Pope pleases So that we see that even this seeming Enemy of the Deposing Doctrine dares not openly condemn it but leaves it as a probable Opinion and what 't is not necessary to speak of so that every Pope hath still his liberty to declare any Prince a Heretick and then to proceed to Excommunicate and to Depose him after which a Clement a Ravilliac or any other Assasine may proceed to murther him because he himself also is left at liberty to believe that the Pope is in the right when he hath deposed a Prince and that he ought as much as lies in him to obey him in bringing such Criminals to condign punishment At last †Protest Pop. p. 29. you tell us That a man may be admitted into your Church notwithstanding his refusal to admit the Deposing Doctrine and the Pope's Infallibility but as they are stated by the Representer i. e. not as Articles of Faith But this seems to imply that no man of your Communion shall dare to condemn the Doctrines which must still be look'd on as probable and disputable so that the safety of Princes and Kingdoms and the guidance of the Church in matters of Faith which depend on the plain stating of the Pope's Power and Infallibility must still be left at the mercy of opinionative men who may take liberty to dispute and write about these great and weighty points pro and con as themselves think fit And whereas your Adversary quotes Bellarmine and Canus That General Councils cannot erre even in Decrees of Discipline and Government decrera morum when they relate to things necessary to Salvation and concern the whole Church you * Protest Pop. p. 32. deny that the Deposing Doctrine is of that nature But are not the plain Offices of Morality necessary to Salvation as well as Articles of Faith If not then nothing but Infidelity damns a man and if a man's Faith be Orthodox it is no matter for his Conversation If they are necessary is not Obedience to Princes one of the moral Commands of God And if so is not the practice of that Obedience necessary to Salvation and is not Disobedience which necessarily follows the Deposing Doctrine a great sin And if so destructive of the hopes of Salvation And that it concerns the whole Church is easily proved because Princes are its Nursing-Fathers and what Evils have fallen upon your own Church by such rash Attempts some of your own Authors will tell you is plain from the instance of Henry VIII Besides the whole Christian Church and its Welfare is concern'd in the Doctrine for though all the Princes of Christendom have never been deposed at once yet what is done in one Country may be done throughout all Christendom and so the whole Church actually concern'd in the sad effects of the Doctrine And had the Empire been as intire under Henry IV as it was under the elder Emperours his Deposition had actually concern'd the whole Church And because you call that assertion that the Pope hath not condemn'd the no-deposing Power because he wants power so to do an Oracle and say you look for an Argument to prove it It is plain from History that those Popes who have been rich and stout and powerful have adventured on the practice of Deposing while others of lower Spirits less Wealth and Haughtiness have been afraid of the Attempt we are not ignorant what the Dictates of Pope Gregory VII are and how busie he was being back'd by the Countess Maud who supported him with her interest nor what Innocent III Sixtus V and some others have done in imitation of him Nor is it unknown to the World what Pope Paul V. thundered against the Republick of Venice What Pius V. did here in England and Innocent X. in Ireland during the Rebellion there for what was it that encouraged those hot Popes to go so far but that they thought their interest at least in the Church-men so great that the Countries would immediately have shaken off their Soveraigns And what is it that causes the present Pope to spare the French King about the Regale but that he is afraid of him and knows he wants power to compel him Nor need the Argument seem so ridiculous to you since Cardinal Bellarmine a man from whom most of your Writers borrow all their Materials doth not onely affirm that the Primitive Christians under the Heathen Emperours did not take up Arms against them because they wanted power but avers against Barclay †Tom. 3. Oper. c. 6 7 8. p. 874 c. that the ancient Popes did not exert their Authority against the Emperours Constantius and Valens c. not because they had no right sed quod Reges c. but because without great damage the Church could not compel them but that the Popes did exert their Authority against Leo Isauricus Henry IV. and Childeric because they were able to compel them That Jusian was very powerful and attended with many armed Legions against which an unarm'd Multitude signified nothing that it was a falshood that all his Army were Christians and that St. Gregory affirms that the Church made use of no other Remedy but her Tears quia decrant vires because she wanted strength to resist