Government till the Popes began to assert their Authority in opposition to general Councils And whereas * Refl p. 6. you say that your Adversary wrongs you and imposes upon his Reader by saying that you give your private sense and Opinion only of the Articles of your Religion contrary to the Bull of Pius 4. pleading in your own behalf that you expound the Canons of the Trent Council according to the Catechism set forth by the order of the Council and the Pope as if both of them allowed of it I must say that this cannot be for the Council never saw the Catechism and consequently could never approve that they never saw unless they also were bound to exercise an implicite Faith for though they ordered a * Sess 18. Sess 25. Catechism to be publisht having observ'd how much the Protestants prevailed against their Church by their constant Catechizing they left it wholly to the Pope to see it done and to give it authority and this the Author of the Prolegomena to the Paris Edition of that Catechism An. 1671. fairly acknowledges * Proleg 2. 3. affirming that after the dissolution of the Council An. 1563. several Fathers were summon'd to Rome to make this Catechism among whom the principal man was S. Barromée as you call him Archbishop of Millan we are also told that Cardinal Seripandus made the explanation of that Article one holy Catholick Church Michael Medina of another c. and that after it was finisht it was An. 1566. offered to Pope Pius 5. for his approbation who committed the examination of it to Cardinal Sirlet who taking to himself the assistance of other learned men examined both the matter and language of it after which the Pope gave his approbation and ordered it to be printed by Paulus Manutius confirming it by his Bulls And Possevine tells us that Gregory the 13. made this Catechism the rule by which he reformed the Canon Law so that if Refl p. 6. you interpret the Canons of the Council by the Catechism then the Canons depend upon the Catechism for their meaning and the sense of the Catechism upon the Pope who gave it suthority by which deduction it appears that your Rengion is still built not on the Council but on the Pope and perhaps it was for this reason that the Italian Bishops in their Synods as do the Synods of Roven and Aix in France call it not the Trent but the Roman Catechism for in truth so it is Against all which I know only this to be objected that the same men that made the Canons made the Catechism which is hardly true as to every particular person but to that I answer that I believe you will not averr that the same men have the same assistances in a Council and out of it so that were the assertion true yet the one being done in Council had the assistance of the Blessed Spirit as you hold to assist the Compilers which I presume you will not say that the same men had when out of the Council And if this be so then does not this make the Pope judge of Controversies of Faith For say you the Church must interpret Scripture and interpret Articles of Faith declared in Councils which Church must either be the Church Representative or the Pope now to hope for a general Council upon every emergent dispute in matters of Faith is a vain exspectation and if so you will do well to show us any other judge in such cases but the Pope unless every particular Church must judge for it self or every private person be his own director and then where is the interpretation of the Church Catholick Now if the Pope be the Judge how know we but the next Pope may require the belief of the Deposing Doctrine and expound the passages of former Councils that look that way as Articles of Faith what would you do in that case especially if the generality of the Ecclesiasticks should side with him as they did in the case of the Emperour Henry 4. and of our King John and in their Synods declare for the Ecclesiastical Monarchy and upon this supposition how know we but that although the present Pope hath confirm'd the Bishop of Condom's Book another Pope may condemn his mincing the Articles of Faith for we do not want Instances of Popes who have rescinded not only one anothers Acts and Ordinations but one anothers Decrees even in what they have called matters of Faith although I must confess what is very observable that though very many Popes have asserted the Ecclesiastical Power over Princes and their Right of Deposing them we never read of one of them that condemned the Doctrine You further say * Refl p. 7. that though the Trent Council mention the Aid and Assistance of the Saints and Angels over and above their Prayers yet it means no other Aid but that of their Prayers which seem to me not so agreeable to the words of the Council †Sess 25. which are That it is good and useful ad sanctorum orationes opem auxiliumque confugere to fly to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Now I cannot believe that the Fathers of that Council would have explain'd a particular act by two more general words nor when they had mention'd in particular Prayers would they I believe have afterward inserted in general their Aid and Assistances unless the Aid and Assistances were distinct from their Intercession and this is agreeable to your allowed Prayers in your Missal where you beg God * Dec. 6. in fest S. Nicol. ut ejus meritis precibus c. that by the merits and prayers of St. Nicolas you may be deliver'd from the flames of Hell And again †Jul. 6. Octav. SS Petri Pauli That by the merits of St. Peter and St. Paul you may attain the glories of Eternity where the Merits and Intercessions of the Saints are manifestly distinguisht as they are also in the Trent-Catechism * Part. 3. praecept 1. n. 24. where in the Margin there is this Note The Saints help us with their Merits and in the body of the Catechism these They always pray for the happiness of men and God confers many benefits upon us eorum merito gratiâ for their merits and sake and truly were we assured that the Guardian Angels could hear us I see no reason why we should scruple any more to pray them to protect us against the Devil and all other Enemies that may hurt us than to beg them to intercede for us to God and this also is agreeable to the Catechism †Vbi supr n. 18. Your next Reflection * p. 8. is about the merit of good works and your self and adversary are agreed that Can. 32. Sess 6. of the Council of Trent there is no mention of the qualification of Merit with respect to dependance on God's grace goodness and promises but both in
