Absolution but we do not make this an Engin to screw peoples secrets from them For which there is no warrant in Scripture nor was it thought necessary for many Ages after the Apostles Confession of publick Scandals was enjoyned and for private sins it was recommended but this latter was not judged simply necessary for obtaining the pardon of sin And what noise soever they make of the good that Confession and the enjoyning of Pennance may do if well managed we need only appeal to some of their own best Writers now in France whether as they have been practised they have not rather driven all true Piety out of the world If these abuses had been only the faults of some Priests the blame could not have been justly cast on their Church but when the publick Rules given to Confessors printed with Licence are their warrants for so doing then their Church is in fault So that nothing is more common among them than for persons after a confession made of their sins with a slight sorrow and some trifling pennance undergone together with the Priestly Absolution to fancy themselves as clean from all sin as if they had never offended God And this being the Doctrin of their Church it both lessens the sense of sin and takes men off from making such earnest applications to God through Christ as the Gospel commands For Orders they are among us with the same Rites that Christ and the Apostles gave them first And a learned Man of their own Church has lately published the most ancient Forms of Ordinations he could find From which it appears that all the Ceremonies in their Ordinations for the want of which they accuse us were brought in since the eighth Century so that even by their own Principles these things cannot be necessary to Ordination otherwise there were no true Orders in the Church for the first eight Ages For Marriage we honour it as Gods Ordinance and since the Scriptures declare it honourable in all without exception we dare deny it to none who desire it St. Paul delivers the Duty of Clergy-men towards their Wives with Rules for their Wives behaviour which had been very impertinent if Clergy-men might have no Wives We find a married Clergy in the first ten Centuries And we know by what base Arts the Caelibate of the Clergy was brought in and what horrid ill effects it has produced Neither do we allow of any devices to hinder Marriage by degrees of kindred not prohibited in the Law of God or the trade that was long driven in granting Dispensations in those degrees and afterwards annulling these and avoiding the Marriages that followed upon them upon some pretences of Law Thus it appears how they have corrupted the Doctrine of the Sacraments together with the Worship of God The last head of Religion is Government and as to this we can challenge any to see what they can except to us First in reference to the Civil Power we declare all are bound for conscience sake to obey every lawful Command of the Supream Authority and to submit when they cannot obey We pretend to no Exemption of Clarks from the Civil Jurisdiction but give to Caesar the things that are Caesars We do not obey the King only because he is of our Religion much less do we allow of Conspiracies or Rebellions upon our judging him an Heretick so that we deliver no Doctrin that can be of any ill consequence to the Society we live in And for the Ecclesiastical Government we have Bishops Priests and Deacons rightly Ordained and in their due subordination to one another every one administring these Offices due to his Function which has been the Government of the Christian Church since the times of the Apostles So that we have a clear vocation of Pastors among us from whose hands every person may without scruple receive all the Sacraments of the Church But for the Church of Rome how unsafe is the Civil Government among them not to mention the Doctrin of deposing Princes for which I refer you to my former Letter What a security does the Exemption of Clerks from the Civil Courts in cases criminal give to loose and debauched Church-men and what disturbance must this breed to a Common-wealth The denying the Civil Magistrate power to make Laws that concern Religion or oblige Churchmen takes away a great deal of his Rights for scarce any Law can be made but wrangling and ill-natur'd Churchmen may draw it within some head of Religion And that this was frequently done in former Ages all that have read History know The quarrels that were in the beginning of this Century between the Pope and the Republick of Venice were a fresh Evidence of it But for the Ecclesiastical Government they have spoiled it in all the parts of it The Pope has assumed a power of so vast an extent and so arbitrary a nature that all the ancient Canons are thrown out of doors by it We know that originally the Bishops of Rome were looked on by the rest of the Church as their Colleagues and fellow Bishops The Dignity of the City made the See more remarkable and the belief of St. Peters having founded it with his suffering Martrydom there with St. Paul made it much honoured so that when the Empire became Christian then the Dignity of the Imperial City made the Bishop of Rome be acknowledged the first Patriarch From this beginning they arose by many degrees to the height of pretending to a Supremacy both Civil and Spiritual and then they not only received appeals which was all they at first pretended to but set up Legantine Courts every where made the Bishops swear Obedience and Homage to them and the Arch-Bishops receive the Pall from their hands in sign of their dependance on them Exempted Monasteries and other Clarks from Episcopal Jurisdiction broke all the Laws of the Church by their Dispensations So that no shaddow of the primitive Government does now remain And though Gregory the Great wrote with as much indignation against the Title of Universal Bishop as ever any Protestant did yet his Successors have since assumed both the Name and thing And to that height of Insolence has this risen that in the Council of Trent all the Papal Party opposed the Decree that was put in for declaring Bishops to have their Jurisdictions by Divine Right The Court Party not being ashamed to affirm that all Jurisdiction was by Divine Right only in the Pope and in the other Bishops as the Delegates of the Apostolick See and they were in this too hard for the other Party So that now a Bishop who by the Divine appointment ought to feed the Flock can do no more in that then as the Pope gives him leave The greatest part of the Priests have no dependence on their Bishops The Monks Fryars and Iesuits being immediately subordinate to the Pope so that they do what they please knowing they can justifie any thing
think them the fittest to express their Notions Secondly They were divided into two famous Schools among whom there were great heats the Scotists and Thomists So that if either of these had asserted any thing that was not the received Doctrine of the Age they lived in the other Party had such Emulation against them that they would not have failed to have laid them open as they did in the matter of the Immaculate Conception of the B. Virgin Whereas the Fathers writing only against Hereticks or other Enemies to Christianity they might have mistaken somethings without so publick a discovery as was likely to happen among the Schoolmen 3dly The Schoolmen wrote on purpose to deliver the Doctrine of the Age in which they lived to those who were to succeed them Their Books being generally the Divinity Lectures they read either in Colledges or Religious Houses to their Scholars whereas the Fathers wrote upon Emergent Occasions either Letters or Treatises to private Persons regarding more the present than the succeeding Age. In which we cannot expect that exactness that is to be looked for in a Publick Lecture Upon all which I assume That allowing the Church to have the same Authority in all Ages the Schoolmen are more competent Witnesses of the Tradition of the Church in their Ages than the Fathers were in theirs By the second Rule for judging of Traditions from the Conveyance of the See of Rome it does undeniably follow That the Popes from Gregory the Sevenths time downward were as sure Depositories of the Traditions of the Church as were the Popes from Gregory the First his time upward They were both alike Christ's Vicars and St. Peters Successors So that all the high words that the Fathers bestow on the See of Rome were either Complements in which they are not wanting or were said because of the worth of the Bishops whom they had known in that See But if they be to be understood in that sence in which the Writers of Controversy obtrude them on us then it will follow manifestly that as to the Conveyance of Tradition P. Gregory the 7th is as much to be believed when he says any thing in the Name of St. Peter or of Christ as any of the Popes are For in the Preamble of Bulls and Breeves the Reasons are given of what follows which are most commonly vouched from Apostolical Authority and Tradition So let the Pope be ever so ignorant or so corrupt in his Manners what he asserts to be Apostolical Tradition must be either received as such or the authority of that See is overthrown therefore they must either cease to press us any more with tht Authority of the See of Rome or acknowledg that all the Popes Declarations which they make about Traditions are to be received It is an Answer to be made use of only to ignorant Persons to say These Depositions were the Deeds of some Popes who might be ill Men and the Church is not concerned to justify them I confess whether this or that Deposition was justly or lawfully made is a personal thing in which only the Pope who decreed it is concerned But if he declares in the Preamble that the Power of deposing upon those reasons is grounded on an Apostolical Tradition then the See is concerned in it for either he declares true or false if the former then that Power of deposing comes from Apostolical Tradition if they acknowledge he declares false then we are not any more to be urged with the Authority of that See as the certain Depository of the Traditions of the Church By the third Mark to judge of the Tradition of any age from the Decision of a General Council it appears that the Decisions of the fourth Council of Lateran are as Obligatory as the Decrees of the first Council of Nice the Church having the same power in all Ages If it be said it was only a Council of the Western Church the like may be objected against the first General Council which were generally made up of Eastern Bishops and very few of the Western Bishops sat in them And if we esteem a Council General because it was received by the Church then the whole Church of Rome having received that Council it must be acknowledged to be General as much as any ever was But to this others answer That a Council is only Infallible when a thing is decreed by it according to the Tradition of the Church If this be true the whole Controversie between the Roman Church and us about the authority of Councils is decided on our Side For if a Council has only authority to declare Traditions then it is free for every Person to examine whether this Declaration be according to truth or not And if it be found that it is not so they may lawfully reject such Decisions For instance in the second Council of Nice the worship of Images was established upon a mock-shew of Tradition and yet all the World knows there were no Images allowed in the Church the first four Ages after Christ and even in the sixth Age P. Gregory declared That though they might be in the Church yet they ought not to be worshipped Nor was there any contest about it before the eighth Century This being thus examined and found to be True then according to the foregoing Answer that Decision was of no force though made by the second Council of Nice In a word if this Maxime be true That Councils are only to be submitted to when they decree according to Apostolical Tradition then they have no Authority in themselves and their decisions can have no more force than this That it may seem probable that they were not mistaken and in an Ignorant Age even this probability will vanish to nothing No Body will reject the Decision of a Council when the Decrees are just and right But if iâ—… be upon that score alone that they are to be submitted to then none are bound by them before they have examined them And if upon a Search it appear they decreed against Tradition then their Decrees are to be rejected So it is apparent this Answer does plainly according to their Principles lay the foundation of all Heresie since it gives every Man a right to question the Decrees of a General Council Besides How can those Persons be assured that the fourth Council of Lateran did not decree according to Tradition The Acts of that Council are lost so we cannot know upon what reasons they made their Decrees And it cannot be said that because there is no mention made of any Tradition in the Decree that therefore they considered none It is seldom found that the reasons of any Decree are put with it But we may reasonably enough believe that they followed the Method in this Council that had been used in some former ones particularly in the second Council of Nice which was this a Writing was read penned perhaps by the Pope or a Patriarch in which