the Tyranny So that pray answer your own Cardinal or else acknowledge that your Adversary speaks such Oracles as may be confirm'd from some other Topick besides the authority of the Assertor And now I shall put a period to these Remarks when I have minded you of two things which are your own Concessions 1. That * Protest Pop p. 6 7 17 18. upon the confideration of what is here charg'd the salvation of every Roman Catholick's Soul depends that their Eternity is at stake and that if Popery be guilty of what your Answerer says it is it cannot enter into your thoughts that there is any room for it or its Followers in Heaven That all our Martyrs died for a good Cause and are doubtless in Heaven That such Tenents bid open defiance to true Honesty and Christianity strike at the World's Redeemer and are impossible to be entertain'd by any who is one degree above a Beast These are the Conclusions I acknowledge of a wise a modest and a good man but then it behoves you seriously to consider whether this Charge be not true and whether your Adversary be not to be acquitted of wronging your Church of which the impartial Reader will be the most competent Judge and withal to think whether those School-men and other Writers of your Communion that do own all the Doctrines charg'd upon you be not by your own Verdict Men of no Honesty no Religion and but one degree above Beasts For by this Concession every unbyast person is able to satisfie himself which is the true Religion that which allows its Followers to assert the Doctrine of Deposing Princes to pay Religious Worship to Images to expect more than intercession from Saints Angels
and upon some considerations those other Constitutions and Decrees relating to Discipline and Government are obligatory i. e. upon condition tho not absolutely and withal you tell us as freely that if the Deposing Doctrine had been as evidently declared in former Councils as ever Purgatory or Transubstantiation were in that of Trent yet with you it should be no Article of Faith Which way of arguing tho it be very generous seems to me to destroy your distinction of matters of Faith and matters of Discipline for if the Lateran Council had defin'd the Deposing Doctrine as a matter of Faith and requir'd the belief of it under the penalty of an Anathema as the Trent-Council did Purgatory and Transubstantiation then either you must have believ'd as the Council required or else in matters of Faith defin'd by a general Council a man may think himself not bound to believe them and if so I see no other reason why any other man may not as well refuse to believe Purgatory and Transubstantiation upon your own principles But if we allow of your distinction in your own sense I suppose you will hardly allow another man to make the like deductions and think himself at Liberty to follow his own dictates for if so then the half communion Priests Marriages Prayers in Latin the Popes Supremacy and many other such points being matters of Discipline every man by parity of reason may give himself a dispensation to believe contrary to the definitions of Councils if you allow your self a liberty to believe the Princes cannot be deposed though it were defin'd as matter of Faith in a general Council And it is remarkable that for the better understanding of this distinction you recommend * Refl p. 10. Card. Bellarmine to us who I am sure makes the Popes personal infallibility his superiority to a general Council and his power of deposing Princes matters of Faith But to allow of your distinction between matters of Doctrine and matters of Discipline and that in matters of Faith from the definitions of a general Council no man ought to vary but in matters of Discipline though defined by the same Cooncil a man is left at liberty pray tell me seriously is every man left at liberty or some men only If every man then the assertors of the Deposing Doctrine have as much right on their side as you have for the private spirit is not to be your guide in your Church any more than in ours and the assertors of that deposing power have Councils on their side and Popes and many private Doctors and if you tell me that you are not to follow your own prudence but the Doctors of the Church where you live in what a general Council hath not decided as matters of Faith then you must change Opinions with the climate you live in as Pere Cotton said of himself that in France he believ'd a general Council to be above the Pope but in Italy that the Pope was above a general Council for if you inquire in France whence I suppose you have your principles as well as your arguments they will tell you now that the Pope hath no superiority over Kings and that they have condemn'd Sanctarellus his book and burnt Mariana's but if you inquire in the Neighbouring Countries they will tell you the contrary it is well known what the belief of Italy is in this point and for Spain the Inquisition at Toledo Jan 10. 