Answer to Cressys Epistle, Chapter 5 (3 of 3)
§. 20. By which we see that although the Parliament shewed a very good will towards the restraint of the Popes Usurpations, yet it all signified very little, as long as his Authority and Supremacy were acknowledged here; for what did Laws signifie, when the Pope could null them by a Bull from Rome? And it was in those days verily believed by those who did acknowledge the Popes Supremacy, and followed the Church-men in their opinions, that an Act of Parliament had no power at all upon conscience, if it were repugnant to the Laws of the Church, i. e. as they then thought, to the Popes decretals. And we need not wonder at that, after the Popes Decretals were digested into a Body of Canon Law, and that looked upon by all the hearty Friends to the Church of Rome, as the Rule of Conscience in what it determined. Which we need not at all to wonder at, since Petrus de Marca himself declares,Petr. de Mar… Prol…g. p. 51. l 2. c. 11. n. 8. That the Constitutions of Princes are in themselves null when they are repugnant to the Canons and received Decrees of Popes; and that Bishops have alwayes abstained from the execution of them as much as they durst; by which we see that Acts of Parliament were no certain indications of the judgement of the Church or the generality of the People in that time; but notwithstanding all the Statutes, the good trade of Provisors went on still, and the Court of Rome never wanted Chapmen for their forbidden Wares. For many of our Bishops dying in the time of the Council of C…nstance▪ Martin 5. assoon as he was well settled in his place, put in several Bishops by way of Provision at his own pleasure; and nulled elections made by Chapters; so that in two years time he put in thirteen Bishops in the Province of Canterbury in spight of all the Statutes of Provisors; Vita H. Chi…bele p. 54, 55, 56, &c. a… A D…k.and made his Nephew Prosper Colonna Arch-Deacon of Canterbury at fourteen years of Age; who afterwards had as many Benefices granted him in England as came to five hundred Marks. Besides, he granted Appropriations, Dispensations, &c. as he pleased, without regard to the English Nation. These things the English Ambassadours complained of in the Council of Constance, and at last the Pope came to an Agreement with them, which were called the Concordates between Martin 5▪ and the Church of England; in which no manner of regard was had to the Statutes of Provisors although so often repeated, only some agreements were made between the Pope and the English Bishops, about Unions of Churches, the capacity of English Bishops for any Offices of the Roman Court, and such like. But other Ambassadours who came a little after these, pressed the matter somewhat harder upon the Pope, against Provisions and Aliens and the Kings Supplies out of the moneys raised for the Court of Rome; the Pope giving them no favourable answer, they replyed, unless he did presently satisfie their demands, the King would make use of his own Right, because it was not necessity but respect that made them seek to him, and pray that they might enter this Protestation before the Cardinals by the Kings Command. At this same time the States of France renewed their Statutes against the Popes Usurpations; and added, that they would not acknowledge him Pope till he consented to them; and the Rector of the University of Paris was proceeded against as a Traytor for appealing from the Kings Edicts to the Pope. Notwithstanding all this, the same Pope sends his Nuncio into England to raise moneys; who was called Ioh. Opizanus, but he was cast into Prison for his pains, for which the Pope expostulated very sharply with the Duke of Bedford about it, H. 5. being then dead. Archbishop Chi…hel… was in that time no friend to the Popes continual encroachments,Abridgement of Records. 6 H 6. n. 16. upon which as appears by the Records, he was cited to Rome, and the Commons make it their request to the King, that he would write to the Pope on his behalf: but we are told by a considerable Lawyer, that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Bishops offered the King a large supply, if he would consent that all the Laws against Provisors might be repealed: but it was rejected by Humphry Duke of Gloucester,Sr. I. Davis Case of Praem…nire. who had lately cast the Popes Bull into the fire. This is certain that Card. Beaufort, then Bishop of Winchester, incurred the penalties of the Statutes of Provisors 10 H. 6. for which he was questioned in Parliament; but at last, had his Pardon granted by the King, with the consent of all the Estates: By which we see, that not one of all the Papal encroachments was ever cut off by the severity of the Poenal Laws, as long as the Popes Supremacy was allowed; for never any thing was more vigorously attempted, more frequently enacted, more severely threatned than this business of Provisors, yet in despight of all the Laws it continued still, as long as the Pope was allowed to have a Power above Laws, and that he could null, abrogate, or dispense with them as he pleased. And thus far I have given an impartial account of the ancient poenal Laws of England: The like to which have been made in France, Spain, Italy, Flanders and other parts of Europe, as might be easily proved if it were necessary; but I forbear that,
§. 21. And come to compare the ancient poenal Laws of our own Nation with the modern, as to the Reasons and Occasions of them, that by them we may judge whether those who allow the ancient Laws to be just, can have any ground to charge the present with injustice and Cruelty, which can be only on one of these two grounds. 1. Either that the Occasions of the present Laws were not so great. Or, 2. That the old Laws did not relate to the exercise of their Religion, as the latter do. I shall consider both of them.
1. For the occasions of the present poenal Laws, Mr. Cressy confesseth them to have been Treasons; not consequentially only, when an act may be declared to be Treason which in it self is not so; but such Treasons as all Mankind acknowledge to be such, viz. depriving Soveraign Princes of their Crown and Dignity, endeavouring by open Rebellions, and secret conspiracies to take away their Lives; if these be not Treasons the…e are none such in the world. And that these were the Occasions of the present poenal Laws, I shall not produce the Testimony of the Lord Burleigh in his Book published on occasion of the poenal Laws, called, The Execution of Iustice in England, not for Religion but for Treason; imprinted at London, A. D. 1583▪ but I shall make use of the Testimony of Persons less lyable to the exception of our Adversaries, viz. The Secular Priests, who printed their Important Considerations, A. D. 1601. wherein their whole design is to shew, that the poenal Laws, considering the many Treasons which were the occasions of them, were very just and merciful. For they acknowledge, 1. That the State of Catholicks was free from persecution the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth; and that Parsons and Creswel confessed as much. 2. That themselves were the true Causes of the change that was made towards them; by Pius 5. moving a Rebellion here by Ridolphi, exciting the King of Spain abroad to joyn his Forces, and denouncing a Bull of Excommunication against the Queen, and absolving her Subjects from their subjection, on purpose to foment their Rebellion for depriving her of her Kingdom: which they prove by particular circumstances. 3. That they could hardly believe these things themselves, till they saw them expressed and owned in the Life of Pius Quintus, printed and allowed. 4. That notwithstanding these things, and the Rebellion breaking forth 1569. the Prisoners were only under greater restraint, but none were put to death on that occasion, but only such who were in actual Rebellion: wherein they confess the Queen did no more, than any Prince in Christendom would have done. 5. That upon these occasions a Parliament was called 1571. and a Law made against the bringing any Bulls from Rome, Agnus Dei's, Crosses, or Pardons; and against all persons that should procure them to be brought hither; which Law although they think it to have been too rigorous, yet they cannot but confess that the State could not without the imputation of great carelesness of its own safety have omitted the making some Laws against those of their Religion. And although they were in their opinion too severe, yet they acknowledge, 1. That the occasions were extraordinary, most outragious, as they expressed it. 2. That the execution of them was not so Tragical, as was represeuted. 6. They believe that neither this Law nor any other would have been executed upon them, had there not been daily new provocations: such as, 1. Sanders his confession in his Book De visibili Monarchia, that the Pope had sent two Priests, Morton and Web before the Northern Rebellion into the North to excite the Lords and Gentlemen to take up Arms: declaring to them that the Pope had excommunicated the Queen, and her Subjects were released from obedience to her; and that Sanders doth justifie the said Rebellion, and imputes the miscarriage of it, to the over-late publishing the said Bull; affirming that if it had been sooner published, the Catholicks would undoubtedly so have risen, as that they must have prevailed against the Queen, and had certainly executed the said sentence at that time, for her deposition from the Crown. 2. Sanders his magnifying the Heads of that Rebellion, after they had been arraigned, condemned and executed by the ancient Laws of our Countrey for high Treason: which course since that time was followed by Parsons and others. 3. The full discovery of the plot of the Pope and King of Spain with the Rebels at home, for the depriving the Queen of her Kingdom. 4. Stukely's attempt in Ireland, assisted by Sanders and others; which was afterwards encouraged by the Pope himself; when Sanders publickly appeared as a Ring-leader of the Popes Forces to perswade the Catholicks to joyn with the Rebels already in Arms. 5. Gregory 13. renewing the Bull of Pius 5. against Queen Elizabeth. 6. Upon this the Iesuits coming into England, who were the chief instruments of all the mischiefs against the Queen; and of the miseries which they or any other Catholicks have upon these occasions sustained. 7. Parsons his endeavour to set the Queens Crown on another Head, as appeared by his Letter to a certain Earl. 8. In all the Plots, none were found to be more forward than the Priests; and the Laity, they say, if the Priests had opposed themselves to their designs, would have been over-ruled by them. 9. All which considered, they confess, that no King or Prince in the World, disgusting the See of Rome, having either force or metal in him, would have endured the Priests, but rather have utterly rooted them out of their Territories, as Traytors and Rebels, both to him and his Countrey; and therefore they rejoyce unfeignedly, that God had blessed this Kingdom with so gracious and merciful a Soveraign, who hath not dealt in this sort with them: and that all Catholicks deserve no longer to live, than they hereafter shall honour her from their …earts, obey her in all things, so far as possibly they may, and pray for her prosperous Reign, and long life; and to their powers defend her against all enemies whatsoever.