A COLLECTION OF Several Tracts AND DSICOURSES Written in the Years 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685. By GILBERT BURNET D. D. To which are added A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's Secret Powers The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon An Impartial Consideration of the Five Jesuits dying Speeches who were Executed for the Popish Plot 1679. LONDON Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXV A TABLE of the TITLES MDCLXXVIII 1. A LETTER written upon the Discovery of the LATE PLOT 2. The Unreasonablness and Impiety of POPERY in a Second Letter written upon the Discovery of the LATE PLOT 3. A Relation of the Barbarous and Bloody MASSACRE of about an Hundred thousand Protestants begun at Paris and carried on over all FRANCE by the PAPISTS in the year 1572 Collected out of Mezeray Thuanus and Other approved Authors MDCLXXIX 4. A Decree made at ROME the 2d of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Iesuits and Other Casuists MDCLXXX 5. The Conversion and Persecutions of Eve Cohan now called Elizabeth Verboon a Person of Quality of the Iewish Religion who was baptized the 10th of October 1680. 6. A Sermon preached on the Fast day December 22. 1680. at St. Margarets Westminster before the House of Commons on Rev. 3. 2 3. 7. A Sermon preached before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London on September 2. 1680. being the Anniversary Fast for the Burning of London on Amos 4. 11 12. 8. A Sermon preached before the Aldermen of London January 30 1680. being the day of the Martyrdom of King Charles the first on Zech. 8. 19. MDCLXXXI 9. A Sermon preached at the Election of the Lord Mayor of London September 29. 1681. on Matth. 12. 25. MDCLXXXII 10. A Sermon preached at the Funeral of Mr. James Houblon Merchant June 28. 1682. Psal. 37. 37. 11 News from France in a Letter giving a Relation of the present State of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome to which is added the Popes Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy and the Protestation made by Them 12. An Answer to the Animadversions on Dr. Burnet's History of the Rights of Princes MDCLXXXIV 13. A Sermon preached at the Chappel of the Rolls November 5. 1684. being Gun-Powder-Treason day on Psal. 22. 21. 14. A Letter to Mr. Simon Lowth Vicar of Cosmus-Blene in the Diocess of Canterbury occasioned by his late Book Of the Subject of Church Power 15. An Answer to a Letter to Dr. Burnet occasioned by His Letter to Mr. Lowth 16. A Letter occasioned by the Second Letter to Dr. Burnet MDCLXXXV 17. A Letter written to Dr. Burnet giving an Account of Cardinal Pool ' Secret Powers From which it appears That it was never intended to confirm the Alienation that was made of the Abby-Lands To which is added Two Breves that Cardinal Pool brought over and Some other of his Letters that were never before Printed 18. The History of the Powder-Treason with a Vindication of the Proceedings and Matters relating thereunto from the Exoeptions made against it and more particularly of late years by the Author of the Catholick Apology To which is added A Parallel betwixt That and the present Popish Plot. 1681. 19. An Impartial consideration of those Speeches which pass under the Name of the Five Iesuits lately Executed viz. Mr. Whitebread Mr. Harcourt Mr. Gawen Mr. Turner and Mr. Fenwick In Which it is proved That according to their Principles they not only might but also ought to dye after that manner with solemn Protestations of their Innocency 1679. A LETTER Written upon the DISCOVERY Of the Late PLOT Licensed W. Jane Octob. 17. 1678. LONDON Printed for H. Brome and R. Chiswell both living in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1678. A LETTER Written upon the DISCOVERY Of the Late PLOT SIR I Heartily thank you for the News your last brought me of the discovery of that horrid Plot both against his Majesties Person and the whole Kingdom I doubt not but all good men are offering up their acknowledgments to God for so great a Blessing which is a fresh demonstration of his care of this Church and State and that all our Crying sins have not provoked him yet to abandon us of which I pray God make us all sensible that we may not continue to pull down such judgments as the malice of wicked men would readily become instrumental in if the Providence of God did not so wonderfully and seasonably interpose There is only one Passage in your Letter that I wonder at You tell me every body is surprized with this Plot now discovered I confess I am not of their mind for although I know there are persons of high Honour and untainted Loyalty of the Roman Religion who abominate the thoughts of all secret Assassinations much more of Murdering his Majesty yet such practices are so necessarily consequent to the Principles of that Church that no Member of it who throughly understands them can while they continue in that Communion avoid the being involved in Conspiracies as oft as a fit occasion presents it self These several years past they have boasted much of their Loyalty and their Services and Sufferings for his Majesty during the late Civil Wars All this was necessary to make the Government put confidence in them that so they might more secretly lay their designs which were to take effect when a Conjuncture was offered that seemed favourable But I must again and again repeat what I often told you in discourse That no Member of that Church can thorowly understand and believe the Principles of it and be a good Subject even to a King of his own Perswasion But he can be much less so to a Prince whom he looks on as an Heretick who thereby lies under a general Excommunication and may be brought under a particular and Formal one before he or any body else but such as are fit to be entrusted with the Secret shall know it And then the Prince is at the mercy of all his Popish Subjects who if they consider aright the Doctrine of their own Church must depart from their Allegiance to Him and be ready to do any thing that is laid on them by those who are either directly their Superiours if they have taken Religious Vows or at least have some authority over their Consciences This I shall open to you in as short and plain terms as is possible and the rather that you may communicate it to some persons of Honour of that Religion who I hope upon so fresh a Discovery of these practices may be now not unwilling to examine a Point the consideration of which they before rejected as an Imputation cast on their Religion This will now I imagine move them so far to demur as to consider impartially whether such practises flow only from the ill Tempers of particular Persons or from the received Principles
in any one age it hath been believed That St. Peter had power from Christ which he left to the See of Rome by which his Successor in it can depose Kings then this must be an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence of equal authority with any thing written in the Scriptures To these General Considerations about the Authority of the Church and the Certainty of Tradition I shall add Two other about the Nature of Supreme and Soveraign Power By which we may judg of what Extent the Popes Power must be if he have an authority to depose Kings and transfer their Dominions to other persons First When the Soveraign Powers proceed in a Legal way against its Subjects If either they abscond so that they cannot be found Or have such a Power about them that the Sovereign cannot bring them to punishment He may declare them Rebels and set Prices on their Heads And in that case it is as lawful for any Subject to kill them as it is for an Executioner to put a condemned Person to Death These being the several ways the Law provides in those several cases So when a Pope deposes a Prince He may as lawfully set on private Assassinates to kill him as oblige his Subjects to rise with open force against him For if the Pope has a Power over him to depose him this clearly follows from the Nature of Sovereign Power and it is the Course that sometimes must be followed when the Rebel can be no other way brought to deserved punishment and if the Pope has the power of deposing then a Prince who after such a Sentence carries himself as a King is a Rebel against his Supreme Lord And is also an Usurper For his Title being destroyed by the Sentence He has no authority over his Subjects and therefore may be as lawfully killed as any Rebel or Usurper Secondly The Supreme power may in cases of great necessity when the thing is in it self materially just pass over such Forms as ought in ordinary Cases to be observed I need not tell you That in a great Fire Subordinate Magistrates may blow up Houses But doubtless the Supreme Power of all as a King in an absolute Monarchy and such is the Papal Power if these Opinions be true may dispence with some Forms when the Matter is in it self just and if the chief design of a Law be pursued the circumstantial parts of it may upon extraordinary occasions be superseded Therefore if the Pope is Supreme over all Kings and has this deposing Power Then though by the Canon a King ought to be first a Year Excommunicated for his Heresy or favouring Hereticks and at the Years end he may be Deposed by the Pope There are also other Rules for Excommunications tho the Summary way in some cases may be used yet all these are but circumstantial and lesser Matters The design of that Law is That no Heretical Prince or favourer of Heresie be continued in his Power The other are but Forms of Law that cannot be indispensibly necessary in all cases Besides the very Canon Law teaches that when there is both a Notorietas juris Facti Summary proceedings are Legal when then it is Notorious that the Doctrines of the Church of England for Instance are Heretical and that the King is an Obstinate Favourer of these Heresies and will not extirpate