say relating to that Vision As 1. That it is very probably believed by most learned men that SS Perpetua and Faelicitas were Montanists among whom there were many visions which the rest of the World gave no credit to but this I shall not dispute But 2. I averr that it is very disputable both from the vision it self and from the quotations in St. Austin whether Dinocrates were baptiz'd or no. I know your †Chap. 23. p. 84. Adversary says he was baptized and St. Austin would fain have it so but there is no convincing proof that he was so and the silence of the Writer of that Passion seems to imply that he was not so Now then I urge you with this Dilemma either Dinocrates was baptiz'd or not if he were not baptiz'd as it is very probable because his Father was a very violent Heathen and so in all likelihood would not suffer his Son being so young to be baptiz'd then you have nothing to do with him in Purgatory for tho you have allotted an appartment there for the unbaptiz'd Children of Christian Parents yet you allow no place there to the unbaptiz'd Children of Heathen Parents who with their Pagan Progenitors are condemn'd to Hell unless we must reckon this story with those other of St. Thecla's bringing the Soul of Falconilla out of Hell or St. Gregory's praying thence the Emperour Trajan which later story the * 〈◊〉 Munster praef ad Evang. S. Matth. Heb. p. 103 4 Jews who themselves allow of a sort of Purgatory make sport of but if he he were baptiz'd as I profess I cannot believe tho St. Austin says so then it seems very hard that a Child of seven years old when few Children are capable of understanding enough to chuse to be wicked should be sent to Purgatory for sins which he knew not of for if that be true which St. Austin says that his Father probably carryed him to the Heathen Temples as we will suppose it to be this was the Father's sin and not the Child's and so I cannot see why Dinocrates should be punisht And to confirm my conjecture that he was not baptiz'd I am apt to think that in the Vision the Water * Pass s Perp p. 15. Ed. Oxon. which Perpetua saw her Brother endeavouring to drink of but could not come at was an Emblem of the Waters of Baptism which he seem'd to endeavour after and at last Perpetua her self says * Io. p. 5. that she her self was a Catechumen when she was apprehended and that at that time she had two Brethren both Catechumens now if we reckon Dinocrates for one of those two Brethren of hers or allow him to be dead some time before as I rather conjecture I am strongly inclined to believe that while the Father was an obstinate Pagan the Sister and the other Brothers only Catechumens that this younger Son who was but seven years old when he died was not baptiz'd before he went out of the World now if he were not baptiz'd the Fathers tell you there was no hopes of Salvation for him for to omit St. Austin and the African Fathers I will only instance in two remarkable passages the one for the Western Church out of * De Dog Eccl. c. 74. Gennadius Nullum Catechumenum c. That no Catechumen tho he die in a state of good works which is more than St. Austin says of Dinocrates for he accuses him of Idolatry can attain to Eternal life unless he be a Martyr And for the Eastern Church out of St. Chrysostom †To. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. ad Phi. p. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mourn over those who leave the world without Baptism they deserve your sighs and lamentations they are out of the Kingdom of God among the unrighteous and the condemn'd And now if all your former Arguments will not make us Converts you tell us * Refl p. ult that if a man assent to these Articles as you have stated them he shall have admittance into your Church and probably so for we know you deal very gently with your new Converts till you have secured them but who knows how much further he must go when he is under new Oaths of Obedience to that Church who makes her unwritten Traditions which no man knows till she reveals them to be as much the Rule of Faith and Manners as the Holy Scriptures and consequently binds all her followers to an Implicit Faith to believe whatever she shall reveal And I remember that Mr. Cambden * Annal. an 1560. records a report that once there were more easie terms of Reconciliation proposed by the Pope's Nuncio viz. the allowance of the Sacrament in both kinds and the confirmation of the English Lyturgy and probably many other things so the Papal Supremacy were acknowledged but we are very well satisfied that St. Peter had no more Authority than the rest of the Apostles and that every Bishop by Divine Right is a Successor of the Apostles and consequently hath equal power in the Church of Christ that the making more Sacraments than we are sure Christ instituted is an encroachment upon his Right and that the establishment of your five additional Sacraments is such an encroachment that the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament the Jews till our blessed Saviour's time being the only True Church of God with the uncontroverted Books of the New are the only divinely inspired Oracles and a sufficient Rule of Faith and Manners without the help of the Apocrypha or of unwritten Traditions that General Councils are not infallible much less the Pope either singly or with the Colledge of Cardinals that giving the Communion in one kind is robbing the people of what our Saviour gave them a right to and that Prayers in an unknown Tongue are a contradiction to St. Paul with many other such points which it is now needless to mention for which reason the Members of the Church of England think fit to continue where they are where they enjoy all the forementioned blessings with many others which must necessarily be forfeited when they embrace the Romish Communion Thus have I curforily taken notice of your Reflections in whatever material points you have thought fit to speak to except that very weighty and most material point of the power of Deposing Princes the thorow consideration of which was the first cause of my present undertaking Now you encounter your Adversaries Golath-Argument as you seen in scorn to call it as Card. Bellarmine in the Praeface to his Answer to Barclay says that writing in defence of Princes Barclay came out like Goliah to defie all the Armies of Israel with this distinction * Refl p. 9. that in all Councils there are some Articles of Faith which all Catholicks receive and some Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government which are not absolutely obligatory so that I perceive that in some sort
