SOME FEVV QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Propos'd by a Catholick Gentleman In a LETTER to a Person of Learning and Honour MATH VII VII Quaerite Invenietis Printed in the Year 1661. To the Reader A Thousand to one now you 'l be inquiring who is the Author Pardon me if I frankly answer what need you care Judge of the Venison and never trouble your self with asking whence it comes 'T is a short Book though a long Letter and when you have perus'd a period or two if you like it you may read on if not lay it down and betake your self to some better businesse only oblige me with this favour if you allow not what I have done teach me what I should have done This is my case Me thought I saw the truth hang clearly on my side while I consider'd only the weights which each hand laid in the ballance but the Number of those who strove by plain force to pull down the Other a little mov'd I confesse and shak'd my Scale yet I easily recover'd my former steddinesse when I reflected on the Moment one solid Reason has compar'd to a multitude even of the gravest Opiners But then they shrewdly heav'd at me again Why should not the Many be presum'd to have Reason as well as the Few against which thus much at least I had to say and perhaps somewhat more to think That since either too strong an Interest or too weak a Courage or too slight an Examination may justly be suspected as the general cause of spreading that Opinion I hop'd my inferiournesse in number would not be able to work me any great prejudice with those who fairly compar'd my advantages in other respects especially if we remember the diligences perpetually us'd for improvement of Ecclesiastical Prerogatives by advancing still favourable Tenets and prohibiting the contrary while the good Lay-Princes seldome provide so carefully for themselves and where they do such tender Doctrines grow very slowly and if they chanâ—e to take a little yet for want of depth soon wither away Nor is my Party so few as not to be considerable If three or four Doctors nay perhaps One who has well studied the Point can make an Opinion safe What may we say where a greater number of whole Universities engage their Judgements Universities equal to the best in Europe who on purpose studyed and disputed the Question and having seriously ponder'd both what Popes had done and Councils had defin'd and all kind of Authors had written at last unanimously concluded and decreed what this following Letter intends to represent When I was thus by Reason and Authority satisfied in my own mind still there remain'd a Scruple to publish it for though I suppose my self secure of a Truth what have I to do being a private Man to tell it to others especially Those who are infinitely more competent Judges than I But as again I beg your Counsel let me again tell you my condition I observ'd that most of the Persons from whom we might expect such discourses were either diverted by other imployments or for particular considerations unwilling to meddle with This On the other side I consider'd how excellent a Charity it were to be the occasion of setling clearly so important a Doctrine that we might hang no longer between Heaven and Earth God and Cesar sustain'd only by the slippery running-knot of Probability which will be fast or loose as the Casuist pleases especially if the Writers endeavours should be blest with so happy successe as to give the least contribution towards the attainment of a more condescending Form of Oath wherein the manner of expression being a little chang'd every syllable of the Substance might entirely be retain'd many of the better-temper'd Refusers being observ'd to scruple more at some Phrase than at any Thing in the Oath This strongly carryed me to wish the Work done but my own unqualifiednesse extremely discourag'd me from doing it At last seeing my Independence on any as to particular expectations was a Circumstance very suitable to such an undertaking and in very few to be found my thoughts weary of strugling one with another sat down and rested upon this Conclusion That to propose my Sense by way of Quaeres could not be esteem'd presumptuous since every fool has wit enough to ask Questions and I have left for others the Wise man's part to answer them THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE I A. B. Do truly and sincerely Acknowledge Profess Testify and Declare in my Conscience before God and the World That our Soveraign Lord King CHARLES is lawful and rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries And that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King or to dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do Swear from my heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the said King his Heires or Successors or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heires and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration or otherwise And will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his Heires and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against him or any of them And I do further swear that I do from my heart abhorre detest and abjure as Impious and Haeretical this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes which be Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully ministred unto me and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely Acknowledge and Swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common Sense and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation
the Faculty of Theology of Paris By the University of Caen assembled in the Convent of S. Francis 7. May 1626. By the University of Rheims the four Facultyes being assembled in the Chapel of S. Patrice 18. May 1626. By the University of Tholouze the Rector and Professors of all the Facultyes being assembled in S. Thoma's School at the Dominicans 23. May 1626. By the University of Poitiers assembled at the Dominicans 26. June 1626. By the University of Valence assembled in the great Hall 14. July 1626. By the University of Bourdeaux assembled at the Carms 16. July 1626. By the University of Bourges all the Deans and Doctors Regent of all the Faculties assembled by the Rector 25. Nov. 1626. By all which the said Doctrine was Condemn'd as False Erronious Contrary to the Word of God Pernicious Seditious and Detestable AND now since so many so famous Universities have unanimously and solemnly and deeply condemn'd this Position That Popes can punish Princes temporally and all this without constraint voluntarily