I. Question: Why are you a Catholic? The answer follows. II. Question: But why are you a Protestant? An answer attempted (in vain) / written by the Reverend Father S.C. Monk of the Holy Order of St. Benedict ...

§. 65.

Cath.

What I acknowledg or disacknowledg is not ma∣terial. But to rectify your mistake, I will sincerely acquaint you with the whole matter as it stands at this day: and thence you may collect what must be required from you, in case you are a Catholic.

Prot.

You will much oblige me therein.

Cath.

Then, it cannot be denyed that (besides that Temporal Power indeed belonging to the Pope within his own Dominions, of which he is now the Temporal Soveraign) several Popes in former times have both Challenged, and actually exercised an unlimitted Temporal Iurisdiction over other Kingdoms and Empires. Which Iurisdiction, if it hath not been expresly acknowledged as just, yet it hath been sometimes submitted to by Kings, either obnoxious and unable to resist, or desirous to make use of it for their own advan∣tage against Enemies or Rebels. Several examples hereof remain in our Records, particularly during the Raigns of King Iohn and Henry the third. But generally Princes, when freed from such exigences, have resolutely and stoutly resisted such pretentions of the Roman Court.

If we now descend to latter times, and cast our view on the pre∣sent state of Christendom, we shall find Kings and states so far from admitting such an exorbitant forrain Iurisdiction to be exercised or

acknowledged within their Dominions, that not any of them will permit Rescripts, Bulls or Mandats from Rome, though regarding even Ecclesiastical affairs (unless touching private inferior persons) to be published, and much less executed within their states, till ex∣amined and approved in their respective Councils.

Nay more then this: even the Canons of Reformation prescribed by the General Council of Trent, as far as they are suspected to en∣trench upon the Temporal Power of Princes, have always been refused to be admitted in France, the Pope not only knowing, but expresly allowing such refusal; as appears by the Bull of Pope Clement the eight sent to King Henry the fourth, at his reception into the Church,* 1.1 and recited by Cardinal Perron in his Epistles: in which Bull we find this Clause; His Majesty shall effectually take order that the Council of Trent he published and admitted in all things, Excepting only (at your must earnest Supplication and Petition) those things, if there be any such, which cannot be put in execution without a real disturbance of public tranquility.

The King of Spain likewise, though believed to be more com∣plyant* 1.2 with the Court of Rome, being sollicited by the Pope to publish and admit the same Council in his Belgick Provinces, though he wil∣lingly yielded thereto, yet he did it not without this additional Clause adjoyned, Touching the Regalities, Rights, Prerogatives and Preeminences of his Majesty, his Vassals, Estates and Subjects; the Lay∣cal Iurisdiction hitherto used, the Right of Lay-Patronage the Right of No∣mination, Hearing of causes in the possessory matter of Benefices, Tithes possessed or pretended to by Seculars, &c. in regard of all such things his Majesties Intention is, that proceedings shall go on as hitherto they have done, without changing any thing at all, &c. So necessarily scrupulous are Christian Princes to prevent the least diminution of their Tem∣poral Rights and Priviledges.

More lately likewise when certain Authors of one Order published several Treatises, in which they endeavoured to exalt to the height the Popes Iurisdiction Universal in Temporal affairs, those Books were censured and condemned by many Catholic Universities, and com∣mitted to the fire by Public Authority, the Pope not being ignorant hereof. And moreover (which perhaps is yet more considerable) the Superior General of the said Religious Order, even in Rome it self, published an Edict (known to all Christendom) by which he strictly

forbad his Subjects, under most heavy Censures, to maintain such a Tem∣poral Iurisdiction of the Pope, either in Books, Sermons or Disputations. Now that which makes this so solemn a Prohibition of more weight is this, that whereas the foresaid Authors earnestly contended to prove that all Christians were obliged to believe the Popes Right to such Authority, as an Article of our Christian Faith, the said General▪ by publishing his Prohibitory Edict, clearly shewed that he re∣nounced the Belief of such a Doctrine: For otherwise, Who but a•• Antichrist would so severely under a penalty of Excommunication for∣bid the teaching or defending an Article of Faith? And moreover in a General Chapter not long after assembled, the said Prohibition was ratified by all Superiors of the same Order, as their own Writers testifie.

Prot.

I must needs confess that Christian Princes, and Subjects too▪ are much beholding to that Worthy General for his prudence and zeal to prevent occasions of tumults and Seditions. Notwithstand∣ing it seems to me that Princes are not yet secure: for though the said Doctrine should cease to be esteemed an Article of Faith, why may it not be defended as an Opinion, at least Speculatively probable? and if so, a slender Probability will have force but too great to raise and foment Rebellions, when discontents are multiplied among the people.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Perron in Ambass.
• * 1.2

  Epist. Margare∣tae Guber∣natricis ad Archi∣episcopum Camerac. & Re∣sponsis e∣jusd.