IMPRIMATUR Z. Isham R. P. D. Henrico Episc Lond. a Sacris April 6. 1686. REMARKS UPON THE REFLECTIONS Of the Author of Popery Misrepresented c. ON HIS ANSWERER Particularly as to the Deposing Doctrine In a Letter to the AUTHOR of the Reflections Together with some few Animadversions on the same Author's Vindication of his Reflections LONDON Printed for Sam. Smith at the Prince's Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1686. SIR IT is not any distrust of the Abilities of your former Adversary which have sufficiently made him known nor an overweening Opinion of my own undertaking that hath engaged me in this Controversie but a design to serve the Interests of Truth and to assure you that you have not yet convinc't the World that your Character of your Religion as you represent it is so just and exact or your Reasonings so cogent but there is something perhaps material and of weight to be objected to both and I shall follow the Method that * Refl p. 1. you profess to like to reason as closely as I can with all moderation and calmness without making any Reflections but such as cannot be avoided when I treat of some Subjects among which I dare undertake none shall personally concern you tho you will allow me to tell you you have not so carefully followed your own praescriptions when you impeach our †Refl p. 2. Church in general reckoning her Books of Homilies among those Books that have misrepresented Popery and in particular charge your learned and modest Adversary with the * P. 3 4 18. same crime and too liberally bestow your Characters on him charging him †Refl p. 6. with wronging you and imposing upon his Reader with * P. 16 17 18. Sophistry with understanding neither Law nor Logick and with being insincere and using tricks but probably the Answer hath made you angry and men in a passion cannot forbear hard Language I do acknowledge that it is severe dealing to pick up all the extravagant passages in private Authors and to father them on the whole Church no Church of whatever denomination being without both evil men as to their Morals and opinionative men as to their Tenets but withal I must say that it is one thing to cite Quotations from all sorts of Authors and another thing to cite Men of Eminence and Authority in your Church and such whose Station Learning and Repute were as great as ever the Bishop of Condom's or Monsieur Veron's whom yet you rely upon as you also sometimes quote other men of your Communion to confirm your Opinions whose Books also have come into the World with Licence and Priviledge and Commendations of the Authors and whose Assertions have never been condemned after they have been publisht and some of them probably Members of that very Trent-Councel which you stick to for the Articles of your Faith and in matters of fact which cannot be forreign to the Controversies between your Church and ours there is a necessity of having recourse to such Writers as I shall be often forc't to do in these Remarks And that I may consider every thing methodically that belongs to this Topick I cannot but observe your * Refl p. 13 14. Reflections on the Opinions of some Eminent men in our Communion which say you we are unwilling to have charg'd upon our Church For the first which you charge on your Antagonist That good works of justified persons are not free I must say that either I misunderstand your Adversary or you do misrepresent him for when †Ch. 6. p. 43. Ed. 3. he says That what we pretend to merit by must be our own free act for these are his words and not as you quote them citing for it the Authority of the Jesuit Coster's Enchiridion and adds That therefore the works of justified persons cannot be said to be their own free acts because the power of doing them depends upon Divine assistance and being done by the power of God's grace which could never have been done without it cannot be for that reason truly meritorious he is so far from giving an account of the Doctrine of our Church that he proves from the principles of your own that if good works be done only by the Grace of God and made acceptable only through the merits of Christ they cannot be truly said to be meritorious because not the free acts of them that do them When Mr. Thorndyke allows of prayers for the Dead though you quote no Book of his for that Assertion he does no more than in some sense our Church allows when it prays for a joyful Resurrection in her Office at Funerals and whatever the good man might add else of his own was but his private Opinion as is also his notion that the Eucharistical Sacrifice is truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross propitiatory and impetratory as well as the other which I take upon your credit not having the Book by me out of which you cite the Opinion however we assert that Mr. Thornayke never owned Prayers for the Dead as you do but in the sense of some of the Antients for he denied Purgatory upon which you ground your Prayers for the Dead and that our Blessed Saviour is really present in the Sacrament is the Doctrine and Belief of the Church of England and did not you limit that Real Presence to Transubstantiation there would be no difference between you and us in that point I cannot but observe your disingenuous manner of treating the Author of Jovian in charging him with a disloyal principle who hath given as many Instances of his Loyalty in the most difficult times as any man of his station and were there no other the writing of that excellent Treatise in that critical juncture is an undeniable evidence of it when by defending the Succession and the Doctrine of Non-resistance he acquired the ill will and displeasure of all the disloyal Party Why did not you nor any other of the English Roman Catholicks write then in the defence of those Doctrines against the disloyal and rebellious Doctrines of Julian The Press was open for you and perhaps there was reason for your not answering of them * Praefat. Billarm ante tractat de potestate summi Pont. adversus G. Barclay because the generality of the Writers of your Church agree with that Author in his principles of disloyalty Well but you have found out one disloyal principle in Jovian but are you sure of it It is not your saying It is a disloyal principle that makes it to be so and therefore I must desire you and those that perhaps are misled by you to read the Book from p. 139. to p. 152. out of which you have cited the passage and then you will find it to be such a disloyal principle Theod. on Rom. 13.1 as will not allow any Christian subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray for the death of a Nero