delivering their free judgments unmenaced by their King unconcern'd in self-preservation The first Question wherein I intreat your assistance is I. Why we when our Laws so threatningly command and our All is so nearly concern'd may not safely and uncensurably profess as much as They AND I beg of you a more satisfactory answer than that the Pope in prudence forbears the French because their party is numerous and learn'd and united and Persons of heart and courage for omitting to observe the advantage this very Objection offers by confessing so great Authority against that pretended Power I should easily secure my self with this reply that were not their Case in it self at least tolerable all those fair qualities could never justify the Popes suspending to condemn them Their Tenets then clearly are in themselves consistent with Faith and Catholick Communion and 't is a Consideration meerly prudential whether such proceedings ought to be Censur'd or no which naturally leads me to my second Question II. If there be reasons enow to turn the Eye of Authority quite away from seeing what whole Universities so openly avow in the face of the world are there not enow to Connive at us who are but a few and act privately and not without the excusing plea of extreme necessity HEre Your first thoughts perhaps may offer you this distinction That in England 't is requir'd to renounce the Doctrine as Impious and Heritical while the French condemn it only as False Erroneous Contrary to the Word of God Pernicious Seditious and Detestable But I appeal to your second thoughts and ask III. Are those two words Impious and Heretical so vastly different in their true and natural sense from the other half dozen False Erroneous Contrary to the word of God Pernicious Seditious Detestable that all these six may voluntarily be affirm'd and both those or at least one of them whatever ruine attends must necessarily be deny'd IF we be oblig'd as sure we are to answer in the sense of our Proposers and they mean no more by Heretical as the very Principles of their Religion besides other Arguments sufficiently assure us than Erroneous and Contrary to the word of God I hope this third Question will prove no invincible difficulty For is not what 's Contrary to the word of God Contrary to Faith and what 's Contrary to Faith Heretical Especially since among our selves we must find a larger sense for Heretical than that which severely measures its conceiv'd strictest notion We must find a sense wherein the Opinion of Antipodes was antiently Heretical and the Turning of the Earth or at least the Standing of the Sun is so now one of which the Qualificatori at Rome in order to Galileo's Condemnation Censur'd as Absurd False c. the Other as formally Heretical We must find a sense that may justify not only our disputing Schoolmen who often on slighter grounds cry out Heresy one against another but the publick Censors of Books and Qualifiers of Opinions who every day reject many Doctrines as Heretical without intending to divide Communion from the Mâ—inteiners Nay we must find a sense that may agree with the words of the Pope himself in his Prohibitive Brief of this very Oath which he sayes contains many things contrary to Faith and Salvation and what can we imagin should be those Many if the denial of his Prince-deposing power be not counted for One yet possibly neither It nor any of these I have mention'd are in precise scholastic rigor Heretical But Use and Custome being the Rule of Speech I cannot see it reasonable why we alone in so Important an Occasion should be denyed that latitude of sense which we know is so frequently and so justifiably allow'd to all the world To reconcile more clearly this difference I conceive the common Distinction of Material and Formal Heresy very useful According to the first sense whatever is now Heretical alwayes was so in its inward nature the Decision of the Church operating only by way of Declaration of the formerly believ'd Truth and Extension of the Obligation to new Subjects adding perhaps express Menaces of Anathema c. to obstinate Dissenters which every one is justly presum'd to be that submits not to the known determination of the Universal Church In the second sense many Tenets are not yet Heretical which may in time become so Even â—his intollerably false and flattering Position That the Pope is direct Universal King over all the World is not yet the Church not using to interpose Her Authority till the Decision be necessary condemn'd as Heretical though certainly none that pretend to the least degree of true Loyalty but are ready to abjure so damnable a Doctrine as worse than Impious worse than Heretical 'T is evidently therefore enough to verifie my forswearing such an errour as Heretical if in it self it be notably mischievous without expecting till the Church can meet and solemnly paâ—â—e Her Canonical Sentence upon it Though this Example of so many Universities be sufficient to decide the Question in that they renounc'd this pretended Power and more than sufficient to justifie us in that they did it freely Yet to propose an Instance agreeing even in the point of fear too with ours I shall not forbear to say there was a numerous and considerable Party in France no lesse than the whole Body of the Jesuites whose Judgement was known to differ from That of the Universities as much as Any and more than most of Ours here yet rather than expose themselves to Inconveniences and their Interests to Danger they publikely subscrib'd the Sorbonne Censures publickly condemn'd this King-dethroning Power as False Erronious contrary to the Word of God Pernicious Seditious and Detestable How this so solemn Subscription against what themselves had formerly held either as altogether or at least as almost an Article of Faith was understood at Rome I know not that it was actually done in France I am
