The Grounds of Protestant Religion, Part 2 · Chapter 3

The Grounds of Protestant Religion · Part 2 · Chapter 3

p. 343CHAP. III. Of keeping Faith with Hereticks.

The occasion of this Dispute. The reason why this Doctrine is not commonly defended: Yet all own such Principles from whence it necessarily follows. The matter of fact as to the Council of Constance; and John Hus opened. Of the nature of the safe-conduct granted him by the Emperour, that it was not a general one, salvâ justitiâ, but particular, jure speciali; which is largely proved. The particulars concerning Hierom of Prague. Of the safe-conduct granted by the Council of Trent. Of the distinction of Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, and that from thence it follows, that Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. Simancha, and several others fully assert this Doctrine. Of the Invitation to the Council of Trent, and the good Instructions there; and of Publick Disputation.

A. C's Endeavour not only to charge Protestants with the guilt of Schism, §. 1.but to justifie and clear the proceedings of the Church of Rome towards them, hath led us into a new dispute, how far she is to be trusted in the greatest promises which are made to such whom she accounts Hereticks. Which is occasioned by these words of his, That after this breach was made, the Church of Rome was so kind and careful to seek the Protestants, that she invited them publickly with safe conduct to Rome, to a General Council, freely to speak what they could for themselves: Or, if we take his words, as you give them us, the sense is the same to our purpose (and therefore you impertinently cavil with his Lordship for not keeping Faith with A.C.) Which did at first seek to recall them from their Novel Opinions, and after their breach did permit, yea invite them publickly to Rome to a General Council, &c. Upon which his Lordship sayes: Indeed I think the Church of Rome did carefully seek the Protestants; P. 143. n. 7.but I doubt it was to bring them within their net. And she invited them to Rome. A very safe place, if you mark it, for them to come to, just as the Lion (in the Apologue) invited the Fox to his own Den. Yea, but there was safe-conduct offered too: Yes, conduct perhaps, but not safe, or safe perhaps, for going thither, but none for coming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsum. Yea, but it should have been to a General Council: Perhaps so. But was the conduct safe, that was given to a Council which they call General, to some others before them? No sure, John Hus, and Jerom of Prague burnt for all their safe conduct. And so long as the Jesuits write and maintain. That Faith given is not to be kept with Hereticks. And the Church of Rome leaves this lewd Doctrine uncensured (as p. 344it hath hitherto done, and no exception put in of force and violence.) A. C. shall pardon us, that we come not to Rome, nor within the reach of Roman Power, what freedom of speech soever he promised us. For to what end freedom of speech on their part, since they are resolved to alter nothing? And to what end freedom of speech on our part, if after speech hath been free, life shall not. P. 152.This you call a Theme, which, for the most part, our Adversaries love to dwell upon, as thinking they have some great advantage against us therein. And, Can you blame them for insisting much on that which their lives are concerned in, and it will appear in the prosecution of this subject, that we have this great advantage against you, that we are come to understand your arts so well, as not so easily to be catched by your perfidious subtilties. And as we understand your practices better than to rely on your promises of this nature, so we are not so ignorant of the intrigues of your proceedings, as to suppose that commonly and openly you should defend this Position, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. For thereby you would lose the intent and design of it; for none would be so silly as to venture themselves into the hands of such, who openly profess, They are not bound to keep Faith with them. For, Do you think that Father Fulgentio would ever have gone to Rome on the safe-conduct most solemnly given by Paul. 5. if he had understood beforehand, with what perfidiousness he should have been dealt with there; and all under this pretext, That safe-conduct was given for his coming hither, but not for his going thence. Is this the Faith of the Apostolical See? Is this the Catholick and Roman Faith? If so, the Roman Faith, before ever it was Christian, was much more infallible ▪ than this; that never was acquainted with such a perfidious Infallibility. Well then might his Lordship say, The conduct might be safe for going thither, but not for coming thence. Vestigia nulla retrorsum. And so Fulgentio to his sorrow found it. We see therefore, it is very necessary for you to disown this principle as much as possible, till you have occasion to practise it, and then woe be to them to whose lot it falls to make the experiment. Though therefore both publickly and privately, in word and writing, as you tell us, You teach and profess, That Faith is to be kept as well with Hereticks as Catholicks, yet your Adversaries have no great reason to reply on your promises; when they find your practices apparently to the contrary, and those practices built on such principles which you all own, and contend for, and that notwithstanding, what you confidently say to the contrary, several of your Writers have in terms asserted it. All which shall be made good in this Chapter. And therefore, though you say it, and say it over again, those who know the ambiguity of your expressions, your many reservations, and exceptions which you make, will not be very confident of the honesty of your meaning, by the fairness of your expressions. These are therefore no clamorous accusations, but very sad truths, which the experience of the world, and your dealings have too often taught us; that at last we are forced to distinguish between a Princes safc-conduct, and an Eccleastical Trepan. For no other, will that appear to be, which was granted by Pope Paul to Fulgentio, or the Emperour, and Council of Constance to John Hus, and Hierom of Prague. If Christ therefore, after he had said, That they should give to Caesar the things that are Caesars, had either denied the payment of tribute, or demanded it himself, Becanus might then say, That was a fit parallel for you in this Controversie, whose open actions do palpably contradict you, when you say, That Faith is to be kept with Hereticks.