7. They say, notwithstanding all the former provocations from the time of the said Rebellion and Parliament there were few above twelve that in ten years had been executed for their consciences (as we hold, say they, although our Adversaries say for Treason) and of those twelve some perhaps can hardly be drawn within our account, having been tainted with matters of Rebellion: and for the rest, although themselves knew them to be free from seditions, her Majesty and the State could not know it, and they had great Cause as Politick persons to suspect the worst. 8. They confess, that a Parliament being called A. 1576. no Laws were made at that time against them: the antient Prisoners that had been more narrowly restrained A. 1570. were notwithstanding the Rebellion in Ireland again restored to their former liberty to continue with their Friends, as they had done before: and such who were not suspected to have been dealers or abetters in the said Treasonable actions were used with that humanity, which could well be expected. 9. The State having notice of the second excommunication, and having found the bad effects of the former was concerned in Policy to prevent the like by the second. And the jealousie was much increased by Sherwin's answer upon examination eight months before the apprehension of Campion. For being asked, whether the Queen was his lawful Soveraign, notwithstanding any sentence of the Popes? he refused to give any Answer. Then followed a greater restraint of Catholicks than at any time before; and in Jan. 1581. a Proclamation was made for calling home her Majesties Subjects beyond the Seas; especially those trained up in the Seminaries, pretending that they learned little there but disloyalty. The same month a Parliament ensued, wherein a Law was made agreeable to the Proclamation, but with a more severe punishment annexed, viz. the penalty of death, for any Iesuit or Seminary Priest to repair into England, &c. 10. They confess, that if all the Seminary Priests then in England, or which should come after, had been of the mind of Morton and Sanders, or Parsons, the said no Law, no doubt, had carryed with it a far greater shew of Iustice: but that was, say they, the error of the State, (and yet themselves say, the State could not know the difference between them) and yet they add that it was not altogether (for ought they knew) improbable, those times being so full of many dangerous designments and Iesuitical practices. 11. This same year Campion and other Priests were apprehended; whose answers upon their examinations agreeing in effect with Sherwins did greatly incense the State. For this being one of the Questions propounded, If the Pope pronounce her Majesty deprived, and her Subjects discharged of their obedience; and after either the Pope, or some by his Authority invade the Realm, which part would you take, or ought a good subject to take? To this, they say, some answered, that when the case should happen, they would then take counsel what were best for them to do: others, that when the case happened they would answer; another, that he was not resolved▪ what to do; and another, that if such an invasion were made for any matter of his faith, he thinketh he were bound to take part with the Pope. Now, say they, what King in the World would not in the same circumstances, justly repute such persons Traytors, and deal with them accordingly? 12. After this, a new plot was laid between his Holiness, the King of Spain, and Duke of Guise, for a sudden and desperate designment against her Majesty; at which time they c…nfess the Iesuitical humour had so possessed the hearts of sundry Catholicks, as they rue and are ashamed at the remembrance of it. And here they give a particular account of the Treasons of Throckmorton, Arden, Somervile, Parry, Northumberland, Babington, Stanley, defended by Cardinal Allen, who laid down this for a Maxim, That in all Wars which may happen for Religion, every Catholick is bound in conscience to imploy his Person and Forces by the Popes direction, viz. how far, and where, either at home or abroad, he may and must break with his Temporal Soveraign. These things, they say, are necessary to be known, to clear her Majesty from the imputations of more than barbarous cruelty towards them cast upon her by the Iesuits, when themselves were the Causes of all the Calamities any of them had indured since her Majesties Reign: and they think, all circumstances considered, few Princes living of her judgement, and so provoked, would have dealt more mildly with such their subjects, than she hath done with them. 13. They confess the Spanish Invasion 1588. to be an everlasting Monument of Iesuitical Treason and Cruelty. For it is apparent in a Treatise penned by the advice of Father Parsons altogether (as they do verily think) that the King of Spain was moved and drawn into that intended mischief, by the long and daily solicitations of the Iesuits and other English Catholicks, beyond the Seas, affected and altogether given to Iesuitism; and that Parsons as they imagine, (though the Book went under a greater name) endeavoured with all his Rhetorick to perswade the Catholicks in England to joyn with the Spaniards: but Cara…nal A…en takes it upon himself, and saith the P… had made him Cardinal, intending to send him his Legat for the sweeter managing this (forsooth) godly and great affair: and there he affirms that there were divers Priests in the Kings Army, ready to serve ever mans necessity: and promises them the assistance of all the Saints and Angels, and of our Blessed Saviour himself in the Soveraign Sacrament (after a very invisible manner) and they do not at all deny, that the Pope did joyn and contribute towards this intended Invasion. 14. That in these ten years from 1580. to 1590. the Prisoners at Wisbich lived together without any trouble, Colledge-like, without any wan…; that of all sorts towards the number of fifty suffered death; as they think, most of them for conscience, but as their Adversaries do still affirm for Treason: that such Priests as upon examination were found any thing moderate, were not so hardly dealt with; insomuch as fifty five that might by the Laws have been put to death, in one year 1585. and in a dangerous time, were only banished; and that although some hard courses were taken against them, yet it was not by many degrees so extream, as the Iesuits and that Crew have falsly reported and written of it. 15. That there being just apprehensions of a new Invasion, a Proclamation was set out 1591. against Sem…nary Priests, as being suspected to … sent hither to p…pare a way for it; and Parsons did not only acknowledge such a design, but said the King of Spain had just cause to attempt again that enterprise: but in the mean time they tryed a shorter course by the several Treasons of Heskett, Collen, both set on by Jesuits, Lopez, York, Williams; and Squire, animated by Walpole the Iesuit. 16. That Parsons at last set up the title of the Infanta of Spain, and endeavoured to get subscriptions to it, and promises to perswade the Catholicks of England to submit to it; and that the Seminary Priests were to promote her Title, against the Queen and her Lawful Successors. From all which they confess, that the Iesuitical designs abroad, and the Rebellions and Traiterous attempts of some Catholicks at home have been the Causes of such calamities and troubles, as have happened unto them; great, (they confess) in themselves: but far less (they think) than any Prince living in her Majesties case, and so provoked would have inflicted upon us. And what more need to be said, for the Vindication of the Poenal Laws from the charge of Injustice and cruelty, than is here so ingenuously confessed by the Secular Priests, men of the same Religion with those who complain of them, men that suffered themselves in some measure, men that throughly understood the true Reasons and casions of the several Laws that were then made; and yet a…ter all this, can Mr. Cressy have the impudence to parallel these Laws with those of Nero, Domitian and Dioclesian, and to say, that they who suffered by them, suffered only on the account of Religion? If the primitive Christians had been guilty of so many horrible Treasons and Conspiracies, if they had attempted to deprive Emperours of their Crowns, and absolved Subjects from their Allegiance to them, if they had joyned with their open and declared enemies, and imployed persons time after time to assassinate them; what would the whole World have said of their sufferings? Would men of any common sense have said, that they were Martyrs for Religion? no; but that they dyed justly and deservedly for their Treasons. And for all that I can see, all such as suffered in those dayes, for their attempts on their Soveraign and Countrey, are no more to be said to have suffered for Religion, than the late Regicides; who pleaded the Cause of God and Religion as well as they; and if the one be Martyrs, let the other be thought so too: but if notwithstanding all their fair pretences of Religion and Conscience, the Regicides shall not be thought to suffer for their Religion, why then should those in Q. Elizabeth's or King Iames's time, who suffered on the account of actual Treasons, as those did who were engaged in the Gunpowder Treason, as well as those who suffered in the Queens time? And if the supposition of Conscience or Religion makes all men Martyrs, the Regicides will put in their plea for Martyrd…m; if it be not, then there is no reason to say they suffered for Religion, whom the Law condemned on the account of Treason. If it be then allowed, that the Laws must determin Treason, then it will follow that those suffer for Treason who act directly against those Laws which determine it to be Treason.
