say relating to that Vision As 1. That it is very probably believed by most learned men that SS Perpetua and Faelicitas were Montanists among whom there were many visions which the rest of the World gave no credit to but this I shall not dispute But 2. I averr that it is very disputable both from the vision it self and from the quotations in St. Austin whether Dinocrates were baptiz'd or no. I know your †Chap. 23. p. 84. Adversary says he was baptized and St. Austin would fain have it so but there is no convincing proof that he was so and the silence of the Writer of that Passion seems to imply that he was not so Now then I urge you with this Dilemma either Dinocrates was baptiz'd or not if he were not baptiz'd as it is very probable because his Father was a very violent Heathen and so in all likelihood would not suffer his Son being so young to be baptiz'd then you have nothing to do with him in Purgatory for tho you have allotted an appartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Christian Parents yet you allow no place there to the unbaptiz'd Children of Heathen Parents who with their Pagan Progenitors are condemn'd to Hell unless we must reckon this story with those other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell or St. Gregory's praying thence the Emperour Trajan which later story the * 〈◊〉 Munster praef ad Evang. S. Matth. Heb. p. 103 4 Jews who themselves allow of a sort of Purgatory make sport of but if he he were baptiz'd as I profess I cannot believe tho St. Austin says so then it seems very hard that a Child of seven years old when few Children are capable of understanding enough to chuse to be wicked should be sent to Purgatory for sins which he knew not of for if that be true which St. Austin says that his Father probably carryed him to the Heathen Temples as we will suppose it to be this was the Father's sin and not the Child's and so I cannot see why Dinocrates should be punisht And to confirm my conjecture that he was not baptiz'd I am apt to think that in the Vision the Water * Pass s Perp p. 15. Ed. Oxon. which Perpetua saw her Brother endeavouring to drink of but could not come at was an Emblem of the Waters of Baptism which he seem'd to endeavour after and at last Perpetua her self says * Io. p. 5. that she her self was a Catechumen when she was apprehended and that at that time she had two Brethren both Catechumens now if we reckon Dinocrates for one of those two Brethren of hers or allow him to be dead some time before as I rather conjecture I am strongly inclined to believe that while the Father was an obstinate Pagan the Sister and the other Brothers only Catechumens that this younger Son who was but seven years old when he died was not baptiz'd before he went out of the World now if he were not baptiz'd the Fathers tell you there was no hopes of Salvation for him for to omit St. Austin and the African Fathers I will only instance in two remarkable passages the one for the Western Church out of * De Dog Eccl. c. 74. Gennadius Nullum Catechumenum c. That no Catechumen tho he die in a state of good works which is more than St. Austin says of Dinocrates for he accuses him of Idolatry can attain to Eternal life unless he be a Martyr And for the Eastern Church out of St. Chrysostom †To. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Phi. p. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mourn over those who leave the world without Baptism they deserve your sighs and lamentations they are out of the Kingdom of God among the unrighteous and the condemn'd And now if all your former Arguments will not make us Converts you tell us * Refl p. ult that if a man assent to these Articles as you have stated them he shall have admittance into your Church and probably so for we know you deal very gently with your new Converts till you have secured them but who knows how much further he must go when he is under new Oaths of Obedience to that Church who makes her unwritten Traditions which no man knows till she reveals them to be as much the Rule of Faith and Manners as the Holy Scriptures and consequently binds all her followers to an Implicit Faith to believe whatever she shall reveal And I remember that Mr. Cambden * Annal. an 1560. records a report that once there were more easie terms of Reconciliation proposed by the Pope's Nuncio viz. the allowance of the Sacrament in both kinds and the confirmation of the English Lyturgy and probably many other things so the Papal Supremacy were acknowledged but we are very well satisfied that St. Peter had no more Authority than the rest of the Apostles and that every Bishop by Divine Right is a Successor of the Apostles and consequently hath equal power in the Church of Christ that the making more Sacraments than we are sure Christ instituted is an encroachment upon his Right and that the establishment of your five additional Sacraments is such an encroachment that the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament the Jews till our blessed Saviour's time being the only True Church of God with the uncontroverted Books of the New are the only divinely inspired Oracles and a sufficient Rule of Faith and Manners without the help of the Apocrypha or of unwritten Traditions that General Councils are not infallible much less the Pope either singly or with the Colledge of Cardinals that giving the Communion in one kind is robbing the people of what our Saviour gave them a right to and that Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a contradiction to St. Paul with many other such points which it is now needless to mention for which reason the Members of the Church of England think fit to continue where they are where they enjoy all the forementioned blessings with many others which must necessarily be forfeited when they embrace the Romish Communion Thus have I curforily taken notice of your Reflections in whatever material points you have thought fit to speak to except that very weighty and most material point of the power of Deposing Princes the thorow consideration of which was the first cause of my present undertaking Now you encounter your Adversaries Golath-Argument as you seen in scorn to call it as Card. Bellarmine in the Praeface to his Answer to Barclay says that writing in defence of Princes Barclay came out like Goliah to defie all the Armies of Israel with this distinction * Refl p. 9. that in all Councils there are some Articles of Faith which all Catholicks receive and some Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government which are not absolutely obligatory so that I perceive that in some sort