them Summary and Secret proceedings are justifiable There is no hope that Bulls Breves or Citations would do any good in this case These would on the contrary alarm the State and bring all the Party under great hazards Therefore from the Nature of Supreme Power it is most justly Inferred That though there have been no publick Sentence of Deposition according to the Forms of the Canon Law yet all these may be dispensed with and a Secret and Summary one may do as well These Positions are such that I cannot fansie any just Exceptions to which they are liable and from all these laid together the Inference will undeniably follow That according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome the power of Deposing Kings is lodged with the Pope by a Divine Authority and that by consequence private persons may conspire to take away the Life of a King so deposed Even though there be no publick Sentence given about it But before I bring the Evidence for all this I shall desire the Reader will a little reflect on the Positions I have laid down in which he will find an Answer to all the Exceptions that can be made against the following Evidence By the first The Authority of the Church being the same in all Ages he will see it is to no purpose to pretend these were dark Ages So that what was done in an ignorant time cannot oblige the World when things are seen in a better light But if the Church has an Authority from Christ that shall last till the end of the World it must be the same in all ages The Ignorance of the age is a very good answer when made by a Protestant but can signifie nothing in a Papists Mouth By the second Of the Churches authority in setling Moral Rules for practice it appears how fond that distinction is which they make between a Canon and a Decree It is true a Decree about a particular Case in which there is some matter of Fact may be wrong according to their Principles and yet the authority of the Church remain entire For instance in the deposing a Prince or condemning a Man for Heresie the Church may either by false Witnesses or mistaking a Man's words be drawn to pass an unjust Sentence by reason of a mis-representation of the Fact But that is nothing to the purpose here where a Decree is made as a perpetual Rule of Practice this must be of the same authority of a Canon about any article of Faith Otherwise it will follow that the Church may mislead the People in matters indispensably necessary to Salvation For such is the Obedience to the Ten Commandments By the first way of judging of the Tradition of the Church from what the most received Writers in any age deliver as the Doctrine of the Church it will appear That the Schoolmen and Canonists are as competent Conveyers of Tradition from the twelfth age downward as the Fathers were from the sixth Age upward and laying this for a Principle That the Church is the same in all Ages they are really more competent Witnesses than the Fathers were First Because they write more closely to the subject they have in hand they consider what is said for or against an Opinion in a more exact manner than the Fathers did who being carried with the heat they are sometimes in go off from the purpose and generally affect Eloquence which is the most improper Stile for nice Matters Whereas the Schoolmen write in a blunt way only considering the purpose they are about coyning the most barbarous words they can light on when they
the Tradition of the Church was confidently alledged and some Quotations were brought and very oft out of some later Writers The Paper was no sooner read than a loud and often repeated Shout of applause followed without any further search or canvasing about these Authorities And upon that the Decree was made This was the practice both of the second Nicene and of some more ancient Councils whose Journals are hitherto preserved and where the Journals are lost we have reason to believe they followed the same method so that it is very probable there might have been some such Writing read in the Council of Lateran And if they did not found their Decree upon Tradition they were much to blame for they had as venerable a Tradition as either the second Council of Nice or some other Councils had a practice about 150 years standing from the days of Pope Gregory the VII so that it is not to be denied but they had as good authority from Tradition to make this Decree as to make most of the other Decrees on which they insist much in the Books of Controversies that are written by them By the fourth Rule of judging about Tradition the matter is yet much plainer for if the generally received Belief of any Age of the Church is a good Thread to lead us up to the Apostles times then there needs no more be said For it is certain that for near four Ages together this was the universally received Doctrine of the Church of Rome And the opposition that some Princes made to it was condemned as Heresy Rebellion and every thing that was evil And it is remarkable that both Oâ—…kam that wrote much for the Emperors cause against the Pope and Gerson and Almain no great favourers of Papal power are cited by Cardinal Perrow as acknowledging the Ecclesiastical power of deposing if a Prince were guilty of spiritual crimes So that the Controversies in this matter that were managed between the Writers for the Popes and Emperors were not whether the Pope in cases of Heresy might depose a Prince but were concerning two things very remote from this The one was whether the Pope had a direct Temporal power over all Kings by which as being Lord of the Feâ—… he could proceed upon any Cause whatsoever against a King and take his Dominions from him To this indeed Gregory the 7th pretended tho more covertly and Boniface the 8th more avowedly There was great Opposition made to this by many Writers but at the same time they all agreed on it as an undeniable Maxim That the Pope had an indirect Power over Princes by which in the Cases of Heresy he might excommunicate and depose them nor was there so much as any Debate about it A second thing about which there was some Controversy was whether the Particulars that fell under debate came within the Head of Heresy or not So in the Case of Princes giving the Investitures into Bishopricks the Pope brought it in within the Head of Heresy and condemned those Persons as Simoniacks The Writers on the other side denied this pretending it was a Civil Matter and a right of the Crown The like Debates fell in when Princes were sentenced on any other account The Authority of the Sentence in the Case of Heresy was not controverted all the Question was Whether the Point under debate was Heresy or not And concerning these things any who have read the Writings in the great Collection made of them by Goldastus will receive an easy and full Satisfaction By which it appears that the Popes Power of deposing Kings in the Case of Heresy was the received Doctrine of the Church for several Ages and by consequence it must be looked on as derived down from the Apostles If the Doctrine of any one Age of the Church can lead us backward in a certain Track to discover what it was in the Apostles days By the first Position about the Nature of Supreme Power it is apparent that in the Case of Heresy a Prince deposed by the Pope if he stands out against the Sentence may be as lawfully killed as any Tory or Moss-Trooper or Bantito may be for he is a Rebel against his Lord and an Usurper over the People from that day forward And therefore tho Mariana told a Secret too publickly yet it cannot be denied to be a certain Consequent of their Principles It had been indeed more discreetly done to have ordered this only to be infused unto Peoples Consciences by their Confessors in secret And for Mariana tho the Book in gross is condemned as they give out yet the Opinions set down in it are not censured But Suarez writing against K. Iames tells him in plain Terms That a King who is canonically deposed may be killed by any man whatsoever This was not only published with an ordinary License but the whole University of Alcala declared every thing in it to be according to the Doctrine of the Church Valentia tho he disguises it a little yet says That an Heretical Prince may by the Popes Sentence be deprived of his Life Foulis cites ten more Doctors for the same Opinion of killing Kings by private persons I do not build upon the Assertions of these Jesuits as binding Authorities in that Church but make use of them to shew that some of their own eminentest Writers acknowledg the force of this Consequence which is indeed so evident that nothing but good Manners and some small Care not to provoke Princes too much by such bare-faced Positions keeps others from asserting it Few Princes are so tame as Childeric was to go into a Monastery after they are deposed Therefore this Doctrine is but a lame provision for the Churches Security from Heresie if the Lawfulness of killing does not follow that of deposing Kings And it was so generally received that it is told of Gerson that he was at great pains to get it declared that no private Cut-throat might kill a King and that by consequence it was only the Popes Prerogative to order them to be destroyed By the second Position about the Nature of Supreme Power that in extraordinary Cases Forms of Law may be superseded It is also clear that tho we know nothing of any Sentence of Deposition given out against the King yet he is not a whit the safer for he lies under an yearly Curse every Maundy Thursday The Notoriousness of his Heresy will sufficiently justify a particular Sentence without any further Process or Citation according to the Maxims of the Canon Law And there may be for ought we can know as valid a Deposition as Parchment and Lead can make it already expeded And if it be not yet done we are sure it may be done very suddenly and will be done whensoever they see any probability of Success Bellarmine hath very sincerely told us the Reason why Heretical Princes are not deposed because the Church has not strength enough to make such