1683. condemn'd the late censure of the Sorbon and in the Low-countries D'Enghien a Professor of Louvaine hath written in defence of the Popes power over Princes against Natalis Alexander and positively averrs that the French Opinion is either Heresie or next to Heresie and that more Authors in your Church assert than deny the Deposing Doctrine the present Pope urging that and several other Universities to censure the Decrees of the French Assembly V. d'Engbien p. 549. c. Jucieu Calvinisme Papisme mis en parallel to 2. part 3. ch 3. An. 1682. Among whom it is observable that the University of Doway prayed the King of France their new Master to whom they were lately made Subjects that he would not force them to change their Doctrine lest they should be accused of taking up a new Theology with a new Soveraign and if you go into Hungary the Clergy there also condemn'd the Doctrine of the French Bishops as erroneous and schismatical Oct. 24. 1682. and when the Arch-Bishop of Gran the Primate of lower Hungary wrote against the Propositions of the said French Assembly an order was given to the Sorbon to censure the Arch-Bishop's Book which they refused to do but upon this condition that they might be allowed to condemn the propositions as if extracted out of some other Author which looks like a fine fetch of Sophistry And now †Pap. misrep p. 50. Where is three times the number who disown this Doctrine of deposing to them that own it as you say Whereas besides what hath been above mention'd the Author of the first Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance p. 13. says that the Deposing Doctrine hath been the common received Doctrine of all School-divines Casuists and Canonists from first to last afore Calvin's time in the several Nations of Christendom yea even in France it self and even there of those French Divines that were most eager for their Temporal Princes against the Pope as Occam Almain Joh. Parisiensis Gerson c. And is it not an argument of the great care which your Church hath taken of the Persons and Interests of Princes which are sacred that every Writer of your Church whether Priest or Lay-man shall have liberty freely to publish his thoughts about the rights of Soveraigns and whether their Subjects or the Pope may depose them As if the Doctrine of Obedience to Superiors were such a slight indifferent thing that a man may with safety to his Religion and Conscience believe either that the Pope may or may not absolve Subjects from their Obedience A wise man would think that there were a greater necessity to define such a point upon which the safety of Kings and their Kingdoms depends than to define the precise manner of our blessed Saviour's presence in the Sacrament which had it never been defin'd while all Christians acknowledge him to be there might have been the occasion of much peace and happiness to Chistendom And if you plead that some men among us have asserted the Deposing Doctrine to this your * Ch. 20. p. 75. Adversary hath given you a full answer For until you can show that our Archbishops Bishops and inferior Clergy in Convocation have owned any such Doctrine or countenanc't such men in asserting it you say nothing to the purpose for we damn the Doctrine by whomsoever vented and our superiors are ready to censure the assertors of it if they durst appear openly Nor is it enough to say that this hath been done by the French
Christendom did allow of Henry the Eighth's Divorce from his first Wife which the Pope and perhaps you would not allow to be lawful but withal the two most famous Vniversities of England which to us are equivalent to all those in France and the most famous Monasteries of the Kingdom when this Question was propos'd to them An aliquid Autoritatis in hoc regno Angliae Pont. Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo extero Whether the Pope had any lawful power in this Kingdom more than any other forreign Prelate The Answer was generally return'd in the Negative Besides who knows not that the generality of men speak as their hopes of Preferment lead them and that there was a great truth in that Observation of Aeneas Sylvius That many men wrote in vindication of the Pope's Authority and few for the Authority of a Council because a Council gave no Dignities nor Benefices but the Pope did And I should be glad to see the present French Clergy deal with the present Pope when he meddles out of his Sphere with the Crowns of Princes as their Predecessors did with Gregory the Fourth who under the pretext of being a Mediator between the Emperour Lewis the Debonaire and his Sons promoted the Rebellion and was suspected to come with a designe to excommunicate the Emperour and his Bishops for they protested †Ant. Anon vit Ludovici Pii Si excommunicaturus ad veniret excommunicatus abiret i. e. That if the Pope came to excommunicate them they would excommunicate him for acting contrary to the Authority of the ancient Canons And at last we have Advice given us * Nouvel de la rep de Lettres An. 1685. p. 716 c. That June 26. An. 1683. at Clermont in Auvergne the Jesuits publickly maintain'd four Theses in opposition to the decision of the French Clergy An. 1682. 