Government till the Popes began to assert their Authority in opposition to general Councils And whereas * Refl p. 6. you say that your Adversary wrongs you and imposes upon his Reader by saying that you give your private sense and Opinion only of the Articles of your Religion contrary to the Bull of Pius 4. pleading in your own behalf that you expound the Canons of the Trent Council according to the Catechism set forth by the order of the Council and the Pope as if both of them allowed of it I must say that this cannot be for the Council never saw the Catechism and consequently could never approve that they never saw unless they also were bound to exercise an implicite Faith for though they ordered a * Sess 18. Sess 25. Catechism to be publisht having observ'd how much the Protestants prevailed against their Church by their constant Catechizing they left it wholly to the Pope to see it done and to give it authority and this the Author of the Prolegomena to the Paris Edition of that Catechism An. 1671. fairly acknowledges * Proleg 2. 3. affirming that after the dissolution of the Council An. 1563. several Fathers were summon'd to Rome to make this Catechism among whom the principal man was S. Barromée as you call him Archbishop of Millan we are also told that Cardinal Seripandus made the explanation of that Article one holy Catholick Church Michael Medina of another c. and that after it was finisht it was An. 1566. offered to Pope Pius 5. for his approbation who committed the examination of it to Cardinal Sirlet who taking to himself the assistance of other learned men examined both the matter and language of it after which the Pope gave his approbation and ordered it to be printed by Paulus Manutius confirming it by his Bulls And Possevine tells us that Gregory the 13. made this Catechism the rule by which he reformed the Canon Law so that if Refl p. 6. you interpret the Canons of the Council by the Catechism then the Canons depend upon the Catechism for their meaning and the sense of the Catechism upon the Pope who gave it suthority by which deduction it appears that your Rengion is still built not on the Council but on the Pope and perhaps it was for this reason that the Italian Bishops in their Synods as do the Synods of Roven and Aix in France call it not the Trent but the Roman Catechism for in truth so it is Against all which I know only this to be objected that the same men that made the Canons made the Catechism which is hardly true as to every particular person but to that I answer that I believe you will not averr that the same men have the same assistances in a Council and out of it so that were the assertion true yet the one being done in Council had the assistance of the Blessed Spirit as you hold to assist the Compilers which I presume you will not say that the same men had when out of the Council And if this be so then does not this make the Pope judge of Controversies of Faith For say you the Church must interpret Scripture and interpret Articles of Faith declared in Councils which Church must either be the Church Representative or the Pope now to hope for a general Council upon every emergent dispute in matters of Faith is a vain exspectation and if so you will do well to show us any other judge in such cases but the Pope unless every particular Church must judge for it self or every private person be his own director and then where is the interpretation of the Church Catholick Now if the Pope be the Judge how know we but the next Pope may require the belief of the Deposing Doctrine and expound the passages of former Councils that look that way as Articles of Faith what would you do in that case especially if the generality of the Ecclesiasticks should side with him as they did in the case of the Emperour Henry 4. and of our King John and in their Synods declare for the Ecclesiastical Monarchy and upon this supposition how know we but that although the present Pope hath confirm'd the Bishop of Condom's Book another Pope may condemn his mincing the Articles of Faith for we do not want Instances of Popes who have rescinded not only one anothers Acts and Ordinations but one anothers Decrees even in what they have called matters of Faith although I must confess what is very observable that though very many Popes have asserted the Ecclesiastical Power over Princes and their Right of Deposing them we never read of one of them that condemned the Doctrine You further say * Refl p. 7. that though the Trent Council mention the Aid and Assistance of the Saints and Angels over and above their Prayers yet it means no other Aid but that of their Prayers which seem to me not so agreeable to the words of the Council †Sess 25. which are That it is good and useful ad sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere to fly to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Now I cannot believe that the Fathers of that Council would have explain'd a particular act by two more general words nor when they had mention'd in particular Prayers would they I believe have afterward inserted in general their Aid and Assistances unless the Aid and Assistances were distinct from their Intercession and this is agreeable to your allowed Prayers in your Missal where you beg God * Dec. 6. in fest S. Nicol. ut ejus meritis precibus c. that by the merits and prayers of St. Nicolas you may be deliver'd from the flames of Hell And again †Jul. 6. Octav. SS Petri Pauli That by the merits of St. Peter and St. Paul you may attain the glories of Eternity where the Merits and Intercessions of the Saints are manifestly distinguisht as they are also in the Trent-Catechism * Part. 3. praecept 1. n. 24. where in the Margin there is this Note The Saints help us with their Merits and in the body of the Catechism these They always pray for the happiness of men and God confers many benefits upon us eorum merito gratiâ for their merits and sake and truly were we assured that the Guardian Angels could hear us I see no reason why we should scruple any more to pray them to protect us against the Devil and all other Enemies that may hurt us than to beg them to intercede for us to God and this also is agreeable to the Catechism †Vbi supr n. 18. Your next Reflection * p. 8. is about the merit of good works and your self and adversary are agreed that Can. 32. Sess 6. of the Council of Trent there is no mention of the qualification of Merit with respect to dependance on God's grace goodness and promises but both in