a Sentence good or does not think it expedient that is to say They will do it whensoever they find a Prince who will execute the Sentence and yet by that Conquest not grow so strong as by that means to turn the Ballance So the two Considerations to which we owe our Security are the want of Force and the Fear of another Prince his becoming too powerful by the Conquest But I must add that Bellarmine while he was a Jesuite had taught that Heretical Princes were not to be deposed except they endeavoured to turn their people from the Faith This was all his Bounty to them of which we could not pretend to a Crumb since there were such Laws made against Popery among us Yet when he became a Cardinal he considered better of the Matter so that in his Recognitions he retracts that and says therein be followed Durandus his Opinion who maintains it against Aquinas but he thinks the latter was in the right and says Even in that Case they may be deposed only the Church does it not always either because she wants Strength or does not judge it expedient But he concludes If Princes endeavour to draw their Subjects from the Faith they may and ought to be deposed So in our Case there is no Mercy to be expected unless we repeal all Laws against that Religion But after all this there is another Device in the Canon-Law called Ipso facto by which a Sentence is incurred immediately upon the doing of a Fact This began in the Priviledges granted to Monasteries or Churches in most of which this Clause is to be found That if any King or Prince c. did any thing contrary to these Priviledges he thereby fell from his Power and Dignity Now that Heresy is one of the things upon which a Prince is ipso facto under Excommunication and Deposition we have the Authority of Father Parsons or Creswel who tells us That the whole School of Divines and Canonists agree in it and That it is certain and of Faith That a Prince falling from the Catholick Religion and endeavouring to draw away others from it does immediately fall from all his Power and Dignity even before the Pope has pronounced any Sentence and that his Subjects are free from their Oaths of Obedience and may eject such an one as Apostate and Heretick But there is a clearer Evidence for this the great and famous College of the Sorbon seventy Doctors being present when consulted whether the People of France were not freed from their Obedience to Henry the third upon his putting the Duke and Cardinal of Guise to death they before ever the Pope had given Sentence declared That they were absolved from their Obedience and might with a good Conscience make War upon him for the defence of the Catholick Faith Upon which the Parisians wrote to the Pope to desire the Confirmation of that Decision From all which it appears that if the deposing Power be in the Pope the King is not a whit the safer because we know nothing of any such Sentence pronounced against him And thus having made good and illustrated the Positions I laid down against all the Exceptions which that small and condemned Party of Widdrirgton's Followers make use of to cover themselves from the Charge of Treason that lies against their Church I go next to lay open the Evidence after which I shall leave it to every Man's Conscience to pass the Verdict There are in f Pope Gregory the Great 's Works four Priviledges granted one to the Abbey of St. Medard another to the Hospital a third to the Nunnery a fourth to St. Martin's Church of Autim In which after the Priviledges are granted a Sanction is added in these words If any Kings c. shall endeavour to countervene this Writing let him lose the Dignity of his Power and Honour Or shorter in that of St. Medard Let him be deprived of his Dignity These are to be found both in all the MSS and Printed Editions of that Popes Works It is true the first of these to Saint Medard's Monastery is looked on as a forged Piece both by Cardinal Perron Sirmond and Lannoy But as it went for a true one till of late and is still defended by others Baronius in particular concluding from thence for the Popes Power over Kings so the other Priviledges are not denied to be true by any except Lannoy of late for ought I know These have been for above 600 years looked on as the Grants of that Pope But this may seem a private Writing and not of such force About 130 years after that Pope Gregory the 3d deposed Leo the Emperor from all his Dominions in Italy because he would not tolerate the Worship of I mages And if that single Heresie merited such a Sentence what may we look for among whose many imputed Errors this is but one and none of the most considerable Not many years after that did his Successor Zacharias upon a Message he received from France absolve that Nation from their Oaths to Childeric and ordered Boniface to Crown Pepin in his stead And not long after that Pope Adrian gave the Empire of Rome and of the West to Charles the Great As Bellarmine proves from above 30 of the Historians of that time and the Testimony of many Soveraign Princes Yet these being dark Ages in which there was more of Action than Dispute we do not find the Grounds laid down on which those Proceedings were founded But the constant Maxim of the Papacy was once to begin a Practice and then to find Arguments to defend it among which the Practice it self was no inconsiderable one for he was a mean spirited Pope that would in a Tittle fall short of what his Predecessors had assumed About 250 years after Charles the Great had assumed the Empire of the West there arose a Pope Gregory the Seventh that resolved to make the most of his See that could be and reckoning That the Empire of the West was the Gift of his Predecessors and building on that known Maxim That none can give that which they have not he looked on the supreme Dominion of it as one of the Perquisites of the See which he would by no means part with And therefore in his Dictatis in which he asserts the several Branches of his Prerogative these be three of them That the Pope only may use the Imperial Ensigns That he may depose Emperours And That he can absolve Subjects from their Fidelity to wicked Princes And to shew he was in earnest in these Doctrines he began soon to lay about him His first Threatnings were against King Philip of France who was a vicious Prince In a Letter to the Bishops of France he requires them to admonish the King for his Faults and if he did not mend them to put the whole Kingdom under an Interdict And if after all that he continued still Disobedient he Swaggers out in
these Words We will have none to be ignorant or doubtful what we intend to do upon it for by the help of God we will endeavour by all Means to wrest the Kingdom of France out of his Possession But upon the submission of that King these Threatnings came not to any effect Yet he went on against the Emperor Hen. the 4th at the rate he had threatned the King of France I need not tell what all the World knows That he first Excommunicated and Deposed the Emperor in the Year 1076. Then upon his doing of Penance he received him into his Favour But upon new provocations he deposed him a second a third and fourth time in the years 1080 1081 and 1083. In all which he had the concurrence of so many Roman Councils and set up against him first Rodolph after that Herman as his Successors did first Conrade and then Henry that Emperor 's unnatural Sons The prosecution of the History is needless to my Design But in his Letter to Herman Bishop of Mets we meet with that which is more considerable For there he largely justifies his Proceedings which he grounds on the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven being given to St. Peter and the power of Binding and Loosing joined to them More places of Scripture he sought not but his Successor Boniface the 8th made use of Ecce duo Gladii and the power given to the Prophet Ieremiah Over Kingdoms to Root out Pull down Destroy Throw down to Build and to plant And they took it in great dudgeon if any would compare a single Prophet under the Law to Christ's Vicar under the Gospel But Gregory goes on in his Proofs to the Tradition of the Church And says The Fathers had often both in General Councils and in their particular Writings acknowledged That this Power was in the See of Rome That it was the Mother and Head of all other Churches That all matters were to be judged by it from whose Sentence no Appeal could lye Nor could there be a Review made of the Judgments passed in that See And to confirm what he had asserted he cites some Passages out of Gelasius and Iulius and that Clause in the Priviledges granted by Gregory the Great formerly mentioned So here he very fully and formally delivers the Tradition of the Church and builds upon it He also cites the Precedent of Pope Zacharias his Deposing Childeric not for any fault he found in him but because he thought him not fit to Govern From that he goes on to some Reasons such as they are for the justification of his Proceedings The Pope having thus declared the Tradition and Doctrine of the Church it is not to be wondred at if both the Schoolmen mixt it with the Instructions they gave their Scholars and the Canonists made it a part of the Law of the Church Hugo de Sancto Victore Alexander Alensis Bonaventure Durand Peter of Aliac Iohn of Paris Almain Gabriel Biel Henry of Ghant Iohn Driodo Iohn de Terre iremata Albert Pighius Thomas Waldensis Petrus de Palude Cajetan Franciscus Victoria Dominicus a Soto and many others in all 70 are reckoned by Bellarmin but Foulis enlarges the number to 177 whom he cites who did formally assert it Aquinas also taught it tho' in some places he contradicted himself But Boniface the 8th thought his Predecessors had proceeded in this matter too cautiously and therefore he went more roundly to work In the Jubilee in the year 1300 He shewed himself the first day in the Pontifical Habit but the second day he was clothed with the Imperial Habit a naked Sword being carried before him and cried out with a loud voice I am Pope and Emperor and have both the Earthly and Heavenly Empire This upon so publick an occasion looks very like the Teaching the Church Ex Cathedra But because words vanished into Air he left it in writing in these terms We say and define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to Salvation for every humane creature to be subject to the Bishop of Rome This being put into the Text of the Canon Law in which it is continued to this day we cannot think it Strange that Panorimitan Ostiensis Silvester with all the other Canonists assert the Popes direct Dominion over all the World And what can they say less Believing him to be Christs Vicar on Earth to whom all Power in heaven and earth was given of his Father therefore the power in Heaven being judged enough for Christ to manage himself they thought all the power in Earth was Committed to the Vicar This passed down without Contradiction among them but was not received by the rest of the Church yet the Indirect or as they termed it the Ecclesiastical power in cases of Heresie was Universally agreed to not one person Opposing it till Luther and his Followers came sawcily to look into the Popes Title to this and many other pretended Rights of the See of Rome But because the Plea for an Indirect Power was not Sufficient Since if a Prince did not Favour Heresie it was of no use And the pretention to a direct power was of an harsh sound Therefore a Title of another kind was set up It was pretended That all the Kingdoms in the Western and Northern parts of Europe were by formal Surrenders offered up to St. Peter and St. Paul And therefore whatever the Popes did was said to be done in Defence of their Rights which made Gregory the 7th fly to them in that flanting Address with which he begins his Sentences against the Emperor First of all the Donation of Constantine the Great was forged By which the Power of all the West Italy Sicily Sardinia Germany France Spain and England were given to the Pope This was put into the Text of the Canon Law and was stood to by all the Canonists It is true the Civilians wrote generally against it Among whom Bartholus may be reckoned for in his Preface to the Digests having mentioned the Opinions of some against it when it comes to his own he delivers it thus Take notice that we are now in the Territory of the Church for he taught at Bulloigne and therefore I say that Donation is valid But till Valla discovered the Impostures of it so manifestly that they are now ashamed to maintain it any longer their plea from it was never laid down But Augustinus Steuchus who undertakes the Vindication of that Donation against Valla does likewise alledge from some Instruments in the Vatican that both the Kingdoms of Spain Arragon France England Denmark Muscovy Sicily and Croatia and Dalmatia did Subject their Crowns to the See of Rome Kranizius tells us that Lakold King of Poland made it Tributary to Rome And for the German Empire tho Steuchus says nothing of it perhaps that he might not offend Charles the 5th yet there is both in the Canon Law and the Letters of Popes more to be