p. 345For the clearing of which,§. 2. we must first relate the matter of fact in the case of the Council of Constance, and then examine the several evasions you make in vindication of their proceedings, notwithstanding the safe-conduct given by the Emperour and Council. The story then is briefly this; A Council at Constance being called for redressing abuses in the Church, and putting an end to that Schism, which was between the three Antipopes Gregory 12, Benedict. 13, John 23. John Husse is summoned by the Emperour Sigismund to appear before it. And to take away all fears and suspicions of unhandsome dealing, the Emperour grants him a safe-conduct, in which it was expressed, Omni prorsus impedimento remoto, transire, stare, morari, & redire libere permittatis; that without all manner of hindrance, he should be suffered to come, appear, stay, and return freely. That such a safe-conduct was given by the Emperour, and pleaded by Husse, is agreed on all sides. But notwithstanding this, he had not been above three weeks in Constance, but, contrary to his safe-conduct, he is thrown into prison; which being done in the Emperours absence, he returns to the Council, and argues the case with them, upon which they pass the decree contained in the 19 Session of that Council, in these words cited in the Margent, which, that you may not quarrel with my interpretation of, I will take your own.Praesens sancta Synodus ex quovis salvo-conductu per Imperatorem, reges, & alios feculi principes, haereticis, vel de haeresi diffamatis, putantes eosdem sic à suis erroribus revocare, quocun que se vinculo▪ obstrinxerint, concesso, nullum fidei Catholicae vel jurisdictioni Ecclesiasticae praejudicium generari, vel impedimentum praest…i posse, seu debere declarat, quo minus dicto salvo-conductu non obstante, liceat judici competen…i & Ecclesiastico, de hujusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere, & aliàs contra eos debitè procedere, eosdem que punire, quantum justitia suadebit, si suos errores revocare pertinacitêr recusaverint, etiamsi de salvo-conductu confifi ad locum venerint judicii aliás non venturi; nec sic promittentem cum secerit quod in ipso est, ex aliquo remansisse obligat…m Concil Constant. sess. 19. p. 1075. Tom. 7. Concil. p. 2. ed. Binii. This present Sacred Synod declareth, That by whatsoever safe-conduct, granted by the Emperour, Kings, or other Secular Princes, to Hereticks, or such as are defamed for Heresie, no prejudice can arise, no impediment can, or ought to be put to the Catholick Faith, or other Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but that (notwithstanding the said safe-conduct) it may be lawful for any competent and Ecclesiastical Judge to enquire into the errours of such persons, and duly otherwaies proceed against them, and punish them so far as justice shall require, if they shall pertinaciously refuse to revoke their errours; yea though they come to the place of judgement, relying upon such safe-conduct, and would not otherwise come thither; nor doth he who so promiseth, remain obliged in any thing, having done what lyes in him. Upon this decree of the Council the Emperour looks on himself, as absolved from his obligation, and not only concurred in the sentence against Husse, but gave order himself about his execution. The Question then is, Whether the Emperour did not break his Faith with John Husse in so doing; and, Whether the Council did not decree, that neither he, nor any else, were bound to keep it with Hereticks. Although this case be so plain and clear to all persons, who have any sense of justice and honesty, that we dare appeal to the most indifferent persons in the world, Whether it be not a notorious violation of Faith, after a most solemn promise of safe return, to proceed to judgement against the person, who came meerly relying on that promise, and the same person to be the Instrument of his execution, who gave the safe-conduct on which he trusted: And whether the declaring, that such a person is not obliged to keep his promise, because it is a matter of Heresie he had promised in, be not to declare, That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks. Yet since no actions are so bad, if they tend to your advantage, but you will have something to blind the eyes of the simple with, we must consider what you have to plead in vindication of these proceedings. You tell us p. 346then,P. 153 n. 2. That the Emperour did not break his Faith with John Husse, and that notwithstanding the safe-conduct given, he was justly burnt. Bold and daring assertions! but we must enquire into the reasons of them. Two things you seem most to rely on, and the strength of all your Answer depends on them: which being the things, Becanus, and the rest of your party insist on in this case, I shall more closely examine. The first is, From the nature of the safe-conduct given, that it was not such as could hinder justice; the second is, From the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, and that the Emperour could make no promise in prejudice of the Churches Jurisdiction.