Dioclesian though he set up Inscriptions ob deletum nomen Christianum Constantius or Valens but only for a Julian whose Apostasie and Wickedness is fingular in Ecclesiastical History and the like of whom in all probability can never be expected again Nay Sir this disloyal principle will not let Christian snbjects pray for the death of a Julian though he tyranizes never so much over their bodies goods and liberties if he do not blaspheme Christ and persecute the Church of God with a diabolical spite against the evidence of Divine Miracles It leaves the Christian subjects of all Tyrants but such as are Julians indeed under the obligation of praying for them according to the Apostle's direction and the practice of the Primitive Christians which the Author of Jovian hath so much insisted upon and commended and his Prince must be a Julian indeed a Julian in all circumstances before he can be so much as tempted to pray against him for he doth not say that he would pray but that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed And it had been happy for the Christian world if the chief Pastors and Bishops and Councils and Doctors and Casuists of that which you call the Catholick Church had never taught any principle more disloyal than this Now Sir I beseech you to tell me how much disloyalty there is in this principle which secures all Infidel Heretical and Apostate Princes against the Prayers of their Christian subjects unless they be in all degrees as bad as Julian and secures even Julians themselves against all resistance and how much disloyalty there is in a man who by his principles will pray for all Tyrants but such an one as Julian was according to the Author of Jovian Sir I would to God you and your Doctors would declare as much Loyalty as this and I desire you to tell me that suppose a Roman Catholick Prince should become a Julian indeed and take up the methods of that Apostate whether you think his Roman Catholick Subjects would be tempted to pray for his destruction and if they should do so and no more do you think they would transgress any rule of Christian Loyalty Answer me these two questions sincerely and possitively and if your answer to the last be affirmative give your arguments for your Opinion and I dare engage the Author of Jovian shall submit to your reasons or answer them For I am confident he hath no fondness for his Opinion to which it is evident he was led by his great Charity for the Bishop and Church of Nazianzum And though in apologizing for them he hath asserted that he should be tempted to pray for the destruction of a Julian indeed yet he is so Loyal a Person that I believe he would overcome the temptation and only forbear praying for him as having sinned the sin unto death After which Apology you will suffer me to tell you that your Reflections will hardly be called an answer to the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome because in them you have not said a word to some material points of Controversy between you and us stated in that Book out of the Trent-Council and Catechism as if either the right were on your Adversaries side which I suppose you will be loath to acknowledge or his reasonings were unworthy your second thoughts which I suppose you will not own and if you do few wise men will acquiesce in your Sentiments for you wholly praetermit reflecting upon the Chapters of the Eucharist of Indulgences of satisfaction ex condigno of keeping the Scriptures and Prayers in an unknown Tongue of communion in one kind and of adding the Apocrypha and traditions to the holy writ with some others which being some of the most material points in difference between your Church and ours will either deserve some new thoughts or you will allow us to say that that book cannot be thought an answer which in silence passes by or leaps over so many weighty things that make up so much of the Controversy You assure us * Refl p. 5. that the Council of Trent is received here and all the Catholick World over as to its definitions of Faith though it be not wholly received in some places as to its other decrees which relate only to discipline Where I shall not ask what you mean by the Catholick World for I am well assured that you mean all Christians of the Roman persuasion which is a very narrow notion of the Catholick World excluding all other Christians from being Members of the Catholick Church but those of your own Opinion so that neither the Greek Church nor the rest of the Eastern Christians are in your sense any more Catholicks than the Church of England and the rest of the Protestants though antiently any man or Church of men were called Catholick because they agreed with the whole Catholick Church in Faith but now the holy Catholick Church of Christ must lose its name if it agree not with the particular Church of Rome but I would willingly know of you whence any particular Church hath that power that it may receive a general Council as you call that of Trent in some things and not in others I thought that the highest authority of the Church on Earth had been a general Council and if so why its definitions in matters of discipline should not be received and observed by all particular Churches is to me a great question for I cannot but see that one of these two things must follow from your Opinion either that Councils and Popes are fallible for if they are deceived in one Opinion such as that of the power of the Church to depose Princes why may they not be deceived in another such as Transubstantiation or Purgatory or else that they are infallible in greater matters only and then to me it is a great wonder that they should erre in things of less moment and I never yet understood but that if general Councils could decide matters of Doctrine but that they had also as great a power in matters of discipline for if it be a lawful preface to the decrees of all Councils as your men say Visum est spiritui sancto nobis then the holy spirit is doubtless their guide in matters of discipline as well as in matters of Doctrine I am sure that the Antient Councils took upon them to decide both by their authority and all Christians thought themselves oblig'd to follow their dictates so the first general Council of the Apostles bound up all Christians from eating things strangled and Blood so the Council of Nice determin'd the precise day when Easter should be celebrated as well as the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and so also the second general Council made Constantinople a Patriarchate as well as Rome to go no further And I find no persons disputed those constitutions though only in matters of Discipline and