§. 22. But suppose the Law should make it Treason for men to serve God according to their Consciences, as for Roman Priests to officiate or say Mass; can such men be said to suffer for Treason if they be taken in the Fact, and not rather for their Religion? To this I answer, that a great regard is to be had to the occasion of making such a Law for the right interpretation of it. For if plain and evident Treasonable actions were the first occasion of making it, as it is confessed in Q. Elizabeths time, then all those Persons lyable to the suspicion of the State, may be seized upon in what way soever they discover themselves; and in this case, the performing Offices of their Function is not the motive of the Law or Reason of the penalty, but meerly the Means of Discovery of the Persons. For by reason of Disguises and Aequivocations, and mental Reservations being set on foot by the Iesuits to prevent discovery, the Law had no certain way of finding them out, but by the Offices of their Function, in which the Magistrates are sure they will not dissemble so far as that a man who is no Priest will not take upon him to say Mass: and therefore the Law looks upon the Office of Religion, as only a certain Criterion of the Persons, and not as the Reason of the punishment; not as the thing that makes them guilty, but as the way of finding the guilty. As if we should suppose upon the account of the Treasons of many years and frequent Rebellions and conspiracies for the destruction of the King and Kingdom▪ which any Sectaries among us should be found guilty of (as for instance, I will put the case of Quakers as more easily differenced:) I desire to know, whether if the Law made it poenal for men, not to put off their hats, only out of consideration of the Treasonable doctrines and practices they were guilty of, should that man who were taken because he did not put off his Hat be said to suf…er on that account, and not rather upon the first Reason and Motive of the Law? In the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 1. the whole intent and design of the Law is expressed to be, to keep persons from withdrawing her Majesties Subjects from their Obedience to her: and because the Pope had engaged himself in several Treasons and Rebellions against her, by giving assistance to them, and endeavouring what in him lay to deprive the Queen of her Crown, therefore the drawing any persons to promise Obedience to the Pope is adjudged Treason, as well as to any other Prince, State, or Potentate. And where there is an equality of Reason, why should there not be an equality in the punishment? If any other Prince should have engaged Persons in the same actions which the Pope did, there is no question they had been Treasonable actions; the Question this, whether that which would be Treason if any other commands it, ceases to be Treason when the Pope allows or requires it? If it doth so, then the Pope must be acknowledged to have a supreme Temporal Power over Princes, and they are all but his Vassals, which is expresly against the ancient Law of 16 R. 2. if it remains Treason, then those may be justly executed for Treason who do no more than what the Pope requires them, and which they may think themselves bound in Conscience to do.
But on this account may not any act of Religion be made Treason, if the Law-makers think fit to make it so? By no means; for in this case, there was an apparent tendency to disobedience and Treason in promising obedience to the Pope; but there is no such thing in any meer act of Religion, considered as such: but when Priests have been known to be the common instruments of Treasons, as they were then, by the confession of the Secular Priests; then those actions which are performed by such persons, and are proper only to themselves, are looked on in the sense of the Law and according to the intention of it, but only as the certain means of knowing the Persons whom the Law designs to punish. So that if we do allow, that the Law of the Land can declare Treason in any sort of Persons, and punish Persons for being guilty, and appoint a certain means of discovering the guilty; then there is nothing in that severe Law 23 Eliz c. 1. which is not according to justice and equity; alwayes supposing, that some notorious Treasonable actions, and not the bare acts of Religion were the first Occasions or antecedent Motives of those Laws, which is fully confessed and proved in this case by the most impartial witnesses, viz. the Secular Priests. And the Preface to the Statute 27 Eliz. c. 2. gives the best interpretation of the design of it, viz. Whereas divers persons, called or professed Iesuits, Seminary Priests, and other Priests which have been, and from time to time, are made in the parts beyond the Seas, by or according to the Order and Rites of the Romish Church, have of late comen and been sent, and daily do come and are sent into this Realm of England and other the Queen Majesties Dominions of purpose, (as it hath appeared) as well by their own examinations and confessions, as divers other manifest means and proofs, not only to withdraw her Highness Subjects from their due obedience to her Majesty, but also to stir up and move Sedition, Rebellion, and open Hostility, within the same her Highness Realms and Dominions, to the great endangering of the safety of her most Royal Person, and to the utter ruine, desolation and overthrow of the whole Realm, if the same be not the sooner by some good means foreseen and prevented. For reformation whereof be it ordained, &c. Can any thing be plainer from hence, than that the whole scope and design of this Law is only to prevent treasonable attempts, though masked only under a pretence of Religion? If the design had been against their Religion, the Preface of the Law would have mentioned only the exercise of their Religion, which it doth not. But withal is there not a Proviso in the same Act, that it shall not in any wise extend to any Iesuit or Priest that will take the Oath of Supremacy; then it seems all the Religion they suffer for must be contai…ed only in what is renounced by the Oath of Supremacy. And is this at last the suffering for Religion Mr. Cressy talks of, viz. for the Popes Personal Authority and Iurisdiction here? But who were the men that first rejected that Autho…ity and Jurisdiction here? Former Princes long before the Reformation did it as far as they thought fit; and made no scruple of restraining it, as far as they judged convenient; and upon the same Reasons they went so far, H. 8. and other Princes might go much farther. For the reason they went upon was, the repugnancy of what they opposed to the Rights of the Crown; and was there any other ground of the casting out the Popes Supremacy, when long experience had taught men that it was to little purpo…e to cut off the Tayl of the Serpent, while the Head and Body were sound? But who were the zealous men in Henry the Eighths dayes against the Popes Authority and Jurisdiction? Were not Stephen Gardner and Bonner as fierce as any against it? and if they were not in good earnest, they were notorious Hypocrites, as any one may see by reading Gardners Book of True Obedience, with Bonners Preface; wherein very smart things are said, and with good Reason against making the Supremacy challenged by the Pope any part of Catholic… Religion. Did not all the Bishops in H. 8. time, (Fisher excepted) joyn in rejecting the Popes Supremacy? And was there no Catholick Religion left in England when that was gone? It seems then the whole Cause of Religion is reduced to a very narrow compass, and hangs on a very slender thread. If there be no more in Christian Religion, than what is rejected by the Oath of Supremacy, it a is very earthly and quarrelsome thing; for it filled the World with perpetual broils and confusions, and produced dreadful effects where ever it was entertained; and leaves a sting behind where its power is cut off.