into the State of Salvation but why should he be counted subject to the Government of a Communion quite opposite to That into which he is Baptiz'd does a Protestant commit a Mortal Sin every time he eats Flesh on a Fasting day or omits to hear Masse on a Holyday when neither Masse nor perhaps that Holyday is allow'd by his Church We know whoever loves God above all things is in the State of Salvation but not of External Communion till he actually submit to it and me thinks it seems obscure that I should be interpreted to submit to the Government of a Church of such a Discipline by my very being Baptiz'd into a Church of a contrary one Besides Followers of those who began the Division are not in the same form of Church-Condemnation with those who began it much lesse when they are born of such Parents and bred up in a Country where such Tenets have so long and uncontrolledly been establish'd that many perhaps may hold them without being guilty of holding them Wherefore I humbly intreat your Learning to instruct me VII Whether You have read any Authors that expressely say a Magistrate so Circumstantiated may be Depos'd by the Pope especially since I remember not one Instance Ancient or Modern of any such Prince so treated THE Examples of deposing Princes being without any certain Rule sometimes by the Pope sometimes by the Nobility sometimes by the People sometimes by an Eminent Subject sometimes by a powerful Stranger And the ground pretended being sometimes Religion sometimes some other Cause give me leave to consult your judgement VIII Whether those Examples may not all be resolv'd Either by the General Answer that Fact makes no Right Or that they were practis'd without any ordinary and acknowledg'd Jurisdiction but only by way of common Reason and natural Prudence which teaches us in extremities to cast about and relieve our selves in the best and hopefullest way we can according to our Circumstances FOr though by this Almighty Maxime of Extreme and Lawlesse necessity even Popes themselves as well as other Governors have sometimes been deposed yet I clearly believe neither Popes nor Councils nor Kings nor Nobles nor People nor Strangers have any Dormant Commission from Heaven that constitutes in any of them a Formal and Authorotative Tribunal to decide Jurisdictionally who shall be Pope or King To make this distinction on which the whole controversy chiefly depends unmistakably plain and evident let me parallel the grand Instances of Popes and Kings with the litle ones of private persons when we say as I think every Christian does that 't is Impious and Heretical to hold One Neighbour can take away the life of another though he never so much deserve it in Reference to what power do we speak is it not to that kind of power which is ordinarily Created by Commission can we be fairly interpreted to mean some odd extravagant case of absolute necessity to defend our own lives against his otherwise unavoidable Assaults So when we speak of a Power and Authority to depose Kings we are plainly to understand a Power and Authority vested in St. Peter and his Successors by Commission from Christ This and this only I conceive is the Authority we are commanded to abjure and unlesse such a Divine Commission be shewn I cannot see why to assert such a power in the Pope is not Impious and Heretical as much and far more than the instance of private Murther Especially the Oath so particularly expressing its chief intent to be the exclusion of the Popes pretences and prevention of the mischiefs naturally apprehended from the Supreme and all-Commanding Jurisdiction of a Foreiner Having perus'd some Authors who confidently say never any Orthodox Divine maintain'd this transcendent power in the Pope nor ever any such practices appear'd for above a thousand years after Christ though the Christians long before that time had both strength enough to do it if they had had a Will and Zeal enough to have will'd it if they had thought it lawful I cannot but suspect this Doctrine of Novelty till you be pleas'd to inform me IX What Eminent Writers there are in the first thousand years after Christ who expresly hold this Tenet of the Popes Authority to Depose Princes THis I am apt to conceive so much the more improbable to be found because neither S. Tho. nor Card Bellarmine cite any Antienter Authors than Gregory the seventh whose Papacy is of a younger date than that we speak of Much younger yet is the Council of Lateran nor can it with the least colour of truth be alleg'd for any more than a Canonical Constitution and perhaps not so much till the difficulties concerning it be clear'd which I leave to the Doctors and only contend 't is at best no more else the Defenders of Papal Deposition were bound to believe its Decree in this point as an Article of Faith and condemn the French Universities as Heretical and separate from their Communion if then it be only an Ecclesiastical Canon 't is well enough known such Laws are not Obliging but where they are receiv'd and where they are received may on just grounds be again rejected However even where that Canon is admitted if any where it be no fair Interpreter can extend it to reach so high as Soveraign Princes to whom this respect is generally by the Canonists esteem'd due that unlesse They be expresly nam'd they are not by implication understood to be comprehended in any penal or restrictive clause a Civility allow'd even to Cardinals whom I cannot think any disinteressed Considerer will preferr before Kings As for reason which I confess where 't is evident needs no Antiquity to gain my assent I have not met with any that bids so fair towards satisfaction as this argument If the Ends be subordinate to one another the Facultyes are But the End of Civil Power temporal happiness is subordinate to the End of Spiritual Power eternal happiness Therefore the Civil Power is subordinate to the Spiritual Let all this be suppos'd as true though there want not distinctions by which some endeavour to relieve themselves in this point too I only enquire how this Spiritual Superiour must proceed when the Temporal Magistrate intolerably misdemeans himself I think He is confin'd as his very Name imports to Spiritual punishments as suspension from Sacraments Excommunication c. But that they 'l say is not sufficient nor the Church compleatly furnish'd with means proportionate to its end unless it can depose a Prince that deserves it To which I answer First The argument is of so wild unlimited a Consequence that should they instead of Depose say Kill or whatever other mischief they please to invent they might in Rigor with the same Reason defend it Secondly Though in some sence it be true the Spiritual Power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its End yet are we not oblig'd to say it can remove all impediments and