said upon that Head than for any of the rest They pretend the Popes set up first the Empire of the West Then gave the Princes of Germany the Right of choosing the Emperor and does still give the Imperial Crown upon the Emperors Swearing an Oath of Homage to them according to the verse under that Insolent Picture set up by Pope Innocent the 2d In the Lateram of the Emperor lying prostrate at his feet and receiving the Crown from him Post homo fit Papae sumit quo dante Coronam But all these Surrenders were made use of only to strengthen the great pretention they had of being Christs Vicars and St. Peters Successours which from the end of the 11th Century till the beginning of the 16th for above 4 Ages together was as Authoritatively asserted by Popes as positively taught by Divines and as tamely received by the whole Church Emperors and Kings not presuming to contradict it as any other Article of Faith And for proofs of this we need appeal to no other witnesses than those 3. great Cardinals Baronius Bellarmin and Perron who may be presumed to have understood the Doctrine of their own Church better than any body else The First of those through his whole work strains his Industry to discover as many Instances as he can of it and never parts with any without expressing the particular satisfaction he had in so pleasant a Discovery I shall only set down what he says on the two 1st occasions that he met with When he takes notice of Gregory the Great 's priviledges formerly mentioned he adds You see Reader That the Popes can make Laws to which if Kings themselves do not yield Obedience they shall lose their Kingdoms Upon the first Deposition made by Gregory the 3d. He adds The Faithful in the West being awakened by this Thunder do immediately fall from the Obedience to Leo adhering to this Apostolical Pope So this Gregory left a worthy Precedent to Posterity that Heretical Princes be not suffered to reign in the Church of Christ if having been often admonished they continue to persist obstinately in their Errors Such strains as these do so often occur afterwards that they can scarce be reckoned It is well known what advice he gave P. Paul the 5th in the quarrel with the Venetians applying the voice to St. Peter Arise and Kill to the case in hand and that with his Insolent Paraenesis to that Republick are clear Evidences of his sence in this matter What Bellarmin taught more shortly and obscurâ—…ly in his Controversies was afterwards made more plain both by his Writings about the Translation of the Roman Empire upon the Interdict of Venice and against King Iimes and William Barklay And Cardinal Perrons Eloquent speech against the Bill put in by the Third Estate of France for Condemning those pretensions of a Deposing Power shews us not only his own sense but the sense of the whole Clergy of France in whose name he delivered it He calls the Contrary Opinion a Doctrine that breeds Schisms a Gate that leads unto all Heresie and so detestable that he and his Fellow Bâ—…shops will choose to burn at a Stake rather than consent to it He affirming That all the parts of the Catholick Church and of the Church of France in particular and all the Schools of Divinity till the coming of Calvin held the affiâ—…mative and says That no where in France since the Divinity Schools wâ—…re set up can they find any one Doctor Divine or Lawyer any Decree Council or Sentence of Parliament or any one Magistrate Ecclesiastick or Politick who had held that in case of Heresie or Idolatry Subjects might not be absolved from their Oaths of Fidelity to their Princes It is true at first he spake more modestly and pretended the thing was problematical and so was not fit matter for an Oath but when that modester Strain tho it tended all to depress the Regal and exalt the Papal Power had so far prevailed with the King that he ordered the matter to be laid aside and not to be further insisted on They were not satisfied with this but made a new Address in the Name of the Clergy and the Cardinal spake now in a higher tone asserting formally the Popes indirect Power in Temporalâ—… and that all who maintained the contrary were Schismaticks and Hereticks even those of the Parliament it self and did plainly threaten the King That if he did not raze all the Proceedings out of the Register the Clergy would leave the Assembly and Excommunicate all who denied the Popes Power of Deposing And if the King would not suffer them to execuâ—…e these Censures they would proceed upon their hazard tho they were to suffer Martyrdom for it For which zeal they received a Brave from the Pope giving them his solemn Thanks for what they had done desiring them to persevere in the same mind So we have in this â—…stance not only Cardinal Perrons own mind but the sâ—…nse of the whole Clergy of France I do not think it necessary to enquire further into the opinion of later Writers tho it were easie to shew that to 〈◊〉 day both the Court of Rome the whole Order of the Jesuites the Writers both of Controversies and Cases of Conscience and the Expositors of Scripture do as oft as occasion offers assert the power of Deposing Kings to be still in the See of Rome And tho some few Writers of that Religion since Barkelay and Widdrington's time both of the English and Irish Nation have adventured to deny this power théy have been censured for it and branded with Heresy This has been so notorious in the matter of the Irish Remonstrance that I need say no more of it But whether the Writers of this Age allow it or not they are bound according to their Doctrine about Tradition to acknowledg it since two of the Characters of Tradition are found to agree to it For it has been delivered in several Ages of the Church as true Catholick Doctrine by all the publick Doctors in these times so that either This is a Tradition of the Church or That is not a true mark of Tradition nor is it a certain conveyance of Truth if we may be thus deceived in a clear Tradition for four Ages successively It does also appear that if the See of Rome be a faithful Depositary and Transmitter of Church Traditions this must be one since it is delivered to the world by so many Popes in the names of St. Peter and St. Paul and founded on the Power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing granted to St. Peter But I shall next shew how the third mark of Tradition the Authority of General Councils agrees to this Doctrine When this Doctrine had been so well spread over Europe then the Popes found it was safe to trust it to the judgment of such an Assembly as they esteemed a General Council And they proceeded in this matter after
the same manner that they had done in the worship of Images and as they did afterwards in the points of Transubstantiation and denying the Chalice in the Communion They took care first to infuse it into all the Clergy which God woâ—…'s was no hard thing and then brought them together and made up the Pageant of a Council for giving it more authority So above an hundred years after Gregory the VII had first taught this Doctrine a thing under the name of a General Council sate in the Later an at Rome where upon the advantage the Popes had against the Albigenses and others who were according to their Opinion most pestiferous Hereticks they first precured a Decree for it It is true many Provincial Councils had concurred with Gregory the VII one of these is called a General one 110 Bishops being present and the other Popes who had formerly given out these Thunders But now the matter was to be more solemnly Transacted In this Council many Hereticks are condemned and Excommunicated and all that had sworn Oaths of Fidelity or Hemage to them are Absolved from those Oaths and they are required in order to the obtaining the Remission of their sins to fight against them and those who die doing penance in that manner may without doubt expect Indulgence for their sins with eternal rewards And in conclusion by the authority of St. Peter and St. Paul they Remit to all who shall rise and fight against them two years Penance Here the Council does industriously infuse this Doctrine into all people and calls Rebellion Penance a very easy one to a poor or discontented Subject and assures them of a deliverance from Purgatory and that they should be admitted straight to Heaven for it In an Age in which these things were believed more effectual means than those could not be found out to engage the people in it By this Decree if we are guilty of the Heresies then condemned as no doubt we are of most of them without more ado or any further Sentence upon the declaring us guilty of the Heresies of the Albigenses the Subjects are delivered from their obligations to the King And when they conspire or rebel against him they are only doing penance for their sins and he were hard-hearted that would punish men only for doing of penance About thirty years after that Council the Pope had a mind to regulate the former Law That the Deposing of Kings might be declared a part of his Prerogative and that thereby he might with authority Dispose of their Kingdoms to others For hitherto the Popes had only pretended to the Power of Deposing and then the States of the Kingdom as in an Interregne were to choose a new Prince But P. Innocent the III. thought it was half work except he could bestow as well as take away Crowns His Predecessor Celestine had in a most extravagant humour set the Crown on Henry the Sixth his head with his two feet and then kickt it off again to shew according to Barronius his Comment That it was in his power to give to maintain and take away the Empire A very full Assembly therefore being called of about 1200 of one sort or other to the Lateran again It was first Decreed That the aid of Secular Princes should be required for the Extirpating of Hereticks after that they proceed and enact thus When the Temporal Lord required or admonished by the Church shall neglect to purge his Territory from Heretical wickedness let him be Excommunicated by the Metropolitan and his Suffragans And if he persist in neglecting to give satisfaction for the space of a year let him be signified to the Pope That he from thenceforth may pronounce his Subjects discharged from their Obedience and expose his Territory to be seized on by Catholicks who having exterminated the Hereticks shall possess it without contradiction and preserve it in the purity of the Faieh so as no injury be done to the Right of the Supreme Lord where there is such provided he do not any way oppose himself and the same Law is to take place on them who have no Superiour Lord. The Deposition of the Court of Tholouse being the thing then in their eye made that the Decree runs chiefly against Feudatary Princes yet as the last Clause takes in Soveraign Princes so by the Clause before it was provided That if the Soveraign did any way Oppose what was done against his Vassal he was to forfeit his Right I did in the former part of this Letter meet with all the Exceptions that are commonly made to this Canon Only one pretty Answer which a person of Honour makes is yet to be considered He tells us that there were so many Soveraign Princes or Ambassadors from them at this Council that we are to look on this Decree as a thing to which those Princes consented From whence he Infers It was rather their Act than an Invasion of their Rights made by that Council But be it so he knows they allow no Prescription against the Church If then those Princes consented to it upon which the power of Deposing had that Accession to fortifie it by it can never be recalled nor prescribed against It is true there were many Ambassadors from Princes there But they were all such as either held their Dominions by the Popes Grant or had been either Deposed by him or Threatned with Depositions or were the Children of those whom he had Deposed So no wonder they stood in such fear of the Pope that they durst not refuse to consent to every thing he had a mind to For indeed this Council did only give their Placet to a paper of Decrees penned by the Pope Henry called the Greek Emperor Brother to Baldwin that had seized on Constantinople had no other Title to it besides the Popes Gift Frederick the 2d who had been the Popes Ward was then the Elect Emperor of Germany made so at the Popes Instance who had Deposed the two Immediately preceding Emperours Philip and Otho the 4th the last being at that time alive So that he durst not contradict the Pope lest he should have set up Otho against him But no Emperor except Henry the 4th ever suffered more from the Popes Tyranny than he did afterwards One sad Instance of it was that the Pope having pressed his March to the Holy-land much did at last Excommunicate him for his delays upon which he to avoid further censures carried an Army thither which was so succesful that the Pope who hoped he should have been destroyed in the Expedition as the first Emperor of that name was now being vexed at his Success complained that he should have presumed to go thither while he lay under Excommunication and was in Rebellion against him and went about not only to Dethrone him but to get him to be betrayed by the Knights Hospitallers and Templers into the Sultans hands who abominating that Treachery revealed it to him Iohn