But the Author of the Answer to the Execution of Iustice in England, &c. who is supposed to be Cardinal Allen, speaks out in this matter, and saith plainly, that it is a part of Catholick Doctrine, that heretical Princes being excommunicated by the Pope, C…neert. Cathol. part. 3. c. 4, 5, 6.are to be deprived of their Kingdoms, and their Subjects immediately upon excommunication are absolved from their Allegiance; which he saith, is not only the doctrine of Aquinas, and Tolet, and of the Canon Law, but of the Council of Lateran, and as he endeavours to prove, of Scripture too: and that War for Religion is not only just but honourable; and for the deposing of Princes, he brings several instances from Gregory the seventh downwards: particularly King John and Henry the second; and saith, that the promise of obedience to Princes is only a conditional contract, and if they fail of their faith to God, they are free as to the faith they promised them. This I confess, is speaking to the purpose, and the only way in appearance to make them suffer for Religion; for no doubt, these were the principles, which led them to those treasonable practices for which they suffered. But the main question remains still, whether Treason be not Treason, because a man thinks himself bound in Conscience to commit it? and whether Magistrates have not reason to make severe Laws, when such dangerous and destructive principles to Government are embraced as a part of Religion? If there be any such thing as Civil Government appointed by God, it must be supposed to have a just and natural Right and Power to preserve it self: but how can it maintain it self without a just power to punish those that disturb and overthrow it? if it have such a Power, it must have Authority to judge of those actions which are pernicious and dangerous to it self; and if there be such a natural inherent Right, Power and Authority, antecedently to any positive Laws of Religion; either we must suppose that Religion left Civil Government as it was, and then it hath the Power of judging all sorts of actions, so far as they have an influence on the Civil Government, so that no pretence of Religion can excuse Treasonable actions; or we must assert that the Christian Religion hath taken away the natural Rights of Government which is very repugnant to the doctrine of Christianity, and all the examples of the Primitive Church. The substance therefore, of what I say about suffering for Religion, or for Treason is this; that whatever principles or actions tend to the destruction of the Civil Government, are in themselves Treasonable antecedent to Laws; that Laws may justly determine the nature and degrees of punishment, that those who are guilty of such actions, let them be done out of what principle soever, are justly lyable to punishment on the account of Treason; and in the judgement of the Law and Reason do suffer on that account, what ever private opinions they may have who do these things, concerning the obligations of Conscience to do them: and where there is just suspicion of a number of persons not easily discerned, the Laws may make use of certain Marks to discover them, although it happens that those marks prove actions of Religion; which actions are not thereby made the Cause of their suffering, but those principles or actions which were the first occasions and Motives of making those Laws. From which it is, I suppose, evident, that if the antient Poenal Laws were just and reasonable, our modern Laws are so too, because the Occasions of making them were of as high a Nature, and the guilt as proportionable to the penalty; and that men did no more suffer for Religion by these, than by the Antient Poenal Laws.
§. 23. 2. But supposing these Laws were acknowledged to be just and reasonable▪ as to the Actors of those Treasons, the Question is, Whether they continue just, as to other persons who cannot be proved actually guilty of those Treasons? And here I confess, as to the principles of natural Reason, the case doth vary according to circumstances: For,
1. In a jealous and suspicious time, when many Treasons have been acted, and more are feared by virtue of bad principles, the Government may justly proceed upon the tryal of the principles to the conviction of Persons who own them, without plain evidence of the particular guilt of the outward actions of Treason. For the very designing of Treason is lyable to the severity of the Law, if it come to be discovered; and where the safety of the publick is really in great danger, the greatest caution is necessa…y …or the prevention of evil; and some actions are lawful for publick safety which are not in particular cases. Especially when sufficient warning is given beforehand by the Law, and men cannot come within the danger of it without palpable disobedience, as in the case of Seminary Priests coming into the Nation, when forbidden to do it under severe penalties; In which case the very contempt of the Law and Government, makes them justly obnoxious to the force of it. He that owns the principles that lead him to Treason, wants only an opportunity to act them; and therefore in cases of great danger, the not renouncing the principles may justly expose men to the sentence of the Law. And if it be lawful to make any principles or declared opinions or words treasonable, it cannot be unjust to make men suffer for them.
2. In quiet times when the apprehension of present danger is not great, it hath been the Wisdom of our Government to suffer the course of Law to proceed, but not to a rigorous execution. For the Law being in its force, keeps persons of dangerous principles more in awe, who will be very cautious of broaching and maintaining those principles which they hold; and consequently cannot have so bad effects, as when they have full liberty to vent them; but in case Persons have been seized upon by the legal wayes of discovery, who yet have not been actually seditious, it hath been the excellent moderation of our Government, not to proceed to any great severities.
3. There can be no sufficient reason given for the total repeal of Laws at first made upon good grounds, where there is not sufficient security given that all those, for whom they were intended, have renounced those principles which were the first occasions of making them. These things I yield to be reasonable.
1. That where there is a real difference in principles, the Government should make a difference; because the reason of the Law, is the danger of those principles; which if some hear…y renounce, there seems to be no ground, that they should suffer equally with those who will not; but since the Law is already in being, and it is easier to preserve old Laws, than to make new ones, whether the difference should be by Law, or by Priviledge, becomes the Wisdom of our Law-makers to determine.
2. That such who enjoy such a Priviledge, should give the greatest satisfaction as to their sincerity in renouncing these principles; for if there be still ground to suspect their sincerity in renouncing, by reason of ambiguous phrases, aequivocations in words, or reservations in their minds, they give instead of real satisfaction, greater cause of jealousie, because of the abuse they put thereby upon the Government. For if men do aequivocate in renouncing aequivocation (which it is very possible for men that hold that Doctrine to do) they thereby forfeit their credit to so high a degree, that they cannot be safely trusted in any Oaths or Protestations. This therefore ought to be made sure, that men use the greatest sincerity in what they do, or else there is no ground to grant any favour upon their offers of satisfaction.