First, You distinguish of a safe-conduct, which, you say, may be granted two waies; §. 3.first, jure communi, when tis given only against unjust violence, salvâ semper justitiâ,Ibid. provided alwaies that Justice be not impeached: Secondly, jure speciali, when it secures a man against all violence whatsoever, whether just or unjust, and chiefly in that cause for which it is given. In the former manner only, you say, A safe-conduct was granted by the Emperour to John Husse, and by the Council of Constance to Hierom of Prague: In the latter sort, the Council of Trent offered safe-conduct to the Protestants in Germany, &c. No Faith therefore was broken with John Husse; for, a safe-conduct was only given him jure communi, by which Justice was to remain unimpeachable, since he was only promised to be defended against unjust violence; which was performed. I grant, a safe-conduct may be given two waies; the first, is to secure men from all unjust violence, in order to a legal trial; and this is granted in such cases, when the person accused looks on the Law, as open for him as well as his Adversaries, and puts himself on a fair tryal before equal and indifferent Judges: and in such cases the intent of the safe-conduct is expressed, Damus tibi fidem publicam causam dicendi in judicio contra vim, non contra juris executionem; as the Formula of it is in the Roman Empire, thence that Imperial Constitution, which prohibits that any safe-conduct be given to the accuser, or the guilty person adversus publicum judicium, sed solum contra vim, against publick justice, but only against violence: but then, these are the safe-conducts which subordinate Officers can only grant; because these have no power over the life of persons, but they are only to see justice duly administred to all persons, in order to which they may give such safe-conducts as may prevent such things, as may hinder the due execution of Justice. But then further, a safe-conduct may be given with respect to those who are to judge of the cause, i. e. in case a person avoids appearance upon fears that the persons he is summoned before, will presently cast him into prison, or put him to death; now, if a safe-conduct be granted by him, who hath the absolute power of life and liberty, so as to hinder the execution of any sentence passed, in this case the safe-conduct is full and absolute, and admits of no restrictions or limitations. Now this latter is plainly our present case; For John Husse had been summoned before to appear at Rome, to vindicate himself in point of Heresie, but suspecting foul dealing, he durst not go: And, Can we in reason think he would ever have gone to Constance, if the Emperour had not granted him such a Conduct as might secure him from his fears, as to his life and liberty? And therefore, since the Emperour, to whom it only belonged to dispose of both, had granted him so express a safe-conduct, he thought he might securely go. For, To what end or purpose is a safe-conduct granted, if it be not to secure that which the person to whom it was given had most cause to fear? Now it is apparent, John Husse was not afraid of any unjust violence by the p. 347way, for he was so secure as to that, that he left his safe-conduct in the hands of his friends, till he came at Constance, as appears by the unquestionable reports of that story on all hands; which is an evident argument, that the intent of the safe-conduct was to secure him at Constance, from any injury being done him by the Council. And although the Council might take upon them, not only to judge of Heresie, but to condemn him for it; yet, as long as the execution of that sentence belonged to the Secular Power, he had reason to think, that whatever the Council might determine, yet the Emperours Faith being solemnly given him, he need not fear the execution of it. For that being in the Emperours power, he was bound by his publick Faith not to give way to it. To make this clear by an Instance; It is more evident by our Laws, that one who hath taken orders at Rome, coming into the Nation, and being convicted of it, is liable to death, than it was by the Laws then in force, that such who were condemned for Heresie, should be burnt; Suppose now, that a Priest be summoned by the King to appear before his Courts of Justice, with a safe-conduct, or promise given, that he should come, appear, and return freely, without any hinderance; Would not you, or any other Romish Priest, think your selves hardly dealt with, and that the King had broken his Faith, if he should not only suffer you to be condemned, but give express order for your execution; and then tell you, that the safe-conduct was to be understood salvâ justitiâ, without any impeachment of Justice, and that it was only to protect you from all unjust violence? And, Was not the case just the same here of the Emperour Sigismund, and John Husse? Was John Husse so ignorant, as not to know they would condemn him for Heresie, when a Council at Rome had condemned him for it already? Or, Did not he know what course was like to be taken with persons so condemned? What could he then imagine to be the intent of this safe-conduct, but to secure him from all violence to be done to his person under a pretence of execution of Justice? And for all this, was not the Emperours Faith violated, when he was not only imprisoned, but burnt, by the Emperours express order, notwithstanding his solemn promise that he should come, appear, and return freely, without any hinderance? If this be a safe-conduct, it is only such a one as they that go to the Gallows have, a safe-conduct to execution. Besides, that this could not be such a safe-conduct, salvâ justitiá, as you speak of, is manifest from the tenor and words of it. For safe-conducts, being granted in favour of persons, are to be taken in their largest sense, if no limitations be expressed in them; and it is a Rule among those who should, and do understand these things best, That a safe-conduct is of the nature of a Covenant, and the words of it import a promise, and therefore if they be general, Verba salvi-conductus sunt verba fidei … ▪ & sapiunt naturam pacti: quare, si generalia sint, extenduntur quatenus verba p…tiuntur. Omnes Doctores uno ore asserunt, Generalem promissionem Securitatis veniendi ad judicem seu compare…di in judicio, etiam libertatem recedendi ab…undi que complecti. Pet. Premus de Securit. quaest. 6. p. 33, 36.are extended as far as the words will bear. And that all the Doctors do unanimously concurr, that a general safe-conduct of coming to a Judge, or appearing in a Court of Judicature, do import a freedom of departure and going thence. So that we see, if we take the Emperours safe-conduct in the express words of it, it imports much more than such a one as is only salvâ justitiâ; because it ran in the most general and comprehensive terms, and was granted not by any subordinate Judge, but by the Emperour himself, who was able, as well as bound, to make it good in the most large and extensive sense. But further, if this had been granted only salvâ justitiâ, so that the Council had liberty to proceed on him as they saw good, What p. 348made the Emperour take their imprisonment of him so ill, as Nauclerus and others report he did, and that because of the safe-conduct he had given him? It seems the Emperour wanted Becanus, and you, to have told him, That he never granted any safe-conduct, but what had the reservation of a salvâ justitiâ, and that such justice too, as his greatest enemy must shew him: If he had known this, he needed not have been troubled at that which he made account of, in granting the safe-conduct. Lastly, What need the Council have taken such pains to satisfie the Emperour, by declaring in a decree, that neither he, nor any Prince was bound by their safe-conducts, to hinder Hereticks from being punished, if he had not thought himself obliged to do it, by the safe-conduct he had given? and if he did think so before the decree of the Council, then certainly there was no salvâ justitiâ understood by him in the safe-conduct he had granted. Thus we see, how on all hands it appears, from Husse's fears and desires, the Emperours power, the nature of safe-conducts, the Emperours own sense of it, and the Councils decree, that this first Answer hath no ground at all, viz. that the safe conduct was granted jure communi, and that it was only to hinder unjust violence, and not the execution of Justice.

