as the Maxim faith Lex currit cum praxi this is very plain from the usages of the generality of people in your Church And I am sure to confirm this your way of arguing that I have somewhere read though I cannot now readily light on the place that Scribanius affirms that Adoration of Saints and Images is very lawful because Abraham bowed down to the Children of Heth Gen. 23.7 Surrexit Abraham adoravit populum terrae filios viz. Heth. As it is in the Vulgar Latine And if I must not judge of any man's Idolatry by his outward actions which is your exception then I can never know any man to be an Idolater for a Heathen may fall down before one of his Idols and call upon it for help and yet say that his intention is just and that he only meant thereby to worship the True God which is the excuse made by the men of your Church After this * Refl p. 16. you compare the Power of the Pope to that of Civil Powers as to the Obedience due to them from their Subjects but pray deal candidly Do you believe the Pope to have no more Authority in commanding Obedience than Civil Powers have Doubtless you do believe him to have more Authority or else why do so many of your Church refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance which yet you †Cath. princ sect 2. § 4. p. 3. allow to be a lawful Oath for you say they refuse it not for any unlawfulness in the Oath but because the Doctrine of Deposing Princes is therein called Heretical which they cannot allow of as the word is understood in a Catholick sense where you will allow me to observe that for the true notion of Heresie you depend on the Pope's Breve and so allow the Pope to be a Judge in matters of Faith for Heresie is contrary to the Faith and consequently the Deposing Power which the Pope hath determin'd is a matter of Faith and why do they follow the Papal Dictates in those things wherein by the Laws of God and Nations they are bound to submit to their Superiours Here also I observe that when * Popery misrepresented p. 46. you Treat of the Pope's Power you give your self a great latitude when you say That you never scruple to receive his Decrees and Definitions such as are issued forth by his Authority with all their due Circumstances and according to Law but never tell us what those Circumstances are as your Adversary well remarks which puts me in mind of somewhat which your * Tanner disp 1. de fid q. 4. dub 6. n. 263. Compton in 22. dis 22. § 5. Authors say concerning the Bull of Sixtus 5. prefixt to his Edition of the Vulgar Translation which was afterward recalled by Clement 8. That it was true the Bull was printed with the Bible but that it was not affixt to the Gates of St. Peter 's Church and in the Campo fiore so long as it ought to have been according to the Laws of the Romish Chancery as if such little things as those made Ecclesiastical Decrees more or less valid And now to shew you that your Answerer did not show his Learnlng in discovering that the Popes have dispenc't only with positive Institutions but not with the Moral Law with Lying and Forswearing as if he sought a knot in a Bull-rush and took Sanctuary in a Mystery as you term it by talking only in general terms what think you of the many Dispensations that have been given by former Popes to the Subjects of this and other Kingdoms to break their Oaths of Allegiance and Duty to their Soveraigns the relation between Princes and their Subjects being not grounded on their being Christians but on the Obligation of Civil Society so that a dispensing with the Oath of Allegiance is a dispensing with a Duty of Natural Religion which binds Subjects to obey their Superiours For either Subjection to Princes is a Duty of the Fifth Commandment as we reckon them Honour thy Father and Mother c. or it is not if it be not you will do well to assert it and we shall take care to prove it to be a Duty of that Commandment not only from the Authority of the Antients and from Reason but from the Authority of your own Catechism which †Part. 3. praec 4. § 3. 11.2 § 17 18. says That all persons who are possessors of power or dignity are included under the term Parents which is afterward explain'd by those who have Empire Magistracy or power committed to them who govern the Commonwealth But if to obey Princes be a duty of that Commandment then to dispence with that duty is to dispence with a Moral Law and to dispence with Oaths that bind to that duty is to give men a dispensation to be perjur'd and to forswear themselves And because you tell us * Pap. repraesent p. 47 48. That the Papist is taught in all Books that to Lye is a sin and to call God to witness to an untruth is damnable and that the practices of your Church are according to those praescriptions and that neither the Sacrament nor an Oath of Secrecy can excuse any man from perjury nor did you ever hear of any such thing from any Priests in Sermons or Confessions never read of them in your Books