that Canon and Can. 26. the words are plain quae ab eo per Dei gratiam misericordiam Jesu Christi meritum c. And if so the Controversie seems to me easily decided for if it be of grace how is it then of works where is the merit Your Answer to the Goliah Argument of your Adversary as you are pleased to call it I remit to be consider'd towards the end of these Remarks because it ought to be spoken to more largely and by it self and proceed to take notice that * Refl p. 11. you blame your Adversary for taking the sense of your Church from some expressions in your old Missals and Rituals tho I am apt to think that the Church of England will be contented to be judged by her Liturgy and Rituals in the like case but perhaps you are not disgusted at the use of your Missals but at the use of old Missals and I am persuaded that you have reason so to be because the subtilty of the modern Church hath made it self appear in your present Missals and Breviaries as well as in your Edition of the Vulgar Translation of the Bible and in other Treatises For instance in the old Roman Breviary printed at Venice An. 1482. and at Paris An. 1543. Jun. 28. lect 2. noct 2. S. Leonis the words run thus In eo Concilio damnati sunt Cyrus Sergius Honorius Pyrrhus Paulus c. in that Synod Cyrus and Sergius Honorius c were condemned but in the new Breviary the name of Honorius is left out which had it been left there would have reflected too much on the Papal Infallibility and inform'd the World that even Popes themselves have fallen into Heresie while in the same Office they take care to keep up the memory that that Pope Leo 2. fregit superbiam Ravennatum brought the Archbishop of Ravenna to acknowledge the Roman Supremacy which before that time that See did not A second Instance may be this In all the antient Missals in Cathedra S. Petri Antioch Feb. 22. as also in the old Diumale printed at Antwerp 1553. the Prayer is read in these words Deus qui B. Petro Apostolo collatis clavibus regni coelestis animas ligandi atque solvendi pontificium dedisti i. e. O God who having given thy blessed Apostle St. Peter the Keys of thy heavenly Kingdom gavest him Episcopal power of binding and loosing Souls but they have now left out the word Animas i. e. Souls for with that limitation the Pope's power was only Priestly to use the Keys in binding and loosing men's Souls but without that limitation every man is at liberty to believe that St. Peter's Keys may be imployed in temporal affairs also in binding Kings and setting up a Pontifical Monarchy to which I shall add one Instance more that whereas in the Sacramentarium of St. Gregory the Prayer for St. Leo runs thus Annue nobis Domine c. Grant O Lord that this Oblation may be advantageous to the Soul of thy Servant Leo now the words are altered into Annue c. Grant Lord that by the intercession of thy Servant Leo this Oblation may be profitable to us the first being an Instance of the Antients Prayers for the Dead for Saints as well as others the latter an endeavour to countenance Prayers to Saints by asserting their intercession And whereas to requite us for quoting your Missals * Ibid. you object to us all the expressions of Prayer Preaching and Devotion in our Church the parallel doth not hold unless you mean our authoriz'd Liturgy in whose collects we are ready to vindicate whatever is asserted Nor is it fair to say that an Atheist may make himself sport with Scripture if he may be allowed to separate an infinite number of expressions there i. e. as I understand you to make use of broken sentences for if an Atheist uses Scripture in the sense to which the coherence leads him he can never make Christianity ridiculous much less as ridiculous as Turcism and for the passages quoted out of your Missals they are quoted in the sense in which they are meant and if you deny this you may right your self by shewing the contrary Nor do you do well with the Church of England to say * Refl p. 11. she allows the Psalms in Meeter I dare be confident to averr that the Singing Psalms as they are usally called were never commanded by our Church to be used and are no part of our service as our Rubric's will inform you where there is not the lest mention of them though we acknowledge the custom was brought in through the connivance of our Governors who at that time were intent upon matters of greater moment nor do we say that the sense of the Church will help out the non-sense or ill expressions of any of those Rhymes which is a subtle insinuation but withal we say that since custom hath brought in the use no Priest of our Communion that I know of is so weak I am sure no one ought to be so but he knows how to choose out of that great number some few Psalms that are pertinently enough translated and incentive of Devotion by singing of which neither God is dishonor'd nor the Congregation engaged to any thing that is either evil or ridiculous which Apology cannot be made for any of your Missals which your Priests were obliged to use without any power left them to choose what Collects or Antiphona's c. they pleased And now you will allow me to smile when †Refl p. 12. you say that if we conclude a Papist guilty of Idolatry because he bows down kneels c. to an Image we may as well say that Abigail was guilty of constructive Idolatry when she fell on her face before David and so are Subjects when they kneel to their Prince and the Lincolns-Inn-Field Beggars when they kneel for an Alms to those who pass by For these instances do not reach the case that we are talking of for if Abigail should have kneel'd before the Picture of David or a Subject before the Picture of his Prince or a Beggar before a Gentleman's Picture and begg'd with earnestness and seeming devotion any blessing there is no sober man but would believe that they were either very mad or very foolish but if they thought them sober and in their right sense as we do believe your people at Church to be they cannot be acquitted of Idolatry if so be the honour be Religious as you acknowledge your veneration of Images is more than civil honour so that by these instances you seem to run into the errour of those * Alens Aq. Bonav c. apud Bellar. to 2. lib. 2. c 20. § 2. Opinio Schoolmen that the same honour let it be Latria hyperdulia or dulia is due to the Image that is due to the person represented and if any Law be to be judg'd of by the common practice