But besides, you say, John Husse was justly burnt, for two reasons: The first is, For being obstinate in his Heresie; the second, For having fled, which the Emperour had prohibited in his safe-conduct, under pain of death. I answer, It is not, Whether a man, obstinate in Heresie, may be burnt, which is now the Question, although that may justly bear a dispute too: But, Whether one, suspected for Heresie, and coming to a Council with safe-conduct for coming and returning, may be burnt without violation of Faith; your first reason then, is nothing to the purpose, and your second as little: First, Because there is no certain evidence at all of Husse's flying; it not being objected against him by the Emperour, who only upbraided him with his obstinacy in his Heresie, as the cause of his execution; and withall, if Husse had fled, and had suffered death for that, as you say he ought to have done, he would not have suffered the death proper to Heresie, and not to flying; nor been accounted (as by all your own Authours he is) a sufferer on the account of Heresie. But this being a groundless Calumny, it needs no further confutation.

But before we come to your second Answer, the case of Hierom of Prague must be discussed so far as it is distinct from that of John Husse;§. 4. who, it seems, was trepanned by a pretended safe-conduct granted him by the Council, and not by the Emperour, wherein, you tell us, that express clause of salvâ semper justitiâ was inserted (which is another argument that the safe-conduct of the Emperour to Husse was of another nature, because it ran in general terms, without any such clause) but poor Hierom, who, it seems, was not acquainted with the arts and subtilties of his enemies, but thought them as honest as himself, ventures to Constance upon this safe-conduct: but when he came thither, and began to understand the jugglings of his enemies, he thought to shift for himself by flight, but being taken, was burnt. So that Hierom suffered through his honest simplicity and credulity, not considering what that salvâ justitiâ would mean in his case, which, as they interpreted it, was such another safe-conduct, as known Malefactors have to the place of Justice: but to call it a safe-conduct, in the sense which Hierom apprehended it in, is as proper as to say, A man that is to be executed shall have a Salvo for his life. This was therefore intended, as appears by the event, as a meer trick to bring him within their power; and so all p. 349such safe-conducts granted with those clauses (by such persons who are to interpret them themselves) are, and nothing else: For they are the sole Judges what this Justice shall be, Neither can you say then, That Faith was kept with Hierom of Prague: for no such thing as a safe-conduct, truly so called, was intended him; and when the Emperour was sollicited to grant him one, he utterly denied it, because of the bad success he had in that of John Husse; and some of the Council being then present with the Emperour, offered to give him a safe-conduct, but they very honestly explained themselves, that it was a safe-conduct for coming thither, but not for going thence again. And so it proved. So that Faith was well given to Hierom of Prague, and as well kept to John Husse.

But, say you, Had the Protestants gone to the Council of Trent, upon the safe-conduct granted them by that Council jure speciali, in the second manner, they could not at all have been punished under any pretence of Heresie, without manifest breach of Faith; which all Catholicks hold to be unlawful. The like may be said of the safe-conduct offered them for going to Rome. But you must better satisfie us, that you look upon this as a breach of Faith, than as yet you have done. For so are your ambiguities, in your expressions of this nature, that men who know your arts, can hardly tell when they have your right meaning. For you may look on all breach of Faith as unlawful, and yet not look on your acting contrary to your express words, in safe-conducts offered to Hereticks, to be a breach of Faith. For you may say, Faith is there only broken, where men are bound to keep it; but you are not bound to keep it with Hereticks, and that because your obligation to the Church is greater than it can be to Hereticks; when therefore you have Hereticks in your power, it is an easie matter for you to say, that, were it in any thing else, but in a matter so nearly concerning the Interest of your Holy Mother the Church, you could not but observe it, but your obligation to that is so great, as destroies all other which are contrary to it: and the obligation being destroyed, there is no breach of Faith at all; and therefore you may hold all breach of Faith unlawful, and yet you may proceed against those whom you account Hereticks, contrary to all engagements whatsoever, and then say, This is no breach of Faith. And the truth is, by your Doctrines of aequivocations, and mental reservations, you have made all manner of converse in the world so lubricous and uncertain, that he who hath to deal with you, especially in matters where the interest of your Church is concerned, had need be wary, and remember to distrust, or else he may repent it afterwards. If you therefore account the Protestants crafty Foxes, in not coming to Rome, or the Council of Trent, it was, because they would not venture too near the Lions Den; but if you will not account them wise men, for refusing so fair an offer, you will give us leave to think them so, till they see better reason to trust your offers. And the Council of Trent did very well to tell them in their form of safe-conduct, they would not do by them as the Council of Constance did, for therein they shew, how much the Faith of Councils was sunk by that, so that if that were not particularly excepted, no trust would ever be given to them more. But, supposing the safe-conduct of the Council of Trent to have been never so free from suspicion, the Protestants had sufficient reasons not to appear there, as will be manifested afterwards.