or Catechisms nor saw the practice of any of them in any of your Communion in which words there is some Art used for do you believe that any Priest of your Communion may reveal what he hears in confession against the Laws of your Church which bind him to Secrecy sub sigillo and when you tell us You never read of any such thing either in Books or Catechisms you mean I suppose Books of Devotion for in other Books you may undoubtedly read such Doctrines or else why should the Pope condemn them And when you say You never saw any such thing I hope you mean it never fell within the reach of your particular observation but if you read the account of Mr. Garnet and his accomplices you will find that they took the Sacrament as an Oath of Secrecy to carry on that Hellish design And withal subjoyn * Ib. p. 66. That the present Pope hath condemn'd all Equivocations and Mental Reservations under the penalty of Excommunication latae sententiae by his Decree March 2. 1679. We do still averr that your Church hath given dispensations for Lying and Forswearing and we know not but it may be done for the future For not to instance in the Jesuite Moralists †Filiut to 2. tr 25. n. 325. Sanches oper moral l. 3. c. 10. n. 7. 8. Filiutius Sanches c. their averring That if a man promises any thing and swears to it yet if he do not intend it he may without sin break that promise and that Oath so that the intention of the Swearer among these Casuists makes the Oath
truth the title was so proper to Princes that the Kings of the Philistim were always called Abimelech i.e. my Father the King by a general name whatever their proper name was Now I am loath to judg that those Fathers made use of an instance of a Subject called Father by his Servants that the Example might limit the Doctrine to subjection to inferiour Magistrates when had they inserted the Example of David it would plainly have proved the Obedience of Subjects to Soveraign Princes And whereas the Fathers of the same Council who were concern'd in the Catechism use to quote such places of the Antients as they thought pertinent to the Subject treated of they having * Ibid. § 17. quoted Rom. 13.1 to prove that men ought to be obedient to the Higher Powers confirm the Doctrine only by the testimony of Tertullian who it is true speaks plain and to the purpose omitting St. Chrysostom Theodoret Theophylact and others on the place who have told the World that by every Soul in St. Paul are meant Priests and Bishops as well as Laymen nay the Pope himself as says St. Bernard but this probably would have unriddled the Mystery and exposed a Doctrine which they were not willing to disown the Catechism like the Canons leaving every man in many such things a great latitude so that in short I desire you to answer this Question Either Rebellion is against a Moral Law or not if it be then the Pope cannot dispence with it and then how happens it that so many things of lesser moment were decided in the Trent Council while this was forgotten or past by If it be not against a Moral Law then by your own principles the Pope may dispence with it and what then becomes of all Obedience when another Gregory 7. or Sixtus 5. shall fill the Chair And tho the Council would not condemn the Deposing Doctrine yet why had not the Authors of the Index Expurgatorius censured such dangerous Books for if we may judg of the sense of the Trent Council by its Catechism tho made after the Council broke up why may we not judg of its sense by the Index which was ordered to be made at the same time c. by the same men who composed the Catechism In which Index more than a few passages are expunged that interfere with the Papal Grandeur but not one poor sentence condemn'd that is destructive to the Rights of Princes Here also pray suffer me to mind you of a bold assertion of a private man as you are and which I am sure as things are now you cannot accomplish * Introd p. 11. for you undertake that all Roman Catholick Nations in the World shall subscribe to the condemnation of all such principles and practices i. e. in your own words of such principles as destroy the peace of Nations with Fires and Massacres and rob Soveraigns of their Crowns and Subjects of their Liberties for I am sure there was a time when all Roman-Catholicks were not of that mind when the League was rampant against Henry 3. and 4. of France in which one of them actually fell and by the principles of which the other also was murthered not to mention what the Emperors Henry 4. and 5. and our King John suffered and when the Parisian and Irish Massacres were sufficient proofs to the contrary Nor is it possible even now to make good your promise since I have told you already what the belief of the Spanish Netherland and Hungarian Churches are in this point besides what the Italians hold Now against all this Doctrine you have nothing to object but that this Doctrine hath been condemn'd * Pap. misrepr p. 