valid as the intention of the Priest makes the Sacrament Some other of the same Order have given dispensations for the breach of the Moral Law * Theol. mor. to 1. l. 7 c. 20. n. 281 c. Escobar says positively virtute bullae potest votum non peccandi mutari i. e. that a man may break his Vow of not sinning by virtue of a Bull and he instances in the committing of Fornication he †Tr. 7. ex 4. n. 118. also says That a man may Lye even to his Confessor that a man may promise a general Confession and yet not confess all his mortal sins quia quamvis mentiatur id tamen parum refert ad Confessarii judicium i. e. for tho he Lye yet that hath little or no relation to the Judgment of his Confessor Now to these proofs probably you will object that this is not the Opinion of the Church but of private men to which I answer that had it not been the Opinion of your Church when those Books were written such men would never have been allowed to be Confessors which no man can be unless by the allowance of the Pope the Bishop of the Diocess c. though it is well known that the Jesuits then were and still are as Eminent for being Confessors as any other Order in your Communion and perhaps more and this notwithstanding their owning these damnable Doctrines as both you and I agree to call them Nor is it enough to say that the Book of Escobar after having been 39 times printed for an excellent Book which is an argument it was much bought and much valued was the 40th time printed only to be censured and condemn'd by the French Bishops which the poor Jansenists lookt upon to have been a condemnation both of the Author and his Opinions whereas they found at last to their cost that themselves were censured at Rome as the criminals nor that the present Pope being more wise and moderate than some of his Predecessors hath condemnd those Doctrines which vindicates us that we have not unjustly charg'd the men of your Church with such Doctrines among which propositions if you consult the 26 and 27 it is asserted That a man may either being askt or of his own accord say and swear that he did not do a thing which he really did and yet by vertue of a secret meaning be neither a lyar nor perjured And that this he may do as often as it is necessary or profitable to save his Body Honour or Estate or for any other good end For this is to acknowledge that your Church for a long time heretofore conniv'd at or allow'd of the breach of plain moral commandments since the man in authority that doth not prohibit the sin that he may hinder seems to injoyn it I also observe 1. That according to your Opinion whatever the Pope and Cardinals or other Bishops do either allow or condemn is not binding as to the Faith since the infallibility is lodg'd no where but in a general Council 2. If we look into the Censure there is nothing relating to the breach of Oaths given to Princes which is the highest trust in temporal matters and withal that the propositions are not condemn'd as contrary to the Laws of God and Nature as assertions that promote impiety and injustice but ut minimum tanquam scandalosas praxi perniciosas which is the manner of expression that Alexander 7. makes use of in his censure An. 1665. as at least scandalous and pernicious to practice and therefore to be condemn'd which whether this doth not look like a trick and juggle because you have encouraged me to use the word you your self shall be the judge for notwithstanding this censure whenever the scandal ceases which no one knows how soon that may be and they are judg'd no longer pernicious the propositions may be again owned and maintained 3. It is moreover observable that whereas former Popes have allowed these Tenents and Practices without condemning them who knows but the Successors of the present Pope may when they please licence anew the propositions which are now condemn'd 4. That some such thing hath been formerly done your * Ch. 26. m. p. 90. Adversary hath given you an instance which you did not think fit to meddle with nor to reflect upon out of Archbishop Abbot's †P. 11. Preface to his six Lectures where you will find that Pius 5. the same Pope who authoriz'd the Trent-Catechism gave his resolution to some of the English Missionaries that whenever any of them were called before a judge in England he might either refuse the Oath or Swear and answer sophistically potest Catholicus tractus coram haereticis vel recusare juramentum quod est prudentius vel sophisticè jurare sophisticè respondere suis interrogationibus And if you look into the Book called Foxes and Firebrands you will see there that Heath the Jesuit had a Bull with him dated An. 1. of the same Pius 5. allowing him to preach what Doctrine the Society of the Jesuits should order him for the dividing of the Protestants and not to instance in the dispensation given by Eugenius 4. and his Legate Card. Julian to Ladislaus King of Hungary to break his League with the Grand Signior for which he was so severely punisht in the unfortunate Battel of Varna and some other such examples the Examination of Mr. Garnet is a very plain proof of this our assertion for though some men call these little arts equivocation and mental reservation as if they were small or no sins yet you fairly and honestly condemn both alike and I know few wise and good men but look upon both as alike sinful and perhaps the equivocation the more so because the design is more cunningly laid to deceive And now I am talking of the Jesuits I think fit to mind you that whereas you seem to say * Pap. misrepre p. 69 70. that it is a scandal upon your Church to affirm that 't is more lawful to be drunk on a Fasting day than to eat flesh I have met with a Casuist †Escobar tr 1. ex 13. n. 74 75. of your commumunion who will not allow a man to eat Flesh on a Fasting day but as to drink gives great indulgence when he says that a man may drink Wine even in great quantity and if he happen to be drunk immoderatio potest temperantiam violare sed non jejun ium He may transgress the Laws of Temperance but he does not transgress the Laws of Fasting After this I will not decide the controversy between your Adversary and your self whether the story of S. Perpetua's Vision be seriously related or droll'd on who pay a great veneration to all Antient writings and can hardly think that a Martyr in view of an Eternal Crown of happiness would indulge to any thing that is light or deserves to be exposed but I have some things to