We come therefore now to your second Answer,§. 5. in vindication of the Council of Constance, which is this, That by that decree the Council declares, that no Secular Power, how soveraign soever, P. 154.can hinder the proceedings of the p. 350Ecclesiastical Tribunal in causes of Heresie; for which there is great reason; and consequently, if the Emperour, or any other Secular Prince, grants a safe-conduct, or makes promise of any thing to the prejudice of that Jurisdiction, it shall not hold. The reason is, because 'tis a promise made of a thing not pertaining to the Jurisdiction of that Prince, nor wholly in his power to see performed. To this I answer, 1. That if I understand any thing, this is expresly to say, That no Prince is to keep Faith with Hereticks, and that is it which you are charged with; and you made use of this distinction, to free your selves from. Now that this is the plain meaning of it, thus appears; you say in the words immediately after; But the Council no where teaches, That Faith or safe-conduct given in temporal causes properly pertaining to the Princes Jurisdiction, is not to be kept by all, and to all persons of what condition soever, so far as it is possible. Which is as much as to say, That in any other case but that of Heresie, they are to keep Faith, but not in that: for this of Heresie, is that which you oppose to all Temporal Causes, and challenge it as belonging to an Ecclesiastical Tribunal; when therefore the Council of Constance decrees, That no Secular Power is obliged by any safe-conduct, to any thing which may hinder the Ecclesiastical Tribunals proceeding in causes of Heresie, what doth it else but declare in express terms, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, i. e. in any thing relating to their Heresie; for this, you say, they have nothing to do with: and therefore let Kings and Princes make never so solemn promises and engagements to men suspected of Heresie, to their peril be it, who rely upon them, for they have nothing to do to promise in such matters, and though their Faith be given never so publickly and solemnly, they are not bound to keep it; nay, they are bound not to keep it: for, if they should, it would be to the apparent mischief and prejudice of the Church. This necessarily follows from your own words, and the distinction here used by you. So that now we need seek no further than your self, and Becanus, for the open avowing of this Principle, That no Prince is bound to keep Faith with Hereticks; but if he doth promise safe-conduct to them though it be more than he can do, yet the Church can make that good use of it, that by that means she may get the Hereticks under her power; and when she hath them, it is but then declaring this promise to be null, and she may do with them as she pleases. Neither is it only Becanus, and you, who say this, but it is the received Principle among you, whatever you say or pretend to the contrary; I mean not, that you say in express terms, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, but by this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, as you use it, you say that from whence it necessarily follows. But yet I answer 2. Though this distinction should be granted, yet it cannot really excuse the Emperour from violating his Faith. For, I say, he promised nothing but was in his power, which was, to secure him as to life and liberty. Now, although the Emperour had suffered the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, to do what belonged to it, which was to enquire into the charge of Heresie, and to give sentence upon the person, yet the execution belonged wholly to the Secular Power; as the Council it self acknowledged, when after the sentence of Heresie was pronounced against John Husse, there was nothing of the executive part which was pleaded, as belonging to the Church, but only degradation, and that was performed in the presence of the Council;H…c Sancta Synodus Constantiensis Johannem Hus, attento quòd Ecclesia Dei non habeat ultra quid gerere valeat, judicio seculari relinquere, & ipsum curiae seculari relinquendum sore decernit, Concil. Constant. sess. 15. p. 1056. upon which the Sacred Synod declares, That they had no more to do with him, but to deliver him over to the Secular Power, and accordingly p. 351decrees it to be done. Now when the Synod declares this, Is it not plain, that what concerns his life, doth properly and only belong to the Secular Power; if therefore the Emperour was bound to do all which lay in him to do, he was effectually bound to secure him as to life and liberty, for both those lay within his power. And therefore, when he gave order for his execution, he was highly guilty of the violation of his Faith; and if the Council of Constance declared him absolved as to this too, it is yet more evident, that they not only decreed, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks in matters concerning the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, but in such as concerned the Secular Power, which is much as to say, Not at all. And by this the vanity of this distinction of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power is sufficiently manifest, and that it evidently appears, that the Council of Constance did decree, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks. And thus I have proved, that his Lordship hath not, as you calumniate him, ignorantly or maliciously wronged the Council, but that no other tolerable sense, besides that which his Lordship saith, can be made of the decree then passed; and notwithstanding your arts and distinctions, nothing can be more plain, than that John Husse was trepanned into his ruine by the Faith of the Emperour given to him. It can be therefore nothing but either palpable ignorance, or a deceit as gross as trusting your safe-conduct in a matter of Heresie, for you so confidently to assert, That if the Relator had not mangled the words of the Council (to deceive his Reader) but set down the decree fairly and fully as it is, the business had been so clear, that it would scarce have any dispute. Whereas his Lordship only sets down the title of the decree, and so he tells you himself, and this he doth as faithfully as may be, and whereas nothing can more evidence the juglings of the Council, than the Decree it self doth, in which nothing is more plain than that, In case of Heresie, no Prince is bound to keep Faith with any persons whatsoever.