do hinder him in his Iourney he is ipso facto deprived of all Honour Dignity Office or Benefice whether Ecclesiastical or Secular So here the indirect power over Princes by which they may be both deposed and punished is plainly assumed It is true that same Council did indeed Decree That no Subject should murther his King or Prince upon which some of our English and Irish Writers who condemn these practices think they have great advantages That Decree was procured by Gersons means who observing that by the many Rebellions that had been generally set on by Popes the Persons of Princes were brought under such contempt that private Assassinations came to be practised and in particular that of the Duke of Orleance by the Duke of Burgundy Therefore to prevent the fatal consequer ces which were like to follow on that and to hinder such practices for the future he with great earnestness followed that matter And tho it had almost cost him his life it is like from some of the Duke of Orleance his Faction who were resolved on a Revenge yet at last he procured it But this was only a Condemnation of private Cut-throats And the Article condemned had a pretty Reservation in it for it strikes only against Subjects killing their Prince without waiting for the Sentence of any Iudg whatsoever So if a Sentence be past by the Spiritual Judg then this Condemnation notwithstanding a Prince may be Murthered And the other Decree of that Council passed in the same Session shew they had no mind to part with the Deposing Power Besides the Answer to this Decree is clear It is acknowledged by the Defenders of the contrary opinion That it is not lawful in any case to kill a King but when one that was a King is no more such but becomes a Rebel and an Usurper then it is lawful to kill him Pursuant to the Decree made at Constance a Council met at Siena ten years after in which all the former Decrees made against Hereticks are confirmed and the Favourers or Fautors of Heresie are delared liable to all the pains and censures of Hereticks and by consequence to the chief of them all Deposition After that came the Council of Basil which ratified the forementioned Decree made at Constance about General Councils By which Popes Emperors Kings c. that presumed to hinder any from coming to the Council are subjected to Excommunication Interdicts and other Punishments Spiritual and Temporal Last of all came the Council of Trent and tho met ters were at that pass that the Council durst not tread on Princes as others had formerly done lest they should have been thereby provoked to join with the Protestants yet they would not quite lay aside the pretence of a Deposing power but resolved to couch it so into some Decree that it might continue their claim to a Right which they would not part with tho they knew not at that time what to make of it So in the Decree against Duels they declare That if any Emperors Kings c. did assign a field for a Combat that they did thereby lose their Right to that place and the City Castle or other places about it Now it is certain if by their Decrees a Prince may forfeit any part of his Dominion he may be also dispossessed of all the rest since his Title to his whole Territory being one individual thing what shakes it in any part subjects it entirely to him who has such authority over it Here we have found 7 General Councils as they are esteemed by that Church all either expresly asserting the Deposing Power or ratifying former Decrees that had asserted it And from such a succession of Councils it is reasonable to conclude That this Third Character of a Tradition of the Church agrees to it and if General Councils are fit Conveyors of Traditions we have as full Evidence as can be desired for proving this to be a Church-Tradition This last Character of a Tradition is what the whole Body of the Church has held in any one Age. Upon which they say we may calculate that such opinions must have come down from the Apostles since it seems neither credible nor possible that the Belief of the Church could be changed With this Arnold has of late made great noise And as the new Fashions that come from France do please our young Gallants best so some of the Writers of Controversies among us have taken up the same plea here That the whole Church received the Deposing Doctrine in cases of Heresy may be inferred from what had been said The Church is made up of Popes Bishops Priests Of Soveraign Princes and Subjects of all ranks That the Popes believed it none can doubt So many Definitions of Councils shews us as plainly what the Bishops and other Prelates believed the Writing of the Schoolmen and Canonists shew what the rest of the Clergy believed Those Princes who suffered under the Sentences give at least a tacit consent to it since they never question it but study only to clear themselves of the imputation of Heresie The other Princes who made use of the Donations of the Popes shew as plainly that they believ'd it The great Armies that were brought about their Standards must have also believed it and the people who generally deserted the Deposed Prince notwithstanding the great vertues of some of them and the love that Subjects naturally carry to their Princes shew that they believed it So that if St. Iames his Question Shew me thy Faith by thy Works be applied to this particular the Answer will be easie What shall I mention the frequent depositions of Charles the 1st of Henry the 4th of his Son Henry the 5th of Frederick the 1st Philip Otho the 4th Frederick the 2d and Lewis the 4th in the Empire The frequent Depositions in Sicily and Naples the many attempts upon France that terrible Bull in particular of Iulius the 2d against that good King Lewis the twelfth By which besides the Sentence against the King it appears he designed the total destruction of the Nation promising the Pardon of Sin to every one that killed one French Man the frequent Attempts upon England both in Hen. the 2d and K. Iohn's time not to mention their later Bulls of Deposition against K. Henry the 8th and Q. Elizabeth the many Attempts in Spain particularly the deposing the King of Navarre by P. Iulius and the Sentences against Henry the 4th then King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde All these and a great many more with the strange Effects that followed upon them are so clear Proofs of the Worlds believing this Doctrine for many Ages together that if Men had any Remainders of shame left with them they could not deny it And to this day all their Writers maintain it tho perhaps now the greatest part of the Laity know little of it but whenever the Tradition of the Church is
have felt such signal marks of his Royal Clemency that they can have no colour to complain except it be because they cannot bear any Office in the Nation For what Noise soever they make of the severe Laws yet in force both against the Clergy and Laity of their Religion they cannot pretend that since his Majesties happy Restauration any Priest has died or any Family has been ruined for their Religion But I confess it is enough according to the Doctrine of their Church to discharge them of their Allegiance That the King is a favourer of Heresy and if upon this Reason they will still Plot and Conspire against his Person and Government we have no reason to wonder at it for they act according to their Principles Nor have these Islands been the only Scenes in which those Principles have produced such dismal Effects If we look abroad and reflect on what was done in France we shall find they have had the same Operation there I need not mention that perfidious and cruel Massacre that as Thuanus tells us was so much extolled in Rome and Spain and of which the Pope has a Memorial kept in the Hangings at the entrance of his Chappel to this day The Barricadoes of Paris the design of Deposing Henry the 3d only because he had made Peâ—…ce with the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde the whole progress of the holy League their taking Arms against that King when the Duke and Cardinal of Guise were killed by his Orders and at last his being stabbed by Clement a Dominican Friar are Instances beyond exception The prosecution of the Rebellion against Henry the 4th the attempt made upon his Person by Iohn Chastel which was more successful in Ravilliack's hands shew sufficiently That a Princes turning from that which they call Heresie over to their Church does not secure him unless he will extirpate Hereticks For tho Henry the 4th changed his Religion yet the favour he shewed the Protestants in the Edict of Nantes was a thing never to be forgiven These things were set on and encouraged from Rome and pleaded for by their Writers That the holy League was authorized from Rome that Sixtus the 5th by his Bulls declared the King of Navar incapable of the Succession that he intended to have Deposed Henry the 3d and that he rejoyced at his death and magnified the Fact preferring it to Eleazar's killing the Elephant and Iudeth's killing Hollofernes and ascribed it to a singular Providence and Disposition of the Almighty called it a great Miracle and appeared vain that a Friar had done it having been one himself tho no doubt he had liked it better if Clement had been of his own sute and would have had himself thought a Prophet for foretelling it and so he might well do perhaps and in the end concluded That unfortunate Kings favouring Hereticks to be the unpardonable Sin against the Holy Ghost These were all so publickly done that it were a needless labour to go about the proving them Francis Veronne wrote a Book to justify both the Facts of Clement the Dominican and Chastel as well he might from the Principles of their Church After all these dismal Facts was it not time for the States of France to think of some effectual Remedy to prevent the like for the future And they judged aright that without Condemning the Deposing Power it could not be done To which as was already hinted the Clergy made such vigorous Opposition that it came to nothing If these things had flowed only from the heat of some violent Spirits the danger were not so great but it is the Doctrine of their Church so Lessius under the name of Singletonus says That if the power of Deposing lies not in the Pope the Church must of necessity Err which has taught it and to assert that is Heretical and a more intollerable Error than any about the Sacrament can be And Becanus Confessor to Ferdinand the 2d says No Man doubts but if Princes are Contumacious the Pope may order their Lives to be taken away What security then can there be found out from Persons who give up their Consciences to the conduct of Men of such Principles and profess an Implicite Obedience and belief of all that their Church teaches and commands which possesses all its Votaries with such cursed rage against Hereticks that not content to adjudg them to eternal Flames in another Life they must needs Persecute and Burn without Mercy where they have the Power in their Hands and Plot and Conspire Kill and Massacre without relenting where they have not Power to do it with any colour of Law Men of Honour will not be easily drawn in to such Practices But in Conclusion when a fit Opportunity appears they must either forsake their Church or concur in the most mischievous Designs that the Masters of their Consciences will draw them into which I pray God make them see in good time before they are Involved in such Snares that Repentance will come too late to do them good or to preserve the Nation from those Miseries that they will bring upon it FINIS THE Unreasonableness AND IMPIETY OF POPERY IN A SECOND LETTER Written upon the Discovery of the Late PLOT Imprimatur C. Alston Nov. 12. 