheard of opinions And S. Austin could noâ— think that S. Cyprian's opinion alâ—ne was a sufficient proof of the Doctrine of the first three Centuries for Original Sin and yet he citeâ— no other that lived in those Ages Noâ— could S. Ambrose and Nazianzene that had lived in his own time be cited tâ— prove the Tradition of former Ages And whereas it is insinuated that he cited others one would expect to finâ— a Catalogue of many other Fatherâ— wrapt up in this plural whereas alâ— resolves into Hilary alone And we have a more evident Indication of S. Austin's sense as to the laâ—t resort in matters of Controversie than this they offer in that celebrated saying of his when he was writing against Maximinus the Arian Bishop But neither may I make use of the Nicene Council nor you that of Arimini as that which ought to pre-judge us in this matter for neither am I held by the authority of the one nor you by the authority of the other Let the one side and cause and their reasons be brought against the other from the authorities of the Scriptures that do not belong to either side but are Witnesses common to both The Fourth Method IS to tell them that their Ministers can never do this nor shew in the Scriptures any of their Articles that are controverted and this is very true For example they can never bring any formal Text to prove that Original Sin remains as to the guilt of it after Baptism that we receive the Body of Iesus Christ only by Faith that after the Consecration the Sacrament is still Bread that there is no Purgatory and that we do not merit any thing by our good works And to this it may be added that among all those passages that are on the Margent of their Confession there is not one that says that which they cite it for either in express or equivalent terms or in the same sense This is the Method of Mr. Veron which he took from S. Austin who says to the Manichaeans Shew me that that is in the Scripture and in another place Let him shew me that that is to be found in the Holy Scripture We must then boldly tell them That they cannot prove any of their Articles that are in dispute nor dispute against any of ours by any passages of Scripture neither in express terms nor by sufficient consequences so as to make their Doctrine be received as the Faith and ours pass for Errour Remarks THe first part of this Article proceeds upon Veron's Method of putting us to prove our Doctrines by express words of Scripture but some more cautious person has added in the conclusion a Salvo for good consequences drawn from them upon which we yield that this is a very good Method and are ready to joyn issue upon it If they intend still to build upon that notion of express words we desire it may be considered that the true meaning of all passages is not to be taken only from the bare words but from the contexture of the Discourse and the design upon which they are made use of and that Rule of Logick being infallibly true That what things soever agree in any third thing they do also agree among themselves it is certain that a true consequence is as good a proof as a formal passage Thus did our Saviour prove the Resurrection from the Scriptures by a very remote consequence since God was said to be the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and was the God of the Living and not of the Dead So did the Apostles prove Christ's being the promised Messias and the obligation to observe the Mosaical Ceremonies to have ceased upon his coming by many consequences but not by the express words of Scripture All the arguings of the Fathers against the Heretiâ—ks run on Consequences drawn from Scripture as may appear in all their Synodical Letters more particularly in that formerly cited of Pope Leo to Flavian to which the Fourth General Council assented This Plea does very ill become men that pretend such reverence to Antiquity since it was that upon which all the Ancient Hereticks set up their strength as the most plausible pretence by which they thought they could cover themselves So the Arians at Arimini give this reason for rejecting the word Consubstantial because it was not in the Scriptures The Macedonians laid hold of the same pretence Nestorâ—us gives this as his chief reason for denying the Virgin to be the Mother of God And Eutyches covered himself also with this question In what Scripture were the two Natures of Christ to be found And his followers did afterwards insist so much on this Plea that Theodoret wrote two large Discourses on purpose to shew the weakness of this pretence So that after all the noise they make about the Primitive Church they follow the same tract in which the Hereticks that were condemned by the first four General Councils went and they put us to do the same thing that the Hereticks then put on the Orthodox But we make the same answer to it which the Fathers did That the sense of the Scriptures is to be considered more than the words So that what is according to the true sense is as much proved by Scripture as if it were contained in it in so many express words And yet this Plea had a much greater strength in it as it was managed by those Hereticks for those contests being concerning mysteries which exceed our apprehensions it was not an unreasonable thing at first view to say that in such things which we cannot perfectly comprehend it is not safe to proceed by deductions or consequences and therefore it seemed safer to hold strictly to Scripture Phrases but in other points into which our understandings can carry us further it is much more absurd to exact of us express words of Scripture 2. Most of the points about which we dispute with the Church of Româ— are additions made by them to the simplicity of the Christian Religion So much as we own of the Christian Religion they own likewise In the other particulars our Doctrine with relation to them is made up of Negatives