3. Where there is sufficient ground to believe, that the much greater number will not give sufficient satisfaction as to the renouncing the dangerous principles to Civil Government, there is no reason for a total repeal of the Poenal Laws already established. For if the Reason of the Laws was just at first, and the same Reason continues, it becomes not the Wisdom of a Nation to take off the curb it hath upon a dangerous and growing party: and however cautious and reserved many may seem, while the Laws are in force, no man knows how much those principles may more openly shew themselves; and what practices may follow upon them, when impunity tempts them. I do not plead for sanguinary Laws towards innocent and peaceably minded men (whatever their opinions be; and how hardly soever my Adversaries think and speak of me, I would shew my Religion to be better than theirs by having more Charity and Kindness towards them, than I …ear they would shew me were I in their circumstances) but I find that even some of themselves think fit not to have those Laws taken off from men of the Iesuitical Principles; as appears by a Discourse written to that purpose,The Jesuits Reaso…s unreasonable. 1662. since his Majesties Return, by one of their own Religion. Wherein he shews,
1. That the Iesuitical party by their unjust and wicked practices provoked the Magistrates to enact those Laws; and that their seditious principles are too deeply guilty of the Blood of Priests and Catholicks shed in the Kingdom ever since they came into it: and that it is their principle to manage Religion, not by perswasion but by command and force; and then reckons up the several Treasons in Queen Elizabeth's time, the Iesuitical design of excluding the Scottish succession and title of our Soveraign; the Gunpowder Treason; which if it were not their invention, he confesses they were highly accessary to it, by prayers before hand, and publick testifications after the fact was discovered; nay many years after they did, and peradventure to this very day still do pertinaciously adhere to it. 2. That their practices of usurping Iurisdiction, making Colledges and Provinces in and for Enland; possessing themselves of great summs of money for such ends, are against the ancient Laws of the Land even in Catholick times; it being the Law of England that no Ecclesiastical Community may settle here, unless admitted by the Civil Power; and those that entertain them are subject to the penalties ordained by the Ancient Laws. 3. That it is no evidence of their Loyalty that any of them have been of the Kings side, it being a Maxim or Practice of their Society in quarrels of Princes and Great men to have some of their Fathers on one part and others for the contrary; which is a manifest sign they are faithful to neither. 4. That there is no ground to trust them, because of their doctrine of Probability; and their General can make what doctrine he pleases probable, for the opinion of three Divines is sufficient to make a Doctrine probable, and whatever is so, must be done by them when commanded by their Superiours; so that the tenderness of their Consciences is only about doing, or doing what their Superiours orders them: besides, their doctrines about deposing Princes, Equivocations, mental Reservations, and divers other juggles. 5. That they have never yet renounced the doctrine of the Popes deposing Princes; that their Generals order against teaching this doctrine was a meer trick, and never pretended to reach England, that Santarellus his Book was Printed ten years after it, teaching the power of deposing in all latitude; and why should the peace of Kingdoms have no better security than their Generals Order? Who knows how soon that may alter, when good circumstances happen? and then it will be a mortal sin not to teach this doctrine: that the Iesuits have never spoken one unkind word against this Power of deposing Princes; that when the Pope shall think fit to attempt deposing a King of England, no doubt their Generals Order will be released. 6. That by their particular vow of obedience to the Pope, they are bound to do whatever he commands them; as for example, if the Pope should excommunicate or depose the Prince, and command them to move Catholicks to take up Arms, they are bound by their Vow to do it. 7. That they make themselves Soveraigns over the Kings Subjects, by usurping a power of life and death over those of their Order for pretended crimes committed in England, which is High Treason; for their Subjects have other Soveraigns besides the King. 8. That there can be no sufficient security given by them, who hold the Popes personal infallibility; for whatever protestations, or renunciations they may make at present, they will be obliged to the contrary whensoever the Pope declares his judgement so: and therefore no hearty Allegiance can be expected from those who hold it, but such as must waver with every blast from Rome. 9. That they not only renounce the doctrines of Equivocation and Mental Reservation, without which all other protestations afford very little security; but men ought to be assured, that they do not practise them, when they do renounce them; and he desires them to find out some way for this, which it seems came not into his head. 10. That without renouncing those doctrines which are dangerous to the Civil Government there is no reason to expect favour from it: for temporal subjection to Princes is the main ground of the peace and good Government of the Common-wealth; and what is against that is against the Law of God and Nature.
§. 24. I now come in the last place to consider the proposals made by Mr. Cressy for satisfaction to the Government and the repeal of the poenal Laws: which are of two kinds, 1. Subscribing the censures of the Faculty of Paris 1663. and 1626. 2. Taking the Oath of Allegiance, if the word heretical were turned into Repugnant to the word of God.
But, 1. It were worth knowing what Authority Mr. Cressy had to make these proposals in behalf of all the Roman-Catholicks of England: he saith indeed, that his Book is published permiss… Superiorum, and what he writes, is not the inconsiderable opinion of one particular person only: And what then? It may be two or three more may be of his mind, it may be his Superiours are, it may be several Gentlemen not governed by the Iesuitical party a…e: but is the State of Affairs so mightily changed among them since 1662? Will not the same Reasons … old good still, that the Iesuitical party is not to be trusted in these matters▪ have they made any renunciation since, of any of those doctrines which were thought so dangerous then? or are they quite gone from us, and to use Mr. Cressy's own comparison, like Rats have forsaken a sinking Ship? It would be great Joy to the whole Nation to hear we were so well rid of them? but which way went they? in what storm were they carried? Was it in the late great Hurrican? or were they conveyed invisibly through some passage under ground? But they are subtle men, they say, and full of tricks, and therefore may seem to be gone and not be gone, even as they please. Mr. Cressy it seems hath a a Power beyond Proclamations, for he can send away the whole Fry in a tr…ce; but a turn of his hand, and not a Iesuit, or a man of his principles appears more in England. But for all this, neither the Benedictins, nor Secular Priests, can get rid of them so easily; they swarm and govern too much for their interests; they have too many Colleges in England to forsake them so easily, and too rich a Bank to run away and leave it behind them: it may be, some of the poorer Orders would fain be fingering of it, and therefore represent the poor harmless Iesuits, as the only dangerous persons to the Civil Government, whereas they think themselves as honest as their neighbours, and say, they hold no doctrines but what other Divines hold as well as they, and if they understood themselves they would find to be the doctrine of the Catholick Church for six hundred years; only a few temporizing Secular Priests, and some others out of spight to them, and hopes to get a better harvest to themselves when they are gone, would lay all the blame upon the Iesuits: whereas the doctrine they own was the general doctrine of their Church and received here in England, (the Council of Lateran which decrees the Popes power over Princes having been received here by the Council at Oxford A. 1222.) and what a…do is made now with the Iesuits, as though they had been the first broachers and only maintainers of the doctrine of the Popes power of deposing Princes, which hath been decreed in Councils, accepted by Churches, and only opposed by some, out of the passions of fear or hopes from temporal Princes? What do ye tell us▪ say they, of the Sorbon, a Club of State Divines, that act as if they believed the King of France's infallibility, though they will not own the Popes? What matter is it what some few men say that are overawed by Secular Princes? Shew us the Divines at Rome, where men may speak freely, that hold otherwise: Was the Popes Nuncio that appeared so bravely for the Catholick Cause in the Head of an Army in Ireland a Iesuit? or were … adherents that cast off the Kings Authority there Iesuits? Are all the Anti-Remonstrants in Ireland Iesuits? And what think we, are not all those who opposed the Irish Romonstrance, very ready to give full satisfaction in these matters? Nay, in the good humour Mr. Cressy found all English Roman Catholicks, it was pitty, he had not gone farther; and who knows, but in so lucky a day, the Pope and Cardinal Barbarine might have subscribed the Censures of the Faculty of Paris? But well fare the honest Apologist for the Iesuits who answered the Reasons unreasonable, A Let…er concerning the Jesuits. p. 8. 1662.and declares that he is no Iesuit, yet he saith plainly, it would be a temerarious oath to for swear in general terms a deposing Power in the Pope, but to detest it as an heresie would be absolutely Schismatical: but he gives very foolish Reasons, why the effect of that power need not be feared in England; because, forsooth, Constantine left out England in his Donation to the Pope; did he so indeed? it was a great kindness to the place of his Nativity. But withall he adds, though there be much talk of King Johns Resignation of his Crown to the Pope, yet the Deed of Conveyance lies so dormant in the Vatican, that it could never be awaked or produced on any provocation. And is this the security the Pope will never exercise his deposing Power in England? But do not you think the Pope makes too much of it, to shew it to all comers? and yet this Apologist need not have gone to the Vatican, to have seen that very Bull of the Pope, wherein King John's Resignation is contained; for it was …ately to be seen in England. But suppose King John's Original were burnt at Lions, as our Historians think; hath the Pope never challenged any Power over Princes, but where they were feudatary to h…m? Alas for his Ignorance! the Pope …or a need hath a threefold claim to this P…wer, and he can make use of which he thinks best; the feudatary, the direct temporal, and the indirect temporal. The Feu…ata…y is by voluntary resignation, the direct te…poral by the Canon Law, and the indirect by the Sins of Princes; for those, if they happen to be of a right kind, as Heresie, Apostasie, Mis-government, &c. give the Pope a notable title to their Crowns, for then they fall to him by way of Escheat as the principal Lord: but suppose the Pope should to save quarrels, quit the Feudatary Claim, what security is there against the two other, that may do as much mischief as the first?