the Authority of Head of the Church be transferr'd as to England from the Successor of St. Peter to the Successor of Henry the 8. Which still so much the more evidently appears both by his Quoting Fathers upon the general head of obeying the Pope and acknowledging his Supremacy as also by his comparing Mr. Blackwells Sin in taking the Oath to Peters denying Christ and Marcellinus's Sacrificing to Idols whom at least in some part He says the Arch-Priest imitated Does this Pen run as if it were guided by a Hand well inform'd Is it not highly probable that such Informations were the grounds of the Prohibition Is it not absolutely certain that such grounds being palpable mistakes are no way sufficient to oblige our Obedience Not that we have cause so much to complain of the Brief as of them whose Passionate and perhaps Factious Zeal procur'd it for how can the Pope be inform'd what we Tramontani do but by others and how can He Judge but as he is inform'd since surely we are not to expect such an extraordinary assistance from Heaven to guide his Hand in writing a Letter though in Form of Brief as some pretend for his defining ex Cathedrâ Read but the Bulla Coenae and you 'l find it no impossible thing for the Pope to claim more than a good Subject much lesse a wise King will give him there he solemnly excommunicates all Princes who impose on their Subjects new Gabels without leave of the See Apostolick with many other unallow'd pretences From all which we inferr these two plain truths That the Pope may miscommand and when he does so be lawfully disobey'd But to proceed ingenuously with you as I hope and beg you will do with me let us fortify this Objection with the utmost skill and strength we can This Act of Deposing Kings has not only been done by Popes but approv'd by Councils to whose joâ—nt-joâ—nt-Authority I confesse a great Reverence is due and therefore beseech you deal candidly with me for I have noâ— any convenience to examine the circumstances of these Histories did they only approve the Fact or declare the Right if the first I shall without staying to dispute it suppose the thing for that time well done and only enquire in reference to what Authority 't was done our Henry the 7. we know did many Acts without declaring the Title by which he did them and the Parliaments approbation still confirm'd them if then they proceeded as by a Commission claim'd from Christ and allow'd in a General Council would not that make the Tenet an Article of Faith and so prove too much since among the Temperate it generally pretends no higher than an Opinion but if they acted only by a Commission deriv'd from Necessity which having no Law is a Law to it self the Consequence little concerns our Dispute who know the Pope Himself has been depos'd yet neither will He admit nor need his Deposers pretend any Jurisdiction or Superiority over Him 't is enough where Necessity over-rules the Law that Necessity Govern in its stead which if true and real may perhaps do much harm but can do no injury As to the other Branch if the Council interpos'd in declaring the Right either they intended it as a Definition and then you must say 't is of Faith which almost every one denyes or as an Ecclesiastical Canon and then I must say it binds only where receiv'd and may be alter'd or repeal'd like other Laws as is already discours'd when we cited the Council of Lateran However in our particular Case nothing is more easy than to Conquer the Objectors of the Popes Briefs with their own weapons for let them tell me are they not ready to swear they will faithfully serve their King while they live and that notwithstanding any Papal Dispensation or whatever other Proceeding to the contrary what signifies this but an expresse renouncing all obedience to the Pope in these â—â—â—â—ts True say they we renounce obedience but not the acknowledgment of his Power we will adhere to the King though the Pope should Depose him but will not say he cannot Depose him What wise and real difference as to Government and the practical part of humane life can we imagine between these two I 'le swear never to obey my Commander and I 'le swear he has no power to command me Speak plain and honestly and either deny his Authority or obey it this motley Hypocrisy will I fear offend both Pope and King and while you disclaim your obedience to the One and the Authority of the Other Neither will confide in you Change but the Person and think what a holy religious man he would be that should solemnly vow never to obey his Superiour how loud soever he preach'd his Authority think what a flat contradiction it is of two Relatives to kill one and keep the other alive think what an uncharitable madness it is that the whole body of Chatholicks be expos'd to ruine and the whole Credit of their Religion be buried in that ruine rather than disavow an Authority which we are ready to swear we will never obey But to dispatch this chief Objection with a shorter word and that still taken out of their own mouths The Pope they say has commanded we should refuse this Oath but do they not too with the same breath say they will absolutely forswear obeying his Commands if they be not prest to renounce his Power and what do we more than disobey him if notwithstanding his Prohibition we accept of the Oath we meddle not with his Authority we only as they profess themselves ready to do deny our Obedience is it not as lawful for us when the King commands to admit this Oath against the Popes will as for them to swear they 'l obey the King let the Pope command what he will As for our Ancestors had they seen the Unanimous Judgment of so many Universities and the publick Subscriptions of so many eminent Regulars particularly noted for great enlargers of the Popeâ— power had they examin'd the sense of Antiquity towards Soveraign Princes which acknowledges them Supreme in Temporals and accountable to none but God had they read the learned Treatises compos'd by Catholick writers both of our own and other Nations where this King-dethroning power is absolutely disavow'd had they perus'd the Declarations of the Kings in France and Arrests of Parliaments there by which the Authors who dar'd to assert that Opinion were Condemn'd and their Books burnt by the hand of the Hangman had they done all or any notable part of this they could not certainly but have chang'd their Judgments and no longer both against Reason Authority and their own Interest have wilfully adhered to a Tenet so ill grounded and a practice so ruinous Little of all this I fear did many of our Ancestors reflect on but guiding their Consciences by their Ghostly Fathers and their practice by their Consciences chose that side of the