Christ's Vicar and not to a petulant Colledge consisting of a few passionate corrupted persons yet the Pope liked the censure too well to condemn it Besides two or three dissenters in so great a body signifie nothing for had it been in an Assembly of the Clergy or in a General Council the majority would easily have out-weighed so small a number of contrary Votes and if the Syndick Faber's asserting the Right of Princes makes this no Decree of the Sorbon then the Syndick Richer's assertion An. 1611. in his Book de Ecclesiastica politicâ potestate is enough to prove that the Sorbon does not acknowledge the Government of the Church to be Monarchical nor were the Sorbonists wanting to countenance this their assertion ordering Boucher and others to preach up the Authority of the Pope in such cases and the Justice of the King's Deposition and there was a Book written in defence of the Censure the Author of it believed to be our learned Stapleton by others more likely to to be the above named Boucher de justa abdicatione Henrici 3. and to make it appear that the Assistants of the League lookt on it as a quarrel on the behalf of Religion it is remarkable that the Duke of Parma left his own and the publick concerns in Flanders in a very ill posture only that he might re-enforce the League and relieve Paris which was likely to have fallen into the hands of Henry 4. who besieged it And now we are come to the Times that succeeded the Parricide of Henry the Great who tho never so heartily reconciled to the Church of Rome was never forgiven the sin of his first Apostasie as they called it till his death in the minority of whose Son Lewis 13. When the third Estate would have past a Law that the King was deposable for no cause whatever the Clergy violently opposed it and ordered the Cardinal de Perron to make a Speech against it which after they had examin'd and approved of in the Chamber Ecclesiastick they attended him to the convention of the three Estates where he pronounc't it An. 1615. which Speech our King James learnedly answer'd in his declaratio pro jure regio where you may see it proved that the Cardinal took upon him to assert that the Pope or the Church had power to depose Princes and that it was universally owned in France ever since their Schools had been opened and the event made it appear what the design of the Speech was after which the third Estate saw it impossible to go on with their design successfully and so declin'd it and whatever F. * Vb. supr c. ult Maimburge says to the contrary yet his own argument confirms what I assert That when this difference happened between the Clergy and the third Estate the two Chambers as he calls them the Clergy inform'd Pope Paul the 5. in their answer to his Breve of Jan. 31. 1615. Angebamur non mediocriter c. That they were troubled above measure to see Catholicks transported with an undiscreet Zeal meddle with matters of Faith where you may observe that the deposing power is acknowledg'd by them to be a matter of Faith earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent though you deny it to be so which did not belong to the third Estate who were Lay-men and Lawyers but withal they confess that the determination of this point did belong to the Church i. e. to themselves and the Pope omnem hanc authoritatem penes Ecclesiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi praeesse voluerit By which it is plain that that Speech was not one Doctors Opinion only as Monsieur Maimbourge affirms but the Opinion of the whole Chamber Ecclesiastick or their whole Clergy And that the French Church afterward owned the Opinion of that Speech seems plain because the general Assembly of the Clergy An. 1665. gave the Abbot Gentil 6000. Livres to collect the Memoirs of the Gallican Church which were afterward solemnly reviewed by several Bishops and Abbots and then publisht among which this Speech of Cardinal de Perron is printed and approved the whole scope of which Maimbourge himself confesses is inconsistent with the independent right of Princes and their exemption from any deposing power It is true this Speech that so few years since was Printed among the Memoirs with so much applause and approbation is now ordered to be left out of them which is so far from being an argument to incline any man to acquiesce in the judgment of such a Church that it may justly affright him from confiding in such volatile changeable men who in such weighty matters vary their Opinions so often from one extreme to another And the reason is plain the French Bishops following the dictates of that Court so that since the quarrel about the Regale they have sought to stoop the Pope and probably to make his Election depend on the present French King as it did antiently on Charles the Great And of this I could give some likely proofs but that the digression would be too long But against all this it is objected That under the present King Lewis 14. the Sorbon An. 1663. condemn'd even the indirect Power of the Pope over Princes and asserted that the King of France hath no other Superiour but God to which we answer that the same Colledge did in the days of the League maintain the contrary as I have formerly proved and at last the Sorbon is not the Representative of the French Church nor can it be imagined says the * Ch. 5. p. 14. Author of the second Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance That those men who took upon them to vary from the Censures Decrees or Definitions of Rome would ever go about to set up an independent or infallible Chair in the Sorbon and deliver their Opinion either as an Article of Faith in it self or as a Rule of Faith to others But the Objection is strengthened That the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris An. 1682. as Representatives of the French Church did decree the same to which we †V. Jurieu ubi supr answer that the Declaration was made but by thirty or forty Prelates within the verge of the Court whereas in a free National Council the contrary might have been determined But put the case that this had been decreed in a full and free National Synod yet neither could this have establisht an indefeasible right for I remember that in the Convocation under Henry 8. the King's Supremacy was decreed and establisht by our Bishops even by Gardiner Bonner c. who in all other things were zealous Catholicks and yet I suppose you will be loath to grant that for that reason the King had a just Right to that Supremacy And this also serves to answer your Objection from the Determinations of the French Vniversities against the Deposing Doctrine because not onely the greatest part of the Vniversities of