For all that I can see then, Mr. Cressy had not sufficient Letter of Atturney to declare in behalf of all the Roman Catholicks, that they would subscribe the Censures of the Sorbon; for the Popes deposing Power is yet good doctrine among many of them. But why did Mr. Cressy take no notice of any difference among them about these points? Must we Protestants be still thought such pittiful Animals, as not to know that which hath been publickly canvased among them about the full Age of a man, viz. near seventy years! Alas for us! we never heard of Blackwell, and Barclay, and Widdrington of one side; nor of Bellarmin, and Singleton, and Fitzherbert of the other: We have only a little Grammar Learning, and can make a shift to understand the Greek Testament, and read Calvins Institutions, or Danaeus upon Peter Lombard; but for these deep points, it is well we have ever seen those that have heard others say they have seen the Books that handle them. But why should Mr. Cressy so slily pass over the business of the Nuntio in Ireland? was that nothing to the purpose? Did not the Person of Honour mention it several times, that he could not avoid seeing it? But we must forget all those things; and Cardinal Barbarins Letters about the Irish Remonstrance: and whatever is material, if it cannot be answered, is better let slip. Yet, is it possible for us to believe that all Roman Catholicks are so willing now to renounce the dangerous doctrines; when there hath been so late, so numerous, so vehement, (nay, I had almost said) so Catholick, an opposition to the Irish Remonstrance? Not, as Mr. Cressy would have it believed, out of indignation at a particular person, (who had much greater Authority for what he did on the behalf of the rest by his Procuratorium than Mr. Cressy doth appear to have) nor a quarrel at phrases, but at the very substance of the doctrine contained in it. Was it only about some phrases, that the Popes Internuntio at Brussels de Vechiis condemned it? when he said, it contained in it propositions agreeing with those already reprobated by Paul the fifth, History of the Irish Remonstr. p. 16.and Innocent the tenth, and this he expressed as the mind of the Pope. Was it only about phrases, when he said the Remonstrance would do more hurt than all the former persecutions of hereticks? P. 18.Was it only about phrases, when Cardinal Barbarin charged the Remonstrants with corrupting faith under a pretence of Allegiance to the King: and he adds too, that the propositions were condemned before by the Apostolical See; and that his Holiness was troubled to the very heart about it? Methinks, a few Phrases only, should not have given his Holiness so much disturbance. Was it only for some phrases, P. 49.that the Dominicans opposed it, as contrary to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, who roundly asserts the Popes power of deposing Heretical Princes? and they pleaded, they were sworn to maintain his Doctrine. It seems then, they can give no security to the State without perjury; and I suppose there were some of these among Mr. Cressy's Roman Catholicks, who were so ready to renounce this doctrine. Was it only for a few phrases, P. 102.that the Lovain Divines condemned it, as wholly unlawful and detestable; and containing things contrary to Catholick Religion? The true grounds of which, were the taking away the Popes power over Princes, and the great Diana of Ecclesiastical Liberty. If Mr. Cressy accounts these but phrases, the Court of Rome owes him but little thanks for it. But this is so ridiculous a pretence, that all the quarrells about the Irish Remonstrance were only about a few phrases, that either he looks on the parties as extreamly quarrelsome, or it must be some greater matter which he confesses was the occasion of so many commotions, dissentions, and scandalous invectives on both sides. Since then, there hath so long been, and we have reason still to believe there is, such a difference among them about these matters, how can Mr. Cressy undertake so boldly as he doth on the behalf of English Catholicks for the subscribing the Censures of the Faculty of Paris? But of all sorts of men, I am apt to mistrust great Undertakers.
§. 25. 2. But supposing they should subscribe the Sorbon Censures, we may yet question, whether hereby they would give full satisfaction in these matters:Epist. Apol. …. 118. Mr. Cressy is of opinion, that this would be a more full and satisfactory testimony of their Fidelity, than can be given by taking the Oath of Allegiance; which makes me very much wonder, why they should refuse the less satisfactory, and choose that which is more. But men had need to have fast hold, that are to handle such slippery points as these are; for when we think we have them safe, they slip through our Fingers and escape. Those who have not considered all their arts and evasions in these matters, would think they offer as fair things as any men in the world; but when it comes home to the point, there is some sly distinction or mental reservation, by which they get through all, and are as much at liberty as ever. That alone which in our Age and Kingdom can give satisfaction, 1. Must reach our own case, and not that of the King of France; i. e. 1. Of a King not of the same profession of Religion with those who make the profession of Fidelity; 2. Of a King or Kingdom already under censure of excommunion, as Cardinal Barbarin declared: 3. Of a King, not barely considered as a King, i. e. while he remains such, and the Pope doth not declare him not to be a King; but so as to declare it, not to be in the Popes power, to make him no King. For men may subscribe the Censures of Sorbon, understanding them of Kings of their own Religion, not excommunicated by the Pope, and while the Pope doth not declare them to be no Kings. 2. What gives satisfaction in our case, must exclude all manner of aequivocation and mental reservation; For where that is not excluded, there can be no security at all given; it being impossible to bring aequivocations and reservations within any bounds; nay, those who hold it lawful to use them, may deny it, and do it in denying it; therefore the matter of aequivocation must be stated, how far, and upon what terms, and in what cases they allow it; and yet there may be aequivocation in all this. So that as aequivocation hath all the advantages of lying, it hath the disadvantage too, viz. that those who use it cannot safely be trusted, though they do not use it; because though it be possible they may not, no man can be well assured that they do not. But the Sorbon censures never mention aequivocation at all, and therefore I do not wonder to see such as Mr. Cressy ready to bring in those, instead of the Oath of Allegiance, because although himself and some others may disown the doctrine of aequivocation, yet if that be not expresly excluded, they know the very Iesuits will swallow a Camel, let them but have the dressing of him. They know so many tricks of Legerdemain, that I do not see why a very cunning Iesuit may not then think himself a fit match for the Devil himself; for let him make never so many promises in Words, he would have such a secret Reservation in his Mind, as should make his Words to signifie nothing. But it is not safe for them to play such tricks with so old a Sophister, that first found out the way of aequivocation. 3. What gives satisfaction in our case, must exclude absolutely all power of Dispensing in the Pope; for if that be reserved they are safe enough; they know how to get out presently, for they have one ready that can knock off all their shackles, and set them as free as ever; nay, they have yet another fetch concerning the Popes power, for he can null an Oath before-hand, and make it stand for nothing, as well as absolve them from it afterwards. But how then can the Sorbon censures be so satisfactory in our case, when they never so much as mention the Popes power of dispensing, much less disclaim it so plainly as it ought to be done, to give satisfaction? So that we see, it is not without reason Mr. Cressy would so willingly have the Oath of Allegiance changed for the Sorbon Censures: and I do not at all wonder that fourteen Iesuits in France offered to subscribe the Sorbon censures 1626. which Mr. Cressy offers, as the most satisfactory Form, who never yet could well swallow the Oath of Allegiance; for they very well knew whatever they did swear in France could be dispensed with at Rome.