Gâ—neral In which I intend to shew that they have departed from the Tradition of the Church much more evidently than they can pretend that we have done And this is concerning the Popes power oâ— Deposing Kings which they who live under so mighty a Monarch have very prudently renounced But whether they have not more plainly contradicted the Tradition of the Church than the Reformers did shall appear by the sequel of this Discourse In order to which I shall lay down two grounds that seem undeniable in their own principles The one is That the Tradition of any Age or Ages of the Church when it is universal and undisputed is of the same authority with the Tradition of any other Age whatsoever For the promises made to the Church last continually and have the same force at all times And therefore a Tradition for these last six hundred years is of as strong an authority as was that of the first six Ages The second is That a Tradition concerning the measures of mens Obedience and actions is of the same authority with a Tradition concerning the measures of their Belief The one sort are practical and the other are speculative points and as more are concerned in a practical truth than in a speculative point so it has greater effects and more influence on the World therefore it is as necessary that these be certainly handed down as the other And by consequence a Tradition concerning any Rule of Life is as much to be received as that concerning any point of Belief for the Creed and the Ten Commandments being the two Ingredients of the positive part of our Baptismal Vow it is as necessary that we be certainly directed in the one as in the other and if there were any preference to be admitted here certainly it must be for that which is more practical and of greater extent Upon these two grounds I subsume that all the Characters of Oral Tradition by which they can pretend to find it out in any one particular agree to this Doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes that are either Hereticks or favourers of them The way sof searching for Tradition are these four First what the Writers and Doctors of the Church have delivered down from one age to another The second is what the Popes have taught and pronounced ex Cathedrâ which to a great part of that Communion is Decisive their authority being held Infallible and to the rest it is at least a great Indication of the Tradition of such an Age. The third is what such Councils as are esteemed and received as Oecumenical Councils have decreed as General Rules The fourth is the late famous Method of Prescription when from the received Doctrine of any one Age we run a back-scent up to the Apostles upon this supposition that the Doctrine of the Church chiefly in a visible and sensible thing could not be changed These are all the ways imaginable to find out the Tradition of past Ages and they do all agree to this Doctrine All the Writers for five or six Ages both Commentators on Scripture the School-men the Casuists and Canonists agreed in it so that Cardinal Perron had reason to challenge those of the contrary persuasion to shew any one Writer before Calvin's time that had been of another mind We do not cite this as a proof because Cardinal Perron said so but because the thing in it self cannot be disproved and in the Contests that fell in between the Popes and those Princes against whom they thundred no Civilian nor Canonist ever denied the Popes power of deposing in the case of Heresie It is true when the Popes pretended to a Temporal Dominion and that all Princes were their Vassals some were found to write against that other Princes contended about the particulars laid to their charge and denied that they were either Hereticks or favourers of Hereticks But none ever disputed this position in general that in a manifest case of Heresie the Pope might not depose Princes and it is too well known what both the Sorbonne determined in the case of Henry the Third and likewise how the body of the Clergy adhered to Cardinal Perron in the opposition he made to the condemnation of that opinion The next mark of Tradition is the Popes pronouncing an opinion ex Cathedrâ that is in a solemn Judiciary way founding it on Scripture and Tradition If Popes had only brutally made War upon some Princes and violently thrust them out of their Dominions this indeed were no mark by which we could judge of a Tradition But when we find Gregory the Seventh and many Popes since his time found this authority on passages of Scripture as that of the Keys being given to S. Peter Jeremiah the Prophet's being set over Kingdomes to root out to pluck up and destroy and that all power in Heaven and Earth was given to Chrâ—st and his bidding his Disciples to buy a Sword we must look on this as the declaring the Tradition of the Church So that it must eitâ—er be confessed that they are not faithful conveyers of it or that this is truly the Tradition of the Church And this has been done so often these last six hundred years that it were a needless imposing on the Readers patience to go about the proving it The Third Indication of Tradition is the Declaration made by Synods but chiefly by General Councils I need not here mention the many Roman Synods that have concurred with the Popes in the Depositions which they thundered out against Kings or Emperours since we have greater authorities confirming it The Third Council of Lateran declared that all Princes that favoured Heresie fell from their Dominions and they granted a Plenary Indulgence to all that fought against them The Fourth Council of the Lateran vested the Pope with the power of giving away their Dominions if they continued for a year obstinate in that their merciful disposition of not extirpating Hereticks The first Council of Lions concurred with the Pope in the deposition of the Emperour Frederick the Second which is grounded in the preamble on the power of binding and loosing given to S. Peter After these came the Council of Constance and they reckoning themselves superiour to the Pope lookt on this as a power inherent in the Church and so assumed it to themselves and therefore put this Sanction in many of their Decrees particularly in that for maintaining the Rights of the Church and in the Passports they granted which had been often added in the Bulls that confirmed the foundations of Monasteries that if any whether he were Emperour King or of what Dignity soever he might be opposed their Order he should thereby forfeit his Dignity The Council of Sienna confirmed all Decrees against Hereticks and the favourers of them that had been made in any former Councils and by consequence those of the Third and Fourth Councils in the Lateran The Council of Basil put