Clergy which is equivalent to an act of our Convocation for the agreement will not hold because the dispute is not between the English and the French Church but between the Church of England and the Roman-Catholick Church in this point now we averr that the whole Church of England damns and disowns the Doctrine of Deposing but you tell us that only a part of your Catholick Church doth so too whereas a far greater part own and defend it we assert that it is Heresie to own the Doctrine but you dare not give it that name lest you offend his Holiness Nay it is plain from experience that so far are the Pope and the great men of your Church from condemning the Deposing Doctrine that those few men among you that have been so just and stout as to assert the rights of Princes have fallen under the Church Censures of which I need quote no more instances than Widdrington of old and F. Barnes if he be yet alive and F. Welsh at this present Excommunicate for affirming it to be the Duty of Subjects to Swear Allegiance to their Prince and to defend him even against the Pope himself and all his Censures whereas we daily see the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine not only live and dye in your Communion without Censure but to be the most thriving men and the soonest preferr'd to dignities So very true is that saying of * Ostens err Suares c. 3. n. 1. p. 918. ad cali to 2. de rep Eccl. Marcus Aut. de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato that the Pope and his followers are not pleased with any thing so much as with the rendring the power of Kings vile weak and contemptible to which I will add and the exposing all who defend it And to convince you that you your self have not that venerable Opinion of the Majesty of Princes and the Duty which their Subjects owe them as you ought I cannot but observe that you not only tell us * Pap. repres p. 50. that it is a disputed point among your Doctors as if it were one of those School-points which you mention p. 72. which may be maintain'd this way or that way without any breach of Faith or injury to Religion but withal that whereas upon every other head of Doctrine or Discipline that you represent you are frequent in quotations out of holy Scripture to prove your assertions how pertinently applyed your Adversary hath consider'd upon this head of the deposing power as also when you treat of it more largely than of any other thing in your * Sect. 2. § 4. p. 3. Roman Catholick principles if that Book be yours you quote not one text against Rebellion you confess that Rebellion against a Prince is contrary to the Fundamental Laws of the Nation injurious to Soveraign power destructive to peace and Government and by consequence in his Majesties Subjects impious and damnable where I shall not take notice of your limitation of the proposition to his Majesties Subjects which hath no relation at all to the question whether the Subjects of an Heretical Prince as you account him may not take up Arms against him but why do not you speak out and say it is directly impious and damnable if you will not say it is Heretical being against an express Law of God that binds you to obey even a Nero or a Dioclesian * Rom. 13.5 not only for wrath but for conscience sake that tells you that †1 Sam. 26.9 no man upon any pretence whatsoever can lift up his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless For by your way of arguing if the Fundamental Laws of a Nation may be secured by such a Rebellion and you know the pretence of all Rebels is Liberty and Property and the Government duly setled peace promoted and the Soveraign power i. e. the Monarchy not injured though a particular Monarch may be and yet your Deposing Divines say that it is no injury to an Heretical Prince to depose him but a just Execution of the Laws then a Rebellion may be lawful But upon the principles of the Church of England if all these things could be secured yet no man can be a Rebel but he must be damn'd because the Laws of God forbid Rebellion taking up Arms against a Prince or endeavouring to depose him for as long as the word of God stands firm and the above-cited texts with many others are not blotted out of our Bibles we think it directly damnable and not only by consequence as you do to take Arms against our Soveraign let his Religion be what it will So that upon the whole I cannot but ask you while you have endeavoured to prove Purgatory Invocation of Saints c. from both Scripture and Fathers how happens it that in the defence of the Rights of Princes you quote neither especially when you cannot but remember that the Assertors of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy and his power over Princes are frequent in their doughty arguments from holy Scripture such as God made two great Lights behold here are two Swords Feed my sheep rise Peter kill and eat c. and is there no place to be found in all the sacred Oracles that forbids Rebellion and requires Obedience does not that inspired Book injoyn all Christians * Mat. 22.21 to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar 's and †1 Pet. 2.13 to submit to every ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake and if you are a Priest are you not requir'd to teach others so to do * Titus 3.1 to put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers to obey Magistrates and to be ready to every good work Is there also nothing in the Fathers that looks this way doth not Tertullian say that a Prince is inferiour only to God doth not Irenaeus aver that by the same power that men are made are Princes constituted Doth not Origen tell Celsus that among the Christians he should not find any act of sedition or tumult notwithstanding all their pressures and persecutions and doth not St. Ambrose say to the Emperor we intreat thee O Prince we do not fight not to multiply quotations And before I leave this head I cannot but remark that whereas the * Part. 3. praecep 4. § 11. Trent Catechism allows that Emperors and Magistrates are called Fathers and so are included in the Commandment Honour thy Father c. which is more than you acknowledge yet they quote no place of Scripture to make this good but the History of Naaman sic Naaman à famulis pater vocabatur where his Servants call him Father which does not look like fair dealing for the Example does not reach the Doctrine unless the Fathers of that Council praevaricate Naaman being a Subject to the King of Syria whereas they might have found without much seeking that * 1 Sam. 24.11 David calls Saul my Father who was his King and in