1678. LONDON Printed for R. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard 1678. The Unreasonableness and Impiety OF POPERY In a Second Letter written upon the Discovery of the Late PLOT SIR YOu are pleased to tell me that my last Letter has had some good effect and that many who were before carried away with the false colours of the Romish Religion are now a little awakned and seem not unwilling to examin things which they took formerly upon trust and therefore you desire me since you are not Master of so much spare time your self to set down the most material and convincing reasons and in as few words as may be that are most likely to open the eyes of honest and simple persons that have been hitherto misled and are now willing to be instructed In all such cases I first consider the temper of the persons to be dealt with Such as take up their Religion out of interest or humour and think it point of honour to continue in it and so will examine nothing are not to be spoken to Others that are naturally superstitious and credulous are very hard to be wrought on for they believe every thing that is said on the one hand and distrust all that is told them by any body else Some of those have a vanity in coming to talk with Divines but it is an endless labour to deal with them for at every time one must begin of new But the only persons to be dealt with are those that are sincere and inquisitive that having been bred in that Religion or brought over to it by some specious pretences are now willing to hear reason and resolved to follow it
wherever they find it And therefore in the first place their minds must be disingaged from these unjust prejudices that they conceive of our Religion and such just prejudices must be offered them against the Romish Religion as may at least beget in them some jealousies concerning it by which they may be brought so far as to think the matter suspicious If then there be such reasons offered them for susspecting foul dealing from their Priests and Church as would make them suspect an Attorney Physician or any other person with whom they were to deal they will be prepared to hear reason which is all that we desire and upon this Head these following Considerations may be laid before them 1. All people that pretend to great Power and Dominion over our consciences are justly to be suspected If any man designed to make himself Master of any of our other Liberties we would examine his Title and suspect all his other motions when we see they tend to subject us to him Therefore a Church that designs to keep all her Votaries under an absolute obedience is justly to be suspected and our Church that pretends to no such power is more likely to deal fairly 2. A Church that designs to keep her Members in ignorance is more to be suspected than a Church that brings every thing to a fair Trial. A Church that denies the use of the Scriptures in a known tongue except to a few and wraps up their Worship in a Language that is not understood is reasonably to be suspected more than a Church that gives the free use of the Scriptures to all persons and worships God in a Language which the people understand 3. A Church whose Opinions tend to engross the Riches of the world to its Officers is more to be suspected than a Church that pretends to nothing but a competent maintenance of the several Officers in it The Redeeming Souls out of Purgatory and the Enriching the Shrines or Reliques of Saints Pardons Jubilees and many more Tenets of the Church of Rome are so calculated for enriching their Societies that every cautious man must needs suspect some design in it which he cannot charge on a Church that has none of these Arts to get money 4. A Church that has carried on its Designs by the most dishonest methods possible the forging of Writings and Deeds of Miracles Visions Prophesies and other things of that Nature is more justly to be suspected than a Church that cannot be charged with any such practices The Forging so many Epistles for the Popes of the first Ages which are now by themselves confest to be Spurious with many other Forgeries were the Engines by which the Papal Power was chiefly advanced The Legends and Extravagant Fables of which they are now ashamed were the chief Motives of Devotion for many Ages And by these Saints and Images were so much magnified and Monasteries so enriched A Noted Liar after a Discovery is no more to be trusted 5. Any that considers the present State of Rome the manner of Electing Popes the Practices of that Court and the Maximes they move by must see that every thing there is secular corrupt and at best directed by rules of Policy But to fansie the Holy Ghost can come upon any Election so managed as their own Books shew that is is the most unreasonable thing that can be devised Therefore a Church that neither pretends so high nor can be charged with such proceedings is more likely to be the true Church 6. A Church that teaches Cruelty against poor Innocent people that differ in opinion and sets on Plots Conspiracies and Rebellion against Princes that are judged Hereticks is more likely to be corrupted than a Church that is so merciful as to condemn all capital proceedings for difference of Opinion and teaches an absolute Submission to the Soveraign Power even when it persecutes and oppresses them 7. A Church that is false to her own Principles is not so likely to Instruct her members aright as a Church that is in all things consistent to her self The great Foundation of their Doctrine is That there must be a speaking Judg to decide all Controversies Now they have no such Judg for it is not of Faith that the Pope is this Judg or is Infallible And for a general Council they have had none these 112. years nor are they like to see another in hast So they have no Speaking Infallible Judg among them And thus they deceive people by a false Pretence whereas we appeal to nothing but what we really have among us which are the Scriptures 8. A Church that appeals to Marks which are not possible to be searcht out is more likely to mislead people than a Church that pretends to nothing but what can be certainly proved The great thing they appeal to is the Constant Succession of the Bishops of Rome and their other Pastors This cannot be known no not by a probable conjecture But there are on the contrary as great grounds for History to deny it in the See of Rome as in any other Ancient See whatsoever but though they have it both the Greek Church and our Church has it likewise These are such plain things and the Truth of them is so notoriously known that I should ask any of that Communion whether upon the like reasons he would not be Jealous of any person or sort of persons whatsoever And if these grounds of jealousie would work in other matters it is much more reasonable that they should take place in matters of Religion In which as an Error is of far greater Importance So Impostors in all Ages have studied to make gain by Religion Therefore it is most just upon these violent presumptions to look about us and take care we be not cheated But before I would descend to particulars there is one General prejudice that works most universally on weaker minds to be removed which is that the true Church cannot Erre If then it be made appear unanswerably that the true Church may Erre and that in a most weighty Point all these Arguments fall to the ground That the Church of the Iews in our Saviours days was the true Church cannot be denied for our Saviour owned it to be such He joyned with them in their worship He sent the Lepers to the Priest He commanded them to hear the Doctors that sate in Moses Chair and himself acknowledged the High Priest This is sufficient to prove that it was the true Church and yet this Church erred in a most Important point whether Jesus Christ was the true Messias in whom the Prophecies were fulfilled or not they Judged falsly The High Priests with all the Sanhedrim declared him a Blasphemer and condemned him guilty of Death Here the true Church expounds the Scriptures falsly and erred in the Foundation of Religion And it is well known that the chief arguments which they of the Romish party bring to prove that a Church cannot
is certain that the Design of Revealed Religion was to give men clearer Notions of these Moral perfections to press them by stronger Arguments and encourage our Endeavours by suitable Rewards and punishments So that if any Religion contradict these Moral Duties we are sure it is false for the Revelation of God's will must be designed to make us better than we would otherwise be following barely the Light of Nature and not worse If then the Church of Rome over-throws Morality and contradicts any of the Ten Commandments we are sure it is not of God And how far it has done this they may judge by these Particulars First Whatever Church offers cheap and easie pardons for sin does take off so much from our sense of the evil of sin We cannot have a very ill opinion of any thing that is easily forgiven Now what are the Popes Pardons Indulgences Jubilees Priviledged Altars the going of Pilgrimages the saying of some Collects the wearing of Agnus Dei's Peebles or other such like trash but so many Engines to root out of mens minds any deep horrour or great sense of sin Is not this the very thing which the People of the Iews of old offered at to bring Thousands of Rams Ten Thousand Rivers of Oyl their First born or the fruit of their Body to offer for their sins All which were rejected in the name of God in these words I will shew thee O man what is good and what our Lord requireth of thee Verily to do Iudgment and to love mercy and to walk solicitous with thy God This is a Moral matter and unchangable therefore whoever go to beat down the sense of sin by the offer of Pardon on any other terms but the sincere change of a mans life destroy Morallity which is the Image of God in man If from this general Consideration we descend to Examine the Commandments