Opinion which any one might then have refus'd without Heresy and any one may now without scandal without scandal I mean as to the bare Opinion consider'd in its naked self not as it unhappily is drest up in the Oath where some expressions at first sight shew so odly that a little prejudice or unacquaintedness makes many a well meaner boggle at them And here again I heartily renew the wish I have already made that a general form of Oath were so Charitably and Condescendingly fram'd as might fully secure to our most gracious Soveraign the Allegiance of All and not trouble with scruples the lesse instructed Conscience of any But to dispatch this Objection If to take the Oath we discourse of be truly justifiable why may not we do what we think lawful now because our Predecessors did not what they thought unlawful heretofore their Refusal was Innocent and Laudable since they follow'd sincerely the dictates of their Consciences yet Ours will be neither unlesse we do so too nay the very reason that made them decline the Oath their being so perswaded engages us to take it if we be otherwise perswaded for as in this all the world agrees that an erronious Conscience till the mistake be remov'd undoubtedly obliges so none will deny but the Truth once clear'd the Obligation ceases if such then be the case between our Predecessors and Us we may fairly be absolv'd from following them or rather truly be said to follow them while we all aim at the same end the Conscionable performance of what we believe our Duty though we seem to go thither by different ways None but eternal truths can exact an unchangeable adherence none but they can deserve it And now I have only one Question more to propose XII How do the Clergy the Religious the Wiser sort of the Laity in other Countries behave themselves when the Pope makes War or any other way Contends with their Soveraign Princes or States FOr even in Italy I see most of them generally and all of them sometimes disobey the Pope and cleave to their Country nay those very Religious who have formerly ventur'd All by a particular Obedience to his Holinesse are noted of late to be grown more temperate I have read if I misremember not in an It lian Author this Story That the Pope making War some few years since with the Duke of Parma and proceeding against him to the extremity of Ecclesiastical Censures occasion'd the Duke to advise with his Council how he should bear himself towards the Church-men that liv'd in his Subjection where after some debate 't was at length concluded that fit persons should immediately be deputed to demand of every Order both Secular and Regular which party they intended to follow onely to one sort of Regulars it 't was expresly forbidden to make any such Addresse lest their extraordinary obsequiousnesse to the Pope might engage them otherwise than the Duke desir'd and the example of their Nonconformity breed a prejudice to his affairs But they wisely examining the Consequences of so new a Distinction and the Necessity of preventing so dangerous a jealousy did of themselves without expecting any Summons wait upon their Prince and voluntarily presented Him their Humble Protestations of Fidelity and Obedience an action which I am apt to believe was not a little contributive to their late Restitution in the wary State of Venice In fine every sort of Ecclesiasticks as well the uninvited as the invited came in and profest their firm and positive resolution to obey the Commands of his Highnesse not withstanding the Interdict of his Holynesse And yet to abstract from the Justice of the Quarrel which was perhaps on the Popes side the Duke is not only a Feudatary of the Church but his Estate was at first deriv'd to him from the Pope and is to return again in default of Issue male which makes a fair difference betwixt Him and the Case of an Absolute King But to look nearer home what did we our selves not many years since in our own Country did not almost all the Ecclesiasticks and a number of the Nobility and Gentry sufficient to represent the whole little Body of Catholicks here after full deliberation unanimously subscribe their Negative to these three Articles I. That the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons from their Obedience to the Civil and Political Government establish'd or to be establish'd in this Nation in Civil and Political affairs II. That by the Command or Dispensation of the Pope or Church it is lawful to kill destroy or do any injury to any Person or Persons living within the Kings Dominions because that such a Person or Persons are Accused Condemned Censured or Excommunicated for Error Schism or Heresy III. That it is lawful in it self or by Dispensation from the Pope to break Promise or Oath made to any of the foresaid Persons under pretence that they are Hereticks These I am sorry I must confesse were Censured at Rome privately indeed and without solemnity as being perhaps either unwilling to come to the light or unable to bear it whatever was the motive I cannot omit to make this Reflection upon so unequal a proceeding towards the prosperous French and the afflicted English what either of injurious or untrue do any of these three Propositions contain that is not both more largly and more smartly exprest in the Decrees of Sorbonne and the rest of the Universities cited at the beginning of this Letter if they be free why are not we if we be condemn'd why are not they At least this Roman Censure of the English Subscription wants not some good effect since it has absolutely clear'd the chief remaining Objection which else if captiously manag'd might perhaps have given us some trouble to maintain our parallel with the French for till then it had been no great piece of invention to pretend that the Popes prohibitive Brief was applyable only to the whole Oath in gross and so might consist well enough with the disclaim of His indirect Authority over Kings But now I see 't is not the Form 't is not an inconvenient Phrase or two the greatest scruple of some serious Persons among us here but the very Substance of the Oath the growing denial of the Popes power to Depose Princes is the chief if not the only Scandal that 's offensive there Nor is this kind of disobedience to the Popes Commands only in some Cases practis'd but by the Common Maxime of the Canonists and of Reason too constantly maintain'd both which step in to our relief in such extremities and say where any notable mischief is like to follow we are not oblig'd to obey the Pope though he command under pain of Excommunication ipso facto This is the common Opinion of the Learned but because 't is too the common scruple of the unlearned I shall cite some few Authorities transcrib'd out of books where I find them collected having