1. That although they call their Theses Explanations of the Doctrine of the Gallican Church the first Article of the Decree did not diminish the special Authority of the Church over Kings and Princes Christian 2. That the second Article was not intended to weaken the Monarchick Primacy of the Pope over the Church 3. That by the third Article they intended not to take from the Pope the Soveraign Power of dispensing with Canons c. 4. That by the fourth Article they intended not to deprive the Pope of all Infallibility in matters of Faith Which Theses as far as I know yet pass uncensured And the Jansenist who goes under the name of René Clerc Tonsuré à l'Archevesque de Paris in his System of the Theology of the Gallican Church extracted from their Memoires proves that the French Bishops are not such Friends to Crowned heads as they would appear to be and that they take the Power from the Pope onely to place it in themselves affirming That the French King cannot be judged by a Council except the French Bishops be there implying that then he may be judged as if the last resort were to them and that the Declarations of the Pope against their King ought not to be obeyed till the Kingdom consent thereunto so that if the Kingdom consent the Deposition is lawful with other such Positions And the same Author affirms That whereas some English Gentlemen Decemb. 1. An. 1679. addressing themselves to some Doctors of the Sorbon had inclined them to decide for the lawfulness of our Oath of Allegiance the Archbishop of Paris sent to them that it was the King's pleasure they should not decide it which makes it plain that the Allegiance of the French Church is founded on the Catholick Religion and that an Heretical Prince hath not the same Right with the most Christian And though since that time †V. Caus Valesian append 6. the Sorbon An. 1686. hath given its approbation of the Oath of Allegiance with the word Heretical in it yet this is onely an honest acknowledgement of the Rights of Princes by one Colledge of learned men while in the same year the Jesuits at Gaunt in their Provincial Congregation expresly condemn'd the taking of the said Oath And who knows but the Sorbonists of the next Age may do as their Predecessors of the last did in the time of the League contradict all that hath lately been asserted Nor does the Condemnation signifie any thing in your sence since even a General Council cannot define any thing to be heretical unless it be de fide and the belief required under the penalty of an Anathema and when all this is done if the matter be of Discipline or Government you profess you may safely refuse to obey the Council To which Observation I will adde one Remark more That though Monsieur * Apologie pour là Clergie Arnald hath written in vindication of the French Church that they never owned the Deposing Doctrine yet if he be the Author of the Jesuits Morals for though Monsieur Paschal his Nephew have the honour of the Book yet all men be lieve that Arnald had a great hand in the contriving it he hath not dealt so ingenuously in this case as he might for when he quotes so many Passages out of the Moralists of the Society what liberty they give to violate Sacraments or Oaths to Lye and Equivocate and to break all Trusts Vows and Promises he never so much as touches on the many palpable Propositions in their Books which encourage and allow of the breach of Allegiance to Princes I have little more to subjoyn but this That whereas you appeal to the Council of Trent for the Faith of your Church I have observed in that Council some things how cunningly soever the Decrees were contrived and how warily soever they were penn'd which seem not to accord so well with your Catholick Principles For instance 1. †Sess 22. de Sacrif miss can 6. The Council says Si quis dixerit c. If any man shall say that the Canon of the Mass contains any Errours in it let him be Anathema And in another place * cap. 4. the Mass is said to be free from all Errour Now if it be so I suppose some of your Doctrines must fall to the ground being confuted by your Mass As 1. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation for after the Consecration the Priest calls the Sacrament Bread and Wine Offerimus panem sanctem vitae aeternae calicem salutis perpetuae And afterward desires God to look down upon it as he did on the Sacrifices of Abel Abraham and Melchizedeck And prays That those things might be carried by the hands of the holy Angels of God into Heaven For how are these Expressions suited to Christ's Corporeal Presence 2. All the Prayers of the Mass relate to a Communion and so are a consutation of private Mass and yet the Priest in a private Mass when no one but himself receives says Vt quotquot ex hâc altaris c. That as many of us
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