From the Council of Constance, we proceed to other Authors, to see, whether they do not concurr with it in this Opinion. For this,§. 6. his Lordship cites Simancha a Spanish Bishop, and a Canonist as well as Civilian, who expresly saith, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, as neither with Tyrants, Pyrates, Fides Haereticis data servanda non est, sicut nec Tyrannis, Piratis, & caeteris publicis praedonibus. Simanca Instit. Cathol. tit. 46. sect. 51. Jures igitur Haretici quid…m gravissimo Concilii Constantiensis judicio, legitimâ flaminâ concremati sunt, quamvis promissa illis securitas faiss…t. Instit. tit. 46. sect. 52.or other publick Robbers; and plainly justifies the proceedings of the Council of Constance in that respect, in that Hereticks by their solemn judgement were burnt, although publick security had been given them. Let us now see, what answer you return to these clear Citations. In general you say, The Bishop was insincere or unadvised in quoting this Author. I wonder wherein:P. 155. I am sure, not so much as you are in your Answers to him. For, you say Simancha holds not this absolutely and universally, but only in cases, wherein that which is promised cannot be lawfully performed. Hence, say you, Simancha hath these words, Veruntamen (ut Marius Salomonius ait) promissa contra Christum fides, si praestetur, perfidia est, If Faith be given against Christ, that is to the dishonour of God, or contrary to the precepts of true Religion, it were perfidiousness to observe it. But the Answer to this is easie: for it appears from Simancha's own grounds, that he supposeth it holds universally, because Faith can never be given to Hereticks, so as that promise can be lawfully performed, because thereby he supposeth it given against Christ, and to the dishonour of God, and therefore concludes, it p. 352would be perfidiousness to observe it. And this is evident from Simancha's own grounds, which he gives for it. For, saith he, if Faith be not kept with Tyrants, Pirats, and other Robbers, which kill the body; Si Ty…annis, Piratis, & caete…is praedonibus fides servanda non est, qui corpus occidunt; longe m…nus haereticis pertinacibus, qui occidunt animas. Id. ib.much less with Hereticks, who destroy souls: which reason being absolute and universal, his Proposition must be so too. And very consonantly to his former assertions concludes,Quamobrem fides illis data, etiam juramen…o firmata, contra publicum bonum, contra salutem animarum, contra jura divina & humana, nullo modo servanda. Ib. That if Faith be given them with an Oath, against the publick good, against the salvation of souls, against divine and humane Laws, it is not to be kept; and it is well known that all Heresies are accounted so by you, and therefore in no case Faith is to be kept with Hereticks. Neither can this possibly be understood meerly of private persons; for his words are general, and we see he vindicates the proceedings of the Council at Constance upon these grounds, and he quotes Marius Salomonius and Placa, who likewise assert in terms, That Faith given to Hereticks is not to be kept,Scribit etiam Salomonius in d. l. 2. exact. de orig. juris, & refert Petrus laca. l. 1. epit. delict. c. 37. in fin. Ita observatum fuisse contra haereticos vocatos in Concilio Constantiensi sub salvo-conductu, qui tamen contra datam fidem ne…ati fuerunt. Non ergo salvo-conductui fidere d…buit. D. Scipio. Menochius. lib. 1 Concil. 100. n. 191. Quod verò scribit Placa d. c. 37. in fin. haereticis datam fidem servandam non esse, intelligo um data fides est ad detrimentum fidei Catholicae. Id Concil. 100. n. 219. Ita enim loquitur Conradus Brunus in tract. de haere…. c. 14. l 3. cum scribit, Non licere pacisci cum haereticis, ut liberè possent in damnatâ eorum sectâ vivere. n. 220. Quod si ob…ic…atur, Concilium Constantiense non observâsse sa…vos-conductos concessos ab Imperatoribus & Regibus; facile erit respondere, Non licuisse illis Imperatoribus & Regibus, concedere tutos reddere haereticos; tum quia inferior non potest salv…m-conductum concedere damnato à majori, tum etiam quia Im…eratorum & Regum est haereticos expugnare, non autem securos & tutos reddere; quemadmodum abund… tradit Con. rad. Brunus. l. 3. de haeret. c. 15. Rectè à Concilio salvi-conductus illi annullati fuerunt. n. 227, 128. and makes use of the instance of the Council of Constance to prove it. And Menochius, whom Simancha likewise cites, who was an Italian Canonist, and therefore might well know the practices of Rome in these cases, saith, That Placa expresly holds, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks, which, he saith, he understands so, when Faith is given to the injury of the Catholick Faith: and cites Conradus Brunus to this purpose, That it is not lawful to make such agreements with Hereticks, that they may enjoy the liberty of their own sect. If therefore they must interpret, how far the Faith given tends to the prejudice of the Catholick Faith, we see, how little security can be had from any solemn promise. And Menochius himself asserts the safe-conduct granted by Princes, in case of Heresie to be unlawful, because the inferiour (as he supposes Princes to be to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal) cannot secure them who are condemned by the Superiour, and because Kings and Emperours ought rather to destroy Hereticks, than to secure them. And therefore the Council of Constance did well in nulling the safe-conducts granted to Hereticks. And what now is this, but in plain terms to assert, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks? Neither can you say, as some do, That they are the Canonists, and not the Church of Rome, which assert this: for, besides that the Canonists understand well enough the intrigues and proceedings of the Court of Rome, although