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
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
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 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