of the Kings of Denmark is absolutely lawful as being an omitted Case and so not at all forbidden Observing that in this whole Controversy the main Bulwark wherein the Defenders of the Popes Prerogative in Temporals fortifie themselves and think to pacify the Civil Powers is a certain famous Distinction whose plain and literal sense I understand well enough but cannot find in it if impartially examin'd a title to make so great an Impression as is pretended I humbly intreat your quick and strong Eye to look a little seriously into the Question and teach me XI What difference there is as to any real effect in Government between acknowledging a direct immediate Power in the Pope to Depose Princes or only an indirect and mediate One IS it not almost all one in it self and altogether all one in mischief whether my eyes be beaten out with a direct stroke of a Tennis-Ball or by Bricol Are not our Laws still equally Penal both to direct and indirect Offenders will any of us allow a slandering tongue than which nothing is more frequent or more intolerable to Caluminate freely on condition his poysonous darts come only glancing and not be level'd point-blank against us Here they perhaps will say I mistake the Case For were only the Exercise of this Power mediate and indirect they would confesse my similitudes had something of Argument but the very Power it self say they is in its Intrinsick nature no more than mediate and indirect which widens much the sides of the distinction nor do any of my Interrogations offer to confute it When I have first declar'd I intend not to meddle with such slender Entityes as Relations metaphysically consider'd I shall betake my thoughts to what I conceive more pertinent to our purpose the Moral Notion and enquire what influence on humane actions a direct Power gives its Posseâ—or more than an indirect If they answer by the one He can punish his Inferiours as he pleases by the other not I reply That is the notion of an absolute and perfectly arbitrary Government not precisely of a direct Power which not only may sometimes be limited but almost always is has not the Emperour a direct Authority over the German Electors Is not the Pope direct Superiour of the Christian Bishops yet which of them can either One or the Other deprive or punish at his meer pleasure I they say 't is a Power as strongly Commanding as the direct but is not in the same line the â—piritual being of a quite different Order from the Temporal I confesse these are pretty terms to entertain subtile heads and amuze simple ones but to a down-right prudent Examiner I believe they 'l prove of very little serious Signification nay though the Causes be contrary to one anothers if they produce the same effect they make with me the same argument Naturalists say that Cold immediately condenses by directly crushing the Body it incloses whereas Heat first extenuates and then draws away the subtiliz'd parts and after the grosser shrink together of themselves and so condenses too but mediately and indirectly and these are words that sound well enough but when we come to practical application and find that too much Sun as well as Frost so dryes and hardens the Earth that it choaks our seed and kills our flowers what good does our fine distinction what does our Mediately and Indirectly avail us Nor is the Effect only the same whether the Popes power be call'd direct or indirect since each way he really dethrones the Prince but the end to both of his direct-Spiriâ—ual and indirect-Temporal Authority is the same since He is bound to manage the last only in ordine ad Spiritualia and the first ad Edificationem which two phrases seem to me no ill Synonimas one of another These are some of the reflections that have made me doubt though there may be and I think I see it some Speculative difference between the two manners of Title yet in practise very little if any at all When all this is said and far more which I think not uneasy to do still there remain two grand Objections The Supreme Pastor has engag'd his Authority and our duty obliges us to obey His Commands Our Predecessors have refus'd the Oath and suffer'd for refusing and our honour is concern'd to follow their steps To which with your permission I offer this answer Since by the Popes forbearing the French we evidently see such Prohibitions depend on particular and occasional Considerations not only lyable to be misapprehended by others but to be alter'd in themselves certainly it very ill becomes our Reverence to the Authority of the Pope or respect to the Memory of our Ancestors to fear they would wilfully persist in a discover'd Errour and not change their proceedings when they should see the grounds on which they proceeded were chang'd Nor even then when the Pope's Brief forbad the Oath did there want a just number of Catholicks if my books say true who humbly represented their Motives to his Holinesse why they doubted his Prohibition was not obliging as being grounded on mistaken and incertain Suppositions A privilege permitted to all and most of all to Ecclesiastical Subjects who are not Govern'd by the Sword but the Pastoral Staff either to obey or give good reason why they do not and this without the least suspition of boldly examining their Superiors Commands with the Judgement of Authority but exercising only what the meanest Vassal may Loyally practise towards the greatest Prince their natural Reason and Judgement of Discretion And here I must confesse my self inclin'd to think it very probable that the whole businesse was untruly represented to the Pope for can we doubt but Card. Bellarmine was acquainted with the Informations given to his Holynesse or that they Both agreed not in their sence concerning our Case let us then see what his Eminence says in his Letter to Mr. Blackwell Arch-Priest of the English Clergy where having alleg'd that Antient Instance of mingling together the Images of the Emperors and of the false Gods to entangle the Christians with this Dilemma that either they must bow to Jupiter and Commit Idolatry or not bow to Cesar and be guilty of high Treason He ads Tale aliquid in juramento c. Some such thing me thinks I see in this Oath they offer you which is so fraudulently contriv'd that none can profess their Civil Subjection to the King and Detest all Treason against Him but he must needs perfidiously Renounce the Supremacy of the See Apostolick And again Nam si rem totam c. If you will diligently examine the whole matter you 'l see 't is no small thing which by that Oath is brought into danger but one of the Capital and Fundamental Points of our Faith and Catholick Religion And quite throughout the whole Letter He still supposes the Design of the Framers of this Oath how covertly soever they expresse themselves to be That