§. 26. 3. But farther he declares their readiness to take the Oath of Allegiance it self, if the word Heretical were left out. Whose readiness doth he mean? All Roman Catholicks, Iesuits and all? And hath this indeed been the only bone of contention thus many years? Did Bellarmin, Suarez, Lessius, Fitz-herbert and the rest of the opposers of this Oath, find no other fault with it, but only that a Doctrine was declared heretical, which was never condemned in any General Council? Would they have been content to have called the Popes power of deposing Princes new, false, erroneous, and contrary to the Word of God, though not heretical? For shame, let not men go about thus to impose upon us, as though all the difference were about this nicety in the signification of a word. It would be needless in so plain a case to shew upon what principles those went who opposed the Oath of Allegiance; but I shall only instance in Fitzherbert, Fitz-herb: Reply, ch. 4.being of our own Nation, and as considerable as any; he therefore insists upon it, that it is an unlawful Oath, because it flatly contradicteth the Lateran Council, as to the Popes power of deposing Princes: but that is not all, but his design is at large to prove, that it is repugnant to the Law of God in the Old and New Testament, Ch. 5, 6, 7, &c.to the practice of the Church, and express declaration of the Pope by three Apostolical Breves; Ch. 17. p. 112.and to those that object, that the Popes first Breve was obtained surreptitiously and for want of good information; he saith, it is not only ignorance but malice in any to say so, because the Pope published another Breve on purpose to declare that the first was not surreptitious, but written upon his own certain knowledge, motion, and will, and after long and grave deliberation had concerning all things contained therein, and that therefore the Catholicks were bound to observe it wholly rejecting all interpretations to the contrary; and by his third Breve he gave Authority to the Arch-Priest to deprive all Seminary Priests under his Iurisdiction that had taken the Oath, or had taught or did still teach it to be lawful to take it; Nay, he adds farther to take off that common evasion, that the Pope was not duly informed, that before the sentence passed against it at Rome, it was long debated in certain Congregations of Learned Cardinals, and other great Divines; wherein Cardinal Bellarmin had but one voyce, and Father Parsons (whom they suspect to have mis-informed the Pope) none at all. Now the Pope did not condemn it meerly on the account of the word Heretical, but because he said, the Oath contained in it many things, contrary to faith and the salvation of souls. And therefore all those who have any regard to the Popes Sentence in a matter of such importance have other Reasons to decline taking the Oath, supposing the word Heretical were le…t out. But some men love to pretend that a small alteration in established Laws would satisfie them, to try if by those arts, they could bring the Wisdom of the Nation to yield to them in that, and when they have obtained it, then a thousand other objections are raised that were not mentioned before: so I doubt not but it would be in this Case, if the word Heretical were left out, and when they had gained this point, then they would start another, and another till the whole Oath were brought to Nothing, and I A. B. left to stand alone. But it is a very strange thing to me, that they who can swallow all the other parts of the Oath should stick so much at the word Heretical; for if they would use some of the same mollifying distinctions that they do about the other parts of it, methinks Heretical might go down as glib as the rest. Were I of their Religion, I should more scruple detesting, abjuring, and abhorring from my heart, than calling a thing Heretical; the other are downright and plain words capable of no Ambiguity; but Heretical, is a word, that may signifie this or another thing, as men please. That is Heretical with one that is not with another, and Heretical may be meant in the sense of the Givers, and not the Receivers; which is Mr. Cressy's way. But besides, what is it is said to be Heretical? That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever; where or being a disjunctive particle, if to say that Princes deprived may be murdered be Heretical, though to say they may be deposed be not, yet that is enough to make a disjunctive proposition true. This is one of Widdringtons wayes; but he hath yet two more; viz. that,Adjoyn…er to Fitz Herberts first and second part. p. 73. N. 106. p. 69. as heretical doth not imply equality but similitude, and that they do abhor and detest it as much, as if it were formal heresie; but the main of all is, that a thing is not therefore heretical because the Church defines it; but because it is repugnant to Catholick Faith, or which is all one to that which is revealed by God; which he proves to be the proper notion of heresie, from Alphonsus à Castro, Covarruvias and others: and if this were not the true notion of it, the Church would have power to make new articles of Faith; and therefore upon the same ground that any person rejects any doctrine as repugnant to the word of God, he may reject it as heretical. I cannot therefore imagine, whatever Mr. Cressy says, that it would give such general satisfaction to have the word heretical turned into repugnant to the word of God; for I cannot think the Roman-Catholick Gentlemen to be men of so weak understandings, to be able to digest all other parts of the Oath, and to refuse taking it only on the account of the word heretical. I must therefore beg pardon, if I be not of too easie a faith in this matter; it is easie to guess where the Oath pinches, better than so.