51. in France by the Ecclesiasticks there and by the Universities of Caen Rhemes Poictiers c. all which Universities are within the one Kingdom of France so that tho there be no need of considering the Argument because it is only the sentiment of one National Church against the rest of what you call Catholick Christendom if I make it appear that the French Church hath not always been of this belief and perhaps is not so now then all that you say upon that Topick will be far from proving your assertion while withal I profess that if what I am about to say doth not reach so far as a conviction and be only a well-meant Essay yet the cause which I maintain ought not to be prejudiced by it because the main position about the rights of Princes hath been already proved by other arguments and authorities And to evince this I shall pursue the method which the famous * Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallele part 3. ch 3. Monsieur Jurieu hath laid down adding here and there my own observations If therefore this be and always hath been the Doctrine of the Gallican Church then you have stated your argument aright but if it hath not been always their belief then the present Gallican Church may be as well mistaken as the former and if so where is its authority besides if the French Church do condemn the Deposing Doctrine and all the rest of the Catholick World do assert it then the Tradition is not on the side of the French Church though never defin'd as a matter of Faith by a general Council Now to prove that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the Opinion of the Gallican Church I shall produce one remarkable instance and that is the deposition of Childerick and the introducing of Pepin the first King of the second race into his Throne and I shall briefly tell the story out of the French Historian * Girard du Haillan de l'Estate c. l. 1. m.p. 66 c. that I have now by me who relates that Pepin after his Conquest of the Sarazins did so honour and reverence the Clergy and repair'd so many of their Temples that had been ruined that the most holy men of that time thought him a Saint whereupon aiming at the Crown and finding nothing stick in his way but the Oath which the French had given to their King he sent to the Pope whom he had before obliged for his dispensation Pepin having already gained the greatest part of the Nobility Ecclesiastick's and Commons to his party the Pope readily granted a dispensation the Clergy as well as the Nobility and Commons acquiesc't in what was done acknowledging Pepin for their rightful King and thrusting Childerick into a Monastery and so do Paulus Aemilius and others also relate the story and among them Cardinal Perron and * Ch. Childeric 3. An. 751. Monsieur Mezeray says that this was very likely done in that general Assembly held in March An. 751. The Bishops being there in great numbers and Boniface Arch-Bishop of Mentz in the head of them who declared to the rest of the Assembly the validity of the Pope's answer and he intimates the reason why they complied so readily with Pepin because he gave
But notwithstanding that Censure if your way of arguing be good the Practice is still lawful Now to evade your Adversaries Argument That intention cannot alter the nature of actions which are determin'd by either Divine or Humane Law you shift the force of the reasoning by making a Plea from the same Principle for the Quakers and probably it is well done of you to turn Advocate for a Sect which owes its Original to the Jesuits and other Emissaries of your own Church because if intention cannot alter the nature of actions determined by Law no Oaths can be lawful nor the payment of civil Honour allowed of because the Scripture says Swear not at all and let your communication be yea yea nay nay and you shall not be called Master c. And the Answer would signifie something if you could shew us any place of Scripture where such Worship hath been paid to Images notwithstanding the divine determination to the contrary as we can shew you for the allowance of those things which you object for we there read that notwithstanding the prohibition the Apostles did allow of the Title Lord or Sir or Master for St. Philip exprest no dislike when †Johan 12.21 the Greeks gave him that appellation nor St. Paul and Silas * Acts 16.30 when the Jaylor at Philippi treated them with the same Language And by Swear not at all c. the Holy Writ onely forbids vain and rash Swearing and Perjury and double Dealing c. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths which says the Apostle are the end of all strife After which you will do well to shew any place of Holy Scripture that countenances the Worship of Images and we shall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reason for it is not the intention of the Person commanded but of the Lawgiver that makes an action lawful for did a mans own intention legitimate his actions that are otherwise forbidden by any Law divine or humane then a man may do evil that good may come there of expresly against St. Paul a man may commit Murther Sacriledge and every other gross sin as some men have done and plead for himself that he intended nothing but Reformation and the advancement of Religion as the men in our Saviour's time persecuted the Apostles to death with an intention to do God service but the intention of the Lawgiver when made known is that which legitimates the actions of the subject either in matters purely civil or in matters of Religion of which latter sort is the Worship of Images which I shall acknowledge to be lawful when you shall have shewn that it is agreeable to the intention of our supreme Law-giver But the further management of this Argument I leave to your other Antagonist while I observe that †Protest Pop. p. 25. you shift him off with no other Answer but this That a Question or two is in his opinion a confutaof the Reflecter because you are ask'd Whether all your Representations are conformable to the sense of the Trent Council and Catechism which I have already proved they are not particularly in the Doctrine of the assistance of Angels and Saints which you say consists onely in their Prayers while the Council and Catechism besides their Intercession mention their Merits and Aid And whereas when he objects against the Pope's licensing the Bishop of Condom 's Book that Canus with judgment avers That whatever the Pope determines privately maliciously and inconsiderately is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See you rejoyn that the Pope's private determination of any Opinion doth not hinder it from being the judgment of the Apostolick See unless it be also determined maliciously and inconsiderately I cannot understand Canus in that sence but that whatever is determined either privately or maliciously or inconsiderately is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for if this be not so then a private determination how malicious soever it can be so it be upon due consideration may be the judgment of the Apostolick See And who knows but the present Pope's allowance of the Bishop of Condom's Book may be the product of malice of his spleen against the French Hereticks as he calls them for whose Extirpation he hath so solemnly by his Letters thanked the French King And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgment why may not Favour Affection or Fear when they interpose in such Determinations render them equally invalid And if so why may not the reason of the present Pope's not censuring the French Clergie in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes be his fear lest that Victorious Prince should either set up a Patriarch of his own in France or by an Army establish his Right in Italy and make the Pope depend on him for his Election But to confirm the Authority of the Bishop of Condom's Book you say That it was printed at Rome translated into divers Languages and attested by the Pope and divers Cardinals c. Will you allow of all that hath been publish'd for Catholick Doctrine at Rome with the same or the like approbation Were not Cardinal Baronius's Annales to instance onely in one Book printed at Rome in the Press belonging to the Vatican-Palace Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epistle in commendation of the Author and the Work Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals Was it not translated into Italian German Polish and other Languages and the two first Tomes of it into Arabick Now if such a Recommendation be sufficient to make known the Sentiments of your Church then how comes it to pass that those Ecclesiastical Annals are not received in France in those things relating to Regal Power nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily And if you do allow of the Annals you must not onely interfere with the fore-named Churches of your Communion but you must also acknowledge what you will be loath to own that the Pope hath a right to dispose of his Majesties Kingdoms as in truth that Cardinal hath intituled him to almost all the other Kingdoms of the World by name It is also observable that the Bishop of †P. 50. Edit Noviss Condom when he speaks of the Pope mentions the Primacy but for the Deposing Doctrine he says It is not necessary to speak of it adding in general That all Catholicks acknowledge a Head establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which those who love Concord among Brethren and Ecclesiastical Vnanimity will most willingly acknowledge By which expression every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point and it is no wonder that the Pope though he does believe his own Power of Deposing Princes doth approve of this Book for the Phrase of conducting the whole Flock of Christ is as easily to be construed as pasce oves meas to signifie the Deposing of Princes whenever the