my self neither skill nor delight in such kind of Studies Of these I conceive two or three in a point so evident abundantly sufficient One is of Pope Innocent 3. thus cited by Franc. Zabarel de schismat Papae non est obediendum c. We are not to obey the Pope when there is a vehement presumption that the state of the Church may be disturb'd or other mischiefs like to follow Nay it were a sin to obey because every one is bound to prevent future evils Conformable to this Sylvester alleging Panormitan says Verb. obedientia Num. 5. Nec est ei obedientium c. We are not to obey the Pope if our obedience may be presumed will trouble the state of the Church or be cause of any future Evil or Scandal though the Precept were under pain of Excommunication Latae sententiae And Cardinal Tolet citing the same Authors pronounces the same truth in far more ample terms Do not these Authors and none I suppose for I have not much acquaintance with that sort of Learning can differ from them in proper Cases give us indeed more than we have need of Are not the Consequences of our obeying the Pope's Letters ruinous to our Fortunes and which is worse Scandalous to our Religion shall we not strengthen the suspition of our Factiousnesse and Inconsistency with Civil Government and can a little Credit of a few at Rome counterpoise a burthen that lies so heavy on us all in our own Country The Circumstances we are in I confesse are very unhappy when the wisest of those who should advise us are not fully free to speak their thoughts but by particular Concernments so tempted to comply that nothing but a rare Sincerity and Courage can enable them to resist a Case that needs indeed some pity but deserves no praise and therefore as we shall be to blame if we Censure too readily the Effects of Frailty in Them so will they be less Innocent if they Condemn too severely the Use of Liberty in Us. For my part I have this to say in proof of my own Indifferency I am not Ambitious for preferment from Any but humbly and heartily acknowledge my submission to every one above me especially to the two Supreme whom with all fidelity I am ready to obey as my Soveragin Governors though They never should be my particular Benefactors A Duty we owe to the Pope a Duty to the King both commanded by God both obliging under Sin yet both confin'd to their proper limits Too much of the Temporal may be ascrib'd to Popes too much of the Spiritual to Kings too much may be challeng'd by Both the difficulty is when either exceeds who must be Judge if the cause be clearly Temporal 't is clearly the King speaking of Common Right not their particular Agreements if Spiritual the Pope but where the Quality of the cause is invincibly doubted which can seldome be without a strange passion at least on one side I know no Judge expresly impower'd to decide so extraordinary a Question nor can imagin any other remedy than what true Reason press'd with necessity will extemporally dictate in such an occasion However thus far I plainly see that as sometimes a mischance may happen by the Competition of these two Authorities so often very many and great advantages may accrue to Both by their good correspondence and mutual assistance But by no means can I see were the Extent of the Popes power in Spirituals and the Denyal of his power in Temporals well understood what disturbance He could possibly make in this Kingdome if he excommunicate the Protestants they little regard it if the Catholicks such as are rightly instructed know their Civil Obligations both to their King and Fellow-subjects remain entirely the same after Excommunication as they were before No Ecclesiastical Censures against a Catholick here altering in the least tittle his Circumstances to Protestants since of its own nature it only concerns Communication in Spirituals wherein before any Censure they no more Communicate together than after indeed among the Catholicks such Censure has some effect yet of it self only thus far can it work with them to suspend or deprive their Communion in Holy Offices to which if any Temporal prejudices be annex'd as that an Excommunicate cannot bring an Action c. they wholy are deriv'd from the Civil Power and when it sees convenient may wholy be revok'd As for the particular Laws of our Country long before the unhappy dividing times of H. 8. our Wise yet Pious Auncestors fail'd not to provide for the publick peace against all Forein incroachments prohibiting the importation of any Bull from Rome without his Majesties allowance and imposing penalties on any that presum'd without His Royal Assent to publish them And were things so dispos'd that the little correspondence which is necessary for Catholicks here with Rome were regulated and not by severities endeavour'd to be extinguish'd which cannot be effected without extinguishing the Religion it self I am confident no one sort of people in the whole Nation would be either more faithfully serviceable to their King or more securely incapable of disserving their Country Nor would this design require any more consideration than only to resolve that their Ecclesiastical Government should be no other than such as had known Rules Limits not Arbitrarily depending on Rome And their Ecclesiastical Governours no other than such as were of known Loyalty to their King and Piety to their Country Thus Sir I have finish'd these few Questions and hope by Your instruction to settle my mind professing heartily my absolute readinesse with the Grace of God to govern my Understanding by Reason and my Actions by my Understanding only this short Petition I Humbly add That as your Nature is Frank and Generous your Answer may be Manly and Candid not in the way miscall'd Pious but with a strict Conformity to what is true and solid and however your Opinion may possibly in some things differ from mine yet still continue in all things to Command SIR Your Most Humble Servant A. G. St. Georges Day 1661 FINIS ERRATA PAge 3. Line 27. Dele for Page 4. Line 17. read Depose And Line 25. read Word of God