it seems they do not conceal them so much as they should do, yet they are not only these who have asserted it, but some great men of your Church, have, upon occasion, expresly said it; for we are not to expect that this should be avowed as a publick Opinion of your Church, for that were to make it unserviceable to you; but when you have those whom you call Hereticks at an advantage, then is the time to discover this. So there wanted not some to perswade Charls the fifth, notwithstanding the safe-conduct given to Luther at his coming to Worms, to deal by him as the Council of Constance had done by John Husse, and that upon this very account, That no Faith was to be kept with Hereticks: But the Emperour, and the Princes about him, were persons of too great honour and honesty p. 353to hearken to such perfidious Councils. And no meaner a person than Cardinal Hosius, admonishes Henry King of Poland, that he ought not to keep the Faith he had given to the Protestants, and gives this reason for it, Nunquam patiaris ullâ te ratione ad ea quae promisisti praestanda teneri; quia juramentum non debet esse vinculum iniquitatis. Hosius Cardinal. epistol. 193, 202, 220.That an Oath ought to not be the bond of iniquity. And the Jesuit Possevin is reported to have given the same counsel afterwards to Stephen King of Poland. But these things are, as much as possible, kept from our view, and the Books containing such Doctrines in them, are like the Golden Legends bought up by themselves to prevent our discovery of their frauds and imposture; and therefore if we cannot instance in those Jesuits, who have expresly taught this Opinion in print, yet that only argues the greater fraud and subtilty of them, who will own and practise such things, which they dare not publickly avow to the world. And yet it appears from the way used by Becanus, and you, in vindication of your selves, that you cannot possibly avoid, the asserting such things from whence it necessarily follows, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. But because the Doctrine it self is grown a matter so odious to the world, being contrary to all principles of humanity and justice, and which, if practised by all those who call each other Hereticks, would overthrow all civil societies; therefore you dare not but in terms disown it, though it still remains among those Arcana Societatis, those hidden works of darkness, which want only a fair opportunity to discover themselves. But as much as you wipe your mouth, though it be foul enough in saying, That neither the Bishop, nor all his gang, are able to name one of them of that Opinion, to make it appear, how much you have abused your self in these words; I shall make a short business of it, and name your self for one, and Becanus your Author for another, and refer the Reader to what goes before, for an evidence that you own those Principles from whence it unavoidably follows, That no Faith is to be kept with Hereticks.

But, Are the Jesuits indeed grown such honest men,§. 7. that not one of their number can be named, who assert this Doctrine? A happy change! For sure they were not alwaies so; if we believe that excellent person of as great integrity as learning, and a Romanist too, Jac. Augustus Thuanus in his Elegy in Parricidas, wherewith he concludes his sacred Poems;Scilicet has artes nuper gens gnara nocendi Exitio invexit, Gallia, nata tuo. Hesperiae suscis gens emissaria ab oris Fucum affectatâ quae gravitate tegit, Nata Magistratum convell…re, nata Ministris Substrahere obsequium, Praesulibus que suum: Geryonae qua dum placeat, faveat que trifauci, Terrarum reliquos non facit assis heros. Et coelo facinus dignum putat, omnia saevi In Regis longas tradere sceptra manus. Quae disciplinam morum, quae Gallica venit, Exuto, legum solvere jura, metu, Et vileis regnantum anima…, ipsos que necandos Horrendâ Reges proditione docet; Servandam que fidem negat, argutis que cavillis Detorquet magni jussa severa Dei. Nos patimur segnes, lenti que sedemus ad iram Et pietas ipsâ religione perit▪ Protinus Induciae violantur patre Quiritum Auctore, & Martis nuncius urbe venit. Nos juvat antiquo vitam producere ritu, Nos juvat in priscâ simplicitate mori. Jac. Aug. Thuanus Eleg. in Parricidas. in which he speaks great and sad truths of that honest Society; where he mentions those Cruelties and Assasinations, which were brought into these parts of the world by the Arts and Opinions of a famous Society, which makes nothing of Laws, Faith, Honesty, Religion, to advance that Interest which it hath espoused; and expresly saith, That they deny Faith to be kept, that by their distinctions and subtilties, they enervate the force of divine commands, they deny obedience to authority, destroy Religion under a pretence of Piety, break engagements, teach the murthering Kings; and what not? And yet all this while, not one of all this Society ever taught, That Faith was not to be kept with Hereticks. But whence came then the great disputes, Whether an Oath of Allegiance might be taken to Heretical Princes? Was it not from hence that Heresie was supposed to dissolve that p. 354obligation to obedience, which otherwise men lay under? And if it doth destroy that Faith which men owe to their Soveraigns, in case of Heresie; Will it not equally destroy that Faith which Princes promise to their subjects in case of Heresie too? For what reason can be given for the one, which will not hold for the other also. And who were they, I pray, but those loyal persons the Jesuits, who broached, fomented, and propagated that Doctrine? Was not Father Creswell a Jesuit, who, under the name of Andreas Philopator, delivers this excellent Doctrine, That the whole School of Divines teach, Vniversa Theologorum Schola tenet, & est certum ac de fide, Quemcun que principem Christianum, si à