§. 27. 4. But after all this, I am not satisfied, with the grounds of Mr. Cressy's hopes, that the taking off the objection as to their Loyalty may be sufficient reason for the Toleration of their Religion; Epist. Apol. p. 98.which is the thing aimed at in this Discourse. For although the inconsistency of any Religion with the Civil Government be a sufficient ground against the Toleration of such a Religion; yet its not being inconsistent is not enough for its Toleration. For the matter of Toleration, in a Nation where there is a Publick Religion established by Law, hath a respect two wayes, to the Civil Government, and to the Established Religion: and the Civil Government is bound to defend and protect the Established Religion; because it is agreed on all hands that it is bound to defend the True Religion, and that is declared by the Laws to be the True, which is established by them. Now, if a party appears active and dangerous, whose Principles are destructive to the Religion established by Law, I appeal to any man of common sense, whether it be sufficient ground for the Toleration of it, that one objection is taken off, when the other remains in its fuil force? That which is then to be considered in this case, is, whether such a party, which is dangerous without Toleration, will grow less dangerous by it? which I think needs no great consideration; and it will require as little, to shew the danger that will come to the Established Religion by a Toleration of Popery: not only by the diligence, industry, and number of the Priests, who will be glad to make new Converts to gain new Residences, (they being at present so much over-stocked;) besides their desires to approve themselves to the Court of Rome for preferments by their activity; and telling brave stories beyond Seas of their exploits against hereticks, (as a late Miles Gloriosus among them hath done) how many Legions of Hereticks they have blown away by the Power of Principles and Demonstrations; but, by the obligation that lyes upon them that receive preferments from Rome, to persecute Hereticks, Schismaticks, and Rebels to the Pope to their uttermost; which is expressed in the Oath they take to the Pope; as appears by the Pontifical; so that these men must either be perjured, or persecute when it lyes in their Power. And can any Nation in the World think it Wise or Safe to give Toleration to Wolfs among Sheep; to those that have solemnly sworn to persecute to their power all that own the Established Religion? and that look upon all such as in a damned condition that do not submit to their Church? Till they abate of their monstrous uncharitableness, till they renounce their Oaths to the Pope, till they can give good security of their quiet behaviour in not seducing others, what pretence can there be, for their being allowed a free exercise of their Religion, supposing they should take the Oath of Allegiance? But as to their dignified Clergy, I mean such of his Majesties Subjects, whom the Pope hath taken upon him to make Bishops without his consent (which was not suffered by some Princes, even in times of Popery) it ought farther to be considered, what security any following Oath can give as to those that have taken a former Oath of Allegiance to the Pope? as I have already proved it to be; as much as King Iohn's was, upon the Resignation of his Crown; nay yet farther, they are bound now by that Oath to defend all those Provisions and Reservations, and Apostolical Mandates, which were accounted the intolerable grievances of this Nation, long before the Reformation.
But why may they not enjoy equal liberty with the Sectaries? I am not pleading the Sectaries Cause, (neither would others plead it now but for a farther end) nor would I extenuate the guilt of their Separation; but they are blind, that do not see the difference between the parties, if not as to number, yet as to interest, forreign dependence, and danger to the Church of England: for surely, a man is not in so much danger of being stung to death by Gnats, as being poisoned by Vipers: I mean in respect of the avowed principle of Persecuting all dissenters, in the Roman Church: which it were easie to manifest, not only from our domestick story,Revelatio Consilio…m quae initio Synodi Trideatinae inter Pontificem, Caesarem caeterosa; Reges, Principes, &c. sunt inita. A. 1620. and the entertainment in Queen Maries dayes; and from the History of the Inquisition abroad; but from the Cabal at the Council of Trent between the Popes Legats, and the Embassadours of Catholick Princes about the utter extirpation of the Protestant Religion; and the defigns that were carried on in prosecution of this in most parts of Europe, especially in Germany, Flanders, Ad Edictae Principum de li…e ti… sectarum.and France; but I shall not meddle with the secret Intrigues, but the open and avowed principles. In France, Auct. Claudio de Sainctes.Claudius de Sainctes published a Book against Toleration, A. D. 1561. wherein he pleads with all his strength for the utter extirpation of Protestants; Iacob. Pam…lii de Religionibus diversis no… admit.the like did Iacobus Pamelius in Flanders; and both of them answer all the common and popular arguments now brought for Toleration: A…tw. 1589. Casp. Scioppii Classicum Belli Sa…ri Ticini. 1619.the same did Scioppius in Germany; and we all know what the dreadful consequences were in all those places. But this is a subject too large to enter upon now: For my part, I am no Friend to Sanguinary Laws on the account of Religion; and if the Wisdom of our Law-makers should think fit to change that popular way of publick suffering (which the sufferers would have still believed to be for Religion) into a more effectual course of suppressing the growth of a party so dangerous to our established Religion, I should more rejoice, it may be, therein, than those who are more concerned in it. Provided, that the pretence of making new Laws more accommodate to our present State, be not carried on meerly with the design of leaving our Church without any security by Law at all against so violent and dangerous a party: for it is a much easier matter to repeal old Laws, than to make new ones. And if the objection against the old Laws be, that they are not executed, it ought to be considered whether the same objection will not lye against others, unless they be such Laws as will execute themselves; and we have little Reason to believe that they who bid difiance to our present Laws, and make sport with Proclamations, will be perswaded by gentler means to obey others. And is such an affront to Laws a sufficient Motive to Lenity? And we have good ground to think, that that they look upon all our Laws, whatever they be, as things of no force at all upon their Consciences, as being null in themselves, because they are contrary to the Popes Authority and the Constitutions of their Church. And I believe if our modern Papists were pressed home, the generality of those who are obnoxious to the Poenal Laws, would not acknowledge those Ancient Rights of the Crown, which were challenged by William the Conquerour, William Rufus, Henry the first, Henry the second, (before his submission to the Pope) and afterwards by Edward the first, and Edward the third; viz. No exercise of any forreign jurisdiction here without the Kings consent; no liberty of going out of the Kingdom, though upon the Popes Command, without the Kings leave; and while they allow this Power to the Pope to command his Majesties Subjects, they make him Soveraign over them, and make them more fearful of disclaiming his Power; No Decrees of Popes or Bulls to be received without the Kings approbation; No Bishops to be made by Papal Provisions out of the plenitude of his Power, &c. Those who will not reject these, which were challenged by the Kings of England long before the Reformation, as their ancient and undoubted Rights, with what face can they plead for the Repeal of the Poenal Laws? when the ancient Law of England makes them guilty of violating the Rights of the Crown. If they say, the Case is not the same now upon the Change of Religion; I desire to know of them, whether any ancient Rights of the Crown are lost by casting off the Popes Authority? if they be not, they are good still, and what are they then that deny them? if they be lost, then our Kings have lost some of their Soveraign Rights which their Ancestors valued above half their Kingdoms; and how could they lose them by casting off the Pope, if they did not receive them …rom him? If they received them from him, then they make the Kings Power to be so far at least derived from the Pope; for if it were independent upon him, how could they lose any Power, by casting off the Popes Authority? If it be said, that these were priviledges granted by the Popes; I utterly deny it; for our Kings challenged them in spight of the Popes, and exercised them in direct opposition to their Bulls and Decrees; even the Decrees of Councils as well as Popes, as is fully manifested in the foregoing Discourse. How then can such men plead for the repeal of Poenal Laws whose principles do so directly contradict the ancient acknowledged Rights of the Crown of England? For others that will not only own these ancient Rights, but give sufficient security without fraud and equivocation, of their sincerity in renouncing the Popes power of deposing Princes, and other Principles destructive to Government; since it was never the intention of our Laws to persecute such, they need not fear the enjoyment of all Reasonable Protection by them. But it doth not become me to discourse of such points which are far more proper for the Wisdom and Council of the whole Nation: And I know no true Protestant would envy the quiet and security of innocent and peaceable men, where there is sufficient assurance, that by favour received they will not grow more unquiet. But we cannot take too great care to prevent the restless designs of those, who aim at nothing more, than the undermining and blowing up our established Church and Religion: Which God preserve.
Thus much may serve for an Answer to these points of Mr. Cressy's Book, the rest I leave to a better hand.
And now My Lord, what reason have I to beg pardon for so tedious a Discourse! But I know your Lordships love to the Cause, as well as to the Person concerned, will make you ready to excuse and forgive,
My Lord, Your Lordships most humble and obedient Servant, Edw. Stillingfleet.
End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, Answer to Cressys Epistle (1675)