that in what method it pleases Is not the Sun compleatly endued with power to shine unless it can level mountains and overturn for rests that intercept its light or which is nearer our Case has not a King sufficient power to govern unless he can punish his neighbour King nay even the Pope himself and that with spiritual penalties In regular and ordinary Occurrences the regular and ordinary power both of Pope and Prince is sufficient in irregular and extraordinary the very word signifies they are out of Rule and must be govern'd by occasional reason which allows both to Pope and Prince a just and equal title to provide that Neither prejudice the Other and this without the Popes being Superiour to the Prince in Temporals any more than the Prince is to the Pope in Spirituals But as absolute Soveraigns when there 's no other remedy may lawfully make war so I conceive may these each managing his proper weapon and pretend only Reason not Jurisdiction to justify their proceedings Thirdly I suspect this plausible argument the spiritual power is furnish'd with all means necessary to its end may so largely be understood that it will flatly be deny'd for is not Execution of the Magistrates Commands necessary to the end of Government and is not a competent Force necessary to that Execution why then did our all-foreseeing Saviour not provide for this why did he not furnish his Supreme Lieutenant with twelve Legions of Angels to overcome the Princes of the Earth that will not obey his Decrees As to this I know no better reason than that the Churches Hymn is true Non eripit Mortalia Qui Regna dat Caelestia He does not Earthly Kings deprive Who came the Crown of Heaven to give Besides may we not as well say the Church is furnish'd by Christ with all Offices at least all considerable Ones as with all Power necessary to its Government yet every one knows neither Patriarks Primates nor Arch-Bishops are of divine Institution however their very being so canonically establish'd in the Church sufficiently declares their usefulness and necessity and their being no otherwise establish'd sufficiently convinces the weaknesse of the argument I am endeavouring to disable If my expectations happen to fail in all these Questions permit me yet to offer this short Consideration The Position we are commanded to renounce as Impious and Heretical is this Princes who are Excommunicated or Depriv'd by the Pope may be depos'd or murther'd by their Subjects or any other whatsoever Since 't is clear that where the Subject of a Proposition is in the disjunctive unless the Predicate be verefiable of both Members the whole Proposition may absolutely be deny'd it plainly follows if to say a Prince Excommunicated only not depriv'd may be depos'd by his Subjects be Impious and Heretical at least in the large and usual sense of that word that the whole Proposition is safely abjurable as Impious and Heretical In which discourse this only seems to need proof that 't is Heretical to say a Prince Excommunicated may be depos'd by his Subjects And first I hope it will quickly appear to be False by the very definition of Excommunication Excommunication being a Church-Censure that separates from the Ecclesiastical Communion of the Faithful And though by a general rule we are commanded to avoid all Hereticks and Excommunicated Persons yet besides that of it self it reaches only to spiritual things unless the Civil Law extend it farther the Canonists give many exceptions one is which nearliest concerns our Case that of Relation shall Husbands and Wives Parents and Children Masters and Servants be bound in case of Excommunication to abandon one another what Confusion would so rash a Doctrine bring into the world and is it not far worse if Subjects shall think it lawful to forsake their King nay unlawful not to forsake him Thus I conceive 't is evidently False and if once admitted for such it s own weight will soon sink it down into Impious And what is Impious especially drawing after it such mischievous effects will easily be prov'd against the very Essence of the Christian Law and by Consequence intrinsecally Heretical If yet you think this opinion not so highly censurable I beseech you inform me X. Whether any of these Positions deserve the Condemnation of Heretical That the Pope has a direct Dominion both in Spirituals and Temporals over all the World Or that He can deprive Kings of their lives and pass sentence of death against them Or against the lives or goods of any other Person that is whether He can make it lawful to do those Acts which were they not Authoriz'd by him would be plain Murther Theft or Rebellion ALL these every one I meet is ready to cry out on as Impious Hereticial and what you will And is the Deposing a King a slighter work than the Sequestring a private Gentleman Or has he a weaker Title to his Crown than a Merchant to his Shop Either I am deceiv'd by some Equivocation which I intreat you to discover or else the Question I propose is as clear as the Sun at Noon 'T is true some Cases are mixt but then me thinks it is not so hard a task to give each Authority its due Can we not easily discern what belongs to Marriage as a Sacrament from what belongs to it as a Civil Contract Or distinguish between the Churches power to make a Bastard incapable of Orders and that of the Common-wealth to make him incapable of Inheriting Nor has the Question any greater difficulty when the Tribunals Successively assist one another as when the Ecclesiastics having proceeded to the utmost of their Jurisdiction deliver the Criminal to the Lay Court there to receive such further punishment as his Crime deserves which they could not have needed had their own power reach'd so far not would they have practis'd had they not needed it To conclude this point with some Authority as well as Reason I have read that not only the Position of killing Kings was condemn'd as Impious Heretical and Damnable by 141. Divines of the Faculty of Paris in the year 1413. But since in the year 1610. the same Faculty Decreed That it was Seditious Impious and Heretical for any Subject Vassal or Stranger on what occasion or pretence soever Sacris Regum personis vim inferre to offer violence to the sacred persons of Kings Behold the very word Heretical directly and formally applyed to a Position that in substance exceeds not Ours unless we imagine a King so tame that we may Depose him without offering him any Violence or find some witty Casuist who has invented a new way of creeping out of the words no matter for the plain and honest sense and by his grave Opinion secure our Consciences that though it be Impious indeed and Heretical to offer any force to the sacred Persons of Kings yet to intercept their meat till they be starv'd to death as 't is said of one