Catholicâ Romanâ Religione manifestè deflexerit, & alios avocare voluerit, excidere statim omni potestate, & dignitate ex ipsá vi juris divini & humani: hocque & ante sententiam Pontificis & Judicis contra ipsum prolatam; & subditos quoscunque liberos esse ab omni juramenti obligatione, quod de obedientiâ praestitissent, posse que & debere hujusmodi hominem tanquam Apostatam & haereticum ex dominatu ejicere, nè alios insiciat. Andreas Philopator Resp. ad edict. Regin. Angl. p. 149. n. 157.and it is a thing certain, and of Faith, that any Christian Prince, if he manifestly falls off from the Religion of the Catholick Roman Church, and endeavours to draw others from it, doth by Law of God and man, fall from all power and authority; and that before the sentence of the Pope and Judge delivered against him; and that all his subjects are free from the obligation of any Oath to him, of obedience and loyalty, and that they may and ought cast such a one out of his power, as an Apostate and a Heretick, lest he infect others. I might mention many more, who write after the same nature, but I spare you, only this one may serve instead of many; for he delivers it not only as his own judgement, but the consent of the School, and as a thing most certain, as being of Faith: And will you still say, That no Jesuits own such principles, as, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks? For if Heresie doth thus destroy all obligation to obedience in subjects to Heretical Princes, Will it not much more in Princes toward heretical subjects? because certainly Princes have a greater power and right to command over subjects, than subjects over them, even in your own case of Heresie. Since this therefore is the avowed Doctrine of the Jesuitical School, perswade whom you can to believe, that you look on an obligation to Faith remaining in a case of Heresie? Certainly none who understand your principles and practices, will have much cause to rely on your Faith in this particular. So much at present of the Jesuits Integrity, as to this principle of keeping Faith with Hereticks. P. 156.What you add further about the Council of Constance, and John Husse, and Hierom of Prague, is only serving up the very same matter in somewhat different words; for there is nothing contained in them but what hath been sufficiently disproved already: for it all depends on the nature of the safe-conduct, and the difference of the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power.

§. 8.His Lordship very pertinently asks, supposing men might go safely to Rome, To what purpose is it to go to a General Council thither, and use freedom of speech, since the Church of Rome is resolved to alter nothing; and you very pertinently answer, That they were invited thither to be better instructed, P. 157.and reclaimed from their errours. But, Will no place serve to reclaim them but Rome? Can they not be as well instructed elsewhere, and by other means, than by being summoned to a General Council. We had thought the intention of General Councils had been to have had free debates concerning the matters which divide the Church. But, it seems the Protestants must have been summoned as guilty persons, i. e. Hereticks, and their Adversaries must have sate as their proper Judges, and such who were accused as the great Innovators, must have believed themselves Infallible, and by your own saying, If an Angel from Heaven had come as a Protestant p. 355thither, he would not have been believed; nay, it had been well he had escaped so, if your power were as great over spirits, as over our grosser bodies. So I suppose John Husse, and Hierom of Prague were invited to Constance to be better instructed; and it is well we know by their example what you mean by your good instructions, and out of a desire to avoid them, care not how little we appear where our Adversaries not only intend to be Judges, but resolve beforehand to condemn us whatsoever we say: For so you tell us, That Rome, and the Fathers of Trent were resolved to stick to their own Doctrine (which they call Catholick) notwithstanding any pretended difficulties or objections brought against it, either by Bishops, or any other person. Your kind invitations then of the Protestants, were wonderful expressions of your Churches civility towards them; that they might be present to hear themselves condemned, and then escape how they could themselves.

The offer of a publick Disputation, his Lordship truly tells you, signifies nothing without an indifferent arbitration, and the impossibility of agreeing on that, renders the other useless; and only becomes such Thrasonical persons as Campian was, who yet had as little reason as any man to boast of his Atchievements in his disputations. When you therefore say, His Lordship would have some Atheist, Turk or Jew, to fit as indifferent persons; you shew only your Scurrility, and want of understanding. For his Lordship only insists on the necessity of that, to shew the uselesness of publick Disputations, where such cannot be agreed on, as in this case. And he truly saith, This is a good Answer to all such offers; that the Kings and Church of England had no reason to admit of a publick Dispute with the English Romish Clergy, till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome, that that Church will submit to a Third, who may be an indifferent Judge between us and them; or to such a General Council as is after mentioned (not such a one as you would have, wherein the Pope should sit as Head of the Church, for that is to make the greatest Criminal, Judge in his own cause.P. 185.) And this, saith he, is an honest, and, I think, a full Answer. And without this, all Disputation must end in Clamour; and therefore the more publick, the worse. Because, as the Clamour is the greater, so perhaps will be the Schism too.