in particular we shall find matter enough for a severe Charge against their Church Is not the First Commandment broken when Devotions are offered to Saints which Import their being Omniscient Omnipresent and Almighty that are the Incommunicable Attributes of the God-head and when pardon of sin preservation Grace against Temptations and Eternal life are immediately begged from Saints It is true they say the sence of these prayers is only that we desire their assistance at Gods hands for these blessings But the words of their Offices import no such matter And though for above One Hundred and Sixty Years these things have been complained of and in the Correction of their Offices some of them were cast out yet many of them do still continue In which the plain sence of the words of their Offices is Idolatrous Only they make a shift with another and forced sence put on them to defend themselves from that charge And for such Devotions they can shew no Warrant for the first Thousand years after Christ. The Second Commandment is so openly and confessedly broken by them that many of them maintain it does not all oblige Christians but belonged only to the Jewish Dispensation And in all their Catechisms it is left out which was done very wisely with what honesty let them answer for it was not fit the people should look on that as a Commandment which they saw so notoriously broken throughout their whole Church A great trade being also driven by the breach of it That this was not in the Primitive Church themselves confess all the Books the Fathers wrote against the Idolatry of the Heathens demonstrate this Nor were Images so much as set up in Churches before the Sixth Century And then care was taken that they should not be worshipped and not before the Eighth Century were they worshipped in any place of the Christian Church The Doctrine of the Popes power of Relaxing of Oaths and discharging men from the Obligation of them joyned with the practice of their Popes for above 800 years is as formal an Opposition to the Third Commandment as can be Imagined This was also begun in the Eighth Century The vast multiplication of Holy-days made the Observation of the Lords day of necessity slacken They have destroyed the Order of Societies established in the Fifth Commandment by the Power they allow the Pope to Depose Princes and absolve Subjects from their Alleageance They teach the murdering and burning all Hereticks that is to say all that will not submit to their Tyranny by which Infinite numbers of Innocent persons have been murdered against the Sixth Commandment And these two Doctrines of deposing Princes and putting Hereticks to death were abhorred by the Church for the first Eight ages and were brought in by the Popes since that time The frequent practice of the Court of Rome in granting Divorces on the pretence either of Spiritual kindred or of Degrees not forbidden either by the Law of Nature or the word of God and allowing second Marriages to both Parties upon such Divorces is an avowed breach of the Seventh Commandment The setting on some Princes to Invade other Princes in their just Rights is the Doctrine as well as it has been the practice of their Church for some Ages And as their Popes have wrested many Territories from Temporal Princes so for many Ages they set on Publick Robbery against the Eighth Commandment The Doctrine of Equivocating both taught and practised the breaking of safe Conducts and publick Faith decreed by their General Councils is also against the Ninth Commandment For the Tenth I shall say nothing of it because the meaning of it is not so generally agreed on But thus we see all the Rules of Morality are contradicted by that Church It might be justly added to swell up this Charge that of late there have been Doctrines published to the world by the approved Casuists of that Church with Licence which subvert all Justice destroy all security and take away the most sacred ties of mankind By the Doctrines of Probability and of Ordering the Intention aright there is no crime how black soever but a man may adventure on it with a good conscience These things were long and openly taught amongst them without any Censure And when many of the French Clergy complained of these at the Court of Rome perhaps more out of spite to the Jesuits than zeal for the Truth it was long before these so just Remonstrances were heard And in conclusion a trifling Censure was past on them by which they were declared Scandalous neither Impious nor Wicked and all were forbidden to teach them any more but they stand yet in the Books formerly published with Licence After all these particulars is it to be wondered at if the morals of the men of that Church be vitiated when their Doctrine is so corrupted for peoples practices are generally worse than their Opinions And thus the Second point is made good that in our Church we teach the same Rules of Living that are in the Scriptures which are grosly corrupted by their Doctrines
Error cannot be so fatal when it infects a mind that is otherwise sincere as Sin which clearly defaces the Image of God in the Soul We ought not therefore to expect that the Gospel should give any further security against Error than it gives against Sin On the contrary we should rather expect a further security from Sin because it is most hurtful But all the Provision made against Sin is this that in the Scriptures we are warned of the evil of it and are directed to such methods and have the promises of such Assistance that if we use our endeavour we shall not be overcome by sin nor perish in it So as to Error we have the same security The Gospel affords us a very clear light for directing our Belief in the most important things which if we study with due humility and sincerity imploring God for the grace of his holy Spirit for our instruction we shall be preserved from Error And thus the same provision is made against Error that is against Sin And we have no reason to expect more And as it were not fit that Salvation should be offered without obliging men to use their utmost endeavours so it were not fit to give such an easie Remedy against Error as that a man should not need to employ his reason to discover Truth and avoid Mistakes If our Gospel be also hid it is hid in them that perish Therefore that our Searches after Truth may be both encouraged and rewarded God sets it before us in such a Light that it is our own fault if we do not see and follow it But if men will either blindly give themselves up to the conduct of such Guides whose interest it is to mislead them which is the case of the Church of Rome or out of humour or other base ends will invent or follow some erroneous Tenets as other Hereticks do they have themselves to blame and shall bear their own Iniquity but they have no reason to cast the fault upon God or accuse the Scriptures of Darkness or Defectiveness in these things that are necessary to Salvation I come now to the last Prejudice which will require a fuller Discussion because it relates to matter of Fact which as it is better understood so it makes deeper Impressions on people that are not so much wrought on by speculative points as by these things that fall under their senses They first except to the Novelty of our Reformation and always insult with this Question Where was your Religion before Luther To this these things are to be opposed First we turn back the Question and ask them where was their Religion the first six hundred years after Christ Where was the Worship of Images the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence of Redeeming out of Purgatory of Deposing Princes and of the Worshipping Saints before the Eighth Century If the Reformation be now to be condemned because of its Novelty these things were then to be as much condemned because they were then Novelties Secondly If the Reformation had brought in any new Doctrine its Novelty were indeed a just Prejudice against it but it was only the throwing out of these Corruptions which had been brought in in some dark and Ignorant Ages Thirdly The Doctrine of the Reformed Church is no other than what Christ and his Apostles taught and what the Church believed for many Ages after them And as to the Positive part of it it has been still held by the Church of Rome and is yet acknowledged by them but with so many Additions that there was a Necessity of Reforming these And this is often to be inculcated in them that there is no Article of Faith nor any other material point of Religion among us that is condemned by the Church of Rome They only blame us because we do not in many other points believe as they do and this we ought not to do unless we could see an equal Authority binding us to all alike Another Exception is that in the Reformation we made a Schism and broke the Unity of the Church whereas if there had been any things amiss in the Church they say the Reformers should have endeavoured to remove them without tearing the Body of Christ in pieces But in answer to this we acknowledg if the things complained of could have been continued without sin they ought not to have departed from the Communion of other Churches but when the publick Liturgies and the Worship was found to be full of such Corruptions that without Idolatry and Superstition they could be no longer kept up then it was not time to stay for the leisure of their Neighbouring Churches Yet if there had been any probable hopes that the See of Rome would have concurred in such a Reformation it had been worth staying for as long as was possible But when it was on the contrary apparent that all the most just Remonstrances made to that Court were answered at best with delays and Excuses if not with Excommunications and other censures they had no reason to expect any concurrence from thence So the case being thus put that they discovered such Corruptions in the Worship of God with which they could not comply any longer either they were obliged to Worship God against their Consciences or to lay aside all publick Worship or else to cast out these Corruptions by a Reformation Let any man of good reason judge whether the last of these was not to be chosen There was no Obligation lying on this Church to wait for the pleasure of the Court of Rome or our neighbouring Churches in this matter We are a free and Independent Church we owe a charitable and neighbourly Correspondence to forreign Churches but we are subject to none of them And according to the express Decision of one of the first General Councils in the like case we were no way subordinate to the See of Rome even as it was the Patriarchate of the West Themselves do confess that it is no Heresie to say That See is fallible and therefore we were not obliged to dance attendance at that Court when we discovered the Corruptions with which it had deceived the World but might in our National or Provincial Synods at home examine and Reform whatever errors were among us And the multitude of those who held these errors could be no just ground for delaying any advances towards a Reformation no more than in the ancient Church the Orthodox Bishops when chosen into a See corrupted with Arrianism were obliged because that Contagion was generally spread to make no attempts toward Reformation They Except further That the Reformation was begun here by a vitious Prince King Henry the Eighth who partly out of revenge because the Pope would not grant his desire about the Divorce of his Queen and partly to enrich himself and his Courtiers with the sale of Abbey-lands did suffer these Doctrins first to take head here and therefore they can have no good