But notwithstanding that Censure if your way of arguing be good the Practice is still lawful Now to evade your Adversaries Argument That intention cannot alter the nature of actions which are determin'd by either Divine or Humane Law you shift the force of the reasoning by making a Plea from the same Principle for the Quakers and probably it is well done of you to turn Advocate for a Sect which owes its Original to the Jesuits and other Emissaries of your own Church because if intention cannot alter the nature of actions determined by Law no Oaths can be lawful nor the payment of civil Honour allowed of because the Scripture says Swear not at all and let your communication be yea yea nay nay and you shall not be called Master c. And the Answer would signifie something if you could shew us any place of Scripture where such Worship hath been paid to Images notwithstanding the divine determination to the contrary as we can shew you for the allowance of those things which you object for we there read that notwithstanding the prohibition the Apostles did allow of the Title Lord or Sir or Master for St. Philip exprest no dislike when †Johan 12.21 the Greeks gave him that appellation nor St. Paul and Silas * Acts 16.30 when the Jaylor at Philippi treated them with the same Language And by Swear not at all c. the Holy Writ onely forbids vain and rash Swearing and Perjury and double Dealing c. for it in other places tolerates and requires Oaths which says the Apostle are the end of all strife After which you will do well to shew any place of Holy Scripture that countenances the Worship of Images and we shall willingly acknowledge the parity of Reason for it is not the intention of the Person commanded but of the Lawgiver that makes an action lawful for did a mans own intention legitimate his actions that are otherwise forbidden by any Law divine or humane then a man may do evil that good may come there of expresly against St. Paul a man may commit Murther Sacriledge and every other gross sin as some men have done and plead for himself that he intended nothing but Reformation and the advancement of Religion as the men in our Saviour's time persecuted the Apostles to death with an intention to do God service but the intention of the Lawgiver when made known is that which legitimates the actions of the subject either in matters purely civil or in matters of Religion of which latter sort is the Worship of Images which I shall acknowledge to be lawful when you shall have shewn that it is agreeable to the intention of our supreme Law-giver But the further management of this Argument I leave to your other Antagonist while I observe that †Protest Pop. p. 25. you shift him off with no other Answer but this That a Question or two is in his opinion a confutaof the Reflecter because you are ask'd Whether all your Representations are conformable to the sense of the Trent Council and Catechism which I have already proved they are not particularly in the Doctrine of the assistance of Angels and Saints which you say consists onely in their Prayers while the Council and Catechism besides their Intercession mention their Merits and Aid And whereas when he objects against the Pope's licensing the Bishop of Condom 's Book that Canus with judgment avers That whatever the Pope determines privately maliciously and inconsiderately is not to be accounted the judgment of the Apostolick See you rejoyn that the Pope's private determination of any Opinion doth not hinder it from being the judgment of the Apostolick See unless it be also determined maliciously and inconsiderately I cannot understand Canus in that sence but that whatever is determined either privately or maliciously or inconsiderately is not the judgment of the Apostolick See for if this be not so then a private determination how malicious soever it can be so it be upon due consideration may be the judgment of the Apostolick See And who knows but the present Pope's allowance of the Bishop of Condom's Book may be the product of malice of his spleen against the French Hereticks as he calls them for whose Extirpation he hath so solemnly by his Letters thanked the French King And if Malice may invalidate the Papal Judgment why may not Favour Affection or Fear when they interpose in such Determinations render them equally invalid And if so why may not the reason of the present Pope's not censuring the French Clergie in the matters relating to the Papal Power over Princes be his fear lest that Victorious Prince should either set up a Patriarch of his own in France or by an Army establish his Right in Italy and make the Pope depend on him for his Election But to confirm the Authority of the Bishop of Condom's Book you say That it was printed at Rome translated into divers Languages and attested by the Pope and divers Cardinals c. Will you allow of all that hath been publish'd for Catholick Doctrine at Rome with the same or the like approbation Were not Cardinal Baronius's Annales to instance onely in one Book printed at Rome in the Press belonging to the Vatican-Palace Did not Pope Sixtus V. prefix a very large Epistle in commendation of the Author and the Work Was it not magnified by the Roman Cardinals Was it not translated into Italian German Polish and other Languages and the two first Tomes of it into Arabick Now if such a Recommendation be sufficient to make known the Sentiments of your Church then how comes it to pass that those Ecclesiastical Annals are not received in France in those things relating to Regal Power nor in Spain in what relates to the Right to the Kingdom of Sicily And if you do allow of the Annals you must not onely interfere with the fore-named Churches of your Communion but you must also acknowledge what you will be loath to own that the Pope hath a right to dispose of his Majesties Kingdoms as in truth that Cardinal hath intituled him to almost all the other Kingdoms of the World by name It is also observable that the Bishop of †P. 50. Edit Noviss Condom when he speaks of the Pope mentions the Primacy but for the Deposing Doctrine he says It is not necessary to speak of it adding in general That all Catholicks acknowledge a Head establish'd by God to conduct his whole Flock in his paths which those who love Concord among Brethren and Ecclesiastical Vnanimity will most willingly acknowledge By which expression every man is left to his own Sentiments in that point and it is no wonder that the Pope though he does believe his own Power of Deposing Princes doth approve of this Book for the Phrase of conducting the whole Flock of Christ is as easily to be construed as pasce oves meas to signifie the Deposing of Princes whenever the